fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2442 ]

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. -_-

No one in this thread is saying to change anything, only pointing out the misconceptions that exist and the people that help them to exist by buying into them. Everybody is getting offended all over for no reason y'all give me a headache

No. There are a LOT of people in these threads saying "bisexuality is a bad term and needs to be regulated to only people who are attracted to cisgender folks of both sexes".

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.

So here you are, mouthing off to people who have been a part of the community for over two decades saying that we've been doing it wrong for over 20 years?

Here's a hint. The larger world barely understands queer, and it certainly doesn't understand pansexuality. The reality of the world is anti-bisexual prejudice and discrimination.

I'm not pansexual, and I've identified as bisexual for 10 years. You've obviously identified as it for much longer, but we are clearly from different eras and you believe that nothing at all has changed from yours- on either side of the issue.

Discrimination is real, but things have, in general, become much better for people like us from the "lying diseased fudgepacker" days. By leaps and bounds. If you can't see that then I don't think you ever will. Times change.

Dan Savage is still making excuses to attack us, and the Bailey study that said we don't exist was only a few years ago. I still can't give blood. My relationships are still second-class in most of the United States, and I still see the same old stereotypes expressed.

SA as above ^

Oops! I mean, I don't identify with the label "pansexual." By "bisexual" I do mean I am open to every type of gender identity, as you define it. However that is not how I see "bisexual" used any more outside of academic or retro-political circles, and most people mistake me for only liking cismen and ciswomen.

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.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that gay and straight people were considered more open or anything. I just find it weird that there's all this scrutiny over bi people and people going as far as saying that just being bi makes you transphobic. I don't really get why all the pressure is on bi people, it seems to me that while none of those orientations specifically include trans people none of them rule it out either, and that's all on the individual. I just don't understand these sweeping generalizations about who people must be attracted to and pushing people to change their labels.

I don't think anyone is accusing bi people of being transphobic? People are saying the term "bisexual" will sometimes be read/intended as "cis men and cis women only," and is being used by a lot of transphobic people, which is a problem and which is making "bisexual" a label that some people avoid, opting to go for "pan" instead- not accusing all bisexual person of being phobic by using the label. Then bisexual people are taking it as an attack on them, and thinking all bisexuals are being called transphobic when they're not.

Even if a person is only attracted to cispeople, they aren't transphobic they merely aren't sexually attracted, anyways.

I guess my problem is that most of the pansexual people I've encountered have been on tumblr, where it seemed like they started identifying as pan to show how accepting they were and then declared that bi people were enforcing the gender binary and also transphobic for saying there were only two genders to be attracted to. I know nobody in this thread was saying that but that's what I've seen more often than the situation you described.

Re: why is pansexuality ok and demisexuality not?

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

sameanon

And I think the scrutiny here is on bisexuals because bisexuals are supposed to be the open ones, except a whole bunch of people who identify as bisexual aren't, and are spreading the idea that bisexual need only mean attraction to ciswomen and cismen. Those people are the ones causing the issue and the incorrect way other people perceive bisexuality.

As for why not gay/straight, the gay/straight thing already has such deep roots in cis individuals and cis body parts that assuming a gay or straight person will be open to non-binary individuals is likely to end up in a bad time. Again it may not and they may be open to attraction but chances are too low to presume they are.

Not true. I was just watching a show about a trans couple that was struggling with the fact that the second person was considering sexual reassignment surgery.

Person A was a heterosexual MTF. Person B was in transition from MTF. They'd been in the relationship for a long time.

The conflict was that person A was not going to love person B if they completed their sexual reassignment, because she was only attracted to males. Person B was torn because s/he knew that inside s/he was a woman, but s/he really loved person A.

So Person B was, in theory, a gay trans*woman who loved both trans and cis women. Person A was a heterosexual trans*woman who was only attracted to cisgender males. It's certainly rarer, but I think straight and gay people often consider the question about whether they'd be attracted to trans people.

Confounded by transphobia, of course, but they do.

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?" )

[ SECRET POST #2442 ]

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?

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?