Current Events > I had no idea that "sexual preference" was offensive.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Phynaster posted...

Prefer implies that you're choosing and that either is an option but you like one more.

Well, yeah. Being a gay man doesn't make it impossible to date/sleep with a woman, nor does being a straight man make it impossible to date/sleep with a man. It's always an option.

Using the word "preference" does not imply that all options are equal. If you're given the choice of eating chocolate or eating potting soil, you would probably prefer to eat chocolate. The word "preference" doesn't mean that both options are equally viable or that you could comfortably go with either.

---

For the same reason we dont say colored person but instead say person of color.

The meaning AND wording in this example are essentially identical. But one of these was used during a time when less rights were afforded to this group of people.

All I see ITT are a bunch of whiny (mostly non-LGBTQ) folks complaining that they are told they shouldnt say a word. Whereas the actual group about which the term is used has been in a constant struggle to just be treated as human.

---

Eliza3 posted...

All I see ITT are a bunch of whiny (mostly non-LGBTQ) folks complaining that they are told they shouldnt say a word. Whereas the actual group about which the term is used has been in a constant struggle to just be treated as human.

a lot of people ITT that don't agree with it are notably progressive

---

Eliza3 posted...

Whereas the actual group about which the term is used has been in a constant struggle to just be treated as human.

Playing the victim does you no favors.

---

nfearurspecimn posted...

a lot of people ITT that don't agree with it are notably progressive

i didnt mention political affiliation at all

Veggeta X posted...

Playing the victim does you no favors.

Show me where Im wrong

---

Making enemies of people who simply have preferences is wrong. Just because I have preferences doesn't mean I'm out here tryna persecute you or anyone else. I'm not oppressing anyone, and I'm happy for anyone to like whatever they want to like.

---

Veggeta X posted...

Making enemies of people who simply have preferences is wrong. Just because I have preferences doesn't mean I'm out here tryna persecute you or anyone else. I'm not oppressing anyone, and I'm happy for anyone to like whatever they want to like.

Thats good!

---

what other landmines are out there

---

Always fun to wake up to the new offensive term that was fine a year ago and even expected to be used by the group in question.

I don't see the complaint though. Since when are preferences a choice? What I act on sure, but there's no choice in saying "well, I think I'm going to like chicken over beef" I just do and couldn't tell you why either.

Seriously, this endless effort to find the hidden disrespect coded in our everyday language probably has more to do with the disrespect you're getting at the moment than who you're fucking. There's going to be little love for people that remind us of the teachers that just had to correct our gramer and pronunciation, even if no one else but them pronounces the first R in February.

---

YellowMustard69 posted...

Preference doesn't imply choice.

How does it NOT?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Implying that a preference for Pepsi is a choice.
You don't chose what you prefer - you just do.

But you do. Using your example, you don't know what you prefer until you taste both and then choose which one you like better.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

How does it NOT?

Lets make this simple. I am a straight man. I am sexually attracted to females. Its not something that I chose.

Is preferring females a choice? Can I just choose to like men?

---

YugiNoob posted...

Is preferring females a choice? Can I just choose to like men?

I mean, nothing is stopping you. You'd probably never do it but who you fuck is technically a choice.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

But you do. Using your example, you don't know what you prefer until you taste both and then choose which one you like better.

You taste with your eyes. My eyes see a dong and my dong stays flaccid. My eyes see a nice pair of tits and up goes the flag pole

---

dave_is_slick posted...

I mean, nothing is stopping you. You'd probably never do it but who you fuck is technically a choice.

Who you fuck has nothing to do with this. I can cut off my hand but that doesnt mean I can force myself to enjoy it.

---

YugiNoob posted...

Who you fuck has nothing to do with this. I can cut off my hand but that doesnt mean I can force myself to enjoy it.

Okay, but it's still something you can do.

---

I get the idea behind this, but it's really petty imo.

There are bigger and more important battles to fight.

---

legendarylemur posted...

Yeah that's offensive. Sexual preference? Yeah I prefer sex, so what?

Sex? yes please

---

Literally hate speech. Hate speech is violence. Amy is violent & hateful.

---

How many people actually say "sexual preference" as opposed to sexual orientation like most people
---

nfearurspecimn posted...

no, but calling people whiny non-LGBT people over a goddang term that really isn't that bad is not a good look. pick your battles. I'm on the LGBT spectrum btw

so am I. it's also literally the same as white people complaining that they can't use certain racial terms.

Now if we're gonna say "okay I understand it's offensive because it's outdated and we have a better term for it now, but I wanna have a discussion about the meaning of the word 'preference' just for shits and giggles" then sure go ahead, why not?

most of the posts ITT, however, have been akin to "wow what are they gonna be offended by next??" IMO, that's a much worse hill to die on.

