putin you might be interested to discover that gender-alternative persons were actively involved in the creation of gay identity. I'm fairly certain you do not represent comprehensive LGBT perspectives on appropriate language use.

Are you ever going to answer my question, Putin? How many close friends of yours are gay?

Additionally, on what authority do you male these claims? How many gay pride parades have you been too? I believe I have significantly more authority on the fact that gay men associate themselves as homosexual.

So are you suggesting we replace "gay" and "homosexual" with gyne/androphilic?

I do take your point. When it comes down to it, I am more gynephilic than heterosexual. The former is more important to me when selecting a partner than the latter, and I suspect the same is true for most men who identify as heterosexual if they are being honest with themselves.

So would the "homophobes" by androphobic or gynephobic? I mean, homophobes are afraid of gynephilics with vaginas amd androphilics with penises.

it would be misogyphidistibidaliophobic

Gee guys... lol... you Americans just can't resist... you have to keep constantly talking about *religion*.
Mujus knows his shit and needs spill no unnecessary words about it:
"Dudes, religion is no good. It's a relationship with God that's the important thing. But why are we talking about feral dogs??"
Will this ever get through to any of you religion-obsessed atheists?
Fuck religion! (and I'm no atheist. I'm an a-atheist)
Is this a language you understand?

@Sylence - We have moved on from religion in this thread long ago.

@PE - I can't even spell that much less say it... Holy fuck!

@sylence "Is this a language you understand?"

No, I do not understand you except i do agree that there is far too much obsession with religion. And perhaps we need to explore the feral dog thing.

So if I'm a leg-man, but I am no longer permitted to reference my own sex or gender construction, what am I to do. Perhaps another new term: Gamophile or maybe Gam-o-phile. Here "gam" refers to a lady's legs (not to be confused with the Scots-gaelic term but that's pretty cool too). You'll have to excuse my mixing of colloquial english with greek.

Putin - "How did I derail a thread? I made a comment to Krellin not to use the analogy of 'homosexuality' and you all huff and puff about it,"

The thing is Putin, the analogy I used – the homosexuals say they are *born* that way, that it is therefore a part of the brain, not some esoteric choice, is NOT MY ANALOGY. I am co-opting the argument of the homosexual community itself – so don’t blame me if you don’t like what homosexuals say about themselves.

Further there are studies that identify that brain structures of homosexuals ARE different from heterosexuals...of course the question -- both for homosexuals and "religious" people...is does the brain come out the womb pre-wired/formed with these structures, or do these structures develop through practice of behavior?

Actually, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Nature and nurture both affect our psychological development.

@Draug - I know. The questions is can a persona behavior cause enough change to brain development that scientists slicing it open can identify "yes....homo....yes...religious..."?

Look let me sum up Putin's argument for you guys (and I'll try not to be a little cocksucker about it like he is) and let me know if you think any differently at all.

krellin et al., do a google image search on Buck Angel (NSFW). Do you find this person attractive? I'll assume you do not. Why not? You identify as heterosexual, this person is a woman by sex. Isn't it then fair to say that heterosexual isn't actually the BEST descriptor for your feelings? Though it's by and large an accurate term for most situations, if you're like me you find femininity in general more important than merely the sex of the person. Putin has proposed the word "gynephilic" to accurately represent this.

Now, you and I, we don't really care, right? 99.9% of the time, a person we are attracted to affirms both our gynephilic and our heterosexual identities.

But what if we were transgendered and preferred masculinity to femininity? The term "homosexual" doesn't even really apply to us. Sure, we have penises, and sure we may even tend to date people who also have penises, but the term homosexual is fairly misleading, isn't it? It casts confusion on not only our gender identity but then by default on the gender identity we prefer (since homo means same, but people are confused as to what we are, then they will ask, "same as what?")

In this case, the reasons for the superiority of a word like "androphilic" become apparent. There is no confusion as to what we find attractive, it is defined in the word itself, rather than requiring the context of one's own sex (which may not be immediately apparent) to convey meaning.

----

So all in all, do I think the word homosexual is offensive? No. But I do accept that it is an inferior descriptor compared to the terms Putin has proposed. the "philics" encompass all of the meaning that terms like hetero- and homo-sexual offer. The only thing that gets lost by switching is whether a person prefers their own biological sex or not, which we've already established with the Buck Angel example is fairly meaningless.

Hopefully that sums it up.

