all 16 comments

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So, even though I don't agree with the author because they're clearly part of the 'sexuality is about gender, not sex' group, they make very good points I do agree with.

[Pansexuality] implies that one needs a unique sexuality to be attracted to [trans/nonbinary people], and ignores the fact that many nonbinary people are bisexual. Some nonbinary people are also wo/men and it’s impossible to differentiate us from other wo/men with regards to sexuality. One may as well define their orientation as “attraction to people whose favorite color is red.”

Agreed. If you say TWAW and TMAM then you don't also get to make a new sexuality for people who are willing to date trans. Existing sexualities should suffice.

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.

Aside from the bit about orientation not being inherently sexual (it is inherently sexual, it's just not solely sexual), hard agree. Apart from the inconsistencies this is probably my biggest problem with most people who identify as pansexual. They act like they're better than everyone else just because they 'care about people, not just bodies.' Good for you, now get in line behind 90% of humanity. Some asexuals behave this way too, acting like they're better than everyone else because they don't care about sex. Okay, that's fine, no one wants to fuck you up on that high horse anyway.

I won't bother going through and taking apart all of the wokespeak that I take issue with, but those bits specifically I can get behind. Pan is just woke bi because people are so narcissistic nowadays they'll latch onto anything that makes them feel special.

Edited to add: demisexuality irks me for this reason too. You aren't special just because you need to get to know someone before becoming sexually aroused by them. It has the same 'no im not like those icky sex crazed normies' bullshit uwu energy as pan.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree with you too in regards to the Pansexuality narcissim/wokeness. What I found particularly interesting about the article is that the woke seems slightly conscious of the ridiculousness of their TQ+ stuff, but not completely.

What is TWAW and TMAM mean? Sorry, I don't know the lingo... :(

I was chatting with someone in regards to asexuality in the s/bisexuals thread and honestly...about asexuality---if they consider themselves "homoromantic" or "biromantic" then really they are homosexual or bisexuals that are voluntary celibate. I think the term asexual should be reserved for people who legitimently DON'T have ANY attraction to ANYONE.

Exactly, demisexual shouldn't exist either.

How do you feel about the new term bisexual+ as a bisexual person?

EDIT: lol I really like your flair btw! :D

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right. They're almost peaking but they refuse to let too much logic get in lol.

TWAW = "trans women are women", TMAM = "trans men are men"

I agree. I have a friend like that. Calls herself a 'bi ace' because she's (supposedly) a biromantic asexual, and I'm like these things are mutually exclusive. If you don't experience sexual attraction you aren't bisexual.

I don't hate bisexual+ as much as I hate pan or demi. It can be useful depending on the context. But I still think by definition it's unnecessary and shouldn't be pushed the way pansexuality is being pushed right now. I'm also weary of it being seen as the 'better, less bigoted' version of bi as it starts getting used. 'Regular' bisexual will be seen as not inclusive enough and won't earn people enough woke points so everyone has to identify as bisexual+. Just like how this whole pan thing happened in the first place. Bi wasn't woke enough, pan is the only politically correct sexuality in the eyes of TQ+.

And thanks! It was in response to this meme: https://imgur.com/a/ZKgO3e7 someone posted here a while back.

[–]deliciousdogfoodmy name isnt a puppyplay reference i swear 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was wondering which limb the woque would cannibalize next.

[–]pacmanla 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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).

Is this person serious??? Please end this madness. I can't believe anyone sane would go along & support this nonsense. Transgendered men with "penises"? Transgendered women with "vaginas"? I just can't anymore.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

Sex as person's sex or sex as a intercourse? Because if it is first, then this statement is homophobic, if it is second, then how exactly "pansexual love anyone regardless" is makes "homosexual" mean "obsessed with fucking"?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Without pansexuals who would trans people have sex with? Seems like biding the hand that feeds them. Then again the incel to trans pipeline is real and everyone knows how effective berating people to sleep with you is....

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Without pansexuals who would trans people have sex with?

... each other?

Ha ha! Just kidding! We all know THAT would never happen! At least without triggering the Apocalypse.

Cuz when trans lies with trans... like two-headed calves and rivers turning into blood, that's some real end-of-the-world shit right there.

[–]Rag3 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saw this coming. Gets popcorn