LGB ErasureLeave. Bisexuals. Alone. Sincerely, a lesbian ally

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GreykittymommaMagical lady 💜 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Bisexuals need to start calling them out on their bullshit. Thanks for this!

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

To be honest I don't even feel outraged anymore. It became so normal to have them take everything and make it meaningless at this point that I struggle to find things to say about the TQ+ subject anymore. Like yeah... They ruin everything they touch... That's what they do.

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

Flair checks out. Also, I completely relate.

Hope you're doing well.

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

🤝 At some point you just run out of things to say when it's just repeatedly the same shit.

I'm meh as usual. Hope you're doing good too, or at least better. And thanks for reaching out ! Again, I'm here if you want to chat.

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

Of course! And thanks :) and will do!

[–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If you believe there are only three sexualities - heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual - (I personally exclude asexual), then which sexuality is generally attracted to people who identify as trans/nonbinary/genderfluid/etc and dating them? 🤔

In my experience, it's been bi women although I was told not to identify as a man by a bi woman I was in a relationship with for 6 years... but she's a 70s baby, not a youngin.

If you're familiar with the MTV series "Are You The One?", season 8 had "queer" (all bi) folks, and the person who got the most sex was Kai the "trans man". I think she fucked 4 women and 2 men.

https://youtu.be/oNPPZL6-UMs

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There seems to be some overlap between being attracted to trans people, and being trans yourself. Men attracted to transwomen are more likely to experience autogynephilia themselves, than those who are not. Cambridge article | Wikipedia paragraph

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

Yup, GAMP and AGP are highly correlated.

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

It could just be that what we're looking at is heterosexuality, autoheterosexuality, GAMP and... drum-roll please, autoGAMP. Perhaps? Why not autoGAMP?

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you believe there are only three sexualities - heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual - (I personally exclude asexual), then which sexuality is generally attracted to people who identify as trans/nonbinary/genderfluid/etc and dating them? 🤔

Well, I can tell you one thing: it ain't bisexuals. Yes, I realize that we're "supposed" to be attracted to such people, based on the stereotype of bisexuals being sexually-indiscriminate and thus attracted to ALL people... but surprise surprise, that's a load of rubbish.

We're capable of being attracted to "people who identify as trans/nonbinary/genderfluid etc." in precisely the same way that YOU-- and all other monosexuals-- are: based on their biological sex. Just like lesbians and straight men can be attracted to "transmen", gay men and straight women can be attracted to "transwomen", and so on. We aren't aliens, yanno. We're just another sexual orientation. And that means attraction to the femaleness of women/maleness of men. Only one of those, in monosexuals' case; both, in ours.

If you do see more bisexuals (particularly women) than monosexuals paired with these Genderspeshul Snowflakes, it may well be a matter not of our preferences but rather, frankly, of our vulnerability. Bi people are at best provisional members of LGB; we're generally invisible, regarded as non-existent, or treated dismissively; we often don't even realize that we're bisexual (or what bisexuality actually is); we have high poverty rates and poor mental and physical health; and, to top it all off, we're seen as born sluts who haven't any right to say "no". And sadly, we aren't immune to believing these things ourselves.

So while I sincerely doubt that bisexuals are any more attracted to the TQ+ than anybody else is, I can readily believe that the TQ+ has quite a bit of success in sexually exploiting us.

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

I think their problem with the real definition of bisexual that made them redefine it, is that beyond saying that one can be attracted to both sexes, it doesn't say anything about who within the sexes can be included/excluded by one's own preferences.

Firstly, right out of the gate, it categorically eliminates anyone who doesn't identify as male or female(in denial of their sex). So, many transgenders, enbies, etc. Secondly, since sex, unlike gender, is intrinsically harder to simply identify out of, anyone who doesn't identify as their actual sex still can be excluded too. And lastly, with that in mind, one can just opt out of even considering an entire sex, with no recourse for those of that sex other than actions that would make them (rightly) be seen as quite terrible.

Also since genders are basically just personality types nowadays(trans) or things even more transitory(also trans), they are included in the definition so opportunists can simply identify into a gender and claim someone is rejecting them based on an intrinsic aspect more fundamental than simply liking dubstep or something, and so then accuse someone of bigotry for said rejection.

Thanks for this post. This is a complete garbage definition. "regardless of sex or gender"-oh, there's Regard alright. It makes it sound like the sexes are completely interchangeable and substitutable. Is that were the case, then why bother distinguishing between them at all through the label itself? There's already pan, which does exactly that. This revision is just another way to dismiss the right of individual choice.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The blue is for boys, the pink is for girls, the purple is the blurred line between pink and blue. Voila! Flag.

It's not that deep.