None of the above

I don't exist. We don't exist. We're three percent of the population, at least, and no one knows we're here.

It would be reasonable to look at my dating history and assume I'm straight. I've never dated another woman. I don't know anywhere to go to find another woman to date, except the local LGBT square dance club, for values of 'local' that include 'two hours away'. If I were on a date with another woman, it would be reasonable to look at us and assume we're lesbians; what else would two women on a date be?

There are few famous bisexual folk: see the astonishment that Angelina Jolie is still bisexual, though paired off with Brad Pitt. See Sappho of Lesbos, perhaps history's most famous lesbian (certainly the trope namer), though she had a daughter and wrote of marriage in an era long before marriage equality and of love for a man as well as for various women. See every Republican senator caught misbehaving with a male intern behind his wife's back; these are always referred to as closeted gay men, never as bisexuals.

The gay marriage debate is, as that frequently-used name implies, focused on the needs of gay and lesbian people. Transfolk come up in discussion occasionally—some states go by legal sex and some by assigned-at-birth sex and transfolk would stop landing on the wrong side of either method if those states allowed same-sex marriage—but bisexual folk never. Bisexual folk already have the legal ability to marry someone to whom they're attracted, after all.

The L Word, a groundbreaking show in terms of depicting other-than-heterosexual people on television, has a character say in the very first episode, "When are you gonna make up your mind between dick and pussy? And spare us the gory bisexual details, please." The character addressed, Alice, is being told that she cannot choose both: she must be either straight or lesbian, for there is nothing in between.

Alice is, by existing—I am, by existing—an embarrassment to the 'sexuality is not a choice' crowd. Alice and I can choose whether to act on attraction to men or to women. To the 'sexuality is a choice' crowd, we're proof of concept, and that embarrasses us.

As with many embarrassments, the easiest way to make the discomfort go away is to ignore or remove its source. Ignoring it is called bisexual invisibility, removing it is called bisexual erasure, and both happen because the world is biphobic and likes to make assumptions that rely on sexual and gender binaries. Even the word 'bisexual' can be taken to mean a reliance on those very same binaries; I use the word as roughly synonymous with 'pansexual' and 'omnisexual', but not everyone does.

The number one thing one can do to avoid bisexual invisibility is not to make assumptions. A woman married to a man is not necessarily a straight woman, nor is her husband necessarily a straight man. A woman married to a woman is not necessarily a lesbian. For the love of all things holy, don't assume 'bisexual' means 'sexually available' or 'willing to make out with a member of the same sex to titillate a member of the opposite sex'.

The number two thing to avoid bisexual invisibility and the number one thing to avoid bisexual erasure is to speak inclusively. Say 'LGBT' instead of 'gay and lesbian', or, better, say 'QUILTBAG'; that acronym includes queer, questioning, undecided, intersex, asexual, and genderqueer folk, all of whom are often erased or unseen even by other parts of the QUILTBAG community. Don't say 'homophobia' when you mean 'bias against anyone who isn't heterosexual', even though it's so much easier to say one word instead of six. It's the fight for marriage equality, not the fight for gay marriage.

I'm bisexual. I exist. I'm real. Look at me, not through me. Don't pretend I'm not there.

-- MercuryBlue

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Gil]

"Don't say 'homophobia' when you mean 'bias against anyone who isn't heterosexual', even though it's so much easier to say one word instead of six."

Try 'heterosexist' as a workable alternative.

Thanks for writing this.

-Demisexual guy who many people assume that because he has a girlfriend that he is simply straight and trying to be a ~special snowflake~.

[Froborr]

*applause*

I haven't spoken about it to, oh, pretty much anyone yet, but I'm starting to question whether I'm bisexual. I've admitted for some time to "exceptions" to being straight (John Barrowman) and, more privately, to occasional passing interest/curiosity in times of stress or romantic isolation, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm not just straight up into men. If I'm not 95 percent straight, but more 60 or 70?

This last weekend was kind of the watershed. I was at a convention, having fun, with my fiancee, surrounded by cute cosplayers--hardly a situation I would describe as "stressed" or romantically isolated." And yet I found myself rather attracted to a man... okay, two different men.

I'm a little afraid to talk about it, to be honest. My fiancee is bi herself, but she's also a yaoi fangirl and likes to make innuendo-laden jokes about some of my closer friends and I (which is incredibly obnoxious and I've asked her to stop on the grounds that it is EXTREMELY RUDE to ship real people, but she still does it). If I really am bi, and I came out to her, I suspect the resulting storm of obnoxious jokes would be completely unbearable. I know that's a pretty trivial concern compared to what a lot of people face when they come out, but it's still enough to give me pause.

[Dav]

Thanks, MB! I'd also like to add, after a date gone sour yesterday, that bisexuals don't necessarily "need" both men and women partners: monogamy is not impossible because we just crave the opposite sex *so* much. Polygamous inclinations are on another axis from gender preference.

[Irina]

@Dav, exactly; I've been married for almost 18 years to a wonderful man but that doesn't make me any less bisexual. It's just that this person happened to be the person, gender irrelevant. If I'm ever widowed I may take up with a woman, who knows. Or another man, or indeed anybody, or nobody at all.

[Mary Kaye]

Yeah, a pervasive and pernicious myth about us bisexual people is that we're not able to be monogamous, or at best, unhappy being monogamous.

The counter-argument I use is "Are you attracted to both blondes and brunettes? If so, does that mean you can never be monogamous?" Or substitute other trait of your choice. Somehow straight people are able to deal (at least, outside some RTC communities) with being potentially attracted to more than one partner. Big news? So are bisexual people.

My spouse and I chose not to pledge monogamy to one another when we married (influenced by seeing a lot of bad consequences to this pledge among our friends). None the less, we have in fact been monogamous for twenty-five years. I think that's a pretty telling counterexample.

[MercuryBlue]

Try 'heterosexist' as a workable alternative.

I know that word. I know I knew that word. Where was that word when I was writing the article?

[Asha]

Yeah, I had a friend in Japan who honesty thought bisexual people could not be monogamous. (American born, duel citizen now) and I just shook my head at that. I told him it was a bad assumption to make. I am, in all honesty, afraid to admit I still like men when my family thinks I'm completely lesbian because the very religiously conservative members of my family are likely to think I've been 'fixed.' Or that I was making up being attracted to women. Add in that I'm extremely shy and have trouble approaching anyone at all for romance, and this has lead to a lot of awkwardness in my life.

Thanks for addressing this, MercuryBlue.

[Basil]

I've been following this blog for years, but this is the first time I've posted. This post really affected me. I'm a woman, and coming to think I may be bisexual. I've questioned whether or not I was attracted to woman for a long time, but always just assumed that, because I was attracted to men, and the only two relationships I've had were with men, that I was straight. The fact that I noticed attractive girls a lot and fantasized and dreamed about them and hit on girls when I got drunk was just an interesting anomaly.
Recently though, I've told a few people that I thought I was bi, and the fantasy floodgates have opened. I feel like I've discovered a whole new sexual world. Staring at my classmate's pretty legs is a lot more fun than turning my head and thinking "Straight. No, really."
Still, I've never actually so much as kissed another girl, so I'm not sure if I should call myself bisexual, if I don't know whether I'd like real life as much as fantasy. I always assumed that sexual orientation was something people just knew, and if they didn't, that was because of internalized prejudice, which I hope I don't have much of. I guess I'll need to figure things out as I go along.

