My 'issue' with certain gender and sexuality labels

[Something Amyss]

You're wrong about what Asexual means.

No, you gave me the literal definition of asexuality.

The only reason I latch onto that definition Besides it coming from within the group in question is that it makes a distinction between pan and bi

Except you're talking to someone from within one of those groups as well, whose SO ticks more than one of those boxes. You can latch on to them, but common usage of the words is not in your favour.

'cause one of my best friends is a lesbian and her wife is bisexual and both of them would fuck a hot transgender person in a heart beat.

So you know a single bisexual who would. That does not mean all bisexuals would.

Inventing a new word like "Pansexual" just to give an old word like "Bisexual" a negative connotation by implying trans-phobia is intolerable.

No, it really doesn't. It simply says "the old term doesn't fit, this one does."

What's stopping me from saying "I'm not white, I'm eggshell. That means I'm fair skinned but not racist"
That would make me look like a shithead.

Again, you're the one who's associating the label with the ism. That's simply not the case.

"I wouldn't fuck a trans person" is not inherently transphobia anymore than "I wouldn't fuck another dude" is inherently homophobia.

Also, are you seriously indicating pansexuals are shitheads because you don't approve of the label? That's what saying you'd look like an asshole when equating your hypothetical to them looks like to me.

But if it's actually only about attraction to trans people I can't abide.

Unfortunately, it's not up to you. You don't get to dictate terms to them.

There are 2 different sets of private parts, you like 1, both or neither. pick your word

What about non-op transsexuals? You can have the outward appearance of one gender and the genitals of another. What if you like women, and enjoy breasts, but a penis is a dealbreaker on a woman? What if you like both men and women, but are not sexually attracted to a transman who hasn't had any sort of phalloplasty? What about intersexed individuals? What about the nones?

You talkk about transphobic connotations, but precluding people like this is in itself transphobic (and likely cissexist). The delcaration that there are two sets of genitals and using that to determine sexuality is transphobic. But somehow, people who have opted to choose an inclusive label are the bad guys?

But ultimately, what difference does it make to you? What harm does it do, such that you "cannot abide?" Why is this such a huge problem? Why should I care? Hell, why should I care if you call yourself eggshell? What difference does it make to me? Seriously, what difference? How does this impact my day-to-day in any way because I still call myself white?

People call themselves pansexual. I don't. Life goes on. I don't feel put upon, or even accused of transphobia (which would be horribly ironic if it was the case) and why should I? And who are you to dictate what others call themselves?

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd definitely want to know if someone fit those boundaries for me. They are pretty relevant to a relationship or potential one. Of course I wouldn't blame someone if they didn't feel comfortable mentioning said issues for a while but I certainly wouldn't be upset to be better informed

Cool. More or less the answer I would expect. But again, this is hypthetical to me, so it's good to have confirmation.

Besides, you can't exactly call something based on chromosomes (a concept which has existed less than 60 years) old-fashioned.

Why not? We consider most ideas from 60 years ago old-fashioned.

But yes, most people don't' even know their chromosomes, so it's a poor marker.

I can't remember what it's called, but there's a condition where you have XY chromosomes, but only express the X chromosome. By the chromosomal definition, someone who looks, thinks, and has the hormones of a woman should be considered as and treated like a man.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?

 

[Thaluikhain]

My issue with that is that being trans should just as easily be attractive to someone who is bi- anyway while being a hermaphrodite shouldn't really prevent them from being attracted to them either.

Sure. It "should". Very different, unfortunately, from this being the case.

i remember being on the internet like a year ago and finding all these new words like 'transphobic' and 'anti-trans' and blah blah blah blah blah... my general opinion was and still is 'so this is the new gay?' -.-
now that Gay Marriage is finally legal we have to come up with something else... great...

I know, right? People keep wanting equality instead of quietly putting up with being persecuted. Weird that.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?

The description sounds pretty spot on, it was probably this or something very similar to it.

