Gay MenThe Final Death of an LGBTQ+ Forum

submitted by JulienMayfair from (self.LGBDropTheT)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

We have a few people (you can find them in the 50+ post thread about bi people) trying to force the idea that pan = bi and that women who are lesbians in a relationship with a trans woman are in lesbian relationships. I've reported the posts but nothing happened. Maybe others can as well? If needed I can link them.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ok, you're just straight up lying and twisting people's words. People are simply saying they don't think pan is even a legitimate thing, because sexual orientation is based on sex. And people weren't saying that "lesbians" in relationships with transwomen are in lesbian relationships, they were talking about lesbians dating transmen. As in transgender-identified biological females.

Like I personally as a lesbian would never want to date a transman. But there's some lesbians out there who don't mind. A relationship between a lesbian and a transman is a relationship between two biological females, it isn't straight. I'd never demand that the lesbian should have to call herself bi or straight, that's ridiculous.

The same goes for bisexuals. All people are saying is that trans people are included within the scope of bisexuality because they're still either male or female. Demanding that any bi people who have ever dated a trans person should have to call themselves "pan" is just as ridiculous to me as saying that a lesbian dating a transgender-identified female should have to call herself bi/straight. That doesn't mean people think bisexuals are obligated to include trans people in their dating pool.

And just to make sure this is absolutely crystal clear: I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people. I DON'T think bisexuals are obligated to date trans people.

I'd never tell any bisexual that they're obligated to date trans people, any more than I'd tell any lesbian that she's obligated to date transmen. I'm simply stating that trans people still exist within the scope of sexual orientation based on their birth sex. Most lesbians probably wouldn't be interested in transmen, but there are some who are, and that doesn't make them not homosexual. Most bisexuals probably wouldn't be interested in trans people of either sex, but there are some who are, and that doesn't make them not bisexual.

"Pansexual" isn't even a legit thing to me. Sexuality is based on sex, and there's only two sexes. Like what does it even mean really? Attraction to "all sexes"? There's only two sexes, male and female, and transwomen are male and transmen are female. So if anything you're the one who's pushing "TRA mentality". You're the one who's implying that sexuality is based on gender instead of sex and that trans people can ever become anything other than their birth sex. Like people believing that transwomen can be anything other than male or than transmen can be anything other than female is the whole reason why this sub has to exist.

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

Yea. This sub has gone to dogshit. Im out.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I’ll help you report them. Direct them to me.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's me. The dude is trying to say pan and bisexual aren't the same thing, which is dumb. They're only 3 sexualities (het, homo and bi) as sexuality is only based on sex, and trans aren't a third sex. Pansexual is just a word for bi who likes also trans, but it still bi's, that doesn't mean all bi like trans, but all so called pans are bi's.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I always thought pan was the same as bi as well just in a "queer" coat.

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

The way people have used it in conversation with me has always meant that they were bisexual WITH an attraction to trans people as well. It is a useful clarification that helps people to know what other people might be open to. Just as "lesbian" and "gay" have specific meanings and have for a very long time, so does "bisexual," so a term that clarifies this additional form of attraction is warranted. We don't want to be harassed and pressured to sleep with trans people, either, for obvious reasons. If someone wants to signal they are open to trans people, it's perfectly fair for them to have their own term. It simplifies and makes safer for all involved the search for prospective mates, just as the other terms do. Lumping in bisexual people with "attracted to trans people" gives trans people the impression they can debate us about who we are attracted to. They can't. Just like they can't debate lesbians and gay men.

If we don't clarify our terms we can't communicate in a way that everyone understands. So no, they are not the same. This should be easy to understand without claiming that someone is trying to declare a fourth sexual orientation. The term pansexual is in wide use already and is used (by those who see themselves as such) for this particular purpose in my experience, so it might as well continue. Splitting hairs about what it should mean is pointless. It works well enough as-is.

Let's stick with understanding the spirit of what this term means rather than trying to invalidate it by forcing it to conform to a taxonomy of sexual orientations. Let them have their term; it gives the rest of us bisexuals a break from harassment.

This isn't hard to grasp. It really isn't.

[–]NeedMoreCoffee~=[,,_,,]=^_^= 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yea about those term definitions... that ship has sailed a long time ago.

I don't think i ever heard the pan is including transpeople and bi not thing used like that in the last 5 years or so.

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

I've heard it many times in the last several years.

And this is a good example of why keeping terminology clearly defined is essential.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it can be used as a way to not really specify what sex(es) one is into, and yet appear sexually "open-minded"(a bi stereotype and a liberal goal) at the same time. I liken it to answering someone inquiring if one has Dual Citizenship from Country A and Country B, just with the declaration of "I'm a citizen of the world!"

So, it has the benefit of virtue signaling one's so-called open-mindedness with the presumed bonus of avoiding being a target of criticism from TRAs. The latter is of course nowhere near guaranteed because people seeking gender validation are a elite class of mental gymnasts in themselves and nowadays even Pan may not cut it.

But, I'll link to the historical explanation from someone who seems to know a lot more than me about this relatively ancient term.

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

I agree with both your guys' takes, that makes a lot of sense. A fascinating example of what humans will do to seek social approval. Thank you for sharing!

(And I miss u/haveanicedaytoo; not sure if she's taking a break again or what, but she was awesome.)

edit: Meant to respond over here, whoops.

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

The dude is trying to say pan and bisexual aren't the same thing, which is dumb. They're only 3 sexualities (het, homo and bi) as sexuality is only based on sex, and trans aren't a third sex. Pansexual is just a word for bi who likes also trans, but it still bi's, that doesn't mean all bi like trans, but all so called pans are bi's.

Well, I think that they AREN'T the same thing, conceptually-- "bisexual" means being attracted to both of the two sexes; "pan" means being attracted to 3+ sexes (i.e., "sex is a spectrum"), and/or to "all genders" (i.e., sexual attraction is based on gender, not biological sex). So pan really REFUTES bi. Because trans ideology won't accept either that there are only two sexes, or that sexual orientation is based on attraction to one or both of them, rather than "gender". Essentially it's a made-up sexual orientation, required to give the illusion that made-up identities like "non-binary" are actually legit.

I do suspect that pan is what wokesters think bi OUGHT to be: totally-uninhibited, no-boundaries, DTF-anyone-and-everyone... their ideal of the ultimate in "non-exclusionary, ultra-inclusive" sexuality. Which bisexuals are a complete failure at, obviously, so they dreamed up an orientation tailor-made for their fantasies about how human sexuality should work. And, yeah, I'm sure that there are bisexuals who call themselves pan... but there are gay and straight people doing it, too, and it's equally inaccurate for all of them.