RantB in LG spaces dilemma

submitted by lazy-summer-godSuper Gay from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.