Your thought on... Pansexuality

[Saelune]

It's offensive

By claiming that pansexuals "like transgendered people too" you are saying that bisexuals don't. Which I think is pretty presumptious. You're also telling transsexuals that only pansexuals are attracted to them. Transsexuals identify as and look like men and women so it's actually offensive to imply that gay, straight or bisexual people can't be attracted to them.

edit: Added a tl;dr at the top.

From personal experience, it is not that bisexuals cant or dont like trans people, it is just that pansexual people are more conscious of it. Most of the people I have dated identified as bisexual, but I have dated atleast one person who identified as pansexual. But they all had personal preferences.

I also know that dating as a trans person is difficult for a bunch of reasons that is not for cisgendered people on any sexuality. There is a worry I have to deal with, that if someone starts hitting on me, what do they think I am? Would not want to have a Crying Game scenario, cause that does happen. (Did not know was trans, then gets physically abused)

I would not assume a bisexual person would be against dating me, but if someone identifies as pan, thats them being more clear that my gender does not matter to them like it might to others. (Ofcourse even then they may have personal preferences, but atleast I am more confident they wont flip out on me for being trans)

I think the point they're making is that being accepting of transexuals doesn't have anything to do with your sexuality. A heterosexual person can be just as accepting of a transexual as a bi or homosexual person. I find myself attracted to a woman wearing her hair up in a ponytail, does that mean I should come up with the term piluscaudaesexual and say that that is what I identify as?

As much as our species loves to categorize things, there comes a point where you're making things needlessly complicated.

See, until I know I wont get beaten up or killed cause a straight man was attracted to me, that really doesnt matter.

 

[MeatMachine]

Unity NOT Division

Hi, I'm Para and I'm here to discuss something that rarely is spoken but on my mind for awhile.

Pansexuality
One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people.

So pansexuality is just bisexuality, but with no preferences? Why does that need its own term?

 

[Parasondox]

Unity NOT Division

Hi, I'm Para and I'm here to discuss something that rarely is spoken but on my mind for awhile.

Pansexuality
One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people.

So pansexuality is just bisexuality, but with no preferences? Why does that need its own term?

I do not know. I never came up with the term. Ask Tumblr?

 

[MeatMachine]

Unity NOT Division

Hi, I'm Para and I'm here to discuss something that rarely is spoken but on my mind for awhile.

Pansexuality
One who can love sexuality in many forms. Like bisexuality, but even more fluid, a pansexual person can love not only the traditional male and female genders, but also transgendered, androgynous, and gender fluid people.

So pansexuality is just bisexuality, but with no preferences? Why does that need its own term?

I do not know. I never came up with the term. Ask Tumblr?

I'd rather not open that portal into the abyss.

 

[Asita]

I honestly don't understand it. This isn't helped by the fact that I've heard a few different definitions for it ranging from "It's like bisexuality, only I'm cool with trans and intersex individuals" to "Sex just really doesn't factor into my attraction at all". And it's not just the variance I've seen that makes it confusing to me. Honestly, none of the definitions I've heard have really sat well with me. For the sake of example, the former always struck me more as a statement indicating a lack of prejudice than a distinct sexuality, like distinguishing between whether or not you're cool dating people outside of a given race. And the latter just feels to me like a different flavor of bisexuality (much like if an individual leaned more heterosexual or homosexual).

Don't get me wrong, it's no skin off my back what they choose to call their orientation or who they love, I just don't see a meaningful distinction between it and bisexuality.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

I see it how I see other non-heterosexual behaviors, an (admittedly harmless) anomaly or dysfunction that is not Nature's intended way, but if that's not a problem to them, fine. I don't consider it normal though.

Actually Homosexuality can be seen in a number of species in the wild, not just humans. I think the consensus is that it's another form of population control, one that doesn't involve more predators and the like.

I think it's an anomaly in animals too. Nobody's perfect.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I see it how I see other non-heterosexual behaviors, an (admittedly harmless) anomaly or dysfunction that is not Nature's intended way, but if that's not a problem to them, fine. I don't consider it normal though.

Actually Homosexuality can be seen in a number of species in the wild, not just humans. I think the consensus is that it's another form of population control, one that doesn't involve more predators and the like.

I think it's an anomaly in animals too. Nobody's perfect.

Yeah, that's what I said basically. It's not NORMAL but it is NATURAL.

 

[Saelune]

You said it is "not Nature's intended way", therefor you said it is -not- natural. Humans did not invent homosexuality, nature did.

 

[happyninja42]

I see it how I see other non-heterosexual behaviors, an (admittedly harmless) anomaly or dysfunction that is not Nature's intended way, but if that's not a problem to them, fine. I don't consider it normal though.

Actually Homosexuality can be seen in a number of species in the wild, not just humans. I think the consensus is that it's another form of population control, one that doesn't involve more predators and the like.

I think it's an anomaly in animals too. Nobody's perfect.

Well shit, by that logic, everything is an "anomaly". Not having the most common form of hair color? Anomaly. Left handed? Anomaly. In the end, so what? It's a variation, which is what genetic replication and diversity is. Mixing up of things and seeing what comes out the other side. This is just how biology works. It's not any more anomalous than anything else sexually related, some just have a higher percent probability of being expressed in genetics.

I've seen people try and use this classification before in this discussion, and it never ends well.

