LGBTAitp - Part Thirteen

[Worira]

Incidentally I dislike the term "pansexual" because it's a ridiculous mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

Also because a lot of people who favour it use the logic that bisexuals can't be attracted to transgender or intersex individuals or that the term endorses a gender binary because of a literal reading of the "bi" portion of the word, but still get offended when people point out that a literal reading of the "pan" in "pansexual" includes, say, Douglas Firs.

[Coidzor]

Incidentally I dislike the term "pansexual" because it's a ridiculous mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

Also because a lot of people who favour it use the logic that bisexuals can't be attracted to transgender or intersex individuals or that the term endorses a gender binary because of a literal reading of the "bi" portion of the word, but still get offended when people point out that a literal reading of the "pan" in "pansexual" includes, say, Douglas Firs.

...I'm almost scared to look up to see what that guy did... err...wait...do you mean the Tree?

[Derjuin]

...I'm almost scared to look up to see what that guy did... err...wait...do you mean the Tree?

He had the audacity to look like a Tsuga.

[Lissou]

Uh, yeah. Sorry, but I like people as people, not as walking holders for sex organs. I'm attracted to person [x] because person [x] is funny and likes what I do. Their definition implies that I like person [x] because person [x] has a penis or has a vagina. Sorry, but no, pansexuals do not have a monopoly on being attracted to "people, not sexes".

I don't see why one makes the other impossible. I'm straight, I only like males, or most specifically people with penises (so that includes trans females). I also don't like them just because they have a penis, but it's an important part. I mean, otherwise I won't have sex with them and we might as well be friends.
That doesn't mean I don't like them because they're funny, or nerdy, or the bunch of other requirements I have. But the way I see it "must have penis" isn't a "dirtier" requirement than "must have sense of humour". Both are out of the person's control, after all.

I don't know, as a straight person it seems to me most of us (straight people) DO have a sex requirement. But that does not mean that we see people as placeholders for genitalia, just that we're only attracted to one sex. And hey, it's not like I have control over it, so let's be honest about it so people don't get hurt, right?

Incidentally I dislike the term "pansexual" because it's a ridiculous mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

Well, it's not like it's the only word that does that (see "television" or "automobile").

...I'm almost scared to look up to see what that guy did... err...wait...do you mean the Tree?

I didn't see your addendum until I quoted you to reply. Yes, I believe it's a reference to the trees.

[Savannah]

I don't see why one makes the other impossible. I'm straight, I only like males, or most specifically people with penises (so that includes trans females). I also don't like them just because they have a penis, but it's an important part. I mean, otherwise I won't have sex with them and we might as well be friends.
That doesn't mean I don't like them because they're funny, or nerdy, or the bunch of other requirements I have. But the way I see it "must have penis" isn't a "dirtier" requirement than "must have sense of humour". Both are out of the person's control, after all.

I see your point, however my point is not so much a reaction to your friends' definition as to the "pansexuals like people, not sexes" definition that I often see used. And my issue isn't that it's a "dirtier" requirement, but that it seems to objectify the people that I'm attracted to as nothing more than "has penis" or "has vagina" and implies that I only want them for the sex.

[Lissou]

I see your point, however my point is not so much a reaction to your friends' definition as to the "pansexuals like people, not sexes" definition that I often see used. And my issue isn't that it's a "dirtier" requirement, but that it seems to objectify the people that I'm attracted to as nothing more than "has penis" or "has vagina" and implies that I only want them for the sex.

I understand how that would be annoying, especially the parts I bolded. I do think saying "pansexuals like people, not sexes" is flawed, because as far as I know, everyone likes people, not sexes, even those who do favour a specific sex.
For relationships at least, I can see how casual or anonymous sex might be a bit different if you're into that (not you specifically, I mean the general "you").

[742]

i meant that question sarcastically >< im so sorry. i read most of this thread up to the point where i posted, i should have known better than to use that word.

[Kneenibble]

Incidentally I dislike the term "pansexual" because it's a ridiculous mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

Also because a lot of people who favour it use the logic that bisexuals can't be attracted to transgender or intersex individuals or that the term endorses a gender binary because of a literal reading of the "bi" portion of the word, but still get offended when people point out that a literal reading of the "pan" in "pansexual" includes, say, Douglas Firs.

Though I do enjoy your humour, you are incorrect sir. pas/pasa/pan does not mean 'everything' like that.

