fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2952 ]

[ SECRET POST #2952 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2952 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Tales of Zestiria]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Strange Magic]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Sleepy Hollow]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Star Trek: TNG]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Person of Interest]

__________________________________________________

07.

(Dangan Ronpa)

__________________________________________________

08.

(Splash, Daryl Hannah)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

10.

[VH1's Hindsight]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't understand "pansexuality". Why do people use the term instead of bisexuality?

Me neither, since it doesn't actually define sexuality, it defines the circumstances where the person feels like expressing their sexuality.

New word: lunasexual. I'm attracted to people only during the full moon.

I don't think that's what it means, though....

Often because they've made up their own definition of bisexual that consciously excludes anyone who doesn't fit the gender binary despite a ton of bisexuals rejecting that definition. In return bisexuals have made up their own stereotypes about pansexuals and it's a big mess in some places.

Because apparently bisexuals have to indicate in their label if they might be attracted to trans people, despite the fact straight and gay don't give you that info.

That said, everyone can use the label they like best. Just don't tell me mine is wrong.

It's also pretty insulting to act like all trans men and women aren't actually men and women but fit into a third category. There are people who don't fit into either category of man or woman but not all trans people are in that group and some people really need to stop acting like they are.

Obviously it gets complicated if someone is attracted to a person's true gender but not their current body, but again, people should stop acting like this sort of situation is always the case unless you're pansexual.

ayrt:

Yeah, exactly. And in the case of people who don't identify as any gender, why do we need to indicate if we might be attracted to them? Gay people might or might not be attracted to someone who's genderfluid but no one is telling them to get a clearer label.

That's gonna be hard. For some people, what equipment your meat body came with is always going to matter in terms of what your interested in.

I have to admit I don't understand that mindset at all. If a person has the parts you like then why does it matter if they weren't born with them?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 02:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

sarillia - 2015-02-03 03:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

I'm trans and this is exactly why I dislike that usage of the term "pansexual," if you want to say you're attracted to non-binary people then fine, but if you're using it because, "I'm attracted to men, women, AND trans people!!" then you're an insulting asshole.

(no subject)

cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-02-03 04:56 (UTC) - Expand

ayrt

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 16:48 (UTC) - Expand

I thought it might refer to possible attraction to trans people but I think that's just idiotic because if you understand that trans people are just guys and gals, same as anyone biologically born that way, then the label "bisexual" fits just fine.

ayrt:

Yep, exactly.

There are people who don't identify as guys or as gals, though.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 01:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 01:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-02-03 01:44 (UTC) - Expand

Well...

... on the one hand the term "bisexual" was applied to us and reflects some rather outdated notions of sexuality and gender that didn't exactly describe us. So a lot of people are not comfortable with "bisexual" as a term.

... but on the other hand anti-bisexual prejudice exists, and the term was widely redefined by bisexual communities in the 80s and 90s to be inclusive of non-binary gender and sexuality.

... but back on the first hand, etymology.

... but back on the second hand, etymological fallacy.

... but back on the first hand, some bisexual people are transphobic or have problems with non-binary people.

... but back on the second hand, some pansexual people use the identity as a way to throw bisexuals under the bus for t-chasing credibility.

Your points are all very valid. I just think that for all intents and purposes, the "bisexual" label works just fine so why reinvent the wheel.

I feel the same way but I can understand some people being uncomfortable with it and I think it's fair for them to use whatever label they are comfortable with. My only problem comes when they're making incorrect generalizations about the people who do use the label they rejected.

Oh yeah. I describe myself as bisexual because anti-bisexual prejudice exists, and also I've never been in a case where my sexuality was attacked separate from my perceived gender. My real-life experience is that cocksucker = fucking fairy, and it's a bit frustrating to get shoved back into the gender binary as if it was all Tom of Finland vs. Hilda on a point of etymological order.

You see, if people feel uncomfortable calling themselves bi, that's fine. But when they try to tell me my label is wrong, not fine at all. Bisexual means I might be attracted to you whether you have man or lady parts - it says nothing about people's identities since I can't know that when I get attracted to them.

Some people also use bisexual to mean "attracted to more than one gender" and pansexual to mean "gender is not a factor in attraction at all".

I tend to go with those as my definitions, which is why I feel more comfortable identifying as pan than as bi.

Because Pan covers all the bases. Bisexuality is just that - bi.

Pan means you are also attracted to transpeople and agender people and cross-dressed people etc in addition to both ends of that spectrum. You basically like it all.

cross dressing doesn't have anything to do with gender identity so I'm not really sure why that's even factored in. this also implies that people who are trans are neither women nor men which is kind of offensive

And, thank you for providing an excellent example of biphobia in this discussion.

trans people (separate words you'll notice) are not a third gender, ass

I like the use of pan = all, bi = two or more. Because I know people who may be attracted to women and trans dudes, but not trans women and men. And I've met at least three who are everything-but-cis dude.

Because I do sort of hate it gets into the snake-devouring-its-own-tail argument of "But trans men are REAL men" and "physical characteristics do play a factor in sexual attraction."

But it's been a case before if someone identifies as being exclusively attracted to women, they fall in love, later the person goes "I'm not a butch lesbian, I'm a trans man." It seems kinda assholish to go "HA! You were pansexual all along! You were secretly dating A MAN!" Without going all the way over to skeezytown with the "But they were A WOMAN and then they became A MAN." Like a freakin' pokemon evolution. And the whole weird argument that came up weeks ago about lesbians having sex with strap ons being the same as het sex and yeah. People are weird and complicated and label policing is just an exercise in frustration.

So much yes.

I consider myself bi, I'm not attracted to ladyboys (people with both breasts and a penis) - is that trans? But there's no problem with it otherwise as long as it was either or. So what does that make me?
My pan-sexual definition would be regardless of any appearance they feel attracted to the person.

These days I don't care about these labels though because nobody is 100% gay or 100% straight, we're all in a shade of gray - but closeminded people just need the 'safety boundaries' I guess.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only