And Man said:
That's kinda the argument that I was going for: that while some bisexuals are only attracted to cis-people, it doesn't mean that every bisexual is. But yeah, you addressed this elsewhere in your post.
I think that highlights the issue with use of the term in the first place. I mean, all bisexuals could be lumped into "gay" if you wanted: a group of people attracted to their own sex. Most of the definitions I could find don't include exclusivity (there's a weird word pair) in them. In part, because this would mean almost nobody was gay. Maybe literally nobody.
So why, one might ask, is there an extra term for people who are attracted to their own sex plus another?
Admittedly, things get harder here because bisexuals and trans individuals are already poorly understood, but honestly? That will eventually change, like we've adapted as a culture to every "new" idea.
I just didn't really know that there was trans-hostility even in the LGBT community, being someone that's fairly naive about the community itself. So yeah, I do understand now why pansexual is a needed. Thanks man.
Oh, the irony of that last part.
Hostility may have been the wrong word, since it's not necessarily all hostility. But there's a large amount of just apathy, for example. And then there's the notion that transfolk (and sometimes bisexuals) have been considered to hurt the "cause" of gay rights. There's a saying that's fairly old now, and quite possibly trite at this point, but still holds weight"the 'T' is not silent." But also, the issue is that smaller groups get thrown under the bus really fast when it comes to gay rights, gay pride, or other ideas Hell, it might not even be just smaller groups, since some level of bisexuality seems to be more prevalent than homosexuality.
Not quite. I don't get bothered from just seeing an attractive person; there's just kind of a subconscious "she's really hot/cute" and that's it. If we're talking to each other and getting along pretty well, then yeah, I guess I'd get "bothered". I don't know if that's the best term to describe the feeling, but I can't really think of a better one off the top of my head.
I'm not sure what to tell you, then. I'm pretty sure most people are turned on by a pretty face of the appropriate category. Well, pretty "face" is more like it, but I think my point was made.
For some reason, I get less sexually explicit when talking about LGBT issues. Probably a level of discomfort.
I don't want to come across as rude or insensitive (and I may have come across that way in my initial post, in both the pansexual and demisexual sections? if I did, I apologize), but it's just difficult for me to wrap my head around feeling sexual attraction based purely on emotional attachment with absolutely no base physical attraction. I mean, if there really is no physical attraction at all, then yeah, I guess I understand that some people feel that way, but I don't really understand how some people feel that way, if you get what I'm saying.
Well, yes. But at the same time, you probably don't understand what it's like to want to kiss another dude, right? I mean, this is not my area of expertise, since I will make out with anything human and capable of consent, but at the same time, I don't get what it's like to be attracted to only one sex/gender/whatever. Like, I'm not saying it's a bad thing that you are. Quite the contrary, I'm tying to illustrate that it's hard to understand something outside of our own experience. Hell, I'm never going to know what it's like to "want" to be a dude. I understand that for upwards of 99% of the people born/designated male in the world, there is no issue. But I can't understand it. IT causes me problems to the point it almost certainly colours my world view.
At the same time, I'm never going to know what it's like to find a girl I like, take her home, get frisky, and then be turned off because she gets an erection. Or be turned off because I find the guy I like has a vagina. Or anything like that.
That there is this divide, to me, indicates the terms need refinement to better specify. I mentioned before that I think these labels are useful, and the sort of thing I'd want to know. Especially this sort of thing.
Hell, maybe there should be terms of heterosexuals who exclusively are interested in cis members of the opposite sex. Though that becomes an issue because it runs the risk of further stigmatising people who aren't. But by labeling yourself bisexual, you're already going to be treated as the proverbial whipping boy.
Yeah, good points. I was just thinking along the lines that defense lawyers will pull all kinds of bullshit defenses, like currently how the lawyer of the girl that encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide is trying to argue that her boyfriend brainwashed her into it.
That sort of defense is uphill on multiple levels, though. There's also a reason mental illness is an uphill defense.
Gay and transpanic, however, are things that are still real and prevalent in our society and while I might personally never experience the horror that I might find out my girlfriend has a penis, I do know it's common enough that transwomen are accused of being "traps." Yeah, there exists an entire label dealing with the notion that a transwoman deliberately wants to trick you into the sack. Because...?
And while the argument's been on the decline, there's still an attitude against gay inclusiveness because of the horrors that a guy might see them in the locker room and like it. The joke surrounding that being that straight guys are worried gay men will treat them like they treat women. I've heard a bunch of talk--admittedly, probably false bravado--about killing a gay if he looks at you, and rather than saying "not interested," you do see a lot of straight guys (and gals) flip out if they're hit on.
This is, from my perspective, still a terrifying thing, to know that this is arguable in a culture that kind of accepts that gays and transieseseses are a threat for essentially causing discomfort. More worrisome, since one of the major factors in the lack of such defenses is simply the frequency with which trans deaths aren't investigated.
Again though, thanks for the great response.
Weird hearing that. Usually I just get yelled at. >.>
But glad I could offer something.
Edited for quote fix. I'm more tired than I should be this morning.