---

Phynaster posted...

Prefer implies that you're choosing and that either is an option but you like one more. But you know that, so shut the fuck up.

To be fair Bisexuals exists and may prefer Men over women(or vice versa) despite being attracted to women.

---

Eliza3 posted...

Now if we're gonna say "okay I understand it's offensive because it's outdated and we have a better term for it now, but I wanna have a discussion about the meaning of the word 'preference' just for shits and giggles" then sure go ahead, why not?

most of the posts ITT, however, have been akin to "wow what are they gonna be offended by next??" IMO, that's a much worse hill to die on.

well yeah some of them were, but not everyone that's all I'm sayin'. some people weren't offensive about it

---

so a straight man cant say women are his preference?

---

nfearurspecimn posted...

well yeah some of them were, but not everyone that's all I'm sayin'. some people weren't offensive about it

yea and that's good. seems like most reasonable people at least understand the sentiment, even if they think it's not that big of a deal. i also don't think it's the BIGGEST deal, it's going to depend on context.

---

RainShower posted...

so a straight man cant say women are his preference?

That wouldn't make sense. If women were a preference, that'd mean men are an option. And if men are an option, then you're not straight.
---

It isn't, stop listening to crazy people on Twitter.
---

In a sane world, it wouldn't be.

Ugh, they have so many god damn valid things to get her on, bringing this up is just giving ammo to republicans to say the democrats are attacking her over nonsense (which in this case they are).

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

That wouldn't make sense. If women were a preference, that'd mean men are an option. And if men are an option, then you're not straight.

So many things in life that I would never ever do are "options".

Having sex with a man is an "option", I would never do it though because I am straight and thus have no interest in it. In fact I find the idea of personally engaging in gay sex to be quite unappealing.

But it is an "option", I can prove that by virtue of "if it literally saved the world I'd probably do it". Thus it is an option.

---

St0rmFury posted...

I get the idea behind this, but it's really petty imo.

There are bigger and more important battles to fight.

THIS

There are so many other things to get her on, this is the wrong hill to die on

---

joe40001 posted...

Ugh, they have so many god damn valid things to get her on, bringing this up is just giving ammo to republicans to say the democrats are attacking her over nonsense (which in this case they are).

They would say this regardless. It's their PR strategy that they cooked up weeks ago. In fact it's what they would have said regardless of the nominee or the words used by Democrats. This is a valid criticism, just not one of the most pressing ones. It's merely an indicator of the real issue, her mindset towards civil rights and minority groups.

---

the word preference, by definition, doesn't even imply choice.

They're just looking for reasons to be mad.

---

Seems like far lefters are like the kid who cried wolf. Everything is offensive all the time apparently, until theres genuinely a problem but they decided to condition us to not care.

---

Shes an idiot for apologising

---

Eliza3 posted...

so am I. it's also literally the same as white people complaining that they can't use certain racial terms.

Now if we're gonna say "okay I understand it's offensive because it's outdated and we have a better term for it now, but I wanna have a discussion about the meaning of the word 'preference' just for shits and giggles" then sure go ahead, why not?

most of the posts ITT, however, have been akin to "wow what are they gonna be offended by next??" IMO, that's a much worse hill to die on.

No it's not, because by making this the big discussion, somebody who is underqualified and likely put on the court to do things like take down obamacare is now going to have a valid trivial thing to distract the discussion.

People being "offended" by something perfectly coherent might provide republicans enough coverage to get somebody elected who will fundamentally hurt this country.

It's like if we were all trying to try a man for murder, and most people are talking about how the person committed murder and then you are like "yeah and his hat's really dumb!". Even if his hat was dumb it really isn't worth our time talking about it. So much more important things are going on.

The mere fact that tons of people here who thinks this woman has no business being on the Supreme Court are still defending her on this one thing is great evidence that it is totally the wrong hill to die on. So many more important things hang in the balance than shallow people feeling "offended".

---

legendary_zell posted...

They would say this regardless. It's their PR strategy that they cooked up weeks ago. In fact it's what they would have said regardless of the nominee or the words used by Democrats. This is a valid criticism, just not one of the most pressing ones. It's merely an indicator of the real issue, her mindset towards civil rights and minority groups.

The trouble is, I do think she has a bad mindset towards such groups, but I think this is NOT an indicator of it. And now people bringing it up have just put all of the country who would think the term "sexual preference" is perfectly fine "on her side".

---

FF_Redux posted...

Everything is offensive

FF_Redux posted...

Everything is offensive

It really does come down to that. When youre looking to be offended, youre going to find what youre looking for because there are almost eight BILLION of us on the planet now. Someone somewhere isnt going to like what you say or maybe even just the look on your face. Throw politics into the mix for extra dramatic reasons for people to be mad.