[Ross]

Hello surprisingly risque Mandalay Bay banner ad!

I think the first time I became actively aware of the existence of bisexuals was back in the early 90s when there was a sudden streak of daytime talk shows doing stories on married couples who "couldn't possibly" be faithful because one of them was bisexual and therefore "had to" have partners of both sexes. Which seemed wrong to me, but I was too young to fully understand how daytime talk shows worked.

Not long ago, I was at a party where the host's boyfriend was speculating on the difference between gay and bisexual stereotypes between men and women, particularly with respect to the idea that a man who is attracted to both men and women is more likely to identify as gay-or-bisexual, while a woman who does both is more likely to identify as straight-or-bisexual. He suggested that, culturally, a man who feels same-sex attractions has very little choice for expressing that other than to identify as part of the gay community and seek out sexual relationships with men, while a woman has the option (and social pressure) to identify as straight, addressing her same-sex desires with intimate but not sexual relationships.

Anyway, I don't know if any of that is true, partially true or outright false, but I thought it was an interesting idea. It might also suggest why it's so much more common for "Prominent political figure caught having covert same-sex fling" to invovle men and so rare for it to involve women.

[MercuryBlue]

It might also suggest why it's so much more common for "Prominent political figure caught having covert same-sex fling" to invovle men and so rare for it to involve women.

I'd put that down to there being so many fewer female politicians, myself.

[Izzy]

MercuryBlue: That, and also that women's infidelity has been disproportionately punished over time, so we've learned either not to do it or to be really really careful.

I'm more-or-less straight, but unhappy in monogamous relationships. Which is another point from which to argue.

[Semperfiona]

@Basil

Your self-description sounds a lot like me in my twenties. I wasn't sure whether thinking 'women are hot' was enough to call myself bisexual, but a couple of things helped me decide to accept the label for myself even without ever having dated a woman. One was telling myself that I never questioned my attraction to men before having had straight sex, why was this any different?, and the other was spending time around other bisexual women and listening to all their different experiences of sexuality. Unfortunately the fabulous bi women's mailing list that provided much of that for me is basically defunct.

It was still another couple years after I decided I was truly bi before I started dating women. Now, nearly twenty years later, my girlfriend and I have been together nine years.

[Groundedchuck.wordpress.com]

Dav: Polygamous inclinations are on another axis from gender preference.

Hear, hear. I feel like "bisexual=polyamorous" is one of the most prevalent myths I've heard. Granted, my experience is entirely anecdotal, but the only poly woman I ever dated was also one of the few straight ones.

Bisexuality is also one of the few topics where Dan Savage seems to inevitably land his foot in his mouth. He's on the ball about so many things, but apparently that's a blind spot.

[Josh (who promotes transhumanism where possible)]

Human sexuality is ridiculously complicted, and consists of a lot of sliding scales. If it weren't for the fact that trying to ignore the termology does exactly what MercuryBlue describes in our world today (that is, it lets people ignore X-group and ostracize X-grou), I would eschew all the terms and class it as "being human" rather than "being gay", or "being asexual" or "being bi." But I can't, so I won't, because that hurts a lot of people, for the reasons detailed above. Get rid of this twisted idea that heterosexuality is somehow more normal and natural than the others, and then we'll talk removing the termology.

But anyway the Kinsey Scale is my favorite of the human sexuality scales; it's a chart, 1-6, where 1 is full heterosexual, no attraction to the same sex, and 6 is full gay, no attraction to the opposite sex. Any number 2-5 implies some degree of bisexuality, with 3 being a solid bisexual, equally attracted to both sexes. It serves to remind individuals that bisexuality may be a lot more common than it's given credit as being, it's just that it has to be bisexuality under certain circumstances (rating a 2 or a 5 on the scale). Give my personal experiences, I believe asexuality is also a sliding scale, with various degrees depending upon the person, and I believe that it can overlap with other sexualities (I class myself as an mild-asexual mild-bisexual. Make sense of that one). And of course,there's romantic attraction, which my not even be related to sexual attraction. Take homoromantic, heteroromantic, and biromantic asexuals, for instance... or there's no romantic attraction at all; a completely aromantic individual.

Perhaps there will be a time in the future when none of this matters. When we develop some level of mind-uploading technology and we can body surf. Don't like your body? Get another one. Shape it anyway you want to, any color you want to, any style you want to. Make it male, female, both, or neither, or the ability to shift between the four at will. I look forward to that future, and I hope I live to see it.

[ManWithDuckonHead (MWDH)]

There was a good deal of drama BioWare received from Dragon Age 2's relationship system in which all but a few characters can be romanced either as a male Hawke or female Hawke. Some of the responses ranged from players asking for a "No homosexuality" button in the options to players still upset about the lack of exclusively homosexual characters in the first Dragon Age.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-25-dragon-age-ii-writer-defends-romances

I remember a friend having a crisis of orientation and he decided to ask the most brusque of our group for advice because he hoped for as honest of a response as possible. the brusque friend's advice was to "Try it out. See which you like better and then decide." The rest of us in the other room who could hear it easily just glanced at each other and later asked the brusque friend "Why does he have to decide?" And his response was "You know [him], he needs to be told what to do or he'll flounder." There was a short argument then we decided not to discuss it again, then the group dispersed when summer took everyone their separate ways, but I still feel he was too harsh on the guy. Though he is the kind of gamer that plays Lawful Good Paladins and Chaotic Evil Assassins, sexual identity is just another matter altogether.

[Laiima]

This post was very interesting, MercuryBlue. I've thought for a long time that sexual preferences are more of a spectrum than a binary. So people at the far ends can be reasonably sure they are "straight" and "homosexual", respectively, but is everyone anywhere in the middle "bi-" or "pan-" or what?

If there is such a thing as "100% straight", that's not what I am. I wasn't sure what my other choices were.

[Dragoness Eclectic]

I personally suspect that most women are bisexual, though they may not be aware of it. I cannot comment on male sexuality, since I frequently mistake "is gay" for "acts like a gentleman instead of a teenage horndog" (I have no "gaydar" and did not even know that the concept of homosexuality existed until well into adolescence.)

Why do we have to have labels for orientation? It just seems to be another reason to divide people into Us and Them. Why must you have a rigid definition for what sort of beings you're sexually attracted to? You're either attracted to a given individual or you're not.

[Froborr]

@Josh: I find transhumanism rather boring, actually. To augment one's capabilities with technology is not "transhuman," it's a common feature of the hominoid apes.*

We augment our memories with notebooks (and various other technologies before that, back to cave painting and rhythmic chanting), we augment our physical abilities with everything from hand axes to giant cranes, and so on.

As for uploading people into a computer, eh. I can see the usefulness of having a backup a la Greg Bear's Eon, but actually living in a completely constructed environment, with none of the unexpectedness and variety of reality? Count me out. (I want to live in an arcology with wilderness *right outside*. Constructed environment for support features and efficiency, wilderness as somewhere to go for complexity, inspiration, and a connection to nature.)

It does not surprise me that people came up with transhumanism in the same generation that invented suburbs...

*If I remember my terminology correctly, "anthropoid apes" are all apes that aren't gibbons, "hominoid apes" are humans, chimps, and bonobos. If I have messed up the terminology, that's the group I mean: the clade that includes humans and chimps, but not gorillas.