Haha sorry I called you a cocksucker Putin. I meant to delete that but forgot.

YJ....Uh, no...Just because a heterosexual finds one person of the opposite sex unattractive does not mean they are not heterosexual.

I could care less what new terms Putin pulled out of his ass, it doesn't change reality. I could care less what some ultra-minority of social scientists come up with as some brilliant (NOT) new theory on xyz...it doesn't change reality. Blue is blue, no matter what new term you come up with to call blue.

99.9% of society uses a clinically descriptive term and Putin decides he doesn't like it and says everyone is wrong and somehow you believe him. Yeah...whatever...

If you haven't noticed, pretty much *every* norm of human behavior is offensive to Putin, so I cease to even read any of his arguments.

As we all know, Putin is the guy that bring joy to all...as he is leaving the room, and everyone break out in raucous laughter at his expense Even the autistic kids he abuses in the classroom laugh *at* him, not with him...and that's saying something.

And you should apologize for calling Putin a cocksucker, because he has his own term for cock, having rejected the commonly used phrase. He prefers to call it "the Yummy Stick!"

haha krellin, you're missing the point.

I'm not challenging the applicability of the word heterosexual. I already said it's useful (for me and you) 99% of the time. But don't you agree that gynephilic is more all-encompassing of what you truly find attractive?

The point is that the word heterosexual implies attraction to people you may not actually be attracted to, (Buck Angel, for instance) and gynephilic includes attraction you may have towards somebody who isn't female by sex (an especially bangable tranny, for instance).

I'm only asserting that, all other conventions aside (such as the common use that you point out) the terms Putin suggests are superior at describing every possible situation. I am not (as Putin is) asserting that the word homosexual is offensive, only that it can be misleading.

Can you agree to that, without agreeing that we ought to change? I don't necessarily think we should adopt his suggestion, this is more of an intellectual exercise for me.

@YJ - I get your point and, for those extremely rare cases of transgenderism, it is a valid point. But when a man walking down the street who looks like a man and has the genitalia of a man prefers a physical relationship with other men who look like men and have the genitalia of men, and he calls himself gay *and* homosexual (like my friend Gary), then it is a legitimate term. Putin was trying to illegitimatize the term altogether. It doesn't apply to Buck Angel as Buck clearly has female genitalia but, when wearing jeans, looks like an incredibly well defined man. So Buck can refer to himself as whatever he likes (I'm guessing based on some of the pictures I've seen of him with a transgendered man, that Buck likes penises, but I can't say for certain as I didn't research the issue in depth). But the key is, it is Buck's decision to choose the pronoun he is referred to as (and I use "he" only out of a suspicion, if I am wrong, sorry Buck) and what descriptor he prefers to use in regards to his sexuality and/or inclinations.

But simply put, it is not Putin's place to say we should never use the terms homosexual or heterosexual when it applies in 99% of the cases.

I really do think we need to explore the feral dog connection here.

I think that's a pretty reasonable statement, Draug.

So, hypothetically, if the rapture occurs, leaving atheists out numbered by feral dogs, what is the most likely scenario?

1) Small dogs and large dogs will create a medium sized feral dog population
2) Small dogs will speciate filling the fox niche while large dogs fill the wolf niche
3) Canidphilic atheists will breed with feral dogs creating a feral atheist dog hybrid species with a dog head and canidphilic propensities.
4) Cockroaches will wipe out atheists and feral dogs and will then proceed to assault heaven itself to overthrow God and put a cockroachphilic Lucifer on the Throne of Heaven.

second question, am I going to Hell?

Look arround! The Hell is on earth...

Sure. If you live in Fresno.

Funny!

Who is who in my hell...?

http://tinyurl.com/n9ob6sv

There can be no heteronormativity if you get rid of the sex assignment associated with sexuality terms. If we simply describe what people are attracted to, instead of putting people in categories of "men who like women" vs "men who like men" then there can no privileging of opposite-sex/opposite-gender relationships. You are simply a person who happens to like female-identified people/women, etc.

So you're all really missing the point.

boohoo

Putin33, while there may be a small effect attributable to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (i.e. linguistic determinism), but historically this was far overvalued. It is not so simple that language drives thought and perception. Artificial attempts to alter belief and culture through language engineering and political correctness, typically has only short term success. Over time you will find the artificially imposed language forms while gather unintended connotation over time, defeating the intent of the language engineer. This results then in the need to change language all over again.