What is bisexual+? The 'evolution' of the word bisexual.

submitted by PeakingPeachEater from (self.Bisexuals)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]diapason 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I really hope "pansexual" is dying out lol, but this is even more annoying and pretentious IMO. The first article really doesn't make sense in its main point—if the idea that bisexuality is restrictive or limiting is a misconception, then why the "bisexual+" idea? Plus signs generally indicate 'expanding' a word's definition, so doesn't that just concede that just plain "bisexual" is limiting? And I disagree with the second article, sexual orientation has to do with sex and there are only two sexes, so bisexuality is already (potentially) inclusive of anyone regardless of their 'gender identity', since a person having a gender identity doesn't change their sex, so "bisexual+" is just unnecessary.

I really wish the attempts to make our sexual orientation "more inclusive" would just stop. Et tu, Merriam-Websters?

[–]PeakingPeachEater[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have another article showing how "problematic" Pansexuality is for the TQ+ crowd: The History and Troubling Present of the “Pansexual” Label.

Here's a small snippet of the article:

"Why it’s homo/biphobic: It reinforces the stereotype that gays and bisexuals as shallow and sex-obsessed.

Why it’s transphobic: It equates genders to genitals, which excuses transphobes who justify their aversion to transgender people by saying they only like penises or vaginas (as if there aren’t transgender men with penises and transgender women with vaginas).

Why it’s insulting to others: Everyone is attracted to personalities in some capacity. Nobody is only attracted to genitals⁠ and nothing else — arguably, quite a few aren’t attracted to them at all. Someone doesn’t need to see their prospective crush nude to develop feelings for them. Orientation is not inherently or solely sexual. It’s inaccurate and condescending to paint everyone else as sex-obsessed, or even act like such an obsession would be bad."

The woke are eating eachother alive with this stuff! I hope that this means they are somewhat self-aware of the riduculousness that they put out there. At this point, it seems like the TQ+ is molding/changing sexualities to fit their narrative. Since pansexuality doesn't work for them anymore, they're throwing away the term. They're trying to change it to where people who aren't interested in the TQ+ are transphobic since ALL sexualities are supposed to "fit" to the T's definition of things.

Originally, I only liked the "+" sign at the end of bisexual to differentiate us from them but...at the end of the day...it's just splitting hairs. Technically anyone from the LGB can be a TRA and the LG don't need/have extra terms for that, so the B shouldn't either. You're right.