Some try to use the term "abnormal" in this context, in a clinical, scientific context, saying it simply means "something outside the most common expression seen." And while I understand this in theory, and the need to use words that have meanings when trying to carry on a conversation, the problem is the other side will frequently reply with something akin to "You can't say it's abnormal, because that implies there is something wrong with me. You are saying I'm a freak, and I take offense to that." And even if the person then tries to explain that's not the intent, the damage is done, and the thread derails into bullshit arguing for several pages, accomplishing nothing.

So how about we all just step away from the "normal/abnormal, it's nature's way" angle and leave it where should be, which is somewhere NOT in a thread about your OPINION of pansexuality. A discussion of the biological/genetic/etc aspects of the topic, literally have zero bearing on what you think of them. Like how I don't really care if it turns out to be all "choice" like some think, or if it's 100% proven to be biological, in the end, I don't care who sleeps with who, as long as it's consensual. If I'm not directly involved in said boinking, I have no cares who is schtuping who, and in what hole, and with how many people watching.

The source of the subject, is separate from the opinion of the outcome.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

I see it how I see other non-heterosexual behaviors, an (admittedly harmless) anomaly or dysfunction that is not Nature's intended way, but if that's not a problem to them, fine. I don't consider it normal though.

Actually Homosexuality can be seen in a number of species in the wild, not just humans. I think the consensus is that it's another form of population control, one that doesn't involve more predators and the like.

I think it's an anomaly in animals too. Nobody's perfect.

Well shit, by that logic, everything is an "anomaly". Not having the most common form of hair color? Anomaly. Left handed? Anomaly. In the end, so what? It's a variation, which is what genetic replication and diversity is. Mixing up of things and seeing what comes out the other side. This is just how biology works. It's not any more anomalous than anything else sexually related, some just have a higher percent probability of being expressed in genetics.

I've seen people try and use this classification before in this discussion, and it never ends well.

Some try to use the term "abnormal" in this context, in a clinical, scientific context, saying it simply means "something outside the most common expression seen." And while I understand this in theory, and the need to use words that have meanings when trying to carry on a conversation, the problem is the other side will frequently reply with something akin to "You can't say it's abnormal, because that implies there is something wrong with me. You are saying I'm a freak, and I take offense to that." And even if the person then tries to explain that's not the intent, the damage is done, and the thread derails into bullshit arguing for several pages, accomplishing nothing.

So how about we all just step away from the "normal/abnormal, it's nature's way" angle and leave it where should be, which is somewhere NOT in a thread about your OPINION of pansexuality. A discussion of the biological/genetic/etc aspects of the topic, literally have zero bearing on what you think of them. Like how I don't really care if it turns out to be all "choice" like some think, or if it's 100% proven to be biological, in the end, I don't care who sleeps with who, as long as it's consensual. If I'm not directly involved in said boinking, I have no cares who is schtuping who, and in what hole, and with how many people watching.

The source of the subject, is separate from the opinion of the outcome.

Abnormal is another word for it, sure. Men were made to mate with women and vice versa, it's Nature's intended way. Anything else is abnormal, which does not automatically mean "wrong" or "bad", though I don't personally support that behavior. Pansexuality is a deviation from heterosexuality, hence why I think it's abnormal too.

 

[happyninja42]

Abnormal is another word for it, sure. Men were made to mate with women and vice versa, it's Nature's intended way. Anything else is abnormal, which does not automatically mean "wrong" or "bad", though I don't personally support that behavior. Pansexuality is a deviation from heterosexuality, hence why I think it's abnormal too.

Nature doesn't "intend" shit. Stuff happens, some are an efficient way of passing on genes, some aren't. But the way you're using it is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The phrasing is loaded with lots of implied assumptions and declarations on other people, and those people take umbrage with the implication. Which is why, in a discussion about the simple opinion on the behavior, dragging this shit into the discussion accomplishes nothing productive.

If the thread is about whether other forms of non-hetero sexuality are "normal", then sure, go head, discuss this angle to your hearts content. But wear your flame retardent underwear, because it's going to be a shit show. Here, in this thread, it's pretty much entirely off topic, and will accomplish nothing but derailing the topic for 2+ pages of bullshit. So again, just let the issue drop. Please.

 

[Silvanus]

Abnormal is another word for it, sure. Men were made to mate with women and vice versa, it's Nature's intended way.

Nature's intended way? "Nature" is a term for a complex system of relationships between organisms; it does not have a mind, or intentions.

Anything else is abnormal, which does not automatically mean "wrong" or "bad", though I don't personally support that behavior.

What does "supporting the behaviour" mean?

 

[Frokane]

Other people's sexuality is not my business, and is not something I should have a say in.

To be fair, pretty much nothing on this entire site is 'your business' but you still continue to discuss it liberally.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Men were made to mate with women and vice versa, it's Nature's intended way.

Err..

Men were made because 1.2 billion years ago single celled organisms started using DNA from other organisms (which they may have cannibalised) to repair damage to their own DNA and that gave them an advantage over organisms which didn't do this.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Men were made to mate with women and vice versa, it's Nature's intended way.

Err..

Men were made because 1.2 billion years ago single celled organisms started using DNA from other organisms (which they may have cannibalised) to repair damage to their own DNA and that gave them an advantage over organisms which didn't do this.

Don't forget virophages, as well.

 

[Padwolf]

It is what it is. People who are pansexual, good for you! Do I think it borders on special snowflake territory? Yes I do! But that's just my opinion. People of the pansexual persuasion aren't doing anyone any harm by being pansexual, so carry right on ahead!