McElroy said:
Everyone could be LGBT - even normal fucking people!
We're everywhere. We can strike at any time. Fear our random acts of queerness.
...sorry, was amused for a moment thinking of LGBT as a shadow organisation. I was trying to think of something like "gayluminati" for trans people, but the best I could come up with was "transmasons," and that kind of sucks. I'm back now.
And Man said:
Claiming that bisexuals are "only" attracted to men and women while pansexuals can be attracted to anyone just seems... redundant I guess? Similarly to how heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals aren't attracted to literally everyone that falls within the sex/gender they're attracted to, pansexuals aren't attracted to literally every single person. People have preferences (buff men, athletic women, feminine men, whatever), but that doesn't mean that they're exclusively attracted to only those kinds of people.
I'm not sure that's relevant. The argument is that bsiexuals are attracted to both the traditional binary genders, and that often excludes transfolk, intersex, and nonbinary (who may or may not also be trans) individuals.
As such the argument would hold that bisexuals can still be attracted to anyone--as long as they are a cis male or female. And keep in mind that you will actually get this argument from bisexuals. Not all bisexuals, no, but I've been specifically excluded from the label multiple times because I've been with transmen, transwomen, and nonbinary individuals. The fact is, this argument exists.
I've previously been told I was wrong specifically because someone knew a bisexual who was okay with it, but that's off the mark. I mean, here's the dirty little secret: we're not a hive mind. My SO and I actually disagree on a couple of points I made in the post you quoted. For example, she disagrees with my assessment that not wanting to fuck someone who's trans is not inherently transphobic. That's fine. We don't have to agree, and neither does the rest of the "community."
But that sort of disagreement (not specifically transphobia) spawned the label pansexual (Which should be omnisexual, but whatever). This has nothing to do with whether or not bisexuals could like all men or all women.
But again, nobody's actually stopping you from calling yourself (general "you," not a specific one) whatever you want. And yeah, I saw the part here you clarified. I'm getting there:
And when you get into bisexuals "only" being attracted to men and women, and pansexuals being attracted to men, women, trans, etc., it seems kinda dismissive of and exclusionary towards trans-people.
Yes, it does. And that was the problem in the first place. We were being excluded. Some people were nice enough to adopt a label that was trans-positive. The resulting backlash seems to be an inferred judgment value on others.
Here's an example: I don't eat much meat at all. When it comes up, which is usually only when I'm asked about lunch or when I'm making this example, I tend to get a lot of harsh responses about how I think I'm better than everyone else.
The reason I don't eat meat? Red meat and pork (other white meat my arse) make me literally sick. I would eat bacon daily if I could, and be even fatter than I am now. I don't eat much poultry or fish now, because I sort of just mentally associate the sensation with the sickness I get from other meat. But I still enjoy chicken and fish, eat turkey at thanksgiving with my folks, etc. There's no value or judgment call here, I'm just doing what I have to do to not be really sick to my stomach.
But to a lot of people, saying "I don't eat meat" is like saying "and because you do, you are a horrible person. Meat is murder!"
I didn't do anything wrong. I don't parade it around, I don't protest slaughterhouses, I don't try and knock the Big Mac out of someone's hand. And it doesn't come up much, because the only time I really care is when it comes to where we're going to get food. If it's a place that's meat heavy, I don't want to go. And even then, I'll get crap if I go some place and just order like, a salad and a side dish instead of the ribeye.
Even if I didn't get ill, saying "I don't eat meat" is not a negative statement. The only thing it says is that I have chosen not to do something. But people pile on judgment values. "If you don't eat meat, then you think that's good. And since I do, that's bad. and therefore I'm bad."
Similarly, when people define themselves in such a way that they can be attracted to trans individuals, the only inherent message is a trans-positive one.
With the exception of intersex, I've probably been with every stripe of gender and sexuality you can think of, because I don't care. And I'd sleep with someone who was IS, too, if I liked them. I'm not, lke, going to go out looking to I can fill out my LGBT bingo card or something, but yeah. I have almost literally tasted the rainbow. Does that make you feel bad because you're a heterosexual man? Because it shouldn't. I have absolutely no problem with your heterosexuality (or anyone else's). I'm not going to judge. I understand we're attracted to who we're attracted to. I do not understand hetero- or homosexuals, but it doesn't matter. They're different from me they like different things. But that's okay.
Stating what someone likes or chooses to do (or who they do it to) should not carry with it this massive kerfuffle. I mean, unless we're talking about something like rape. But that's not really here or there.
And to further your example, a straight man dating a transwoman is frequently called gay. Even among the LGBT community, to be honest. Because there are a lot of trans-hostile, if not outright transphobic attitudes within said community.
I also don't really understand the concept of demisexuality; as I stated with some of the aspects of pansexuality, becoming attracted to people that you have a deep emotional attachment to isn't really something that's exclusive to demisexuals.
The argument is that it's exclusive for them. That they don't see a hot person and get all bothered over them. From my understanding, you do? I undertsand you can be attracted to a girl's personality as well, but...and I don't know how to say this delicately, but I'm not trying to be rude: like, you're still attracted to an attractive woman, no?
Though it's horribly ironic that someone who is a demisexual was talking the way they did about pansexuals. Both groups are regarded the same way: in the negative light they used.
I just wanna say that while it's a "legal defense", that doesn't mean it's going to get you out of a conviction. According to Wikipedia (I know, weak source, but where the hell else are you going to get conviction information regarding the defense), there was one case in 2004-2005 in which it may have resulted in a no-contest plea, reducing a possible second-degree murder charge into a voluntary manslaughter charge, and one New Zealand case in 2009 in which it reduced a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. So, while it's still legal 49 states, it's still an extremely poor defense.
There was a case in 2012 or 2013 as well.
You're talking about a group that's less than one percent of the population, though. That you can find few cases isn't meaningful, and that still doesn't make it not an issue.
And that's before you get into the inherent bias it places in the system limiting the likelihood that authorities will investigate and charge in the first place, much like modern "Stand Your Ground" laws often mean the police will not even bother to investigate after such a shooting, leading to a case that would be virtually impossible to take to court.
Haha! I don't take it as such mate! I would be the first to take the piss out of my situation! I do come across as idealistic at times... I am horrifically positive, grew up in farmer-counties and now live in the arse end of nowhere.
