you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]our_team_is_winning 33 insightful - 1 fun33 insightful - 0 fun34 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

In defense of actual bisexuals here:

I for one do NOT have any interest in fake men or women. A man pretending to be a woman (and always failing miserably) is some mentally ill narcissist with a sick fetish who actually hates women. He's not a desirable man. He's sure as hell not a woman. I don't see where he is of romantic interest to anyone.

Any self-described bisexual who is open to "trans" is a Gender Extremist "queer" troublemaker. This is why we needed that "super" prefix I guess.

A person has mental issues if they call a man "she" or a woman "he." Instead of bisexual, they're "freaksexual."

If bisexual men want to talk about their relationships and interests in men, or have questions about male with male sexual relationships, I don't think they should be chased out because they also sleep with women, but if they're there to talk about "transmen" and their "front hole" shit -- these are just mentally ill people with no respect for either men or women. They're "genderqueer" bullies.

Bisexual doesn't mean "trans" acceptance. Any trans demands handmaiden (what's the bro version? Wokebro?) pushing for mentally ill narcissists who think they can change their sex in gay, lesbian, or hell ANY forum, need to back off.

[–]usehername 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

In defense of actual bisexuals

I take issue with the fact that every time the problems OP is describing are brought up, someone has to jump in and claim these people are somehow not "actual bisexuals". If they're genuinely attracted to both males and females, they are actually bisexual.

Any self-described bisexual who is open to "trans" is a Gender Extremist "queer" troublemaker. This is why we needed that "super" prefix I guess.

That's really not the origin of the "super" thing. It was a het guy describing the fact that attraction to males is a physical impossibility due to his immutable orientation. I understand that for many bis, being attracted to trans people is also a "physical impossibility" because they are simply not attracted, but the fact remains that "bi except trans" is not an orientation, but a preference, which should also be respected. Bisexuals have a very different orientation from hetero and homosexuals, so stuff like "super" just doesn't work for us.

Any trans demands handmaiden (what's the bro version? Wokebro?) pushing for mentally ill narcissists who think they can change their sex in gay, lesbian, or hell ANY forum, need to back off.

Now that, we can agree on.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I understand that for many bis, being attracted to trans people is also a "physical impossibility" because they are simply not attracted, but the fact remains that "bi except trans" is not an orientation, but a preference, which should also be respected. Bisexuals have a very different orientation from hetero and homosexuals, so stuff like "super" just doesn't work for us.

While I certainly agree that bisexuality is, in some respects, fundamentally different than either of the monosexual orientations (and that this needs to be generally understood and accepted), we part ways when it comes to "bi people can't be Supers". Because we absolutely can. And, indeed, are (whether we use the actual term for ourselves or not).

See, I don't think that what the "SuperSexuality" concept really means is "not attracted to trans people". Yeah, that's how it's often interpreted, but I view it a little differently: as "attracted exclusively to biological sex".

If you use THAT definition, while bisexuals CAN (at least in theory) be attracted to trans people-- to transwomen as men, and transmen as women-- we can't do it on the only basis which trans-ideologues will accept: that of gender. And this puts us in exactly the same boat as lesbians and straight men who can be attracted to transmen (as women), and gay men and straight women who can be attracted to transwomen (as men). We're ALL capable of being attracted to trans people... but not AS trans people. Only as their biological sex. Which they reject as transphobia, in effect cancelling it out.

Which makes SuperBi as much a thing as all the other SuperSexualities.

[–]usehername 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No disrespect, Pansy, but that just seems convoluted to me. I've heard other bis describe it that way, and it just sounds like we're trying to stretch the actual meaning to fit us. As a bisexual, I'm not "attracted exclusively to biological sex". I'd describe it more as being attracted regardless of sex, though some of us have different criteria for what makes a man and a woman attractive. It's monosexuals who are attracted to people on the basis of sex (with preferences as well), which is why "super" was created by a het. It's just describing monosexual orientation, the physical reality of never being able to feel attraction to one of the sexes, regardless of "gender identity" which is just a footnote.

