Kulturkampf

[Alpacx]

[HaughtyFrank]

[Alpacx]

[Alpacx]

[Alpacx]

https://bsky.app/profile/ecmclaughlin.bsky.social/post/3mgndba653s2k
   

[HaughtyFrank]

[HaughtyFrank]

---

[Uncle]

that's really wild..."two ordinary, normal people whose lives would be changed forever..." yeah, due to their own fucked up choices??

[Uncle]

[HaughtyFrank]

[Alpacx]

That CNN post was so bad even the blue sky refugees don't like it (a version is still up there)

[HaughtyFrank]

Scholar makes case for moving beyond sexual labels

In a new book, sociologist Brandon Andrew Robinson calls for abolishing sexual identities.

Robinson, an associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at UC Riverside, knows it’s a provocative thesis. But they argue that discarding these labels is a critical step toward giving people the freedom to relate to one another on a deeper, more respectful, more meaningful, and more pleasurable level. Sexual identity, Robinson asserts, functions as a kind of prison, confining human desire and reinforcing a false notion of gender based on fixed, biological categories.

“Identities limit us,” Robinson writes in “Trans Pleasure: On Gender Liberation and Sexual Freedom.” “And the fact that we keep creating new identities — such as gynosexual, finsexual, sapiosexual, asexual, or pansexual — shows how these categories fail to capture the full complexities of gender, sexuality, and desire.”

You argue for abolishing sexual identities. Why get rid of labels like gay or lesbian when many people have found them useful for understanding themselves and finding a sense of belonging?

Robinson: It’s a several-fold argument. First, I want people to question why we privilege gender and genitals above all other attributes — like height or race — when we conceptualize our sexual identity.

Secondly, these categories often rely on gender essentialism. If being “gay” means being a man attracted to men, it assumes “man” is a stable, inherent category, when history shows the definition of manhood is constantly changing. Gender essentialism also harms trans people, who often complicate those binary boundaries.

But if you get rid of these labels, don’t you risk dismantling the communities that have formed under their rubrics and, by extension, the political protections that marginalized people have fought for decades to gain?

Robinson: I think the risk is worth it. While those communities are important, moving beyond those labels allows us to see people more accurately. It leads to a more complex — and more biologically accurate — understanding of ourselves as human beings. It allows us to explore our desires beyond labels that often confine and constrain us. And it allows us to explore our desires beyond shame that often comes with many labels as well.

https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2026/03/06/scholar-makes-case-moving-beyond-sexual-labels

At this point I think actual anthropologists or psychologists should look at how someone can develop such an insanely warped understanding of sexuality where he wonders why gender matters more than height or race.

[Rendle]

"Several-fold" means 3 or more not 2, some fucking scholar this dipshit is.

[Potato]

that's really wild..."two ordinary, normal people whose lives would be changed forever..." yeah, due to their own fucked up choices??

I'm an ordinary, normal person. Today I'll make some bombs and throw them at people.

[Nintex]

[DavidCroquet]

Great idea, let's start defining sexual orientation by random, non-sexual characteristics.

I'm snowbunny-sexual. That shouldn't be problematic or a source of consternation for any group in any way. Sexuality SOLVED!

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

That CNN post was so bad even the blue sky refugees don't like it (a version is still up there)

"You seriously did this on Twitter, had another shot, and did a slightly altered version that STILL frames it like they accidentally got caught up in all this. The fact this one was edited a bit kinda makes it worse...you can't just say you copy-pasted the same thing on multiple platforms."

"They hoped to see Hamilton, but with tickets sold out they had no other choice but to throw the bombs they had spent weeks making in preparation for this moment"

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

Scholar makes case for moving beyond sexual labels

In a new book, sociologist Brandon Andrew Robinson calls for abolishing sexual identities.

Robinson, an associate professor of gender and sexuality studies at UC Riverside, knows it’s a provocative thesis. But they argue that discarding these labels is a critical step toward giving people the freedom to relate to one another on a deeper, more respectful, more meaningful, and more pleasurable level.

Deeper? This bullshit is shallow as fuck. People don't come up with these labels to accurately describe who or what they are attracted to, they do it because they want others to see them as more interesting than they actually are. It's entirely performative. See: boring straight people identifying as "queer", which doesn't actually tell you anything about them. May as well as identify as being "not like the other girls/boys".

“Identities limit us,” Robinson writes in “Trans Pleasure: On Gender Liberation and Sexual Freedom.” “And the fact that we keep creating new identities — such as gynosexual, finsexual, sapiosexual, asexual, or pansexual — shows how these categories fail to capture the full complexities of gender, sexuality, and desire.”

We? Don't define the vast majority who have been perfectly fine with the standard labels, by the people so desperate to appear interesting that they invent new labels to "come out" as.

Secondly, these categories often rely on gender essentialism. If being “gay” means being a man attracted to men, it assumes “man” is a stable, inherent category, when history shows the definition of manhood is constantly changing.

It's actually very simple - a "man" is an adult human male. If you are an adult human male who is exclusively attracted to other adult human males, then you are gay.

"What" a man actually is never changes as it's just simple biology. "How" a man should be can change based on society and culture but it doesn't actually change what a man "is". Seeing someone as more or less "of a man" is just sexist stereotypes. One individual may judge and another individual more positively or negative based on how that person is, but if that person is an adult human male, they are a man no matter what anyone thinks.

A truly progressive society would abandon the "how" (gender) and base identification solely on "what" (sex). A man is simply an adult human male and a woman is simple an adult human female. They can do act and look and dress and do and be whatever, none of how they are changes what they are.

[Uncle]

feels like being prescriptive on language

"everyone has to stop using 'begging the question' to mean 'raising the question' now now now" 

good luck, just showing up out of nowhere and dictating what everyone else in the world needs to do

[Ribosome]

[benji]

Imagine believing that diasporas that date back many many decades (Iranians to 1979 at latest, Cubans to 1959, Lebanese likely in the 1980's, the Italians before WWII) had easy means of exporting their wealth as they fled their countries to take low level immigrant labor positions. The Lebanese are about the only ones who could have theoretically participated in modern digital banking, but you'd have to learn about the status of things in Lebanon before you could say if they actually had access. These dudes are so ignorant they have no clue that even in mostly peaceful non-refugee situations there are whole large nations in the Americas where mass access to modern banking didn't happen until this century. That's why the historical narrative of such people is coming to the states with nothing but the shirt on their back because in most cases that was true. (Their currency would have been useless so there was no reason to bring it.)

They have to condemn these people because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance of supporting authoritarian regimes. They'd rather attack those who flee them than stop supporting authoritarian regimes.

[HaughtyFrank]

It's all based on "vibes" anyway. As one guy points out, immigrant Haitans are now richer than immigrant Cubans

So by his own logic anti-haitan racism is now okay