you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlanJam 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

From what I've seen, many of them go with everyone is pansexual. I've even heard some say sexuality is a social construct, and if we abolished gender, sexuality wouldn't exist either. And funny enough, they use the same examples for their arguments. According to them, since you can't tell someone's gender, then you could be attracted to anyone, hence you must be pan. If a lesbian liked ellen page before she became elliot, she must really be bi. Not all of them think this way of course, but it seems somewhat common? Not totally uncommon at least.

[–]adungitit 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

According to them, since you can't tell someone's gender, then you could be attracted to anyone, hence you must be pan.

This is just one of those things that baffle me, like...just the logic behind it...I mean even aside from the creepy rapey parts, the idea that if you trick a person that you're something you're not and that you're actually something they prefer, that it means their preferences aren't real. It's like if a person wore a troll mask, and then took it off, and if anyone thought they were attractive, that this means either that they're lying or that they're actually attracted to trolls.

[–]FlanJam 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My favorite is when they say since you can't tell someone's chromosomes/genitals by looking at them, attraction to sex doesn't actually exist. Its just so silly and pedantic, idk how to even respond to something like that.

[–]adungitit 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Respond that you can't tell anyone's DNA either, and yet people seem to consistently target their attraction to humans instead of other animals.