fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2442 ]

I'd agree with that if the majority of people thought that bisexuality was all-inclusive.

But the academic/original definition of bisexuality isn't the one most people think of when they say bisexual, any more. What people perceive it as, is "cismen and ciswomen" so it gets complicated. Yes, people can point out that the original meaning of bisexuality wasn't so limited, but that appears to be what it means now to the general populace

if bisexuality excludes trans people wouldn't hetero or homosexuality do the same thing. And doesn't that imply that trans men and women aren't real men and women, but some kind of third gender? isn't that just shitty to everyone?
I also dispute your definition of "general populace".

The whole language is tainted with assumptions of duality and dichotomy. Singling out the bisexual community for reclaiming the language used to marginalize us while using roots like homo-, hetero-, -sexual, trans-, and -gendered (and glossing over the fact that "pansexual" comes to us from Freudian psychology to describe something very different from how it's currently used) strikes me as a big problem.

Neither bisexuality nor homosexuality (nor heterosexuality, for that matter) inherently exclude trans people, but individual bi, gay, lesbian, and hetero people sometimes do. Many queer spaces are inclusive, sure, but not all of them.

One of the most transphobic individuals I've ever had the misfortune to deal with was a bi guy.

Yep, 'not wanting to date trans people' is not inherent to any sexuality. I know a trans woman who called herself 'gynosexual' instead of lesbian, because she would never date another trans woman.

What it means now to the general population is that I'm an infected, deceptive, fudge-packing, faggot.

No? It's not quite the 80s any more, the whole queer people have AIDS thing is muuuuch less prevalent. At least with people under 40, IDK.

Either way, what a word is taken to mean literally and how people judge those the word applies to aren't remotely the same thing and not a fair comparison to make.

Either way, what a word is taken to mean literally and how people judge those the word applies to aren't remotely the same thing and not a fair comparison to make.

Of course it's a fair comparison to make. See that last sentence. There is not a single word in there that you interpret "literally" according to its etymological history. It's all about context and community. Probably the only person in our recent cultural history to use the word "bisexual" by it's literal meaning was Bones during the episode "The Trouble with Tribbles."

So which definitions matter here, I go with this one that I found when I first came out, and used to come out of the closet myself back in the 1990s:

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have "two" sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality, including your own.

Edited 2013-09-10 01:30 (UTC)

Thank you.

Except there are a boatload of people who aren't under 40 still wobbling around the planet. I didn't realize conflating homosexual behavior with HIV/AIDS was still a thing until I mentioned to my mom that my (gay) chiropractor had lost a lot of weight because he stopped eating wheat. She honest to god said, "Are you sure it's really because of the wheat and not because he's [sorry, this is so freaking cringeworthy] doing the whole AIDS thing?" NO MOM, HE CHANGED HIS DIET. BECAUSE DIETS WORK ON GAY PEOPLE TOO.

/csb

I can tell you, as an academic myself, that expecting the broader world to live by academic terms is a losing proposition. It can actually be a bit mean to make people to attempt to live in easily studied categories determined by a bunch of folks with phDs. That language exists for studying society, not organizing it.

I don't expect average people to identify with my meta gobbledigook. That's for my fellow historians and history students.

Edited 2013-09-10 01:16 (UTC)

Thats... exactly the point I'm trying to make! Thank you.

How bisexuality originally was defined is not what it's generally taken to mean. Generally, people take it to mean that you are into cismen and ciswomen and many people who ID as bi mean they like cismen and ciswomen only.

Oh! Okay.

But are you sure this is how people in the broader world (i.e. not just internet fan communities) are defining bisexuality?

I consider myself bisexual and I don't rule out trans people for dating. It just never came up.

Yes, more people in the broader world who do not know that genderqueer, genderfluid, intersex, and other non-binary individuals exist, also call themselves bisexual. This means they like cismen and ciswomen; I would say a large majority of them would not be entirely comfortable with a trans* or intersex individual.

Maybe the ones who are active in politics and academics and defining themselves might be. But they are not the norm and they are not the majority. Many, many people who are not involved in that sort of thing figure out that they are attracted to cismen and attracted to ciswomen, then come out as "bisexual" to everyone because that's what it means to the non-academic.