Genetic "definitions" include the expression of those genes. The problem here is the understanding of the average forum goer, not the actual medical issues.

Yeah, I meant more along the lines of the response that we get in most of these discussions of "If they have XY chromosomes, they're a man, if they have XX they're a woman. It's that simple"

 

[Something Amyss]

My issue with that is that being trans should just as easily be attractive to someone who is bi- anyway while being a hermaphrodite shouldn't really prevent them from being attracted to them either.

Intersex (not hermaphrodite) genitals don't necessarily neatly resemble the constitutent elements.

But the larger issue as I see it is you can't control who you're attracted to, and attraction is already kind of hard to figure out. Even pansexuals aren't attracted to everyone, so while you can say that bisexuals should be cool with it, that doesn't change their actual feelings.

No matter what you feel that means.

I know, right? People keep wanting equality instead of quietly putting up with being persecuted. Weird that.

Kind of the irony here is that transfolk have been told for decades to "wait our turn," and more recently, so has the NB, etc population.

Because gay people got the rights they should have already had, and we want the rights we should have already had, we're somehow trouble. And those poor NBs are even worse, because they're basically being accused of fabricating it for the purpose of having a new fight.

Even though it's not a wholly new concept either.

But yeah, how weird we didn't all quiet down because gays got certain rights, eh?

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, I meant more along the lines of the response that we get in most of these discussions of "If they have XY chromosomes, they're a man, if they have XX they're a man. It's that simple"

You said man twice. >.>

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I haven't really...well, I haven't seen much in the way of positive examples of these sorts of splinter groups, what with Tumblr and its ilk being the primary vector through which I've been exposed to 'em, so I don't really think I can give any input that wouldn't be soaking in raw, unfiltered bias.

But, eh. Fuck it.

It just comes off as an attempt to be special, more than anything else. Further divvying things up so these individuals can look at what is rapidly becoming the new mainstream and say, "Hmph, we're not like them. They don't understand us. We're PanGenderQueerNonBinarySapientElkAntlerTeaCozies. Represent, ya'll." etc.

Essentially:

It's the new 'counter culture' in a way. The newest hip/alt thing.

Of course, there are people among these groups that are sincere and are actively looking for a means to describe their feelings or what have you, so I'd advise not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's nothing inherently wrong with further delineation of terms/groups, but the way in which a lot of these folks are going about it is just jerky.

Anything is possible. Threads like this tend to be flames that draw a very particular kind of moth, though, as I'm sure we're both aware. As this one clearly has.

...

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

You said man twice. >.>

That wasn't a mistake, I clearly meant to do that.

Maybe I was just tackling a slightly stupider argument...

 

[Something Amyss]

You said man twice. >.>

That wasn't a mistake, I clearly meant to do that.

Maybe I was just tackling a slightly stupider argument...

I got what you meant. I am not above the occasional typo myself.

 

[kitsunefather]

Okay, my two cents for what it's worth (probably not much).

I don't care what gender you identify with, nor how it relates to the biological sex you were born as. If you are past the age of sexual maturity and are living as a gender of your choice, I will address you as such. If I make a mistake because of visual cues I miss, I will apologize and make a note in the future. That said, your pronoun options are he/she/it (male/female/agender). Personally, I find "it" disrespectful, so I will default to he/she unless a third option is demanded. If people make a mistake, even if it's the third (or thirtieth) person today, be patient. If the same person keeps making the mistake, they are likely absent-minded or a dick, and you will have interacted with them enough to have the context to tell the difference.

Now, you may note the reference to "sexual maturity" in the passage above. This is when we come into our understandings of our bodies and our relationships with them. If you tell me a 6 year old is transgender, I'm more concerned about the environment they are living in that they are being forced to address sexual identity issues at 6 years old than I am misgendering them.