I also wouldn't really call SuperBi or any other SuperSexualities (I'm not being consistent capitalizing, but I'm tired) "a thing". People who call themselves "SuperBi" do exist, but it's generally defined as liking "cis" people only, because like I said, it was just a description of his monosexual orientation, which triggers TRAs just by existing, as opposed to an intentional resistance against their ideology, because "SuperBi" is generally defined as "cis" men and women only, not men and women but if you ID as trans I refuse to play along. The reason I wouldn't say it's "a thing" is because a SuperLesbian is just a lesbian, same for gays and straights and bis. The basis of it sort of concedes the terms without the prefix to the TRAs. If SuperGays only like males, then do gays like males and females? It also concedes the word "gender" to them, and allows them to call men and women "genders" which is inaccurate and used for intentional deception, despite the fact that gender is used as a synonym for sex now frequently ever since "sex" became slang for copulate. That's why I don't really support it, but it was an overall positive movement and I appreciate the pushback against the TRAs and their rape rhetoric.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

attracted regardless of sex

I could make a two-type typology of bisexuality. One type experiences attraction on the basis of sex. For the other type, sex isn't an organizing force in their sexuality. If sex is equal, then sex isn't part of the equation anymore, and attraction is more salient on other dimensions. Now we're in TRA rhetoric territory.

That's a nuanced take and the differences could be hard to elucidate. Point being, are all bisexuals really the same thing? Because this bit of the thread assumes that's the case.

[–]usehername 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I could make a two-type typology of bisexuality. One type experiences attraction on the basis of sex. For the other type, sex isn't an organizing force in their sexuality.

How could one determine which they are? It all seems very nebulous. A monosexual is clearly attracted on the basis of sex, because they like one sex and not another. If a person is attracted to both sexes, then how can you say that sex plays a role? On what basis?

are all bisexuals really the same thing?

Bisexual people all have the same orientation, but do have different preferences.

If sex is equal, then sex isn't part of the equation anymore, and attraction is more salient on other dimensions. Now we're in TRA rhetoric territory.

Almost as if they borrowed that rhetoric from some group of people.

This was interesting, so I made a little survey on our sub if you're interested. I really want to hear your answer to the question I bolded because I just do not get it. Feel free to answer here, on the sub, both, or neither lol.

https://saidit.net/s/Bisexuals/comments/84e4/is_sex_a_factor_in_your_attraction_in_what_way/

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

How could one determine which they are? It all seems very nebulous.

I agree! How one could even go about determining if this hypothetical two-type typology has any basis or even is meaningful, I have no good ideas. What I do know is that I've heard lots of bisexual people place themselves into either of the two types. The I'm-bisexual-because-I-like-vulvas-and-penises, or the I'm-bisexual-because-I-care-not. So, I've collected the anecdotes and there's my hypothesis.

Per your bolded question:

That's my question. Is this purely conceptual, or is it a meaningful difference such that there are indeed different sorts of bisexual people. Which, if true, could mean that bisexuality, or plurisexuality (the technical term for the opposite of monosexuality) is fundamentally different. Where bisexuality isn't a continuum from heterosexual to homosexual but could, in some cases, better be understood as its own stand-alone thing, even though you could quantify it.

To rope it into the larger topic, so it's not just me being overly academic, this could explain different bisexual attitudes towards trans people.

[–]reluctant_commenter 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I take issue with the fact that every time the problems OP is describing are brought up, someone has to jump in and claim these people are somehow not "actual bisexuals".

But some of them aren't. The identity tourism that has led to a massive spike in transgender identification has likely affect LGB self-identification as well. When bisexuality is commonly defined on social media as "anything EXCEPT attraction to both men and women," and a bunch of self-described bisexuals say they're "bisexual" because they have "attraction to more than one gender," they're not even talking about the same thing as people who define bisexuality as attraction to both sexes.

but the fact remains that "bi except trans" is not an orientation, but a preference, which should also be respected. Bisexuals have a very different orientation from hetero and homosexuals, so stuff like "super" just doesn't work for us.

That's a great point.

[–]usehername 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But some of them aren't.

It's definitely true that at least some of them aren't, but the vast majority of the people OP is talking about really are. A man who likes men and "trans men"? Bi. A lot of the bi people OP is talking about don't even identify as bi, so "bi" fakers are irrelevant in this discussion.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Perhaps the people in AGB who identify as bisexual actually are people who are attracted to both sexes; I'm not as familiar with AGB. I just know that in r/actuallesbians, and almost all of the other "lesbian" online communities I've seen, a ton of them are not; they tend to be AGP transwomen, or sometimes very young teenage girls who believe in the r/lgballt definition of bisexuality that I described (and who are exposed to the dick pics and grooming behaviors in r/actuallesbians).