[Literata]

The Kinsey scale is a good start, but I liked Froborr's percentages - more room to wiggle around in. Of course, there's no need to have an exact number, so the Kinsey simplification works. As far as the other options, people might be bi-, pan-, whatever. When you throw in gender, it gets even more exciting! Some people are attracted to others who present as feminine, no matter what's under the skirt, for example.

Josh, as a Pagan who finds her body very important, even when I don't like it much, I have to say that what you describe sounds absolutely horrifying to me. Not trying to pick on you or get you to defend it, just saying that there are other perspectives or people who wouldn't take those options if they were available.

[Groundedchuck.wordpress.com]

Dragoness Eclectic: Why do we have to have labels for orientation?

Mental shorthand, I guess? You make a very good point that it's an arbitrary distinction, but then, so are things ike skin color.

You're either attracted to a given individual or you're not.

And even then, you can be intellectually attracted to someone but not physically so. Or vice-versa. I have male friends who I could totally see myself in a romantic relationship with because we click so well intellectualy...except that I'm totally not attracted to [sterotypical] male bodies.

[Froborr]

@Dragoness Eclectic: Why do we have to artificially divide people up and label them as different races? Because some people are assholes and treat people differently according to these labels. If some people treat group X poorly and all other groups well, and others treat all groups well, the net result is that group X is treated worse by society as a whole. We thus must recognize group X at least long enough to fix society.

Also, it can be helpful to have a label for aspects of oneself that may differ from others. For example, someone could say "I am a person who is gay," and that makes clear that they don't want to have sex with the opposite gender. As long as we treat it as a label for a trait, rather than defining the whole person, I don't see that it's a problem.

[aravind]

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much, MB, for writing this. I want to print it out and give it to the multiple people who kept pestering me to make a definite choice. Ironically, most of them had experimented with both genders, but a big part of their thought process seemed to be that one would win out.

Of course, sort of similarly to you, the fact that I'm dating a person the same gender has a lot of people giving my claims to be bisexual (or pansexual, I don't think I'm limited to just two genders?) very skeptical looks. I guess from that perspective, I just mentally substitute all references to me being gay with "queer" (since that basically means "not straight" at this point).

Of course, that's just another way that a very specific slice of the QUILTBAG community tends to be taken as representative of the whole. The wealthy or at least middle class, the white, the cisgendered, the male, those who aren't ablist targets, and also the gay. I don't feel like I have really much of a right to say I'm so oppressed, because I do fit all of those categories but one - and it's really clear how failing to belong to more than one of those groups rapidly decreases the value certain powerful members of the QUILTBAG community assign to people.

TW: discussions of genitals, misogyny, racism, transphobia

Groundedchuck.wordpress.com: Bisexuality is also one of the few topics where Dan Savage seems to inevitably land his foot in his mouth.

Um, I'm going to take exception to this "few" thing. He has a pretty well documented attitude towards women who fail his personal attractiveness test - source - and seems pretty willing to repeat ad nauseum how much he hates the female body especially the genitals - source. Also there's his really screwed up attitude towards racism - source. Likewise, Savage is pretty well known for engaging in incredibly cissexist/transphobic (which is preferred here?) talk - source.

From what I can see, Savage's anti-bisexual leanings are just the tip of an iceberg of what's unfortunately standard fare for a lot of powerful people in the gay community: only showing concern for the plight of the white, upper-to-middle class, cisgendered, gay man.

/TW

[Groundedchuck.wordpress.com]

Aravind: Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't try to claim the man is perfect. Though I think much of his advice is pretty good; he and Carolyn Hax are pretty much the best of the lot that I've found of advice columnists. But where Hax is more willing to step back and admit she's not sure about something, he has a strong opinion on everything, for better or worse. Hence, foot-in-mouth.

...seems kinda familar, somehow.

[Josh (who is a veteren of many Internet conflicts)]

@ Froborr ... hey, hey, hey now :P

Technically speaking, transhumanism isn't just limited to humanity; transhumanism is also the umbrella under which animal uplifting falls - uplifted crows and ravens are just as likely to be considered transhuman as AGIs and humanity itself (or, I do anyway.) One of my favorite transhuman settings is Eclipse Phase - if you get the chance to look into it, you really should. They did their homework for sure, and even though the folks who came up with transhumanism invented suburbs, this setting is quite unlike what that generation had concieved (and it's a pretty solid idea what to expect in the future, technology wise, as well).

About the science: Hominidae is the family; under Hominidae you find two sub families - Homininae, which includes gorillas, and Hominini, which includes species homo and pan (chimpanzes and bonobos). Simiidae apes are the anthropoid apes, and that does include gibbons, orangutans, chimps, and bonobos. You're thinking the Homo species, methinks.

[Froborr]

@Josh: Homo is a genus,* not a species, and no, I'm definitely thinking of the Hominini. Chimps and bonobos use tools, and learn to use those tools from their mothers. I'm willing to call that a rudimentary culture and technology.

At this point, honestly, what I expect from the future technology-wise is nothing. The collapse of our civilization due to environmental disaster is not inevitable, but we seem collectively determined not to evade it.

*Though at this point, I think trying to apply collective names to clades between species and kingdoms is a little pointless--the distinction between, say, a genus and a family is starting to look a little arbitrary. Nonetheless, Homo is most definitely not a species, it is a clade containing several known extinct species and one not yet extinct.

[Izzy]

I like Savage's perspective on most things, but yeah, he needs to get his head out of his ass regarding a lot of stuff. The female genitalia bit doesn't get to me personally as a woman, because I'm not exactly enamored of their appearance either, but feh.

@Dragoness: I was going to say the categories might help with dating, but really, it doesn't take that much longer to say something like "I'm interested in both men and women" or "I'm only looking to date guys right now." If you don't have time for that, you probably don't have time for sex.

@Josh: That's certainly been my experience with poly as well. As far as I can tell, I'm somewhere around a 5 or 6 on the poly scale, if "O" is "must be monogamous". I would call myself an aromantic sexual--my ideal would be having a whole bunch of FWB relationships where we hung out and played video games and then got it on, or not, whatever--but I like reading/writing/roleplaying romance. Odd, that.

[Josh (Enigma32)]

@Froborr - I chalk that mistake up to the fact that I was typing that in a hurry so I could clock out of work. M'bad.

[hapax]

as a Pagan who finds her body very important, even when I don't like it much, I have to say that what you describe sounds absolutely horrifying to me. Not trying to pick on you or get you to defend it, just saying that there are other perspectives or people who wouldn't take those options if they were available.

This.

As a Neo-Platonist who does not consider the body as "evil" (a dreadful simplification that alas, so much of classical Neo-Platonic literature [heckopete, Classical literature *period*] can be used to support), I very much see a physical body -- a very specific individual physical body (if not necessarily the body is born with) -- as an essential component of the Self.

{Wowzers. I'm sure I've written more convoluted sentences here in my time, but I'll be hornswoggled if I knew where}

Also, the idea of "uplift" completely creeps me out. Far too redolent of "civilizing the savages", White Man's Burden, etc.

Why not let chimps / bonobos / dolphins / parrots / coral polyps simply be the best chimps / bonobos / dolphins / parrots / coral polyps they can be, rather than "improve" them by making them "more like Us"?

