[ SECRET POST #2442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2442 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Then perhaps you need to meet a better quality of bisexual person, or just start sampling the asston of literature by bisexual activists that don't define our sexuality in that way. Who's authoritative here? Robyn Ochs, Lani Ka'ahumanu (the two of whom wrote the books about bisexuality), The Bisexual Resource Center, the soc.bi faq, the 1990 Bisexual Manifesto.

i mean no hatred or disdain in my choice of label;...

Whether you intend no hatred or disdain is irrelevant. You've chosen to express both.

[saku]

your assumptions about pansexuality do not have any objective value; you may choose to refer to me as hateful if you wish but i've no interest in applying your fallacious opinion to what has been expressed in queer culture towards the contrary. i'll survive knowing one person thinks i am expressing hate/disdain for people who buy into the gender binary.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I've not said anything about pansexuality. I've only critiqued your offensive definitions of "bisexual." Perhaps you should address people who buy into the gender binary, and not bisexuals like me who clearly and explicitly don't.

[saku]

then i would fault "bisexuality" as a term for not only being misleading but apparently pandering to the many bisexuals who offensively do buy into the binary, which is an old, outdated and oppressive system. unfortunately through my experience i have reason to believe you are in the minority, though i will do as you suggest and look for other bisexuals to surround myself with.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

You identified yourself as genderqueer. Gender + queer. It don't get any more binary than that. So no, you don't get the privilege of redefining gender and queer to meet your needs, and then erasing the way that we reclaimed and redefined bisexuality.

[saku]

the fuck??? you literally have no clue what you're talking about, do you? genderqueer is a label referring to those who exist outside of the gender binary/nonbinary individuals. you are being offensive and gross. if you want to complain about this shit then you may want to take a step back and consider some deep introspection, not just for yourself but for the bisexual community as a whole.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

genderqueer is a label referring to those who exist outside of the gender binary/nonbinary individuals.

Of course. Here's the thing. WE reclaimed and redefined both genderqueer and bisexual back in the 80s and 90s. I know. I was there when we did it. You DO NOT get to erase our work and the privilege of reclaimed "gender" and reclaimed "queer."

You DO NOT get to single out "bisexual" for censure and ignore the fact that the entire language was reclaimed from the gender binary.

You DO NOT get to attack the bisexual community for adopting definitions that are inclusive of non-binary, fluid, and queer sexualities. And honestly, why would you?

[saku]

so your last response makes no sense then. you tried to claim "genderqueer" is somehow binary, and now you're saying you agree with me that it's not. you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label. further, genderqueer identities are not inherently connected to a bisexual identity. if anything they stray from it because there are still binary implications behind the bisexual label, even if many bisexuals are considerate of individuals outside the binary.

you as a bisexual are also taking a lot of credit for work done primarily by homosexual people. bisexuals did not redefine the concept of gender and did not reclaim queer. that was primarily the work of gay people even if bisexual people helped.

you seem to be claiming that you and i have similar sexualities and yet in the same breath you are trying to distance that by saying i apparently don't have a "right" to "erase" your work (read: primarily the work of homosexual people). genderfluid and genderqueer people had just as much influence as any other queer people in reworking society's views on lgbtq issues.

i will stop "attacking" the bisexual community when more of you do adopt a more inclusive definition.

[thene]

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label.

No dude, not abandoning my sexual identifier because some other people decided I was 'outdated'.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

you tried to claim "genderqueer" is somehow binary, and now you're saying you agree with me that it's not. you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Gender and queer are binary by the same standard your using to define bisexuality. You don't get to use a 21st century definition for the former, and insist on a 1950s definition for the latter.

Especially when you're told that the 1950s definition is offensive.

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label.

It's only misleading if you are refusing to listen to what we have to say about ourselves.

if anything they stray from it because there are still binary implications behind the bisexual label,...

Only if you are refusing to listen to what we have to say about ourselves.

i will stop "attacking" the bisexual community when more of you do adopt a more inclusive definition.

How many support groups, how many leading activists, how many faqs, how many anthologies, how many periodicals, how many online communities need to adopt the inclusive definition here? Because as far as I can tell, all of them do.

[insanenoodlyguy]

I won't lie, me and Chard were doing a dramatic reading of this to amuse ourselves (don't worry, we aren't putting it up on vocaroo).

I was reading Cbrachyrhynchos with my best aquaman voice (it's decent) and Chardmonster, because all she can do is a southern accent, did you as My Little Ponies Applejack (you kept replacing words with apple then correcting yourself)

But then you had to be shitty and ruin the funny. Way to go.

Also Cbrachyrhynchos, two things:

One: Your icon is awesome

Two: how the fuck do you say your name.

[chardmonster]

So let me get this straight.

you as a bisexual are also taking a lot of credit for work done primarily by homosexual people. bisexuals did not redefine the concept of gender and did not reclaim queer. that was primarily the work of gay people even if bisexual people helped.

You're talking down to someone who was actually there about this shit? And you're trying to play off some kind of bullshit orientation hierarchy to do it?

You're coming off as an asshole. Largely because you're acting like an asshole.

[(Anonymous)]

What would you call someone who was attracted to *only* cisgender men and women, then? If not bisexual (as you claim they are "lower quality bisexuals"), is there another term?

[(Anonymous)]

What would you call someone attracted to cis and trans people of their own gender?

[(Anonymous)]

heteropansexual

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, bisexual. But I'd say those people are ignorant of the larger history, politics, and community if they think that bisexuality doesn't include non-binary, queer, and fluid sexualities as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Would everybody who is not 100% homosexual, 100% heterosexual, or 100% asexual fall under the bisexual umbrella?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

If someone:
1) Identifies as bisexual, and
2) experiences anti-bisexual prejudice in the larger culture.

Then I'd say they fall under the big-umbrella catholic definition of bisexual.

[(Anonymous)]

1) isn't enough?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's not just about self-identification. Identifying as queer or pansexual (which I also do) doesn't change the fact that I experience anti-bisexual prejudice.

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't talking about you, though. I was talking about a theoretical person who identifies as bi but has not faced discrimination. Is identifying as bi not enough? You listed them separately, is all.

[(Anonymous)]

2) Wait, you just implied that the prejudice in a culture can define someone (instead of just, you know, what someone really identifies as)? Really?

[thene]

What do you call straight people or gay people who are only attracted to cisgender people?

Bisexuals get singled out over this because of biphobia, not because of anything about who bisexuals are or who we date.

[(Anonymous)]

"Straight" and "gay," AFAIK.

[(Anonymous)]

To add to that:

Attracted-to-cis is the default assumption. Everything else is an add-on case by case, which you have to inquire about before knowing for sure. That's just how it is.