As to sexuality, I don't care. If your partner is a consenting adult, that's between you and them. Bi/gay/les/het/a/qu/bbq don't care. There's no reason for the world to care, unless you are being oppressed, such as in gay rights. Then, I'm not fighting for your rights, I'm fighting for people to be treated like people, regardless of sexuality. It doesn't matter to me if you are attracted to me or not.

The caveat here is being offended when someone of a kind you aren't attracted to shows interest. Respect is the answer. If you are a lesbian and a guy tries to pick you up, treat it as a compliment and blow him off. If he persists, he's an asshole and act according to your nature as a person. Same goes for the whole word salad.

In the end, I believe people should be treated like members of the human race, and all should be given the rights and opportunities that every other has, regardless of religion, sexuality, gender, or race. We're doing better in the Western World than we ever have in the past, and that's only going to get better as the old guard in government and business retire, to make way for people for whom these ideas aren't alien.

 

[McElroy]

I think one of the big issues here is that people forget that because for most people, most of those boxes are a majority option. We assume someone with a penis is a boy and someone with a vagina is a girl. We assume they're each cool with those designations, and that they're attracted to the opposite sex exclusively. We assume that they are interested in sex, and we generally assume the same kind of sex. We start to assume that because these things are "normal," they are the default or even only option. And if that's the case, wouldn't you want to know if your (potential) partner outside those boundaries?

...actually, that's kind of a serious question if anyone wants to answer. I seriously don't know. Because unless we're talking about a proclivity to kill after sex, it doesn't matter to me in the first place. I don't understand it anymore than most people understand gender dysphoria or sexuality.

From my purely personal point of view it's all in the gut feeling. To me it used to be so simple: gays were flamboyant queers, lesbians were ugly dykes, transwomen were obviously crazy (transmen didn't even exist) and so on. Another fact was that there was something wrong with all of them. Such ignorance is mostly gone now, but it's been replaced with paranoia. Everyone could be LGBT - even normal fucking people! What if every girl I crush on is a lesbian? What if they're not sure yet and come out later? Hell, they could be attracted to office furniture for all I know. What if my friend actually takes offence at all the gay jokes I make because he's in the closet himself? And of course if any of these things really happened it would be intolerant and wrong for me to be upset. My gut reaction is to wish these fringe groups stay in the fringes. Y'know, nothing wrong with gays as long as they show a good example by staying in the closet.

For another me in another time that could've been the end of it, staying bigoted and dismissive. My heteronormative mindset is super strong (seeing two guys kissing almost makes me say 'what the fuck' out loud), but I've met a couple of gay people and there even was a crossdressing man working in the school I went to and indeed these people are normal enough, and whatever misunderstandings I might encounter regarding gender and sexuality at least with them there would be no trouble sorting everything out.

So... um, that's what I have to say about it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Hold your horses; this isn't going to be some kind of transphobic rant about "Back in my day..."

No, what I'm here for is to try and understand. First off, let's talk about agender and/or genderqueer. I'm just gonna come out and say: I don't get it. I understand that gender and sex are distinctly different concepts from one another, with the former falling down more on societal basis as opposed to genetic basis, but... most people slide further on one end of the 'gender spectrum' than the other. And that's gender, right?

So how does agender, genderqueer, and other non-binary gender identities differ so significantly from simply being a girly boy, a boyish girl, or even a boy or girl that happens to share characteristics of both genders. Sure, there are hermaphrodites, so there's a precedent in sexual terms, but gender is much more ambiguous and vague, since it's to do with the brain, not to mention behaviour.

Now this is a good set of questions. So I'd like to break it down without being condescending, or other wise dismissive.

Agender: This refers to someone who doesn't identify with either gender, basically neither has meaning. They overlap with genderqueer people, but literally don't identify with either gender. They're sort of outside the whole idea. The idea of gender to them is basically without meaning, at least personally/

Genderqueer: These are people who put no stock into gender rules, as in societal gender presentation and roles. Gender queer has a lot of shades, but basically it means not conforming to a gendered standard. This can include feminine gay men, butch lesbian women, guys who prefer to wear skirts, guys who prefer to have domestic roles, women who prefer to wear mens suits, women who support families. Basically gender queer is a broad term that means abandoning gender stereotypes, trans, or cis.