[Izzy]

Huh--whereas I would absolutely take the ability to shift shape. I mean, I change my body all the time, or try to; not having to go to the gym would be great, and getting to have whatever hair/eyes/skin combo I wanted would rock.

I am le shallow. ;)

[Sixwing]

I don't think changing one's body is le shallow at all! Experimenting with the body is one of the most fascinating things I can think of, and while I can understand people not wanting to do it, I for one would love to have the capabilities of that theoretical technology.

I'd take the ability to change my chromosomes in a heartbeat, and if I could experiment with more dramatic shapechanges, the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. Give me four legs? Heck yeah, I wanna know what it feels like. Give me my own wings, and I'm never giving them back.

The physical body is important to me, but its continuity isn't really, if that makes any sense - if I could wake up one day with different chromosomes, I'd be fascinated to see if form really does change function, for instance if I woke up with the major capabilities of a bird, how different would my perception and processing be?

Tl;dr version: If I lived in Transmetropolitan, I'd be a Temper, assuming I could afford it. :)

[Froborr]

I would happily take the opportunity to change shape. Or mind, for that matter--it would be really cool to spend a day with a completely different personality, for example.

Really, the thing I don't like about brain uploading is not the loss of my body, that's a piece of crap and I'd happily take an upgrade, it's the loss of being directly in the real world.

For starters, there'd be no science in a completely man-made world. Maybe empty theorizing, but no experiments. How boring.

[Literata]

Come to think of it, my reaction to the idea of changing bodies at whim sounds a lot like what other people have said about how they would feel about having memories removed. It's a big part, possibly a central part, of my me-ness. The interesting thing to me is that more and more we're discovering the embodied roots of our language and our thinking processes, which makes me increasingly skeptical that transhumanism could ever work the way it's usually imagined.

Hapax, I would love to pick your brain some time about your Neo-Platonism. There's also a particular Tarot deck that I really want that incorporates some of what the author describes as Neo-Platonic ideas, and if I ever do get it, I would be very interested in your opinion on some of it, too.

Izzy, I don't think that necessarily means you're shallow. Maybe just differently invested in your physicality.

[Froborr]

For the record, I don't hate "the Body" in a neo-Platonic way. I hate my body in a "broken piece of crap that doesn't work the way I want it to" way.

Meat is awesome stuff, as I've said before: Meat is the only substance we know of that can fly, swim, crawl, run, think, talk, love, AND make more of itself.

Technology is awesome, don't get me wrong, but it's a long way from doing what meat can do.

[Literata]

Here's an interesting intersection with the original post's topic: if you could spend a day as a different sex and/or gender, or with a different orientation (without losing any current relationship(s)), would you do it?

I ask because I was working through a book about reclaiming one's female nature and it recommended experimenting with gender-bending, or at least doing it as a thought experiment. I did a lot of thought experiments, or found myself thinking at random times, would I be doing/experiencing this differently if I were male, or presented as masculine? It really changed my outlook.

[Froborr]

So, I'm enjoying the transhumanism and other discussions on this thread, happy to continue, but... any advice on how to deal with my fiancee/figure out whether I'm actually stably attracted to men? (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/07/none-of-the-above.html?cid=6a00d8341c582a53ef014e89dd993e970d#comment-6a00d8341c582a53ef014e89dd993e970d)

[Literata]

Froborr, I don't mean to dismiss your concern but I do want to ask in what ways it matters to you, and why. I thought your re-assessment of yourself as maybe a "little bit bi" sounded potentially accurate, and you know it can be, but isn't always, situational. It sounds to me like dealing with your fiancee is your bigger issue, and I'm afraid I'm no expert in the relationship advice department; a long talk with several repetitions of "When you do (this), I feel (that) and that's not an okay situation" is my only idea.

[Sixwing]

Literata: The interesting thing to me is that more and more we're discovering the embodied roots of our language and our thinking processes, which makes me increasingly skeptical that transhumanism could ever work the way it's usually imagined.

See, that's why I really wanna play with it! I'm a tester; I want to test its parameters and see if it's anything like expected or if, for instance, being a human consciousness somehow downloaded into a large German Shepherd would cause me to be ... a humanlike consciousness instead. Or a doglike consciousness, or something in between. If one could somehow retrieve data on how other species or even other individuals of the same species see the world, one could learn an awful lot. And the question of "if I temporarily swapped bodies with SixSpouse, would we perceive things differently" is actually one SixSpouse and I discuss kind of frequently! So I have a lot of hours logged in this topic already, actually. *grin*

If you could spend a day as a different sex and/or gender, or with a different orientation (without losing any current relationship(s)), would you do it?

As above, in a heartbeat. I actually do gender-bend, and while it doesn't help me get any more comfortable with femininity (that word is hard to type, and the actual effect of the gender-bending is quite the opposite) it is a really interesting thought experiment.

Froborr, I.. really wish I had any advice for you, so sorry. :( All I have is "ouch, my sympathies," which is not helpful, exactly. If your fiance isn't going to respect the boundary about joking about you and your friends, I don't see how letting that knowledge out would help. On the other hand, what will it help to leave it in..?

[Patrick]

Maybe this is a generational thing. I know... about half a dozen lesbians, and about half a dozen bisexual women. I feel like, based on my anecdotal experience, bisexual women are ever so slightly more common than lesbians. But I guess if statistical data says otherwise, my anecdotal experience isn't representative.

[Froborr]

Here's an interesting intersection with the original post's topic: if you could spend a day as a different sex and/or gender, or with a different orientation (without losing any current relationship(s)), would you do it?

Yes, immediately, no hesitation.

[MercuryBlue]

Statistical data as collected by the writers of the report I cited (first link up top) says self-identified bisexual women are four times as common as self-identified lesbians. Oddly, self-identified gay men are most of twice as common as self-identified bisexual men.

[Josh (who currently posts from within the body of an uplifted magpie. Wings are bad for typing).]

@ Hapax - on uplifting: why shouldn't we give them a chance to live like us? You obviously wouldn't uplift the whole species, and there'd be some major genetic manipulations needed to make it happen, but I don't see why we shouldn't give them a chance to experience lives like we do - and then, with mind-uploading, download yourself into one of those uplifted animal bodies and see what it's like in there, and let them see what it's like in human bodies. And no, I am not a graduate from Mad Scientist U... >.>

Oh, and if we could, I'd be happy to see not only dinosaurs brought back, but uplifted as well. For instance, there was a very intelligent species of dinosaur called "Troodon," which with some heavy duty genetic lifting, could not only be resurrected as a species but uplifted to human level intelligence in the process. It'd just be one more species that we could have under the "extended human family tree". I wouldn't mind seeing Raptors, which were also smart, brought back and uplifted as well. But it'd have to with turkey DNA, not eagle.

It may resemble the White Man's burden on the surface, but the White Man's burden was a cultural one. It's really no more a burden than it is a burden to make computers intelligent and human like - we do it because we can, and then allow them to develop their own civilizations, and recognize them as cognizant and sapient species. I realize I'm FAAAAR too idealistic on this topic, and I know some of the cynical aspects that would come to it, but if given the chance, I wouldn't mind being a raven for the day. And I'm pretty sure that, if given the chance, there's probably a few ravens out there who wouldn't mind being me/a human. Just imagine what it would be like to be able to legitimately fly.

