AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I don't know how that is an issue Kamak? I can see what you're talking about and how that could be confusing, but I don't see how it's really problematic. You'd have to be pretty stuck-up to take offence to something like that. It's not exactly like you describe in Europe I think though. If you ask an integrated immigrant here(especially second-generation and beyond) what nationality they are they'll probably answer Belgian (of Turkish origin) for example. That's mostly because nationality is used as a synonym to citizenship here of course.

What's weirder to me is that Americans seem to call all black people African-Americans when they're sometimes neither African of American.

I didn't really see it as an issue either, besides the obvious confusion (but that also happens for things like Birmingham Alabama or England), but in this sense, people would take offense because Germans and German-Americans would be conflated as "Germans", and it would cause confusion and possibly make Germans look bad for what German-Americans were doing and other things like that.

Also something about "you're an American, so you're no longer German by anything but ancestry" and some manner of bandwagoning and cultural appropriation/equality, which is valid maybe in the sense of some cultural stuff, but seems pretty stupid.

I'm kinda hesitant to talk about it in other threads though, considering the time it came up on the other forum, 5 people were banned for a week for how heated it got, so I guess for some people it's a pretty big deal? It came across as a patriotic issue, I think, which probably varies from place to place.

Comparing humans to breeds of dogs skeeves me out. Not because I think humans are different from/better than dogs, but because a lot of breeds of dogs are fucked up. I've read about a lot of dogs that are completely boned due to incompetent or completely careless breeders. Cats too, notably Lil Bub.


I used to do this. It's something that's very much drilled into during grade school years.

Yeah, that bothers me too. Nowdays I usually use the term 'people of color' when talking about racism since it seems more politically correct but I've encountered people who don't like being called that either so I really don't think there's a way to please everyone, unfortunately.

Yeah, especially when deciding which sign to put over the "colored" fountain.
HAHAAHAH, IRONY

Not for this thread, man.

(Now that Loli responded, this post is kind of unnecessary. Any mod: feel free to delete this post)

Don't.

From experience, your safest bet really is just to use "black."

I know personally it's my preference, and for many other pocs it's the same story. The whole African-American thing has been drilled into my head for so long, but only recently have I come to be of the opinion that it's stupid. I mean when I was going through school I was always incredibly confused because there would be a box to check for certain things for African-American and also Other. Now I always wanted to use Other because I'm mixed race (more Irish than anything really) but the Other option came with taglines referring to other, more obscure nationalities. It can be a touchy subject for many black people, I think, but yeah I think Black or POC is the most accepted.

I actually prefer Other or the "prefer not to share" option, for two reasons: one, I really don't think my race matters very much to any context, and two, a lot of forms or surveys don't include the option for mixed-race or "check all that apply". If they do allow specifics, that's all fine and good, but could we say that a person has so many races in their family history that checking all the boxes actually doesn't tell you anything. In fact, you'd think it's better to get more specific, but really it just blurs the lines between races even more. Questions like that only seem to serve to separate people of different races further, and that in itself has a somewhat racist, or at least xenophobic aura to it.

A person's ethnicity is a less touchy subject, I think, because it's more to do with culture and nationality. Of course, there are an infinite number of descriptors you could use for that, so its harder to simplify a person's ethnicity.

off topic, but i sincerely don't understand how sex with a trans* person works

like

i dunno it just confuses me???? please to enlighten me

Do you mean once a person has physically transitioned through surgery?

If not then I'm pretty sure it works the same as it would between any other gender/sexuality combination. Just doing what each party is most comfortable with. I would assume just because one does not want to have specific sexual organs does not mean they wouldn't want to use them for sex with their significant other from time to time if that's something they're comfortable with. Take that with a grain of salt of course because I am not trans* and I'm not really too in the know about trans relationships. Just going off of how I would intemperate it

I believe for those who go all they way, their organs do not actually work. Science has not gotten that good yet.

Depends on what you mean by "work"
MtF people can't have babies or menstruate obviously, but they can feel pleasure down there.
I don't know much about FtM surgery.

Of course there are also some transgender folk who prefer to keep their original organs.

I have a problem.