I am not the parent comment, but I would also refuse to give you a label. The very request is disagreeable, not whichever label it is that you use.

In all ways I am how I was born, and I have no desire to have that impact who or what I associate with or how I associate with it. I have to deal with these things when it is obvious to peoples eyes how or what I might be, I have no desire to add to it with intangibles. This feeling should hopefully be familiar to you: It should be the feeling you have when you are in the minority in any way considered important by those around you or those you care about, but especially so when it is not relevant to most of anything.

My relationship with non-gender-related aspects of myself follows this same pattern: Autistic or not, ADHD or not, I have no desire to be categorised as neurodivergent, neurotypical, neurospicy, or any such term. These are epithets all and the use of them when discussing specific others, even when benevolent, is almost always in a way that serves to other. And they are terms that will almost inevitably be used as deliberate insults.

Downthread, you mention that you call yourself queer but you would reject that label when applied to you by others. I cannot help but think that your feeling there is similar to a number of other people's feelings about the parts of their identity that they do not wish to label; I do not wish to label myself, so please do not label me.

There are others who may wish to identify with a group or a label because it is a part of their identity, and because that label comforts them or softens the edges of how society may treat them or whatever it might be. For most of those who are objecting to the cishet label, I suspect you may find that it has almost always only been used in their presence to discount them or their opinions. This is not the fault of the label, but its intent, for many. There is no trick of semantics that you can pull to strip the label's fundamental semiotic purpose, which will inevitably be used for scorn, as always.

What you are asking, in this case, is to put people on the treadmill.

>I've seen people use "gender or sexual minority" to describe lgbtq+ folks, so maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"? (Which I think is a judgement free expression of percentage?)

I can't (and wouldn't attempt to) speak for anyone else, but the label I use is Nobody9999 (okay, I use my actual name, which isn't any of your business -- consider that, as it's important here).

I don't broadcast my gender, sexual identity or personal sexual proclivities unless it's relevant in some way. This conversation, for instance -- my gender identity (whether it matches the hardware I have or not), what sorts of people/animals/objects/concepts hold my sexual interest, and/or what sorts of things I like to do with those, are completely irrelevant to you in this context.

And they're not relevant because my use of language doesn't depend on what sort of anatomy/identity I may have, nor does it depend on who or what I want to exchange bodily fluids with (assuming that's something I find sexually satisfying -- and I'm not saying that at all, just using it as an example) and in what way I wish to do so.

If we meet down the pub/on a dating site/at the laundromat/museum/washboard concert/etc. and I chat you up or vice versa, perhaps those things might become relevant.

But until that time, it's none of your damn business and I find your focus offensive. Please don't.

It was raised because I was describing myself as queer, and how that word is an example of the evolution of language. However, it's not a word typically considered appropriate for use by non queer people.

People objected to the word I used for non queer people, so I asked for alternatives that people would prefer.

So it is directly related to the topic and the linked article, but only from the standpoint of in vs out group.

You completely misunderstand me.

It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).

As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it) may well have objected.

I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me, and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself in this context.

You specifically asked (as I quoted, so it would clear, but I guess not) "maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"?"

And I explained that such labels/terms aren't relevant in this context, and that I find your focus on those labels/terms in this context to be irrelevant and your continued demands for folks to participate in your verbal strip tease (i.e., acquiescing to being outed -- which is what you were doing), when someone's gender identity and/or sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion.

IMHO, it was an offensive and obnoxious thing for you to do.

If you're still not clear, I'd be happy to explain (again) why invading the privacy of others (in a public forum, no less!) is objectionable.

I think I understand. Let me rephrase then. How would you prefer I refer to the set of people, in aggregate, who are not transgender nor homosexual?

Not you, specifically, but the aggregate group who are not lgbtq+?

>I think I understand.

No. You clearly don't.

I said:

   It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you 
   (or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I 
   have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).

   As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it) 
   may well have objected.

   I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those 
   terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me, 
   and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself 
   in this context.

I shan't repeat myself again.

I'm not interested in what terms you'd use to describe yourself. I'm interested in what term you would use to describe the group of people who are not transgender and not homosexual.

Your own identity is not necessary not germane to this. I had used the term cishet, without any judgement intended, and some objected to that.

A Venn diagram exists, people told me not to label one section cishet, and I'm asking "if not that, what label should I use instead?"

The set exists. How do we describe that set?

The problem is that the question itself implies belief of a system that many people do not buy into.

It's like saying, what type of Christian are you: practising or non-practising? A question that disregards the fact that many people don't consider that religion to be an accurate model of the world in the first place.

No, it's different than that. I'm not asking "are you a twink or a bear" I'm asking if you belong to a group that doesn't identify as homosexual. If you think homosexuality is evil, you probably can still acknowledge that some people do identify themselves as homosexual.

Your point only exists for an extremely narrow group of people who deny that people identify as trans or homosexual. And for those folks, I'd probably have a separate conversation about, "you might consider it amoral, but you know there are people who call themselves gay, right?"

No. Since you're obviously too stupid to understand what I said in three different ways, I'll cut you a little slack.

What do I call people? Steve or Helene or Bobby or Samuel.

Because they are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

Fuck off asshole.

I understand that sets can be a difficult concept for some. I'm happy to help you work through some basics (Venn diagrams, etc) if you'd like.

I think that the conflict here is that you are asking which term nobody9999 prefers to be used to describe a group of people similar to them on a certain set of axes, whereas it seems that nobody9999 would prefer that there not be such a word because they'd prefer not to be grouped on that set of axes at all.

On a personal level, this reminds me of my own struggle to identify with the term "agender". At best, it's not incorrect. But it describes an aspect of myself that feels irrelevant to whatever context it's brought up in, almost to the point of being a category error. I am currently wearing a black shirt. Does this make me a black-shirt-wearer? Well, yes, but this tells you nothing about who I am. Better to describe me on a relevant axis: I am an engineer. I try very hard to be kind to everybody no matter what I think of them. I am an optimist. I enjoy sour beers. All of these are more relevant than asking what gender I identify with, because the fact of the matter is, I don't.

Extrapolate that to the disagreement between you and nobody9999 if you find it useful; I may have misunderstood the debate or nobody9999's point entirely and make no claim to represent their views.

I'm trying not to assume nobody is in or out of the group. But I think it's fair to say that the group exists and to ask if the term for that set isn't cishet, what other description would they use to describe that set.

I'm not interested in asking nobody9999 to share any details about their own identity, just asking them how they'd label that section of the Venn diagram.