Hope this clarifies things somewhat.
Nope. Not at all.
Not one thing I said has anything to do with the things you just said. Which raises the question of why addressed any of this as reply to my comments at all. I stated that to discuss the causes of Marten's current sexuality was clangy. You defended it as not clangy. I illustrated exactly why there's an issue. To repeat, if a queer person's sexuality were given the same treatment it would be problematic at best.
If you aren't going to discuss what makes someone's orientation--which
I just pointed as being THE problem--why defend that discussion?
Who said your point was discussion of Claire's genitals? I said you were defending a point using logic that could be applied to Claire. If it doesn't justify a discussion of Claire, it doesn't justify a discussion of the causes of Marten's sexuality. Goose v. Gander, et al.
I could go on, but I won't. Talking past doesn't begin to capture the situation. If anything I'd said could reasonably be construed to run counter to anything you've said in this post, I guess there might be a point.
Whether people like to think about sex is irrelevant. The link I posted in response to Bucky says all that needs saying on the subject--assuming the subject even applies to Marten.
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1024Just because it's fun to think about doesn't mean it's a proper subject of discussion--especially vis-a-vis Marten's childhood. Marten has as much stated everything anyone needs to know to understand anything that might be relevant, if there's anything relevant.
That's... literally totally not relevant to what I was saying.
You said:
I get a little militant on that point, because too many men are shamed by their friends and peers, and have their heterosexuality and identity questioned or mocked, if they date or sleep with a trans woman. It not only keeps too many of my sisters cold on lonely nights, it can also be a major driver for violence against us.
To define, or attempt to redefine "straight" in the manner you suggest creates exactly the issue I pointed out. It leads, ultimately, to situation where those who don't conform to that definition are open to being mocked or otherwise shat upon for something that isn't in their control.
I did not say you advocated anything. I pointed out the consequences of the idea.
The problem is not in how whatever label you choose is defined. The problem is that people feel justified in using emotional and physical violence when someone fails to fit into their personal definitions of what those labels mean. Frankly, no one has any right to question anyone else's sexuality. If Marten being straight--which isn't something I recall him actually saying--is an issue for someone, given how little we actually know, I'd say that someone has a personal problem and should keep it personal. First, Marten isn't real. Second, if he were, it's no one's business what he gets up to except for the consenting adults he gets up to it with.
If we knew something that made the question of penes that are not part of Marten Reed relevant, it's still no one's business, and anyone having issue with whether Marten continued to label himself straight would be doing so out butthurt that Marten wasn't using their definition.
That's kinda pathetic. But it's patheticness isn't exactly the point. The point is, it's that butthurt that leads to the negative consequences you describe.
There's no slippery slope argument about a world where people with hetero-genital attraction are vilified and have to hide in closets. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that what is attracted to, and how a person goes about defining that attraction is pretty much individual to that person. I pointed out the issue of interest in the equipment in order to show how the idea expressed fell short of the intent. I then expressed a different idea--namely that everyone should mind their own damned business about sexual orientation--which I believe doesn't fall short.
I don't expect anyone to mind their own business. I'm a realist. But the fact that people don't costs lives. And that's a terrible thing.
Of course, the list of terrible things is long, and the general obstinance of humanity in clinging to that list makes me want to slit my fucking wrists. But that's not really on topic.
Someone wrote that their sexuality is none of our business, which I absolutely do not understand. They're fictional characters, there for us to discuss and relate to. Unless they are direct representations of real people that Jeph knows, there is no harm in asking about any of it.
Discouraging debate seems very counter productive to me.
Claire's private parts are fictional. It is the policy of this board that they aren't open for discussion. Claire is, to our knowledge, not a representation of any real person.
There are reasons Claire's equipment list is topic non-grata. I'm not going into them. But those reasons do apply to discussions relating to why a person's sexual orientation is what it is. They probably apply more deeply, but I've only been talking about that part of it, so that's the part I'm going to stick with.
There's a long and storied history of terrible things being done because people believe sexuality can be traced back to root cause. That belief is a bad thing.
I see no issue is wonder IF Marten is straight or bi or something else, at least until Marten unequivocally chooses a label. At that point I see no isse in wondering and discussing what that label means to Marten. But I see a fairly large issue in trying to define why Marten is whatever Marten is, unless Marten opens the door for that discussion.
Why give a fictional character that level of agency? Practice. How you treat a fictional character influences how you treat real people. We aren't talking about something as black and white as murder. Most of us know that killing the video game character is not practice for killing real people. Most of us have strong counter urges against murdering people. But respecting the sexuality of others doesn't have the same level of internal rejection. It's not something we practice. Given that the majority of (basically) heterosexual people is so vast, many of us will not get a lot of real world practice. But fiction let's us meet different kinds of people than we might otherwise. It's just good policy to practice on them.
Especially when that fiction puts you in a forum of fans, because odds are people who are like those fictional people will be party to your discussions. Whether people who are trans "should" take discussion of Claire's equipment personally or not is beside the point. They are here, and they do. The same applies to anyone else who might find one of the characters representative.