Is Pansexuality Obligatory? No but... actually yes.

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from theelectricagora.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]8bitgay 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The founder of the website is on the comments disagreeing harshly with the notion that people should be all pansexual:

I am a straight man and agree with you entirely. The whole idea of policing sexuality in this way is repugnant. [...] Women and lesbians are never wrong in asserting and enforcing their sexual boundaries.

I think it is precisely about violating lesbians’ boundaries. This why I find it so distasteful. I also agree that self-id represents a deformation of individualism, which is why I argued that trans ideology is inconsistent with traditional civil rights.

In an article of his own the founder of the site seems to be fairly pro-LGB:

For to assert one’s right to be exclusively same-sex attracted and to pursue exclusively same-sex relationships, today, is alleged by identificationists as being, at best, a kind of genital-fetishism and at worst, outright bigotry.

To be honest my first reaction reading the article linked here was to find it awful. Skimming through it, there are many parts that seem to defend anti-LGB ideas. But giving it a more careful read now, you can see that it was written more in a way of first playing devil's advocate and showing the usual arguments of TRAs, to then deconstruct and criticize these arguments.

Some of the writer points also align a lot with pro-LGB views:

It’s one thing to tell schoolchildren that they shouldn’t be mean to their gay or trans classmates. It’s quite another to tell them that they shouldn’t be mean to their gay or trans classmates, and, by the way, not being willing to have sex with them is being mean to them.

The writer still seems to concede with TRAs in some points, though. And I think he spends so much time playing devil's advocate his actual points get a bit lost in the middle. But frankly, I'd recommend giving the article a longer read.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank you. I was starting to think I was going insane reading the comments here. I was like did we read the same article??

[–]8bitgay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, I can understand how people got this impression. The writer used a big part of his article to play devil's advocate, so if you skim through it you can easily get the wrong idea.

But I think it's important we take care to see what people are really saying. We already have few allies. I've never seen this site before today, but it seems like their viewpoint in this question is pro-LGB. Here is another article they published last month:

If we can’t use the word ‘sex’ to define the kind of discrimination we experience as gay men, lesbians, and women in general, we can’t protect our rights or even discuss them.

In this cultural context, biological sex is seen as unimportant or old-fashioned. “Gender identity” overrides all. These beliefs effectively erase women and same-sex attracted people, who lose the right to name oppressive systems.

“Hate” is framed largely in terms of protected characteristics, which include gender and gender-identity but not sex. These vague words obscure the facts of sex and sex-based oppression and silence those – especially women – who want to discuss these issues.

By the way, I'm not American, so I'm far from familiar with American laws. But going by this article it seems like it's legal in California to call someone by homophobic slurs, while misgendering can get you a fine. Is this an accurate view? If so, this seems really troubling.

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

But I think it's important we take care to see what people are really saying.

Agreed. The comments on this thread bothered me because it reminded me a lot of the TRA outrage against JKR. People giving the situation a cursory look (or not looking at all) and jumping immediately to being upset without actually taking the time to read and interpret what she said. This article isn't pro-pansexuality. Almost everything after the highlighted bit is a criticism of how wokesters try to make being pansexual compulsory.

I'm not familiar with California laws, but I Googled it and it does appear that a law punishing 'misgendering' with fines and jail time was passed in 2018. Some sources say it had been challenged though. I agree it's very distressing, but unsurprising unfortunately. I'm not sure if there are any similar penalties for actual hate speech such as homophobic slurs.

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

But going by this article it seems like it's legal in California to call someone by homophobic slurs, while misgendering can get you a fine. Is this an accurate view?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen

"The sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, has argued adamantly that nobody is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun."

Twat.

Anyhow, it won't hold up to our federal constitution. The government can't compel speech under our 1st amendment. You would however, to have this case heard; have to be prosecuted for it to challenge it. There are a series of courts that would conceivably strike down that section of the law before it got to our top court (who don't always have their heads screwed on straight and have been pretty idiotic on gender/sex issues in Bostock and are legislating from the bench.)