Incidentally, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and Homersexual are ridiculous mish-mashes of Greek and Latin too.

[Serpentine]

...It can't mean the same thing and be more accurate at the same time, since the latter would mean that it didn't have the same meaning.

Yes, it can. They have the same definition, but "pansexual" more accurately represents that definition. That is, both bisexual and pansexual mean "is not primarily attracted to one sex" or "the people one is attracted to come from both/all/any sex/gender". "Bi" is arguably inaccurate because it implies, according to some, that it is restricted to only cismen and ciswomen, whereas "pan" eliminates this perceived restriction.

If I may chip in...
A lot of people have defined it as "another word for bisexual".

But the people I know who identify as pansexual make a big distinction. They mean they're attracted to people regardless of sex and gender. And according to what they've told me, they would also date someone who is intersex, genderqueer or transgender, while a bisexual person would not. According to their definition, bisexual people like manly males and feminine females, and wouldn't be interested in someone if they don't know their gender, while a pansexual person wouldn't care if they even have a gender at all.

How spread is this understanding of the word? Is it just my friends' definition? What people say here seems to basically say "It's the same as bisexual but it's not a word with a binary-gender connotation" while my friends believe that a pansexual person will be attracted to a whole bunch of people a bisexual person wouldn't.

See: The several-page-long argument just a few pages back
To summarise:
1. That definition is insulting to bisexuals, as well as grossly misrepresenting them.
2. The basic sexuality categories are defined by the sexes a person is attracted to, not why or how they are attracted to them. Bisexuals and pansexuals are both attracted to the same spread of sexes. Why they are attracted does not enter into it. If you want to use this definition, then it is not a sexuality on the same plane as homo/hetero/bisexual, but in a different category entirely.
3. Following from #2, this definition implies that monosexuals should be further split into those who like the opposite sexes for their genitalia, and those who like the opposite sexes for being people. This is, in my opinion, just silly.

[Ashen Lilies]

Though I do enjoy your humour, you are incorrect sir. pas/pasa/pan does not mean 'everything' like that.

Incidentally, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and Homersexual are ridiculous mish-mashes of Greek and Latin too.

Spoiler

Show

???

Or did you perhaps mean:

Spoiler

Show

?

[ZombyWoof]

1. That definition is insulting to bisexuals, as well as grossly misrepresenting them.

See, it's also insulting to us heterosexuals as well as grossly misrepresenting us. As I've said, I have no problem with dating someone who is trans mtf and identifies as female. I am also not pansexual nor am I bisexual. I don't see people who are mtf as "trans" I see them as women.

3. Following from #2, this definition implies that monosexuals should be further split into those who like the opposite sexes for their genitalia, and those who like the opposite sexes for being people. This is, in my opinion, just silly.

I am definitely a vaginogynasexual. For sure.

[Kneenibble]

?

Both, you scrumptious buttered scone. Partly the pun that Homer 1 was Greek, but please also see that episode of the Simpsons where Homer 2 has to set up Selma but gets Skinner and Patty together instead.

Then all shall become clear.

[Caustic Soda]

Now if everyone could agree to not rip each other's throats out over minor semantic differences, maybe we could have world peace.

Now why would we want to do that? Judging from this and previous threads, arguing over semantics is one of the favorite pastimes of our little community, myself included

[blackfox]

Now why would we want to do that? Judging from this and previous threads, arguing over semantics is one of the favorite pastimes of our little community, myself included

Because arguing over semantics is a really great way to piss me off, and pissing me off is a really great way to start the clocks ticking on every collection of nuclear warheads worldwide ever.

[Partysan]

Gosh, always this discussion. I don't know, but it seems to me that some people have been offended by people explaining pansexuality in an insensitive way and taking in out on the word.
Pansexuality explicitly includes people that do not fit the definitions of either male or female. Bisexuality does not. That doesn't mean it can't include them, but it does not do so explicitly. Some people, including me, prefer to explicitly include those outside the gender scale.

[Serpentine]

Which is alright by me, and just what I said before.

[Lix Lorn]

Both, you scrumptious buttered scone. Partly the pun that Homer 1 was Greek, but please also see that episode of the Simpsons where Homer 2 has to set up Selma but gets Skinner and Patty together instead.

Then all shall become clear.

