RantTired of bisexuals being expected to be open to dating trans people by default because we like both biological males and females

submitted by UnapologeticMisandry from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I hate that being sexually attracted to a fetish is being conflated with a natural sexual attraction to regular old women and men. In my opinion, if you are sexually attracted to trans people, you are dealing with a fetish of some kind, not a traditional sexual orientation

In sex research, one of the (sometimes recognized) criteria for heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is phenotypically normal, or, in common parlance: men and women. Not trans.

Miss the mark entirely on phenotypicality, and you're something else--not straight, not gay, nor bi.

There's concise language available, if you want to get technical, which I encourage.

Many people who want to date trans, especially men interested in trans women, can have a bisexual identity. This is a fault of only having three categories--as above--to stuff complex phenomena into. When they say bisexual, they mean male and female characteristics in the same person. Not men and women. Oft, you're looking at an interest in women, and trans women. That's different than a classical understanding of bisexuality, which I take. So: not bisexual.

So there's the problem, in a nutshell. It is more or less about sexual identity. OP, I'm with you.

But we can't sit on our high horse and insist that all of human sexuality's salient dimensions can be reduced to our sex, and their sex, because we're just reinforcing this hell that we find ourselves in. I'm just as frustrated with this proliferation of sexual identities as everyone else is. For me, the reason isn't the multitudes of identities, but how they miss the mark, and ultimately skirt around the real issues.

I'm confident none of this will be resolved by sticking with the categories that we've found ourselves reserved to. If we reject that hitherto unaccounted for sexual margins exist, then we are no better than those that rejected (and reject) homosexuality as a real phenomena.

Ghandi said that: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. He was wrong. First, they deny you even exist.

We don't have to like those phenomena--nor do they have to be ethical, moral, or legal--for us to point at them and say: aha!

If all the gyneandromorphophile has to categorize himself is gay, straight, and bisexual, well, then, there you go. Suffer the consequences if you're over-committed to the three categories.

We let people declare their politics, or their religion--any way they like. But, if somebody claims a unique sexuality, everyone looses their goddamned minds. Why? This question drives me nuts. And it's driving those people on the margins to frequently identify as bisexual, because it is the only thing that is afforded to them. By you. I'm looking at you.

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

If all the gyneandromorphophile has to categorize himself is gay, straight, and bisexual, well, then, there you go. Suffer the consequences if you're over-committed to the three categories.

We've debated this one in some fun circles on this sub before, lol... I'm not sure I have the energy to pick it up again tonight, but I'll just say, I'm still fence-sitting til there is some more definitive information on just what defines the GAMP experience. If it's just a man's attraction to very feminine males, like a guy with a very specific type... I mean, that just sounds like bisexuality to me. But if the arousal comes from some sort of humiliation element, then that sounds more like a fetish or paraphilia than bisexuality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think I have anything new to bring to the table on GAMP.

What I was trying to point out is how we have LGB, and that if we insist that all sexual phenomena must be categorized only as one of those three letters, then things that are not technically LGB will go around walking and talking as LGB. I think it's obvious this is happening.

To me, in a technical, sex research context, that matters. That kind of detail is important there. There's another context, however:

I must admit, that you could, by example, get two men who I wouldn't consider to be bisexual or homosexual (technical context,) in a relationship with each other. A pair of exclusive (meaning, the entirety of their sexuality) furries is a good instance. They're not interested in adult humans, they're interested in anthropomorphic animals. It was their peculiar sexuality that brought them together, but a same-sex relationship is a same-sex relationship, regardless of etiology. The discrimination they're going to face isn't coming from the fact that they're furries. It is unlikely that any other person would be privy to this, if they keep their private life private, but if they go out to a fancy dinner together (social context,) then everyone will know they're in a relationship.

Of course I'm not going to make an absurd demand that only classically homosexual men can enjoy a nice restaurant, and just because the two furries have a (probably) wildly different etiology that they cannot benefit from the gay rights movement.

There is still a line between the two groups. I guess I've got my underwear in a bunch because I see people running around understanding themselves as classically bisexual, for instance, when their same-sex interest is a paraphilic one. That irks my pedantry. That isn't meant to try and--sorry for the word--invalidate anyone. Love is love, as we say.