@ Izzy - no more shallow than I am :) I'm happy enough being a man, but I wouldn't mind a chance to be a woman, either, and if I could be both, that's like the best of both worlds right there. I'm not sure I could handle "neither", though, but I won't judge - there are people who are more than happy to go around sexless, and that's worth every bit the respect that wanting to be both sexes is worth.

@ Literata: There's a bunch of different schools of thought about transhumanism, not just one particular school. I personally do not see ingrained language and the root of language poses that much of a problem to the development of Seed AIs (I'm a truly DANGEROUS transhumanist for believing that self-improving AI could be helpful, but really, it's a matter of socialization) or AGIs. As per the different schools of thought, I do my best to encompass all the schools of thought, but there are some that I focus on more than others - the technology aspect and the post-gender/class aspect of it - so anything I say will be tinted by those two schools of thought.

As far as changing bodies/orientation - In a heartbeat. Hell, I'd jump species, too, if I could. I cross-dress when I role play (meaning I role-play as women, not men) simply because I enjoy it more, and the ability to shift back and forth between male, female, and both would be very much irresistible for me.

[Froborr]

@Literata: Well, whenever I talk to another person I have to monitor everything I think about that person to make sure none of it gets out except when/how I want it to. If I'm talking to a woman I'm attracted to, that's usually at least irrelevant, ranging up to possibly insulting depending on the context, so I have to watch what I say. (This is far from unique to attraction; it applies to any opinion I might have regarding any aspect of a person, from "I like your shirt" to "I find your political views abhorrent." I must always be hyper-vigilant to reveal nothing that might cause conflict or expose me to any form of social danger, since I am by nature very bad at everything to do with interacting with other people.)*

Anyway, if I'm going to be attracted to men now, too, I have to be aware of it, analyze it, figure out its potential impacts, and take steps to make sure it doesn't create any risk in ongoing relationships (such as current friends) or potential future interactions.

*Yes, I am aware this is not psychologically healthy, but it's not something I can change right now. It's sort of the core essence of AvPD--I have no stable sense of self-worth; any social rejection, however mild, can utterly destroy me; thus hyper-vigilance. I am lucky in that online communication doesn't flip the DANGER WATCH CLOSELY STEP CAUTIOUSLY DANGER switch, I suspect for the same reason GIFT exists. It also doesn't flip if I'm "not me"--playing an RPG, at work, etc.

[Froborr]

@Josh: Have you seen what introducing a species to a foreign ecosystem can do to it? Resurrecting extinct species has enormous potential for disaster, not in a Jurassic Park scenario but in a rabbits-in-Australia scenario. Raptors raiding suburban trash cans and eating people's cats, wiping out native prey animals that aren't evolved to run from them and thus starving the native predators...

I am not a Luddite. I am all for doing what we can to make our lives easier and better. But we have seriously screwed ourselves (not our planet, it'll survive us easily) over by failing to consider the consequences of our actions, and a lot of what you're talking about sounds like a golden opportunity for more of the same.

[Literata]

Froborr, hugs if you want them. I should have said that up front, so take extra now.

I can totally understand that in terms of needing to figure out the issues in terms of social interaction, and to deal with it from where you are right now. Excuse me, my privilege was showing - I'm neurotypical enough and socially comfortable enough that the fact that I'm mildly bisexual doesn't give me those kinds of issues or concerns in the vast majority of social situations. I'm sorry, and thank you for teaching me better.

As far as analyzing it and understanding it better, I might suggest fantasy. Images, stories, daydreams, whatever works for you; try it on for size there. Fantasy obviously isn't the real world, but even figuring out "Ok, that's a hot story but I'd never want to do that in real life," has given me a much better sense of my own boundaries, likes, and dislikes.

[Literata]

Josh - thanks for pointing out that I was oversimplifying transhumanism. I apologize! Can I say that I love your idealism and am also glad that you're not busy putting it into practice just yet? (If you're working towards it, fair enough; I just mean that I'm sort of glad we don't have a magic wand to do some of those things yet, especially for reasons Froborr mentioned.)

[AnaMardoll]

Hello surprisingly risque Mandalay Bay banner ad!

Jumping ahead to thank Ross for pointing that out and making me laugh -- I was wondering about that, too. :D

I'm sure someone has already brought up the Kinsey Scale, but I am very much in favor of a sliding scale of gender attraction. I've never understood why our culture wants and expects everyone to be 100% gay or 100% straight.

I do think that for many people, gender attraction isn't a choice and is something inherent to their biological nature. (Separated twin studies, for example, tend to show similar gender preferences between twins, IIRC.) At the same time, gender attraction seems to have a malleable component as well, when you consider how much culture determines the expression of sexuality. There have been many examples of cultures that were more heavily homosexual or bisexual than modern American culture; I cannot believe that the major differences in self-identification among the populace are due *entirely* to DNA differences between the cultural inhabitants of each.

Then again, this isn't something I'm an expert on at all -- so maybe I should look around for some good books on the subject. :)

[Froborr]

AnaMardoll: I suspect it's somewhat similar to taste. Taste is partially hardwired (I have a gene that makes cilantro taste like soap; people who have this gene almost never like cilantro), but in large part acquired. You like foods that your culture presents as good, dislike foods that your culture presents as bad (the Norse found fish as abhorrent as Westerners typically find insects, for example). You like foods you associate with good memories and feelings, dislike foods you associate with bad (according to my Psych 101 textbook, if you throw up immediately after the first time you try a food, you are almost certain to dislike the food forever after, it's pretty much *the* fastest-learned, hardest-to-change aversion).

I suspect sexual attraction works much the same way: partially hardwired, learned from there.

[Froborr]

Literata: Thanks for the hugs.

I may just try out the fantasy thing... it's pretty weird and awkward, though.

[ManWithDuckonHead (MWDH)]

@AnaMardoll:
I've never understood why our culture wants and expects everyone to be 100% gay or 100% straight.
I always thought it was because of our need to organize and compartmentalize. Like Riley says on Buffy season 4 finale "Restless":

Riley: We're drawing up a plan for world domination. The key element? Coffee makers that think.

...wait, that's not right...

Riley: Buffy, we've got important work here. A lot of filing, giving things names.

Of course, there's also the aspect of Adam there as well, but the show does focus a good deal on people getting too caught up in naming things and compartmentalizing to make this easier to understand, human sexuality most definitely being among them.

[Literata]

Froborr, your Psych 101 textbook is right, in my experience. Hugs anytime, and yeah, playing with unusual-for-you fantasies can be weird and awkward, but it's easier and in a lot of ways safer than trying to explore while coping with a social situation at the same time.

[AnaMardoll]

I suspect sexual attraction works much the same way: partially hardwired, learned from there.

I do think this makes the most sense for my own personal experiences. It's such a touchy subject, though; another commenter pointed out her frustration at being a bi woman -- if she says she likes men, then people will claim that she's hetero and "fixed". I can imagine that would be VERY frustrating indeed!

(I have a gene that makes cilantro taste like soap; people who have this gene almost never like cilantro)

OK, that is just plain fascinating. Husband HATES cilantro, but never called it soap-like. Must experiment further.

I always thought it was because of our need to organize and compartmentalize.