One to add on here, Gender Fluid: This is simple and complex, but basically addresses people who have variable gender identities. Their identities can change on a regular basis, from hourly, to daily, to weekly, and so on. Gender fluid people cross paths with gender queer a lot, but generally identify solidly with one gender standard, or the other, depending on mood and mental state. It's a bit complex, but usually they fall on one side, or the other, it's just variable for them.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying people shouldn't identify as whatever they want, but I'm wondering why there's a need for these relatively new gender labels when none of us really know how "male" or "female" we really are. Especially if it's all down to social constructs, since the way, say, men that are good at English and miscellaneous "arty" subjects is seen less femininely in Japan than in some countries in the Western world, like Britain.

The labels sprouted up because a minority of people don't conform to the standard, but the basic ideals of those labels have become totally restrictive, based on biology. That means people who don't conform get marginalized and demeaned. So the new labels sprouted up as a means of legitimacy, for those who fall outside the established(and damn stupid) rules.

With that said, let's move onto pansexuality. Again, I don't see what makes it so different from bisexuality. I know that the "bi" implies the gender binary, which many pansexuals don't agree with, but you can also define "bisexuality" as simply being both heterosexual and homosexual at the same time. Furthermore, it's almost like pansexuality implies that bisexuals can't be attracted to agender, genderqueer, and/or transgender people when, logically, someone that's attracted to men and women likely wouldn't have a problem being attracted to someone who has a mix of those characteristics, or even lacks those (most self-identifying non-binary people I've seen look pretty androgynous anyway).

Pansexual means that biological sex and gender identity don't matter to the pansexual person. Trans, cis, gay, straight, to a pansexual person it doesn't matter. Relationships are based on personality, not sexual equipment. I hope that makes sense.

What's more... let's face, just how many people that profess to be outside the binary would you knowingly meet on a day-to-day basis, or even throughout your lifetime? Even the transgender population, a certified minority of 1% in the general population (cis), have more numbers than them. Is that enough to create a new label, when arguably, all these labels serve to do is further segregate ourselves from each other?

Trans population statistics are unreliable because many trans folk are "stealth", as in living in their gender identity totally and not admitting to being trans, or in the closet. But estimates rank as high as 1.7%... As for the spectrum... Well most people don't totally conform to gender roles, because they're stupid restrictive, thus many fall into categories outside of the typical ideal. But the idea is to differentiate say: Someone who is happy with their biological setup, but likes to act as the opposite gender, or for people to give meaning to their identity, though it falls significantly outside the norm. Basically it's to give meaning to those who are different.

As a little experiment, allow me to welcome any pansexual on these boards and ask them, "Why would you be unhappy to say you're a bisexual?" Seriously, I want to know. If most people are predominantly male/masculine or predominantly female/feminine, and most of us can agree that most trans people prefer to align themselves on either side of the conceptual gender binary, what would exclude bisexuals from being attracted to the same types of people as pansexuals?

Well here's an interesting situation. I'm asexual, meaning sex is kinda meaningless to me, except for gratification, which I can more easily get through masturbation. But I'm panromantic. That means I can fall in love with people who fall outside gender standard, or within them. The reason bisexual doesn't work for me is because plumbing makes no difference, neither does gender identity, but most of all sex doesn't matter that much to me. Biromantic doesn't work for me either, because it assumes I can only love someone who falls within the binary to an identifiable extent, which isn't true for me either. If their personality meshes with mine, then I can fall for them in the emotional sense. Male, female, gender queer, gender fluid, trans, agender... It doesn't make any difference to me, so long as the person is one who connects with me.