[–]usehername 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm saying that a lot of them don't identify as bi, and in the case of AGB, are appropriating the "gay" label, but there are also a lot of bis who do id as bi doing this.

I just know that in r/actuallesbians, and almost all of the other "lesbian" online communities I've seen, a ton of them are not

Ok but just to be clear here, are we talking about people who id as bi or don't? And are actually bi or not? The posts on r/actuallesbians are mostly from transbians and a few bi women, while r/AGB actually has a lot of legitimate gay men and a decent portion of bi men who participate. r/actuallesbians posters preaching about girldick are probably mostly transbians themselves, with a few bi women. That sub is already taken over. However, r/AGB seems to be in the midst of a targeted attack by r/AHS, where most of the boypussy posts aren't from legit transgays, and the problem is bi guys (who may or may not LARP as gay) saying they would love some boypussy, making gays look bad.

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

Ok but just to be clear here, are we talking about people who id as bi or don't?

I am talking about people who ID as bisexual. I agree that the distinctions between people who ID as bi on AGB vs AL are important. But I'm still skeptical as to whether many of the ones who ID as bisexual on AGB are actually bisexual men and not bisexual-ID'ing AAP women (transmen).

That said-- the issue of bisexual men who do not mention that they're bisexual, as OP described, still stands. I am inclined to assume that most of them don't realize the harm they may be doing by NOT specifying, "By the way, I like p*ssy because I'm bisexual, not gay," and that it might be fruitful to open a conversation with them. Perhaps that assumption's mistaken, but I'd be curious to hear why, if so.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"bi except trans" is not an orientation, but a preference,

It's an orientation. It's the meaning of "bisexual." Attraction to trans people is something non-bisexual people tack on after the fact under the wrong label; they should be using something else, like "pansexual," to mean that.

Please do not call an orientation that has been recognized for many decades suddenly a preference. It isn't. And "SuperBi" works perfectly fine to reinforce the point of what "bisexual" has always meant.

[–]usehername 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Uh no. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes: male and female, men and women. Trans people are still either men or women, so bisexual people are can theoretically be attracted to them. Obviously, bisexuals aren't going to be attracted to every single man or woman, so individual bis may not be attracted to trans people, but bi people who are attracted to trans people are bi, as long as they are attracted to both men and women. "Pansexuality" isn't a real orientation, because orientations are sex-based (same, opposite, or both), not "gender" based.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you are not hearing yourself. Let's unpack this: "Trans people are still either men or women, so bisexual people are can theoretically be attracted to them." As their unwanted biological sex, not the one they claim to be but aren't, perhaps, but that is not a blanket statement applicable to all bisexuals by any remote stretch of the imagination and needs to not be promoted as such, which is what you are doing here by claiming that +trans is an orientation, but -trans is a preference.

Being trans is another thing entirely not related to orientation. Understanding and acknowledging the sex one is is sort of baseline requirement for being a candidate for dating. So a trans person, no matter how much I like them otherwise, is automatically not in my dating pool. And nothing whatsoever needed to be modified about the definition of "bisexual" for this to be true, either. The modification is coming from people tacking "trans" on to what is included in the term.

And this is why we deal with trans people trying to bully us by definition. Rewriting the meaning of words doesn't grant the fake new meanings primacy, it just makes people who want power and control look desperate.

Find another term for this. Bisexual is taken. Not sure why you are so desperate to force attraction to trans people to be part of bisexuality in the first place. As we have discussed here many times, "man" and "woman" have clear, understandable meanings related to biology and body parts. If someone wants to play mix'n'match in their heads and then get surgery to feel like they really are that sex now, they are doing something else (and also taking away a key factor that would make them attractive as their biological sex, if being unable to accept that detail about themselves didn't already disqualify them). More power to them, but leave bisexuality out of it. This is as unwelcome and unnecessary (find a more precise term that isn't already taken) of an argument as it would be to say that lesbians should like "girldick." I like my men knowing they are men, and my women knowing they are women. Period.

ETA: Just so it's really super clear, a trans person, even if possessed of an identifiable biological sex and intact body parts, isn't part of the definition of people I'd want to sleep with and partner. So they are not part of the definition of bisexual, or a demographic that would be discussed in a dating context (which is the whole point of a term like "bisexual"), any more than trying to include doorknobs would be relevant—it's not a relevant category of entity. Just like men who insist they are women are not a relevant dating category for lesbians.