True, but Kinseying is nicely compatible with compartments -- it's a scale of 1-6, and even with a 0 tacked on the end for asexuality, that's not THAT many compartments... I wonder if it's not more an othering thing? If you're in a highly heterosexist mentality, it may be easier to classify non-hetero people as "all gay" instead of "partially gay" because if "partially gay" (i.e., scaled sexuality) is possible THEN IT MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOU TOO.

Maybe? I'm not sure I expressed that well at all, but I can see how a heterosexist person might see bisexuality as very threatening.

[Brin]

Re: shapeshifting

I don't much care about the appearance stuff, eye colour and such. A Swiss Army hand and a pair of wings I can retract when they get in the way? Sign me up. If it causes me to lose the capacity for fine details and end up looking like Odo, that's a price probably worth paying.

Re: sexuality not fitting into little boxes

Greater awareness would be nice. If Mom had known there were more options besides straight and gay, conversations with her might have been enough to make me realise the things I've taken as evidence of my heterosexuality are somewhat ambiguous but mostly platonic. Would've saved an argument or three, plus increasing peace of mind.

[ManWithDuckonHead (MWDH)]

@Froborr: I did not know that.

So I Googled it to find out more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/dining/14curious.html

We humans are so bloody fascinating.

[Dav]

Maybe? I'm not sure I expressed that well at all, but I can see how a heterosexist person might see bisexuality as very threatening.

Also, you can't identify bisexual people strictly based on our current relationship. We're like ninjas - we could be anyone! Wait, maybe that's spies. We're like spies.

So even if your son/daughter/wife/husband/best friend is displaying "appropriate romantic attachments" to the opposite sex, if you're heterosexist, you still can't stop worrying about them because they could "turn" gay at any moment.

This is deeply alarming, especially to people who feel safe because they identify non-straight people as single conflations of sexuality and gender, and easily identifiable by their unusual gender performance and actions.

I would like to try out various bodies. I'm practicing fat acceptance and more or less happy where I am, but it would be interesting to feel what it's like to run in a runner's body, or be able to reach things on the middle or upper shelf of my cabinets. And it would be interesting, if terrifying, to experience a more highly sexual body, or a pregnant body, or for that matter, a few extra vertebrae for those yoga poses.

[Dav]

Also, I definitely have that cilantro gene. I have something similar with lovage, actually. Anyone with the soap gene ever try lovage?

[ManWithDuckonHead (MWDH)]

To make matters worse, you have people like Marcus Bachmann who run centers where they say they can "cure away the gay".

Though I must admit, I rather like Jon Stewart's assessment: "Does he cure it or is he like the Green Mile guy and he just absorbs it all?"

[Josh (who currently posts from within the body of an uplifted magpie. Wings are bad for typing).]

@ Froborr: Well, reintroducing animals in the native ecosystem can be bad. That's probably the reason why I would want them uplifted to human level intelligence, first. That way, it'd arguably be no worse than introducing humans into a new ecosystem ;)

@ Literata: That's alright. If you're interested in learning more about transhumanism, the Wikipedia article is a good place to start. There are those who think that mind-uploading is an impossibility given the complexity of the human mind. I'm inclined to disagree, but it's a very real possibility. As for putting into practice - nay. I'm an English major. Only good for theory, not practice. I just watch and wait :)

@AnnMardoll - I suspect that's about it: the loud screams of protest against the existence of bisexuals is probably based on the fact that if they admit bisexuals exist, then they'll be forced to look inward and see that they themselves might be bisexual. And that puts a big dent in the Machismo promoted by the Patriarchy. I suspect that all but a few people are bisexual to some degree - it's just a matter of finding that right someone of the same sex. Some are just far more bisexual than others.

[AnaMardoll]

@ Froborr: Well, reintroducing animals in the native ecosystem can be bad. That's probably the reason why I would want them uplifted to human level intelligence, first. That way, it'd arguably be no worse than introducing humans into a new ecosystem ;)

Why would human intelligence make them any less predatory? o.O

:)

[Josh (Proud graudate of Mad Scientists U with a Minor in FOR SCIENCE!!).]

@ AnaMardoll: Hehe... okay, so maybe I lied just a little...

I did get my Minor at Mad Scientist U. :)

But you guys haven't even seen me talk about neogenetics yet and uplifting neogenetic dragons and such. Probably because it'd be taking this thread WAAAAY off-topic.

(actually, the biology at play here: if you remake them with turkey DNA, they'll be considerably less aggressive than if you remake them with eagle DNA. They'll still be predatory, but it'd be possible to socialize them into knowing that "sapient creature" =!= "food". In fact, it'd be easier to socialize them if they were sapient than it would if they were not, in the same way we socialize humans into seeing other humans as "not food.")

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I'd never heard of cilantro before, though I had heard of coriander. I've heard that some people are genetically wired to find broccoli very bitter. I rather like it.

Greta Christina has written about bisexuality and labels. She remarked that it's not only your attraction scale that matters, but the relative importance you put on those attractions. If you are, say, 85% straight, 15% gay, the labels "straight", "bisexual", and "bi-curious" are all valid. Pick the one that makes sense to you. If you tend to ignore that 15%, you'll probably call yourself "straight", or perhaps "bi-curious". If the 15% is important to you, you're more likely to pick "bisexual". And that's fine.

Another woman I read somewhere spoke about how it took her a while to realise she was bi. She was attracted to men, but she also noticed good-looking women. But she thought, at first, that she'd just absorbed the male gaze from all the advertising and other overt sexualisation of women in our culture. It took her a while to realise that she actually was attracted to women. It can be complicated.

TRiG.

[Literata, who still likes Lovecraft]

Josh, as long as you didn't graduate from Miskatonic U, I think we're okay.

[ManWithDuckonHead (MWDH) who is currently reading "Festival" and about to start "He"]

Josh, as long as you didn't graduate from Miskatonic U, I think we're okay.

Uhh... I'll be right back. I just have some, uhh, documents to destroy.

[Josh Enigma - The Reanimator!]

@Literata:

Does studying under Herbert West count? ;)

[Froborr]

I don't see how mind-uploading *can* be impossible, if we assume arbitrarily fast processors and arbitrarily large storage and active memory. I mean, the mind is the brain, so a sufficiently accurate brain emulator would also be the mind.

[Literata, who still likes Lovecraft]

Definitely. (Edges away slowly.)

[Literata, who still likes Lovecraft]

Froborr, that assumes that the mind is isolated in the brain. Since I don't believe that, you have to allow for a full body emulator. That's possible with arbitrarily large resources, but then you run into the lack of chaos problem that you raised earlier.

[Froborr]

@Literata: Point. Full-body simulator.

[Dav]

Josh: But sweet merciful Moriarty, if you use goose DNA, we're all doomed.

[Caryb]

Why would human intelligence make them any less predatory? o.O

It certainly hasn't made US any less predatory. We're such good predators most of us don't even have to hunt.

[hapax]

Hapax, I would love to pick your brain some time about your Neo-Platonism.

Anytime. The real problem is getting me to shut up.

Here's an interesting intersection with the original post's topic: if you could spend a day as a different sex and/or gender, or with a different orientation (without losing any current relationship(s)), would you do it?

Possibly. I'm as inquisitive as any other monkey, and yes, I do sometimes feel trapped withing the prison of my own skull. But...

