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 →

[–]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.