(Part 3) Top products from r/ainbow

Get another shot ready.

No, I really should try to follow my username.

I'm a language descriptivist, not a language prescriptivist. Essentially, the distinction is that for descriptivists, the definition of words is how they are used, whereas for prescriptivists, the definition of a word is prescribed, usually by a particular authority, such as a dictionary.

In the descriptivist paradigm, it is impossible to use a word incorrectly (but it can be used contrary to what is usual or expected), new words come into and out of existence all the time, and a person can define a word for their own contextual use as they please.

In the prescriptivist paradigm, a word is incorrect if its use doesn't match the prescribing authority, new words must be specifically added by the authority, and a person is supposed to find the exact word or composition of words they need from the provided supply.

I find some problems with prescriptivism. First off, it means that some people who own the language others use. Second, there are many prescribing authorities, and they don't all agree. Third, if you want a word to describe a new concept, you're screwed.

I like descriptivism. First off, it's a better, more accurate model for how people actually use language; people make up new words all the time; languages evolve, borrowing and adapting where they see fit. Second, allowing people to define words within a context allows for more expressiveness, compactness, and power in the language we use.

An example of a prescriptive language in French[1]. An prescriptive authority would be one like Webster's dictionary[2].

A descriptive language would be one like English. A descriptive authority would be one like the Oxford English Dictionary.

[1] French has the infamous Académie française, which determines exactly what the language consists of. The academy has been involved in suppression of native languages such as Breton and Basque as recently as 2008, and of native languages in the french colonies when France had colonies. Prescriptivists can commit crimes against humanity.

[2] Noah Webster was a very important person in the history of english, for many of the wrong reasons. He was staunchly involved in trying to reform english, and was more or less singlehandedly responsible for a number of changes in our speak. The dictionary itself has strayed towards descriptivism since its book on english usage in 1993.

The topic is actually a really big one, and well discussed. An excellent book on the history of english that touches on the subject is The Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson.

Those kinds of studies are really interesting. But I still think everyone should read this little book, particularly the part about chocolate.

Suppose, to paraphrase, that you were studying my experience of gender. If you could study and understand every neuron in my brain perfectly, that wouldn't tell you anything about my experience of gender, because my experiences are inside me and yours are inside you. Even if you opened up my skull and found that my brain tasted like sugar, spice and everything nice, it would just mean I have a delicious brain, not a female mind.

Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides is another great one. Keep us updated on what you are reading. I'd love to find some good new books to read!

> The Riddle of Gender

Amazon

TIL. Recommended reading?

Edit: Bought it, seemed interesting enough. Used from a goodwill -- didn't realize that goodwill was using amazon like that.

Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate.

Also God Believes in Love: Straight Talk about Gay Marriage.

There's a great book on the case that's worth reading. https://www.amazon.com/Flagrant-Conduct-Story-Lawrence-Texas/dp/0393345122/

I think his short stories are consistently good and probably the best introduction. I'd recommend this collection, which has 15 stories in all. I haven't read much of his non-SF/fantasy, inc. Hogg because it's usually considered one of the most deliberately revolting books around.

I don't know much about his politics/criticism, but I'll check that out. His support of NAMBLA has always unsettled me though.

Sorry. That took me a minute. I see you deleted the post and idk if you still see the comments but I'll leave this here just in case. I haven't read them all. Also, Dan Savage gives lots of book recommendations on his podcast. Good luck!

https://www.amazon.com/Gay-Revolution-Story-Struggle/dp/1451694121

https://www.amazon.com/Mayor-Castro-Street-Stonewall-Editions/dp/0312019009/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=the+mayor+of+castro+street&qid=1565617125&s=gateway&sr=8-3

amazon.com/Stonewall-Revival-Christopher-Theatrical-Adventures/dp/0999863703/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

https://www.amazon.com/Gets-Better-Overcoming-Bullying-Creating/dp/0452297613/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=it+gets+better&qid=1565617218&s=books&sr=1-2

https://www.amazon.com/Transgender-History-second-Todays-Revolution/dp/158005689X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1565617239&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Band-Played-Politics-People-Epidemic/dp/B002L7KS2K/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=history+of+aids&qid=1565617261&s=books&sr=1-1 (maybe)

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Pride-LGBTQ-Heroes-Changed/dp/0062571702/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Hey hey, fellow book club-organizing-person - I just co-took over running the gay men's one at the local community centre a few months ago. I've been finding Reddit recommendations invaluable too.