...maybe not. And if I did, I'm pretty sure I would HATE the experience. I have a very strong conviction of the way my Self is shaped by the interaction between my soul / spirit and its physical container, and I'd feel either like I was wearing supremely ill-fitting, itchy, and ugly clothes, or -- if I didn't feel that way -- I would feel like my very identity had been temporarily erased.

Not a pleasant thing to contemplate.

@ Hapax - on uplifting: why shouldn't we give them a chance to live like us?

Because I can't see any way to ensure meaningful consent. The assumption is that any species would *want* to "live like us" -- I don't see it, myself. I know an awful lot of "us" who are pretty unhappy, and that's with the bodies and and sentience they were born to. To assume that other species would leap at that, just because *you* would, sets off all sorts of well-meaning arrogance alarm bells for me.

[Heart]

@Cary. Heck, we're probably the only species who has single handily begun a mass extinction event with our actions. That puts us up there with asteroids and oxygen as menaces to life on earth.

[hapax]

@Froborr, I have no good advice except to agree with everyone that fantasy is a good place to explore alternate attractions.

I don't know anything about your relationship, and I don't have a degree even as an Internet Psychiatrist (TM), but is fantasy play something you are comfortable with enacting with your fiancee? Even approaching it from the viewpoint of "Honey, I know that you're into yaoi, would you like to see how this works as play?"

Her reaction -- positive or negative -- might surprise you. At least this could give you the opportunity to move the subject into the category of Our Private Business Which We Don't Talk About In Front Of Other People.

Or... You write, am I remembering correctly? Have you tried a first person story? Maybe giving it to her to read?

These are just some ideas. As I said, though, I would find some way to bring the subject up. I think keeping secrets about what turns you on in an intimate relationship runs an awful big chance of causing shame and repressed anger later on.

:-(

{{{hugs, if you want them}}}

[truth is life]

(the Norse found fish as abhorrent as Westerners typically find insects, for example)

Got a source? Because that sounds a bit improbable, as nautical as the Norse generally were and as impoverished as Scandinavia is in terms of good agricultural circumstances.

I don't see how mind-uploading *can* be impossible, if we assume arbitrarily fast processors and arbitrarily large storage and active memory. I mean, the mind is the brain, so a sufficiently accurate brain emulator would also be the mind.

There actually are physical (thermodynamical and relativistic) limits on how fast a processor can run and how dense storage can be. However, these limits are absurdly large and in any case it's obvious actual human bodies and humans brains don't come anywhere close to them.

Because I can't see any way to ensure meaningful consent. The assumption is that any species would *want* to "live like us" -- I don't see it, myself. I know an awful lot of "us" who are pretty unhappy, and that's with the bodies and and sentience they were born to. To assume that other species would leap at that, just because *you* would, sets off all sorts of well-meaning arrogance alarm bells for me.

Well, that's why I would be for a soft, slow process that, you know, asks dolphins or parrots or what not if they want to be uplifted (it would also have to rely mainly on genetic engineering instead of, say, cramming skulls full of circuitry and effectively running a meat AI, but that's a given). There's also the counter-claim--how do you know that they wouldn't want to be uplifted? It's unanswerable without some, well, uplifting.

[truth is life]

Putting it differently, we don't ask for babies to give meaningful consent before being born, for obvious reasons. Similarly, while it may not be possible for uplifts to give consent prior to the beginning of the uplift process, provided that process is being conducted in an ethical manner and the individuals and community in question are involved in their uplift process in the most deeply engaged possible level at the earliest possible time, I don't see any ethical problems with uplift.

[Laiima]

perhaps dolphins or parrots would consider "uplifting" to be getting us (humans) to think more like them.

[Laiima]

But I'm also with Literata in thinking that human thought processes are embodied, not just originating in our brains, so I don't see how this stuff could work unless that's taken into account.

[Leum]

One argument against mind uploading I read (don't remember where) was that there would be pressure to streamline out brains to particular functions, discarding parts of our minds as impractical or frivolous.

On bisexuality, I identify as gay, even though I am attracted sexually to some women. I could identify as biromantic, however.

[Froborr]

Thank you, hapax, for both the ideas and the hugs.

[hapax]

Putting it differently, we don't ask for babies to give meaningful consent before being born, for obvious reasons.

Yes, but unborn babies don't have meaningful existences.

You are assuming that the lives of non-uplifted species are as meaningless as non-existence.

I'd ... find it difficult to make that assumption ethically.

Reading assignment for further discussion: WE3, by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely.

(chosen because I think it could offer evidence for both sides of the argument)

[truth is life]

But I'm also with Literata in thinking that human thought processes are embodied, not just originating in our brains, so I don't see how this stuff could work unless that's taken into account.

Even if that's true, it's not a significant impediment. It's obviously possible to "simulate" a human body and all of its functions in a volume the size of a human body (duh), which is not all that large in the greater scheme of things. The main problem is being able to *simulate* everything, which (speaking from a limited amount of practical experience) is certainly quite a challenge.

[truth is life]

Yes, but unborn babies don't have meaningful existences.

You are assuming that the lives of non-uplifted species are as meaningless as non-existence.

This seems like a highly questionable assumption, at least in the late pregnancy. Surely almost-born babies have at least some degree of meaningful experience? (I mean, like 7 months or 8 months or 9 months) There's not a switch that flips when the baby crowns that changes it from non-existence to fully meaningful existence, surely?

I would analogize to that period, not to the "oh, the egg just implanted" stage. We still don't ask nearly-born children to give consent to being born; in fact, we don't ask children to give consent to much of anything, period, and, again, I find it difficult to believe that (say) a toddler or a kindergartner has a less meaningful experience of reality than a parrot or chimpanzee. (Quite the contrary, I would expect that their experiences are fairly similar at different periods of life)

WE3

See, while I haven't read read that (and am not likely to anytime soon, eying my unread pile), going by the Wikipedia page there's one big problem there: Animal weapons. That doesn't fit my ethical guidelines, full stop. There's no way you're going to fill my criteria of the subjects involved being as deeply involved as possible as early as possible with a weapons program.

[Froborr]

Well, yes, mind-uploading is theoretically possible, but as a practical matter it requires FAR more advanced understanding of both human bodies and how to build computers than we currently have.

As for whether it's desirable, well, that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

[Froborr]

Also keep in mind, we're talking genetic engineering here, so we're dealing with unborn animals.

[storiteller]

A set of interesting SF books addressing the idea of uplift is John Scalzi's Old Man's War series. There's a species in it who were uplifted by another alien species with high intelligence but not consciousness. The species doing the uplifting thinks the lack thereof is an ideal to be achieved; the uplifted species wants consciousness more than anything else in the galaxy. So you could end up with an issue like that.

[Leum]

What does it mean to have intelligence but not consciousness? I can get an idea, but that idea doesn't allow for the possibility of wanting anything.

[P J Evans]

TRiG, in the US, at least, 'cilantro' is usually referring to the leaves, and 'coriander' to the seeds. (I think cilantro tastes a little odd, but I like it.)

[P J Evans]

storiteller, I think the classic 'uplift' series is by David Brin. I
I'd also suggest Grease Monkey by Tim Eldred. It's a graphic novel, but not quite the kind you might expect.

[hapax]

Also keep in mind, we're talking genetic engineering here, so we're dealing with unborn animals.

