Susan's Place Transgender Resources

What kind of world do you think it would be like if things were reversed and straight cisgender male and female folks were the minority? What do you think would be the same, and what would be different on a world like that?

Gah, Liam beat me to it. The human race would dwindle, but it would be a nice world. Plus, overpopulation isn't exactly the best thing ever, so it's not exactly the worst thing ever for the population would go down.

A really good thing though is that gay people will have an easier time. With only 10% of the population being gay (if we buy into statistics), then if a gay person wants to pick someone up, he/she has a 90% chance of being very embarrassed.  :-\

You would see preachers on tv proclaiming this, "It's Adam and Steve NOT Adam and Eve!"  ;D

Yeah i was wondering if there would be "straight parades" and "equal rights" movements and it would kind of remind me of the movie with John Travolta in it

White Man's Burden (1995)
The story takes place in alternative America where the blacks are members of social elite, and whites are inhabitants of inner city ghettos... See full...
Directed by Desmond Nakano. Starring John Travolta, Harry Belafonte.

There is actual "some" people who hate straight people and are straitaphobic so I wonder. This would make for an interesting way to ask a straight cisgender person how they would feel and how would they react. Once your a minority it changes your outlook.

Nah. In such a world, straight people would be fine.

We're the good guys after all!! :D

I apologize if this kills the imagination of the thread, but I think some math is in order, because 80% isn't really that large.

I mean, forget looking at a world where gays outnumber heterosexuals and TSs outnumber people whose gender matches assigned sex.  Let's just put them even for the moment, with a substantial share who don't fit neatly into the "extremes."

Gender matches declared sex: 40%
TS: 40%
Intersex or non-binary gender: 20%

Hetero (among gender binary population): 40%
Gay (among gender binary population): 40%
Bi/pan/etc (among gender binary population): 20%

I'm going to assume that gender/sex congruity has no correlation with sexual orientation.  That is, someone is just as likely to be "straight" if they are TS as if their gender matches the declared sex.  In this event, the probability of a person being both straight and gender-matching-sex would be:

P(both) = P(first) * P(second) = 0.4 * 0.4 = 0.16 = 16%

This is to say that 16% of the population would be non-LGBTI (most of that T, anyway), which is already placing LGBTQQI at 84%, with the QQ crowd still not fully factored in.  As such, 80% is generally not capable of flipping the discrimination roles (it would be mathematically possible for gays/lesbians significantly outnumber heteroseuxals to achieve the 80% number, but the other dimensions would give rise to the traditional minorities).

The basic math trick involved here is that someone ends up as LGBTQQI by merely possessing at least one letter (a "big tent" approach that gives someone multiple ways of getting in), whereas not being a LGBTQQI requires exactly no letters match (which gives someone only one way in).  If all ways are equal in proportion, then LGBTQQI gets a really high percent simply by controlling almost all the combinations, whereas not-LGBTQQI only gets one.

(I'll probably reply later regarding the intended purpose of the thread, but I needed to get this particular math observation off my chest.)

Quote from: Liam Erik on January 11, 2013, 10:49:25 PM
I imagine the birth rate would plummet.

I imagine it wouldn't - because LGBTQQI people are just as likely to want kids (and just as capable of having them, with a little extra negotiation compared to straight-cis couples) - and in a world where the majority of people are LGBTQQI, the lack of stigma would be one less thing in the way of their wanting to be parents. I imagine it would just be normal to negotiate parenting between whoever were going to be the two progenitors, and I imagine more polyamorous or extended-family setups being the norm. Since we're imagining :).
I also think there are so many bi people around, it might not be far off already ;D.

Quote from: Padma on January 12, 2013, 07:02:07 PM
I imagine it wouldn't - because LGBTQQI people are just as likely to want kids

That may be true, but who would make those kids? Trans people often become sterile, and gays can't reproduce because of, well... biology. In order to keep the birth rate up, the bi and straight individuals would have to keep having more kids to make up the deficit, maybe even 8 per set of parents, which might not be desired.

Um, gay people are quite capable of having kids, they just aren't attracted to the opposite sex and so won't be romantically involved with their kids' other progenitor. In a world where being non-straight/cis is the norm, I imagine people would be quite used to negotiating parenting with each other (I have a gay male friend who's father to a boy with two mums, for example, and that works fine for all concerned).

I meant that they can't have kids with each other.  :P

Besides, I never heard of a gay person fornicating with someone of the opposite sex to have a kid, so that's news to me.

Human nature being what it is, the minority of the people would still be treated unfairly by the majority. The fact that the groups would be essentially reversed doesn't make it taste any better.

Well, I have more faith in people than you, apparently, Devlyn.  :P

Quote from: DianaP on January 12, 2013, 07:35:58 PM
I meant that they can't have kids with each other.  :P

Besides, I never heard of a gay person fornicating with someone of the opposite sex to have a kid, so that's news to me.