(Also, I'm no expert on trans lit, but a couple of really accessible books I've enjoyed recently have been Trans-Sister Radio and Almost Perfect.)

It's obvious she's not dealing with it very well, so I'd recommend getting her a book like this (it should be on the US or other Amazon sites if you're not from the UK). The main thing would be the struggle to get her to read it in the first place.

I’m not Catholic (I’m Jewish). And I’m not gay (I’m bisexual).

But this decently long essay (a touch over 7,500 words) got me to immediately buy a copy of Martel’s book.

I suspect the book will be a more important an artefact in the global civil GSM rights movement than Martel’s last book to be translated into English: Global Gay, How gay culture is changing the world.

Global Gay is an anthropologically rigorous survey of the GSM rights revolution rolling out across the world. But it is a clean and well-done survey and report of how things are on the ground now, or the now of a few years ago (that said, the English translation is also an update of the 2012 French-language original)

In the closet of the Vatican (which I’ve just started as I post this) is no less anthropologically rigorous. But it also a work of equally vigorous investigative journalism. The sort of journalism that changes things. Including enormously powerful and influential institutions.

And, even given the Catholic Church’s power and influence is not what it once was, it is is still a powerful institution.

And it’s power to harm GSM folk is, in some places, still enormous.

If Global Gay was a report from the field, In the closet of the Vatican is a vital exposition on how and why the principal institutional obstacle to LGBT rights at the worldwide level appears itself to be massively staffed by gay men.

This institution will not be able to continue being what it is. And I believe Martel’s book will be part of why that is so.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398/

Many, many animals engage in behavior that is divergent from "standard" heterosexual interactions.

It used to be. The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality before the West did and Europeans often wonder why Muslims were tolerant of homosexuals. Early Islamic poetry contained homosexual themes, and there were gay caliphs.

Recommended reading

Very dangerous to apply modern definitions of homosexuality to the Ancients. In fact, the word "homosexuality" wasn't even coined until late 18th C, a couple of years before the word "heterosexuality" was coined!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_Years_of_Homosexuality

Generally-speaking, the Ancients often defined themselves as "Tops" and "Bottoms," and again--generally-speaking--sometimes thought it was unbecoming for a guy to bottom into adulthood. "Tops" --as usual--bore no stigma and felt comfortable penetrating either sex, and "Bottoms" -- as usual-- were stigmatized. Ancient "tops" would laugh at today's idea that they were "gay."

Back to Trump: modern men often confuse modern attitudes towards the homosexual act with ancient ones.

https://www.amazon.com/Construction-Homosexuality-David-F-Greenberg/dp/0226306283

I did provide you the book author and title, I'm not sure what exactly else you'd want. But here's the amazon page and page number that the stats are stated on:

http://www.amazon.ca/Gay-Straight-Reason-Why-Orientation/dp/0199737673

Page 13 of the kindle edition (assuming the page numbers are the same across the board)



An interest point to note:

"studies that have pains particular attention to confidentiality and anonymity, or that have been conduct more recently (and thus in more gay-positive times), or in more gay-friendly countries than the United States, have mostly failed to come up with higher numbers of non-heterosexual people."

America. Was. Never. Straight.

I would recommend you read A History of God by Karen Armstrong, which contains evidence that the monotheistic practice of Judaism which eventually fathered Christianity stemmed originally from the cult of Yahweh, a Hebrew god of war.

This is the same god who in Genesis ordered Abraham to murder his own child and slew Onan for not putting his semen where he had been told. The same god in 2 Kings sent a pair of she-bears to murder a crowd of 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head. The same god in Numbers 31 instructed the Hebrews to "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

But above that, the very essence of Christian doctrine is the concept of "original sin"—that you are born evil and doomed to languish in torment and a lake of fire for eternity by default, unless your evil nature is paid for by a blood sacrifice. If that's not violent sadism, what is?

The only possible reason I can believe someone honestly believes Christianity to be a religion of peace is that they've not read their own book. Unless you suggest that the Bible is itself fallible or wrong in some way, in which case I have to ask why you'd bother with it in the first place.