The question I have is: does the line matter? (I think it does, somehow.) And where to place it? In a technical context, yes, absolutely, it matters. In a social one? I do not know, I cannot decide. The answer can even be entirely self-serving to the paraphiles. They get to do what they want to do because of norms around human sexuality--because of the gay rights movement--if they're in the West, at least. You can have a furry convention and not get raided by the morality police. As we are seeing though, LGB acceptance, at least in the USA, is very much on the decline because of the trans phenomena, which is largely driven by autogynephiles; paraphilia.

So there's the obvious concern that classically LGB people should have.

The way I've been approaching it is that most people are bereft of the technical context, and I think they suffer for that lack of understanding. Instead, they focus on the social context, not even knowing that there is this, at least as I put it, this entirely different world out there.

In incredibly rare instances, you have people approaching the topic from the technical context, where they want their technical sexual identity to be their social identity. Some AGP are like this, for instance. They know what's up, and they want to be understood as AGP. E.g. Debbie Hayton. They don't want to be understood as L, G, or B. They're AGP, they know they're AGP, and they want you to know they're AGP. I'm onboard with this. Or, I posted a (different) video from her the other day, Jillian Keenan--an exclusive masochist. Her interest in men and women is entirely paraphilic, and she goes into depth talking about this. I think Keenan got the idea from Charles Moser (a sex researcher--not one I hold in high regard, by the way) to add a Y axis to Kinsey. So 0-6 on x-axis (opposite to same-sex), and 0-6 on y-axis (sex as the erotic locus to paraphilia.) She is 3,6 on her scale: both sexes, equally, only paraphilia.

These sorts of people I don't find as a threat to the gay rights movement, nor its legacy. However, less-developed people, I absolutely do.

So there's this existential dilemma that some people face, or are at least mildly aware of. Going back to our two furries, if someone asks of one of them: sexual orientation? That's a damn complicated answer now. Do they say furry, or do they say gay? Does it depend on the context? Is the fool's choice in single-indicator measures? Can we combine the two contexts? I think the technical context is always more concise, so this is something I favor.

Yet, the technical context, I don't think, should deprive a person of the benefits that are available in the social context. I'm looking for the right moral and ethical blend here (again, combinatorial) and having a tough time with it. Thoughts, even half-formed ones?

Good to see you again, and how are life things?

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

What I was trying to point out is how we have LGB, and that if we insist that all sexual phenomena must be categorized only as one of those three letters, then things that are not technically LGB will go around walking and talking as LGB. I think it's obvious this is happening.

I agree. I think that's likely to happen anyway, though; I don't think breaking off GAMP will solve the problem of, say, "political lesbian" hetereosexual women pretending to be lesbian, or straight women pretending to be bisexual, or whatever else. But-- when we say "not technically LGB," I think that's really at the heart of the debate; a lot of people on this sub seem to be torn on whether GAMP is, by definition, part of the LGB (and that's something I'm still unsure about myself).

The question I have is: does the line matter? (I think it does, somehow.)

It certainly does for understanding the phenomena, if there is such a line. I wouldn't say it matters in all contexts, but then, what line or label does? Sometimes you've got to oversimplify things.

The way I've been approaching it is that most people are bereft of the technical context, and I think they suffer for that lack of understanding. Instead, they focus on the social context, not even knowing that there is this, at least as I put it, this entirely different world out there.

Very true. At least in the US, this problem seems to be ubiquitous when discussing any controversial topic, not just LGB or TQ ones.

I think Keenan got the idea from Charles Moser (a sex researcher--not one I hold in high regard, by the way) to add a Y axis to Kinsey. So 0-6 on x-axis (opposite to same-sex), and 0-6 on y-axis (sex as the erotic locus to paraphilia.) She is 3,6 on her scale: both sexes, equally, only paraphilia.

That's fascinating, I haven't heard of that system of description before. I can think of some issues with it off the bat, but it does seem like a convenient way for at least some people to get their point across.

Thoughts, even half-formed ones?

Unfortunately I don't have a ton of time right now, but I'll keep thinking about this :) it is a difficult question. One of the few big questions I really have not been able to figure out my opinion on! But I also haven't done any sort of dive into the relevant research literature, perhaps I am missing some context.

Good to see you again, and how are life things?

Good! Extremely busy, but good. Sorry I'm responding to this like 2 weeks later, hahaha. I'm hoping to soon get back on the sub more often, but it will probably be another week at least before that happens. I was just reading this thread about resources pages for this sub and now I've got that to think about and plan for. How are you doing?