---

The trouble is there are no rules to what is and isn't offensive.

If given 2 options and one was a satire of what people are offended by and one was something people were actually offended by, I do not think I would be able to figure out which is which.

This is totally the wrong focus for a hearing of somebody that may cost countless american lives by ending the ACA.

---

It's always been offensive
It's dogwhistle homophobia implying that being gay/bi is a choice.

joe40001 posted...

No it's not, because by making this the big discussion, somebody who is underqualified and likely put on the court to do things like take down obamacare is now going to have a valid trivial thing to distract the discussion.

People being "offended" by something perfectly coherent might provide republicans enough coverage to get somebody elected who will fundamentally hurt this country.

It's like if we were all trying to try a man for murder, and most people are talking about how the person committed murder and then you are like "yeah and his hat's really dumb!". Even if his hat was dumb it really isn't worth our time talking about it. So much more important things are going on.

The mere fact that tons of people here who thinks this woman has no business being on the Supreme Court are still defending her on this one thing is great evidence that it is totally the wrong hill to die on. So many more important things hang in the balance than shallow people feeling "offended".

I think youre mistaken about who Im addressing. Im talking to people ITT who are claiming wahhh youre offended by everything.

im not defending any democrat strategy to focus on this to attack ACB, there are far more severe and unambiguous faults with her.

---

joe40001 posted...

The trouble is, I do think she has a bad mindset towards such groups, but I think this is NOT an indicator of it. And now people bringing it up have just put all of the country who would think the term "sexual preference" is perfectly fine "on her side".

I don't think it's doing anything to or for anyone. Her confirmation is moving forward purely due to raw, undemocratic power. Most Americans already think she shouldn't be appointed now and I don't think this is moving anyone who is not already on the anti-PC side of the culture wars.

We could go round and round on this like the whole internet is doing. I could talk about many indications of why this is offensive and part and parcel of homophobic mindsets, how it's a rhetorical dogwhistle that gets people thinking about preferences vs realities and rights. You could easily talk about how most people on the street probably wouldn't consider this homophobic or even consider it at all. Both would be correct.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

It really does come down to that. When youre looking to be offended, youre going to find what youre looking for because there are almost eight BILLION of us on the planet now. Someone somewhere isnt going to like what you say or maybe even just the look on your face. Throw politics into the mix for extra dramatic reasons for people to be mad.

Which is all the more reason we should completely ignore people who complain that they are offended unless they represent a big chunk of the human population.

---

I'm liberal but I really hate the tilting at windmills thing a lot of them like to do
---

Eliza3 posted...

I think youre mistaken about who Im addressing. Im talking to people ITT who are claiming wahhh youre offended by everything.

im not defending any democrat strategy to focus on this to attack ACB, there are far more severe and unambiguous faults with her.

While I still think it is a incorrect thing to claim is offensive, I appreciate we can both agree it is a bad strategy for the democrats. I apologize if I was unfairly critical then.

---

joe40001 posted...

While I still think it is a incorrect thing to claim is offensive, I appreciate we can both agree it is a bad strategy for the democrats. I apologize if I was unfairly critical then.

Yea we agree on the important thing. Regarding offense, we have a better, more modern and accepted term, but sexual preference is dated and has some negative connotations to lots of LGBT folks who were listening to the public discourse back in the 90s and early 2000s (thats my experience at least, and I remember it well).

if someone today insists on using outdated terms like that after being made aware of this, its not the best look for them.

granted, ACB apologized for using it didnt she? And it wasnt even used recently? we all know that she has no love for LGBT people but I dont think she was ever using the term to be purposefully hurtful.

---

People missing the forest for the trees. She has a long and established history of bigotry and bias against LGBT folks. If you think this is grasping at straws you really must not have any idea how fucking dehumanizing being othered repeatedly is.

Basically, if you don't think this is at least problematic you are in also part of the problem.

---

gunplagirl posted...

People missing the forest for the trees. She has a long and established history of bigotry and bias against LGBT folks. If you think this is grasping at straws you really must not have any idea how fucking dehumanizing being othered repeatedly is.

Basically, if you don't think this is at least problematic you are in also part of the problem.

I disagree that this phrase is inherently problematic.

I do believe she likely has biases against LGBT folks though.

---

gunplagirl posted...

People missing the forest for the trees. She has a long and established history of bigotry and bias against LGBT folks. If you think this is grasping at straws you really must not have any idea how fucking dehumanizing being othered repeatedly is.

Basically, if you don't think this is at least problematic you are in also part of the problem.

This

and as LGBT person, it often comes from your own family, as it did in my case.
complaining about not being able to say a word usually means youve never had to deal with being on the receiving end of all that hatred, disgust, and violence for just existing

---