Okay, I'll give an example:

You are aware of the whole issue about cochlear implants for deaf babies, right, and the whole question about whether parents have the right to make that decision for their children, the impact on Deaf culture, etc.?

The people who developed the treatment were taken completely aback by the controversy. It never *occurred* to them that making these children "like us", making the decision to bestow the "gift" of hearing, might not be automatically and universally viewed as an unquestioned Good Thing.

Well, let's take it a step further, and say, "Hey, we're going to genetically engineer Deaf parents so they all have hearing babies!"

It might be a good decision. It might be a bad decision. It certainly would be an ethically complex, controversial decision.

It would be inconceivable to make such a decision without soliciting and giving enormous weight to members of the Deaf community. (Or at least, so I hope!)

How on earth are you going to solicit that kind of input from the members of the non-uplifted parrot or dolphin community?

Or do we just assume that because *we* value sentience, *all* creatures surely must?

I suspect my dog, if she could articulate an opinion, would think that *I* would be much better off if I were relieved of all those pesky concerns and worries, and could operate on pure instinct instead!

[Nev]

Intelligence without consciousness: obligatory mention of Blindsight, which (imho) tackled this problem much better than the OMW books.

I find it hard myself to conceive of wanting divorced from self-awareness. Maybe it's like the state I get in sometimes when very hungry or dehydrated; I'm definitely "out of it" and not thinking coherently but almost automatically I can steer myself towards a corner store and get something to eat or drink.

On the actual topic: I traded "bisexual" for "pansexual" or just plain "queer" a long time ago, because they encompass a wider spectrum of gender. In my particular milieu people tend to use "queer" and (to me, at least) it doesn't connote "solely attracted to one's own gender", but rather an openness to all of them.

[Josh Enigma (If an uplifted parrot is an Neo-Avian, does that make an uplifted ape a Human?)]

Oh wow. I've opened up a can of worms. I love it - this is honestly the first time I've gotten a chance to explain my transhumanist views and my philosophical positions.

@ Permission to uplift: Truth is Life beat me to my point. You can't know if you can't ask. And the only way to ask would to be uplift. It's sort of like what was going on in David Brin's Uplift series. You had to ask the species whether or not they wanted you as a patron first. Naturally, you only took species that were fairly close to being human to begin with.

I'm not sure how you guys feel about derailing threads like this (I feel this is a good enough spot to ask), but my experience in other forums is that it's highly, highly frowned upon. I've gotten shouted (well, not shouted at, but frowned at) for derailing threads in other forums. Maybe I could write an article on transhumanism instead? Of course, if you don't mind, I don't mind. I just feel really strange continuing to help take the attention away from the main piece like this.

[MercuryBlue]

We derail ourselves all the time, so don't worry about it, but I gotta admit to being a little surprised by how quickly this thread derailed, so yes, please, write an article on transhumanism.

[MaryKaye]

Maybe this is too much information, but I have a suggestion for gender-bending eroticism (with a well-trusted partner):

A lot of things become easier to try if you take the approach that tonight, A is making love to B, for B's benefit. I think couples often miss out on trying interesting things because it seems like the payoff is to only one person. But if you are going to be together for a while you can balance that out.

My spouse makes a sweet Japanese woman, with some appropriate costuming, and if he keeps the genitalia out of play he's very convincing. Wouldn't want to do that all the time because it's not the most satisfying form of lovemaking for him, but then again his favorite isn't the most satisfying for me either. But we have decades, we can *take turns.*

We can also try a "would it be sexy if--?" scenario, accepting that sometimes the answer is "Whoops, no!" (It is good to have a safeword for this situation, even if there's no bondage involved, because the line between sexy and icky can be somewhat fine.)

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Slacktivist and The Slacktiverse are pretty okay with topic drift, but don't embrace it quite as readily as h2g2, where conversations are usually drifting off around the third post.

TRiG.

[truth is life]

Somewhat relevant to the current discussion: Apparently, some species of parrots essentially "name" their children. Source Something pretty interesting, I thought.

[Lonespark]

Hey, invisible queerish seekrit handshake.
(We're like ninjas: we could be anybody! No, wait, that's spies...)

[Lonespark]

Also, I used to be really proud to identify as a straight ally. And then I slowly realized I wasn't straight at all and I felt kind of bad because allies are so important. It's vaguely like how I used to be proud of being an open-minded Christian supportive of minority religions and then wait, no, not actually Christian at all, sorry.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Well, reintroducing animals in the native ecosystem can be bad. That's probably the reason why I would want them uplifted to human level intelligence, first. That way, it'd arguably be no worse than introducing humans into a new ecosystem ;)

Well, as Caryb and Heart pointed out, that hasn't worked out so well either...

One argument against mind uploading I read (don't remember where) was that there would be pressure to streamline out brains to particular functions, discarding parts of our minds as impractical or frivolous.

Personally, I think people should be allowed to customize their brains however they want, as well as their bodies. It's not like the human brain is a perfect thing as-is. So long as there's an option included for people to keep all the wiring problems a flesh-and-blood brain has if they want to, let everyone else get the brain-boosts and hacks they want.

Intelligence without consciousness: obligatory mention of Blindsight, which (imho) tackled this problem much better than the OMW books.

Ohhh yeah. Peter Watts is pretty much my go-to author for this kind of thing. Of course, he's also the author about whom James Nicoll (one of my favorite literary critics) said, "Whenever I find my will to live becoming too strong, I read Peter Watts." Of course, that's another point in Watts's favor for me...

He also wrote the best piece on the BP oil spill I've ever read. WARNING: Depressing as hell (that link essentially proves Nicoll's assertion).

But re: consciousness/intelligence, a new theory was made a couple years after Blindsight came out, that Watts linked to on his blog, suggesting a much better reason for sentience: It helps regulate conflicting orders between subconscious systems. That's a wonderful explanation, it resolves many of the conundrums in Blindsight, and so on.

[Julezyme]

Here's an interesting intersection with the original post's topic: if you could spend a day as a different sex and/or gender, or with a different orientation (without losing any current relationship(s)), would you do it?

Yes yes yes!!!!! Sadly, when I try to go drag king, the best I can do is drag prince. All the testosterone in my body went to my brain, I guess, leaving me pretty neotenous, even for a cis-chica.

[Julezyme]

Froborr:
1) Yes, cilantro totally tastes like soap! Soapy coconut. Do you also get a soapy taste with rosemary??
2) Perhaps to a lesser extent, now that I am older, but I sympathize with the social problems unless "in character". Giving talks at work? Love. Acting/singing onstage? Love love love. Sound of own voice reverberating through microphone? Hell yes! But - my wedding? Ghastly crippling discomfort. Because the person at the center of that attention was Me, bare and armorless, rather than Scientist or Character. So, yeah.

I hope you can talk to your gf about your sexuality. If you explain why the yaoi stuff bugs you, I'm sure it would make sense. Maybe she is unconsciously winding you up, like pressing on a sore spot, bc she intuits this on some level?

[Julezyme]

I have a very strong conviction of the way my Self is shaped by the interaction between my soul / spirit and its physical container,

Me too. Most of all when I'm having a protracted migraine prodrome* and I can't think properly because
I am trapped in/AM this thing that doesn't work right when the air pressure drops.

*or a body dysmorphic episode.