Kneenibble... I do adore your personal brand of insane perversity. xD

[Coidzor]

Gosh, always this discussion. I don't know, but it seems to me that some people have been offended by people explaining pansexuality in an insensitive way and taking in out on the word.
Pansexuality explicitly includes people that do not fit the definitions of either male or female. Bisexuality does not. That doesn't mean it can't include them, but it does not do so explicitly. Some people, including me, prefer to explicitly include those outside the gender scale.

Language is a funny business, yeah. But, yeah, that's concise and doesn't contain inflammatory language.

Kneenibble... I do adore your personal brand of insane perversity. xD

Kneenibble is like the crazy uncle who's great conversation at dinner parties but who also is probably a vampire or something with how often he just vanishes for weeks at a time. And you just know you'll never get to hear his really interesting stories.

[Savannah]

Pansexuality explicitly includes people that do not fit the definitions of either male or female. Bisexuality does not. That doesn't mean it can't include them, but it does not do so explicitly. Some people, including me, prefer to explicitly include those outside the gender scale.

See, I'm good with that definition. It's only when it's stated as fact that bisexuality does not include the middle bits that I get insulted. (Oh, and when it's stated that everyone of every sexuality other than pan is interested in people just for their sex, not as people....)

[Caustic Soda]

@Partysan: I have no real problem with that definition, as others have said, the problem with the term comes when it is used for not-very-subtle digs at people who identify as bisexual. That isn't how you use it, if I've understood you correctly, so it's cool with me.

[unosarta]

Has anyone else heard of Everyone is Gay (dot) com? It is Dannielle Owens-Reid, who started Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber, and Kristin Russo, who is getting her PhD in Gender Studies focusing on LGBT stuff. They give advice to LGBT youth who send in questions, and every so often they do webcasts.

As a note; they tend to swear a bit, so if you don' like that, be warned.

Also; Jamie Nebozney, who lives in Minneapolis, came to my school yesterday, and did an assembly in front of my entire school. I go to the LGBT support group at my school, so us, the GSA, and the anti-bullying group got to have smaller conversation with him. It was fantastic.

If you don't know who he is, he won a lawsuit against 10 students who bullied him in his Wisconsin school, and against the administration, who protected the students who bullied him. There apparently isn't a Wikipedia page about him (weird ), but with some light googling you should be able to find out him pretty easily.

[Coidzor]

Dannielle Owens-Reid, who started Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber.

Oh thank goodness it's not just me. I was worried I was going crazy for seeing that connection crop up so much.

[unosarta]

Oh thank goodness it's not just me. I was worried I was going crazy for seeing that connection crop up so much.

I think she it's because she is just so awesome.
I mean, she also is currently working for Lady Gaga while her Gaga-ness is on tour.

[Coidzor]

I think she it's because she is just so awesome.
I mean, she also is currently working for Lady Gaga while her Gaga-ness is on tour.

...Justin Bieber came out as actually being a woman and now works for Lady Gaga?

[Danne]

Has anyone else heard of Everyone is Gay (dot) com? ...

Oh em gee, they're totally insane. ...It's quite entertaining.

[Mystic Muse]

...Justin Bieber came out as actually being a woman and now works for Lady Gaga?

I wouldn't be surprised.

But then, Not a lot surprises me any more.

[unosarta]

...Justin Bieber came out as actually being a woman and now works for Lady Gaga?

I was talking about Dannielle Owens-Reid, but sure, we can go with that...

Oh em gee, they're totally insane. ...It's quite entertaining.

I love their webcasts! So fantastic!

I wouldn't be surprised.

But then, Not a lot surprises me any more.

Your capitalized "N" doesn't even surprise me.

[Mystic Muse]

Your capitalized "N" doesn't even surprise me.

Sorry. I randomly capitalize words sometimes. No clue why.

[unosarta]

Sorry. I randomly capitalize words sometimes. No clue why.

No problem, man, no problem.

I have been feeling very alone recently (not sure if I have already mentioned this to this thread, ). Like, all of my friends are in relationships (literally all of them), and it isn't that I feel pressured into one, but I just feel like I don't have someone with whom I can get intimate, even with my friends. In addition, there just aren't that many people who are available in my area or interested, and most of them are already in relationships. It is just really, really frustrating.

[Coidzor]

Well, at least you're not already in a relationship and terribly lonely no matter what and feel like you're trapped and can't leave and your friends all have it so much better.

So there's a silver lining there.