Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2013-09-09 06:40 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-09-09 06:40 pm
[ SECRET POST #2442 ]
⌈ 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.
no subject
and you apparently think i am bisexual, and that pansexuality is unnecessary due to your idea that the bisexual community is not rooted in the gender binary. if that is the case then to you i do have every right to define bisexuality. if you don't think so then you need to recognise that there is a difference between pansexuality and bisexuality.
to drive the point home: i understand that you personally do not adhere to the binary system and that many bisexual people are the same as you in that regard. however it is not common enough, in my experience, to be part of the bisexual identity. until the vast majority of bisexual-identifying people feel this way then it's not consistent and is precisely why many people you would consider bisexual actually identify as pansexual instead, like myself.
no subject
Let me spell it out for you one more time:
1. You are using definitions of gender and queer that were reclaimed by queer people in the 80s and 90s.
2. You are erasing definitions of bi- that were reclaimed by queer people in the 80s and 90s.
Do you not see the conflict there? If you don't respect the work of queers to reclaim bisexuality, because many of us were non-binary gendered ourselves, why do you get to benefit from the work of queers to reclaim queer, gender, cis, and trans?
And while we're at it, "pansexual" comes to us from Freudianism, in which, the crisping of bacon in the embrace of a chthonic pan has a sexual rationalization. We also reclaimed pansexual and omnisexual along with bisexual.
and you apparently think i am bisexual, and that pansexuality is unnecessary due to your idea that the bisexual community is not rooted in the gender binary.
I have no opinion about your sexual orientation, except that if you disavow "bisexual" as an identity, you don't get to define bisexuality for bisexual people.
I also identify as pansexual and queer. More the latter, less the former these days since pansexuality is increasingly associated with essentialism, prejudice, and ignorance of bisexual queer politics, history, and culture. The more that outspoken pansexuals prove to be worse than wrong about bisexuality, the more I want to disavow it.
if you don't think so then you need to recognise that there is a difference between pansexuality and bisexuality.
No I don't. Many of us identify as both. And the reason is that sexuality isn't just a matter of choice, it's a matter of larger political construction. I'm bisexual because I experience anti-bisexual prejudice. That I might also identify as queer and pansexual doesn't change the fact that I'm also constructed as gay and bisexual as well.
Not to mention that since I'm queer, I recognize, "there is a difference between..." to be an act of socio-political construction, and likely an artificial claim of essentialism. My distaste for current definitions of pansexuality comes from the schismatic essentialism. Whether a person is or is not open to non-binary relationships isn't a distinct sexual orientation, no more than it is to say that openness to interracial relationships is a sexual orientation.
however it is not common enough, in my experience, to be part of the bisexual identity. until the vast majority of bisexual-identifying people feel this way then it's not consistent...
Well, most people of any sexual orientation are going to be anti-trans* and binarist. We're also likely to be sexist and racist to varying degrees, and carry a certain baggage of heterosexism. Identifying as pansexual or queer "instead of" (essentialist cooties there, ewww) doesn't change that. The creation of a literature (Bi Any Other Name, Bi The Way, Bi, Anything That Moves), organizations (BiNet, The Bisexual Resource Center), manifestos 1990 and 2009, and outspoken leaders (Ochs, Ka'ahumanu, Hutchins) who describe bisexuality as inclusive and non-binary might. If you think that work is flawed or insufficient, critique it. But you don't get to handwave it away with an appeal to popularity.
Because, to be blunt, I'm inclined to reject pansexual as a label because most pansexuals I've met lately are ignorant, shallow, essentialists, politically fetishizing trans, divisive, and schismatic.
no subject
2. yeah and this is because only a selective group of bisexual people abide by this definition. otherwise i would have no quarrel with you at all on the matter. the reason pansexuality as a label exists is because enough people noticed that bisexuality, as defined by those who fall under its label, does not fit a consistent definition.
if you reject pansexuality as a necessary label/distinction due to lack of consensus in the bisexual community then why would you identify/associate with pansexuality? further, why would you scold me for more or less doing something similar with bisexuality?
more than that, why would you identify as both bisexual and pansexual if you are unwilling to recognise that, despite your definitions of both being seemingly synonymous, bisexuality to an overwhelming amount of people within the bi community is not inclusive enough of nonbinary people?
pansexuality as a label extends beyond nobinary inclusion. pansexuality is sexual attraction to men, women and people who fall in between or outside and beyond. pansexuality is a proper distinction between itself and bisexuality because there are more than two genders, and sexual attraction is definitely tied to gender attraction, so it is not at all the same as racial preferences, amount of sex one is having, et cetera.
i appreciate your resources but they don't touch on the fact that, despite any "modern" definitions of definitions outlined by authoritative voices on bisexuality, people who identify as bisexual are not always - so much so that it is worth mention - inclusive of nonbinary people. if too many bisexual people express rejection of this modern description then these "power voices" if you will no longer solely define the community. the people within it define it. i'm seeing a lot of bisexual people who are inclusive and less phobic of nonbinary people but i am also seeing a significant amount of them who are not like this at all. thus i find it reasonable for people who would otherwise fit your description of bisexual to shirk the label entirely for something that leaves little room for differences among individuals.
no subject
Yeah, pansexuality? We did that, and not for the reasons you're stating here. That's historical revisionism right there. (Here's the point where I say, "Ge' off my lawn!")
