[ 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

[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.)