[ SECRET POST #2188 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2188 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #313.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Bisexual here and omg, I am so with you on the Tumblr bitching about bisexual. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing all the people going on and on about how awful the word is and how anyone who uses it is promoting a binary system of gender and obviously hates anyone who's trans or genderqueer. Especially since the people who do this bitching don't identify as bisexual and don't bother to ask people who do how they actually define the word. Most of them tend to fall back on a pretty antiquated idea of what the term even means, too, and then try to convince anyone who identifies as bi and defines it differently that no, they're really pan!

... sorry for the rant. You obviously know all this already, but I just needed to get that off my chest. The language policing that goes on and people try to pass off as "activism" (while not actually bothering to take action on things) bothers me to no end. And I think you're right that it's very much an in-group/out-group thing. It's also a way for a lot of people to make themselves feel morally superior because they know all the right words, which is crap.

[thene]

You know what this is? This is biphobia. Accusing bisexuals (without any evidence, obv) of offending third-gender people, or of being gender fetishists, or of being sluts (no really, a pan-identifying person once told me that she didn't ID as bi because bi people are totes all into casual sex)...it is all straight-up biphobia and I am sick of hearing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth <---this really is the best word

[(Anonymous)]

That really is the best word. It also sounds like an Lovecraftian creation, which... seems kind of appropriate.

[fuchsiascreams]

Gender fetishists? Are you fucking kidding me?

[fuchsiascreams]

Also, just the other day on Facebook, I had an acquaintance of mine try to tell me that people who are bisexual are actually just shallow because they aren't pansexual. I was appalled. I mean, if bisexual people are shallow, then why aren't heterosexual and homosexual people shallow, too? Why is it that every sexuality EXCEPT pansexuality is shallow? But nope, according to him, it's only bisexuals who are shallow, because we didn't just "decide" to be pansexual instead. (In other words, bisexuals choose to be bisexual, and everybody else can't help it, they were just born that way.)

[(Anonymous)]

He sure is a special one...

[thene]

Wat.

Even if 'bisexual' DID specifically mean only being attracted to binary-gendered people, that would still make no sense at all. This is a corollary to the 'the only way to express support and appreciation for something is to be sexually attracted to it' problem that you see so much of in fandom, isn't it? (be it men, women, older people, fatter people, nonbinary people, people with beards, heroes, villains, people of any given race...someone somewhere will have said you're a bigot if you don't want to have sex with it. Sob.)

[insanenoodlyguy]

Okay, real ask. I honestly thought that this was the difference between bisexual and pansexual. that bisexual tended to remain in a binary system and pansexual did not. So... could I have some clarification? because apparently I'm doing it wrong.

[thene]

I do not know, for sure, what the kids are up to with words these days, and I fear I am going to be guilty of doing exactly what they do and trying to rewrite what someone else's orientation means. I'll try, though.

My impression is that the people who come out as pansexual now are the same people who would have come out as bisexual more than a few years ago, and the label preference is simply a matter of which word you like best for cultural purposes. Certainly if you read the definition of 'pansexual' to an adult bisexual person, they will almost always tell you that is their orientation but you've got the name wrong, because srsly coming out as specifically being not attracted to genderqueer people is not something many human beings have ever done. It would be quite a silly thing to do.

So what 'pansexual' signifies is direct rhetorical inclusivity of people who aren't either men or women. Some people really like signalling this inclusivity because it's really relevant to their community & culture. Other people feel that (as 'bisexual' means homosexual+heterosexual, not men+women) it's not necessary for them to signal this in order to be inclusive, and that 'bisexual' is a more useful word for other reasons. I've also heard some people say they use 'pansexual' because it has 'less baggage' than 'bisexual', which I guess is an attempt to shake off mainstream biphobia (YOU ARE ALL CONFUSED SLUTS GOING THROUGH A PHASE, A PHASE OF EXTREME NONMONOGAMY AND SPREADING AIDS AND OPPRESSING TRANS PEOPLE) but there is no way that is going to work for long.

However, bets may off for younger people who have come out as bisexual in the age of tumblr. I don't know, because I've literally never met anyone who both identifies as bi and uses the binary-gender-only definition of the word, but I've been told that some of these people do exist. [ETA JUST TO CLARIFY MY CLARIFICATION plenty of bi people say they're attracted to both men and women, but that's usually just a turn of phrase rather than a complete and accurate statement of their attractions. I feel like 'pansexual' is a word for a queerer world, one with more cultural third-gender visibility and maybe less of a homosexual/heterosexual binary. It sure must be nice to have grown up in that world and be able to live there and make the rent, but my life experience is more of a bisexual one.]