Why are you advocating a definition that's not in your best interest? But of course, this doesn't apply to any of the other terms that we reclaimed in the same decade. Pansexuality is less well-known than the "anything that moves" definition of bisexuality. So are cis- and genderqueer. All of that is language that's not well known outside of an activist community, so to say that we should use an from popularity for defining bisexual but not queer doesn't make sense.
You say that my community, literature, and politics are irrelevant, I say your argument from popularity is irrelevant, and hypocritical in that you're not going to accept an argument from popularity about "sex with pans" for pansexual or "faggot" for queer.
if you reject pansexuality as a necessary label/distinction due to lack of consensus in the bisexual community then why would you identify/associate with pansexuality?
Labels are not gang signs, no matter how much the neopansexuals try to bend it that way. Identities are fluid and contextual. In different contexts, it's reasonable to identify myself as gay, pansexual, queer, bisexual, a bear hunter, "gee your fingers look nice," "none of the above," "all of the above," or "none of your business."
For that matter, I think even many of the new generation of pansexual people will disagree with you, as they have no problems with being contextually identified as bisexual and working within bisexual groups.
pansexuality as a label extends beyond nobinary inclusion. pansexuality is sexual attraction to men, women and people who fall in between or outside and beyond.
I don't see that as an essential distinction. I see the rejection of non-binary genders as an social construction of sexism and binarism. For that matter, bisexuality is a social construction, a junk box for people who didn't fit neatly into heterosexual or homosexual social constructions. The difference is that that Dan Savage and the CDC define me as bisexual and not queer or pansexual.
if too many bisexual people express rejection of this modern description then these "power voices" if you will no longer solely define the community.
I see it as the other way around. Given a choice between:
1. The Bisexual Manifestos, Robyn Ochs, and the BRC and
2. An epidemic of pansexual ignorance, intolerance, and essentialism that hasn't produce anything but harassment of bisexual speakers at queer events and bad reviews of important new work.
Why wouldn't I pick #1? (Given, of course, that it's not an either/or, people can be both/and. Note that I'm using the same standard of pansexuality that you're using for bisexuality, the worst popularly expressed opinions.)
thus i find it reasonable for people who would otherwise fit your description of bisexual to shirk the label entirely for something that leaves little room for differences among individuals.
The elephant in the room there is endemic anti-bisexual prejudice in the larger culture. Identifying as pan, omni, or queer doesn't change the fact that I'm categorized, discriminated against, bashed, assaulted, and my property vandalized due to anti-bisexual prejudice. I don't have the liberty of identifying (or refusing to identify) based on my feels.
no subject
i'm not saying your community/history/etc are irrelevant. they are actually really damn relevant to this discussion. and i am not against being labeled as bisexual, which i mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if applied using your definition of bisexuality, because that is more or less what i am. the label itself does not matter so much as the definition behind it, as that is what is describing me. if i am bisexual by your definition then great. if i am not bisexual by others' definitions then wowie, cool. i have opted to refer to myself with a different label entirely because this issue, one where some folks would consider me bisexual and others would not, is so prevalent still. i've met little personal objection in the term i've chosen; the most has been from you actually, and i get your disdain for the label but i still find it valuable.
this: "The elephant in the room there is endemic anti-bisexual prejudice in the larger culture. Identifying as pan, omni, or queer doesn't change the fact that I'm categorized, discriminated against, bashed, assaulted, and my property vandalized due to anti-bisexual prejudice"
applies to me as well, though i'd take it a step further (and i imagine this also applies to you) and add that these prejudices stem from queer hate on top of that. the fact of the matter is that people like us are continuously categorised as greedy, confused, attention wh*res, wh*res in general and then some, on top of standard gay slurs (and for me this also includes transphobic slurs). the way i identify is not to minimise prejudice i face. it is more so for me and for others, to help understand my identity. we are all going to be misunderstood/misinterpreted by some people at some point; for instance i initially misinterpreted what bisexuality meant to you and many others in the community, unaware that inclusion was as commonplace as it seems to be, and others here have misunderstood what it means to me to be pansexual. whichever label i opt to take is not going to erase prejudice i face. i am not identifying based on "feels." i am identifying based on who i am.