you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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