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.