[(Anonymous)]

As a bisexual woman, that's very well put, thank you. I'll also add that personally I have no emotional connection to the word "pansexual" so it feels made up to me. It's not something I can identify with at all.

[fuchsiascreams]

Totally agree with this comment, and the one it responded to. It's not that I'm not attracted to people who are genderqueer - it's just that I didn't really grow up with the word "pansexual", and I don't really feel any mental connection to it. When someone says "pansexual", in my head I'm not like, "oh, wait, they're talking about me". When someone says "bisexual", I'm like, "hey, that includes me!", even though, for all intents and purposes, they're basically the same thing.

Although maybe I'm crazy, but I don't know if there should be a separate sexuality specifically to include people who are genderqueer. Because then wouldn't we need a separate sexuality for heterosexual people and homosexual people who also can/are attracted to genderqueer individuals? Or people who are cis and attracted to genderqueer individuals, people who are genderqueer who are attracted to genderqueer individuals..

[thene]

Yyyyeah something about the inclusivity issue being applied only to bisexuals doesn't feel right to me. Like we're being held, en masse, to a litmus test that monosexuals are not. And meanwhile, genderqueer people are out there dating all kinds of people - including lesbians, gays and straights. It's not like pansexual-identified people own genderqueers' underwear, so I'm not sure why they'd be held up as the One True Inclusive Identity.

Unless, you know, we were caring more about terminology than about what people actually do with their lives IRL.

[maverickz3r0]

I've lately been thinking that pansexual itself sort of excludes--not only is it biphobic, but I frequently hear people who tout it and it only say it's to be more inclusive of trans people (not genderqueer, specifically trans). Whereas I'm sitting there thinking 'and trans people are some sort of third and fourth gender now?' Ugh.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that's part of what bugs me about that argument, too. I can appreciate that they're making an effort to be more inclusive, but I don't think they have a full grasp on exactly what it is they're trying to be more inclusive of. Especially since a lot of people who use that argument don't seem to know how to react when people who are trans and also bi say that they have no problem with the word.

I'm fine with people using pan if that's what they feel more comfortable identifying as and I'm glad that they have a term that they feel fits their identity. Just please don't try to make other people feel bad for not wanting to use it because they don't feel like it's the right fit for them.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course, then there's the question about bisexual people who AREN'T attracted to folks outside the gender binary, being made to feel bad about themselves. I am bi and attracted to people on all parts of the spectrum except the far extreme of American "male" (and that's mostly due to past baggage with hyper-macho men). But I also know people who identify as bisexual but would only want to date someone who identified as either male or female, and whose sex matched their gender.

And I see nothing wrong with that. Pansexual forces those people OUT of that box. It is no better than telling a homosexual that they must be heterosexual, or vice versa.

Let people choose how they want to identify themselves. I mean, sure, some words don't deserve to be reclaimed. But something that has a perfectly valid neutral meaning doesn't need to be destroyed based solely on it being un-inclusive. IMO.

[thene]

I have no problem with people who ID as pansexual and I don't think that doing so is per se biphobic (although some of the reasons people state for doing so are biphobic), but I do find it ironic that I've seen people say they've adopted it due to it having 'less baggage' than bisexual, when in fact it has simply acquired different baggage.

One thing I don't get is, out there in the real world I've known nonbinary people (and trans* people in general) who've dated partners all over the orientation spectrum? Especially when they do what you describe in your comment and extend that rhetorical inclusivity to all trans* people, it starts seeming odd to me...trans* is not a gender, and defining it as such makes it sound like you have a kink for trans* people.

[(Anonymous)]

It makes me wonder if we need not invent new terms to distinguish homosexual people who could be attracted to both cisgender and transgender members of their gender vs those who are only interested in cisgender people, and the same for heterosexual people. Actually, I don't really wonder that at all because that would be stupidly complicated and completely unnecessary for regular, everyday social interaction.

[(Anonymous)]

I am a ciswoman who is largely attracted to genderless individuals.

I call myself bisexual. I have had happy, communicative relationships with a range of individuals on a spectrum of gender from almost entire neutral to strongly woman-indentified to moderately strong male-identified, both cis and trans. I called myself bi with them.

To the best of my knowledge not a single one of them felt that I was excluding them from my identity and insulting our relationship by calling myself that.

We don't need new terms. We need to come to accept that the terms that exist cover a broad array and range of possibilities and that each time we create a new term the only damn thing we're doing is pigeonholing people further and further and forcing them to choose an identity that may or may not be theirs, or may not be theirs in a decade's time)

(and, no, I don't believe orientation is a choice. I DO believe, however, that it can change overtime, both actually, and in a more metaphorical sense as people come to accept themselves or see more of the world.)