BisexualActing as if 'bisexual' is a forbidden word

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[deleted]

    [–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I can see that, and don't agree that you respect the sexuality of bisexuals if you insist on pasting something different on top of it. Just as you wouldn't appreciate it if I did the same to you.

    We agree it is something different, whether your idea of a subcategory or my suggestion of an entirely different term, and to avoid confusion and harassment of bisexual people, that needs to be articulated in a non-confusing way. The best way to do this is to not use an existing term with a specific meaning.

    It must be easier to stick to this particular opinion when the outcome of promoting this idea does not affect you personally in a negative way. You talk about us as if we are an abstract concept, rather than human beings who are subject to crappy treatment because you and others keep pushing this idea.

    I would suggest having a little more empathy for those of us who are affected negatively by people pushing this definition of who we are. Try it some time. Digging in your heels on this helps no one but you, defending your own argument.

    [–]throwaway999 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I understand not wanting to be associated with people you consider to be degenerate, but they fit the definition of "bisexual" and that's the end of it.

    [–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Trying to shut down a dialogue by force proves you know your argument is weak.

    [–]throwaway999 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's just the definition.

    [–]throwaway999 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    And I encourage you to answer this question of hers to strengthen your argument:

    Then please tell me what is the sexuality of people dating TWs or TMs? And I mean post-op. And I also don't want to hear anything outside of the three real sexualities.

    [–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It's pretty interesting that I am willing to advocate for an alternate term for people who experience an attraction to trans people specifically, but you aren't. "The three real sexualities" isn't a phrase that has been tossed around here with regularity, so why don't you go ahead and let us all know on what basis you make that claim? You are clearly the less open-minded of the two of us.

    [–]throwaway999 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "The three real sexualities" isn't a phrase that has been tossed around here with regularity, so why don't you go ahead and let us all know on what basis you make that claim?

    Sure. Orientation is based on attraction to one or both of the two sexes. There is exclusive attraction to the same sex (homosexuality), exclusive attraction to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), and attraction to both sexes (bisexuality). If orientation is not based on sex, what is it based on? And what are the implications of that on the other orientations? That perhaps they are also not exclusively sex-based? What are the ramifications of that on homosexual rights?

    And you're really pushing it with the personal insults.

    [–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    In addition, it is not our job to come up with definitions for other people's attraction types, just to avoid people who hold your insistent opinions foisting this erroneous definition upon us. We do not experience the attractions you want to push on us, and wanting to push them on us as a new definition is no better than what TRAs are also doing. I am not sure why you can't see that you are doing the same thing.

    And here is what it looks like to show our fellow LGB members of this sub respect; if we can do it for you, you can do it for us.

    https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/8cvk/you_wouldnt_say_the_same_thing_if_it_affected_you/v019

    [–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Hey, I've been following this exchange with s/wafflegaff, and while I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for her, I thought that maybe my own take might be helpful here.

    Then please tell me what is the sexuality of people dating TWs or TMs?

    Here's the thing: I don't think that such people HAVE a single sexuality, in terms of orientation. They are, respectively, male-attracted and female-attracted. Yes, "bisexual" encompasses both, but what's important to remember is: we bi people aren't any more likely to be attracted to TWs than are straight women or gay men, or TMs than are straight men or lesbians. So, essentially, those of ALL sexual orientations-- homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual-- are functionally the same in this respect: we're attracted to biological sex. And since this never changes for trans people, NONE of us can be attracted to TWs as anything other than the men they are, or TMs as anything other than the women they are.

    If there is a person who likes both sets of primary and secondary characteristics, set the right way on biological male and female, but also happens to like them mixed up, what is it then? It's bisexuality with a trans fetish.

    A few things occur to me here. First, trans people don't have "mixed up" primary and secondary sex characteristics; they have the ones for their biological sex. The only people for whom this isn't true are those with rare forms of DSD (aka intersex conditions), and no amount of medical intervention will give anyone that. So what some trans people have are artificially-induced features meant to mimic the primary and secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. These usually strike observers-- whatever their sexual orientation-- as patently fake, in part because they don't erase the natural ones, which remain evident and to which our entire species is finely-attuned.

    The upshot of all this being: fetishism isn't required to explain why bisexuals could potentially be attracted to both TW and TM (although we are no more likely to be attracted to TW than other male-attracted people, or TM than other female-attracted people)-- in fact, this is much more applicable to monosexuals than to us. For example, if a straight man is attracted to a TW... well, what else could possibly be going on there? Same thing with a lesbian attracted to a TW, or a gay man attracted to a TM (assuming, of course, that all of these people are aware of the trans person's actual sex).

    I'd also like to add that this sort of talk sets off alarm bells for me, and probably many other bisexuals. Specifically, that we're inherently inclined to be attracted to trans people. Yeah, I know that you aren't positing precisely this; since it's such a pervasive belief, though, anything along those lines risks being mistaken for it, and thereby adding fuel to the fire. Given that we and our sexuality are seen as suspect anyway (in some ways even more by gay people than straight people), this is something bisexuals REALLY do not need.