birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
@w01fg4ng
I don't like "conventionally" (is that a better word?) attractive men/women. I agree. I don't think there is an objective measure. It's just an imperfect term I've heard before and figured it would communicate reasonably well what I was trying to get across.
This is getting a bit weird for me.
So ugly people are "privileged" and pretty people are "privileged"... and white people are "privileged", and black people are "privileged"...
Seems like pretty much everybody is privileged?
I can't think of any advantages of being gay or trans, but they must also exist in at least one other privilege category.
I don't like "conventionally" (is that a better word?) attractive men/women. I agree. I don't think there is an objective measure. It's just an imperfect term I've heard before and figured it would communicate reasonably well what I was trying to get across.
cduggles said:attractiveness also attracts unsavory types, too.
This is getting a bit weird for me.
So ugly people are "privileged" and pretty people are "privileged"... and white people are "privileged", and black people are "privileged"...
Seems like pretty much everybody is privileged?
I can't think of any advantages of being gay or trans, but they must also exist in at least one other privilege category.