Think about it this way. If someone is a dominatrix that regularly attends various 'hook-up' events and buys all the gear and whatnot, they're part of the BDSM community, right? But that doesn't necessarily mean they subscribe to everything the label of BDSM suggests, does it? They may not necessarily want to be a masochist; they may solely want to act out the part of a dominant sadistic dominatrix. And it may not even have to involve bondage!

This is a whole massive more kettle of fish, there are many, many subcategories. Still it doesn't apply at all to gender identity.

So, what are your thoughts? *puts up flame shield*

My thoughts, it's not a simple thing, gender I mean, and it means a lot of different things to different people. What we lack is acceptance and even minor tolerance as a society. People demonize others too much for falling outside "normal", which is a bullshit standard to start with. Basically the whole idea is self expression without base judgment, to be one's self without being damned by society for it... The problem is that hateful asshats keep demanding the standard, which in total irony, they never fit them selves.

Side note to @TwistednMean; your special snowflake analogy falls face flat with one simple thing. All people who fall under the trans umbrella want to just live as we please. People like you say: "Oh hell no! Conform to my tiny bullshit ideal." Well guess what, I'm willing to bet that if we met in person I could point out ways you break the gender rules too. All people like you do is serve to reinforce strict stereotypes and hateful attitudes for people who break them. So instead of spreading the "special snowflake" bullshit, why not try to understand people who relate to the world differently from you? Because if you don't at least try that, then you only have yourself to blame when people label you a transphobe/homophobe/racist/etc... Seriously, your lack of empathy is AVFM levels of insensitive. Sure you can be that way, but damn will it make you look like a narrow minded jerk if you hold to it.

 

[Erttheking]

A man can say and demand he be called a woman all he want, doesn't make it so.

Yup, you're right. Good thing a transexual who wanted to get the op to become physically a woman was already a woman.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I recall we had two or three self-identified asexuals on the forums a while back, but I haven't heard a peep on the subject in at least a couple of years.

There have been threads and mentions of asexuality on these forums within the past year, but they tend to be confined to those that are about LGBT+ in general and get brought up as part of the discussion rather than the central focus. There have been two specifically about asexuality (one created by me, which I requested locked) and another from a person who wanted clarification. I generally avoid mentioning asexuality unless it's specifically brought up because I'm sick of reading the wording "Special Snowflake". If someone is genuinely curious though, I am more than happy to try and explain it. At least in my personal case, Amyss hit the nail on the head.

If that wasn't clear, I identify as asexual, though I am unaware of the extent of my romantic attraction, I know it's more than hetero, but I am currently in a fairly happy relationship with a straight guy so I can only speculate the circumstances.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Waking up one day and deciding "I'm a woman, everyone better address me as such or I'll be offended" is complete and utter nonsense

It is, yes. Complete nonsense, and nothing to do with the experiences of trans people.

 

[Erttheking]

A man can say and demand he be called a woman all he want, doesn't make it so.

Yup, you're right. Good thing a transexual who wanted to get the op to become physically a woman was already a woman.

All the entire HRT and surgery's aside. Waking up one day and deciding "I'm a woman, everyone better address me as such or I'll be offended" is complete and utter nonsense it's quite sad that not only are people like this, but other people give in to such ridiculous demands.

People don't just suddenly wake up and decide that they want to be another gender. You're massively oversimplifying and stereotype this, which leads me to believe that you have no first hand experience with this. I'd say that you were getting information from Tumblr, but Tumblr actually has a lot of good info. So it kind of sounds like you got your information from people who are hysterically overreacting to Tumblr. There's a lot of them.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Because I'm sure that the uncle just decided one day that she wanted to be a woman and didn't have this building up inside of her for a long time. Can't imagine why she might have insecurities about coming out about it.

Ok, I was wrong. You did have first hand experience. You just didn't learn anything from it. Which is as good as no first hand experience. So on second thought, I wasn't wrong.