Formication is not a prerequisite for egg and sperm meeting and making friends :). Lesbian women, for example, have been doing the turkey baster thing for longer than there have been turkey basters... All it needs is a fertile male and female (or intersex equivalents) willing to participate in making a baby. Sexuality isn't relevant.

Quote from: Padma on January 12, 2013, 07:44:19 PM
Formication is not a prerequisite for egg and sperm meeting and making friends :).

But it's the easiest and least expensive way.  :P

Quote from: Padma on January 12, 2013, 07:44:19 PM
Lesbian women, for example, have been doing the turkey baster thing for longer than there have been turkey basters... .

What in tarnation?

Quote from: DianaP on January 12, 2013, 07:46:12 PM
What in tarnation?

Google is your friend :).
http://www.therainbowbabies.com/At-HomeInsemination.html

I'm learning so much, and all I can say is, "Ow, my innocence!  :icon_nervious:"

Idk, both sexes would go to war with each other!

...leaving us non-binary folks to rule the planet ;D.

Quote from: ~RoadToTrista~ on January 12, 2013, 08:15:16 PM
Idk, both genders would go to war with each other!

Ok, I know I may get a lot of heat for this, but I honestly would not want to be on the female side if such a thing happened.  :o

The ironic irony of reading "both genders" in a LGBTQIA thread on this site!

Quote from: DianaP on January 12, 2013, 07:59:26 PM
I'm learning so much, and all I can say is, "Ow, my innocence!  :icon_nervious:"

Glad to see it's gradually evaporating.

Quote from: Elspeth on January 12, 2013, 08:45:27 PM
Glad to see it's gradually evaporating.

I'd prefer to keep as much of it as possible, thank you very much.  :P

Quote from: DianaP on January 12, 2013, 07:15:08 PM
That may be true, but who would make those kids? Trans people often become sterile, and gays can't reproduce because of, well... biology.

You're assuming, in a world where transfolk were more predominant, that there would still be the same desire for chemical and surgical alterations that exists under present conditions. I can't say that it wouldn't still be that way, but I have to wonder whether the pressures to transform would be the same? We now live in a culture where expensive and risky procedures feel like they are necessities to people like us, yet there are cases in the historical record of societies where gender is not coercively assigned at birth, where the adaptations probably would not have been nearly as attractive, had they been available, since the cultures already supported their trans sisters and brothers by acknowledging them as their perceived gender from the time they declared it themselves.

There might be a lot more pressure for devising surgical procedures to make transwomen able to bear children, or perhaps transmen might feel less dysphoric about volunteering for pregnancy if they did not feel as embattled about identity. Maybe not. This is all hypothetical.

I think the discussion about costs and effectiveness might change a lot under these circumstances. And assuming there were still separate nations, those that developed cultures that encouraged the creation of stable families, education and nurture of children, would probably have a long term competitive advantage over others with different priorities and values. Coercive heterosexuality in Euro-Christian culture is probably not irrellevant to the development and success of modern industrialized societies, and a lot of that innovation came from minority religious groups that were marginalized, but also very heavily dedicated to "being fruitful and multiplying."  In case anyone has forgotten, we just had a presidential candidate from one of those marginal subcultures, one that definitely pushes reproduction a lot harder than the mainstream culture does.

Well, all of these hypothetical loopholes make me think that this question is pointless. My head hurts.  :-\

nah not pointless, It is just food for thought, reversing the roles of how they are now, can give you insights.

Nonetheless, any point that is brought up is always countered with an assumption to counter a presumed assumption. Too many hypothetical twists! Gah!  :icon_headache: :icon_chainsaw:

I'm not convinced that gbltetc would do any better of a job at being a majority. But there would be a good chance that human cloning research would have already been advanced enough to make all the really vain ones happy and take care of any "eww, fornication with those people" kind of issues and the Department of the Interior would likely be the government agency with the biggest budget.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.necessaryroughness.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fthe-princess-bride-inconceivable.jpg&hash=35dd6ba808c8e970bd645202186ee868967e6dca)

QuoteNonetheless, any point that is brought up is always countered with an assumption to counter a presumed assumption

Gee now my head hurts too!

Quote from: Jaime on January 12, 2013, 09:26:59 PM
I'm not convinced that gbltetc would do any better of a job at being a majority.

There wouldn't be a majority.  Without a majority, people couldn't be divided into "the majority" vs. "everybody else", and there would be no reason for people to unite under an acronym.

Quote from: BlueSloth on January 13, 2013, 12:09:29 AM
There wouldn't be a majority.  Without a majority, people couldn't be divided into "the majority" vs. "everybody else", and there would be no reason for people to unite under an acronym.

I think its human nature to form majorities, all it takes is a common aspect of them besides just being human.