And...therefore their identity label is offensive?

Stop trying to relabel people. Please. If I suddenly told queer people to stop calling themselves that and call themselves anomalous instead, I'd get run out of town. If I told trans (or trans*, whichever you please) people to call themselves adjusts the same would happen.

I'm bi. The love of my life is MTF. She has no issue with me calling myself that.

And gender roles are so utterly engrained into our heads that most of the population isn't entirely comfortable around trans folks. The US makes cabaret shows in which its showcased as weird and wonderful. The UK has panto, where a man in drag is one of the main stock characters. Western society as a whole considers queer people to be a goddamn spectacle. But that doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves bi is adhering to that and certainly doesn't mean their label should be erased except to be used ONLY by folks who are attracted to cis-gender people of either sex. -_-

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 05:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 05:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 11:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 16:13 (UTC) - Expand

Nobody is obligated to call themselves something specific so it's easier for someone else to figure out if they'd be interested in fucking them.

I'm confused as to what your point is - bisexuality is a more well known word, more people are transphobic than not therefore people shouldn't call themselves bisexual?

I would say a large majority of them would not be entirely comfortable with a trans* or intersex individual.

And? That doesn't change what the term means, it just means that they individually have certain attitudes.

I'm really enjoying the rampant biphobia in this thread by the way.

Um, you do know that the national periodical for bisexuals for over a decade was titled, Anything That Moves, do you not?

No, I don't. I reached puberty in a decade where bisexual was a layman's term and defined differently.

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

cbrachyrhynchos - 2013-09-10 01:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 01:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

cbrachyrhynchos - 2013-09-10 02:08 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 01:51 (UTC) - Expand

Many people don't take trans people into account at all when they state their sexuality. Like other people in this thread have said, gay and straight people don't have to clarify whether they just want cis partners, it's really weird that people expect this from bisexuals.

As a trans guy I am more wary of people who say they are pan than people who say they are bi. Sure, the label tells me they will accept whatever's in my pants, but judging from the ones I've seen they are also just as likely to see me as not a man but some kind of in-between special gender. Meanwhile I know several gay and bi people who would never say "I'm gay, I like cis and trans men" but have been totally cool with dating trans guys when the opportunity came up.

gay and straight people don't have to clarify whether they just want cis partners

I would take issue with that statement. I have known a whole lot of transphobic people who did not identify as bi or pan, and even if they listed their orientation as "straight" a transwoman was out of the question. The default appears to be that cis is included an that trans is a tossup for most people. I would love to live in a world where, if a man said he were straight, an mtf transwoman was automatically included in his potential dating pool. But she is not. She may be, but she is not *automatically.*

The reason gay and straight people are not questioned as much is because more of them are simply assumed to be cisonly than bisexuals. People are not assuming straight and gay people are more open to trans* people; they are assuming they are *less* open.

This isn't saying this is right or wrong or offensive or not, only that this is how it is.

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 04:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 04:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 04:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 12:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 04:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-10 05:08 (UTC) - Expand

Or, outside of Western culture, take into account the Fa'afafine of Samoa. They are third-gender individuals (males who live as women). This is not the interesting thing.

The interesting thing is that most Fa'afafine are what some in the west would call homophobic. They find the idea of sleeping with a GAY male or female to be horrific. Society views it the same. Because the Fa'afafine identify as female, a heterosexual relationship for them would be one with a straight male.

I'm not following this line of reasoning.

The general population has misconceptions about just about everything with which they don't have personal experience. Sexualities, religions, political affiliations, careers, sports, hobbies, you name it.

In what other context is the onus on the misunderstood group to change their descriptor so that the lowest common denominator can't mistake their meaning (even though they still will anyway - it's not like people don't already go "pansexual? so you're into everything? Even elves, radiators, Planck's constant and the smell of grass after the rain?" )

The majority of people think bisexuality means I'm too scared to call myself a lesbian or will cheat on my partner because one will never be enough. It doesn't mean I have to change how I define myself to please the majority or anyone.

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

New anon sweeps in!!

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?