you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lesbianese 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think "pansexual" would be a good word for it. It's not really a different sexuality because TW are male and TM are female, you just have a fetish for estrogenic men (potentially) with neovaginas and/or testosterone-filled women (maybe) with phalloplasty or metoidioplasty.

Ray Blanchard has a term for men attracted to TW but it's a mouthful, gynandromorphophiles. I've also seen transamorous but I'm not a fan of that either due to the trans- prefix since no one is actually able to transition to a different sex and ideally in the future we will recognize them as their state before medical intervention. I'd like to see a term that make it clear that it's a type of fetishism without being overly clinical.

[–]LasagnaRossa 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think "pansexual" would be a good word for it. It's not really a different sexuality because TW are male and TM are female

I have a different opinion on this matter.

Me and other bisexuals know we can't get attracted to transmen and transwomen and see how different we are from those who can. Having a clear label for this distinction is useful, and there should be for those who are "straight" and "gay" too.

Just because we like both sexes it doesn't mean we like mixed sexual characteristics. If someone is able to do that, they should signal their availability with a different label.

I'm saddened that recently this lack of attraction is seen as transphobic, like if we had any decision in the matter. The two labels had a purpose and were useful, back in the days.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The lack of attraction being seen as transphobic is exactly why I feel like having a separate label is pointless, though. At the end of the day they'll always just claim that excluding trans people from your dating pool is transphobic. You're still expected to be sexually available to trans people no matter what you call yourself.

Also, it's kind of like you said, we don't have two separate labels for straight and gay people who are attracted to transgenders. Lesbians who date transmen are just called lesbians. Gay men who date transwomen are just called gay men. Same for straight people. So why do we need two different labels for bisexuals who are into transgenders and not? It just seems silly. I also really don't like having "sexual orientations" that aren't based on sex. That's how we ended up with this mess we're currently in of the TQ+ having a "sexual orientation" for every possible combo of gender expression, sex, and promiscuity level.

[–]LasagnaRossa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're still expected to be sexually available to trans people no matter what you call yourself.

I think labels should describe behaviours, not the other way around.

Afterall if getting attracted to people with mixed sexual characteristics isn't instinctive to everybody, that must mean something.

I understand your logic and you are kinda right, but my experience tells me something is still off. There are many men who are attracted to women and transwomen but can't get aroused to "complete" men. In the same way there are many men who are attracted to women only, so it's not that obvious to overlook a dick like you would do with a birthmark.

I myself, when I see a trans person I instinctively like one half or the other half but can't like them both at the same time in the same person. It's odd, it's like there's a switch in me: I like chips and chocolate cake but don't like chips in my cake, whereas others can.

And in those days where these thoughts weren't removed, many other bisexuals used to describe the same feelings.