you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]diapason 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nah. It falls under bisexuality even if most of us aren't like that. I think the TRA types are making the pan label less popular since they insist that bisexuals have to be open to dating trans people, so there's less of a point in IDing as pan for those who are. I wish they would just leave us alone tbh, most of us are not into trans people and no amount of bullying is ever going to make that the case

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you! Yes, there's no point of the term pansexuality.

Pretty much there's only a small percentage of bisexuals who would date trans people, and the TRAs keep trying to get us to date them.

I wouldn't want to date someone not interested in me.

Like I mentioned in the s/bisexuals sub, I'd propose using the terms "TIBs" for Trans Inclusive Bisexuals or the extreme version(the trans-chasers) "TEBs" for Trans Exclusive Bisexuals. This is to mirror already existing terms "FEBs" for Female Exclusive Bisexuals and "MEBs" for Male Exclusive Bisexuals.

[–]LasagnaRossa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like I mentioned in the s/bisexuals sub, I'd propose using the terms "TIBs" for Trans Inclusive Bisexuals or the extreme version(the trans-chasers) "TEBs" for Trans Exclusive Bisexuals. This is to mirror already existing terms "FEBs" for Female Exclusive Bisexuals and "MEBs" for Male Exclusive Bisexuals.

Ohhh that's nice, this is the first time I've read that and I already like it.

And with the same format the versions for those straights and gays who like trans people too can be made: TIH, TIG and TIL.