“I am pansexual,” he says, meaning that he is attracted to persons regardless of their sex or gender.
Brady puts it another way: “Bisexual — with an open mind!” he says with a chuckle.
A closed minded bisexual would be someone that is only attracted to cisgender people of either sex. So only females that identify as women and males that identify as men.
A pansexual person can be attracted to females that identify as women, men, neither, both, etc. Same with males that identify as men, women, neither, both, etc.
When he said "open mind" it was a joke. You don't choose who you're sexually attracted to. If you're not attracted to trans people, that's fine and is no reflection on whether or not you're a bigot.
You may know this, but I've run into several who don't, so I want to clarify.
If you’re refusing to date someone solely because they’re trans, then yeah it kinda is. Things like genital preference, the person “passing”, etc are preferences you’re certainly allowed to have, but are going to apply on a case by case basis. If you’re otherwise attracted to someone and the only deal breaker is the fact that they’re trans, that’s by definition a prejudice against trans people.
Edit: listen nobody is forcing yall to date a trans person. What I’m saying is that most valid hang ups someone might have don’t apply to every trans person, there’s gonna be trans people with the junk/body type/voice/whatever else that you’re into. So refusing to date someone just because they’re trans is the prejudiced part, not whatever personal preference you have that’s gonna stop you from dating some or most trans folks.
No? If you’re a cis straight person, you’re going to be attracted to people of the other gender. For most people, this is both attraction to the behaviour (attracted to femininity or masculinity respectively), and the attraction to the specific gentials.
If I was 100% in that cis straight guy box, then for a female trans person to meet those requirements, they’d have to be fairly indistingishable from a cis female. That’s very rare, for example most people would not have had a vaginoplasty. If I was to date a trans guy, then I’d personally be put off by the masculinity, even if they had the genitalia I was into.
Personally, I’m not 100% straight because I’m more flexibile with the genitalia, so long as they have that femininity. But I 100% understand why other people wouldn’t date a trans person because they’re trans, even if they were fine being friends with them. After all, I wouldn’t date a guy even though I’m fine being friends with them, that doesn’t make me homophobic.
Of course lemmy.world went down right as I finished writing my response and made me lose everything lmao
Anyhow none of what you said contradicts the point I’m trying to make, which I’ve evidently failed miserably at making even with an edit.
I’m not saying you have to go out and get a trans girlfriend. What I’m trying to get at is that, as you noted, it’s possible for a trans woman to meet the requirements a cishet man might have for traits such as genitals, personality, voice, height, body type, etc. This hypothetical cishet dude doesn’t have to be attracted to every trans woman, just like how it would be insane if he was attracted to every cis woman. But if that perfect trans woman showed up, who meets every possible requirement for the guy, and he still doesn’t want to date her because she’s trans, then that is prejudice against trans people.
There’s probably going to still be a disconnect on this despite my best efforts and this whole thing will probably get slammed with downvotes too. I’m rephrasing an argument based off of what I mostly remember saying in my original reply to this before world shit the bed, and plus this is a conversation about LGBT people happening in a comment section full of (presumably) cishet people. Getting within 1000 yards of the possibility that they aren’t perfect allies with absolutely no internalized bias or prejudice is going to get people defensive. But hell, I’m several letters in LGBT and I’ve got internalized homophobia and transphobia that I’m trying to sort out, the point I’m trying to make here wasn’t an easy one for me to consider either when it was said by someone way smarter than me.
Yep, right here. The perfect example of how we shouldn’t do inclusion. No, I don’t want to date a trans person. It’s a preference. Not prejudice. I am into biological women. Why would you care? It’s not your call to make what I can or can’t be into and it’s not yours to call me prejudiced because I don’t want to date a trans person.
Consider a cis woman, and compare her to a trans woman who is has been on hormones their entire adult life (never went through male puberty) and has had the complete series of surgeries to get her genitals and secondary sexual characteristics perfectly in line with her gender.
Now consider two more women, one of which is similarly cis, and the other is similarly trans, but you don’t get to know which is which beforehand. Would your attraction magically know which woman had female genes? Of course not.
So the point is if it is the knowledge of their being trans is the entire reason for your lack of attraction then that is a negative bias against trans people, commonly referred to as transphobia. If you can base your lack of attraction on character, behavior, physical features, compatibility, or even just what sex organs they have, then that is not transphobia.
You should just come in and take over on this because this is exactly what I’ve been trying to say, but now it’s being said properly by someone who isn’t a moron lmao
Whether you like it or not, that is a prejudice towards trans people. Call it a bias or a preference or whatever else you like, but its there. You’re allowed to date whoever you want for whatever reason, but those are still prejudices towards or against particular traits about someone.
Hey there. Trans person here to tell you that you are just straight up wrong. We haven’t been fighting for rights for years so people can backtrack on the basic rules of sexuality out of misplaced identity zealotry. The whole point of most queer dialogue is that you can’t control who you’re attracted to. Magically changing that is actually just another way to harm trans people in the eyes of potential cis allies.
Hello, other trans person here questioning what part of my statement gave you the impression that I’m saying you have control over who you’re attracted to. The entire idea I’ve said several times now is that if your attraction to someone is only overridden by the fact that they’re trans rather than any actual physical or emotional traits they have, then at that point there’s nothing to do with your sexual, emotional, or physical attraction to someone and just boils down to a prejudice against trans people. Any trait that might actually determine someone’s attraction towards a person is not a single shared trait that all of us have.
If you think that a relationship is the line where that prejudice is considered okay, that’s for you to decide and I wont stop you. Everyone is going to have prejudices regarding potential partners, I’m married but personally wouldn’t have dated someone with even vaguely conservative views for instance. But whether it makes cis people uncomfortable or not, it is prejudiced to ignore all attraction towards us just because we’re trans and for no other reason.
Human sexuality is itself prejudiced. That’s the whole point of the queer movement. You are claiming that sexual attraction is never allowed to stop once it starts, but people do that all the freaking time over the most mundane reasons. The dealbreaker is absolutely allowed to be genitalia - it can also be a mole or an odor or a nose that you decide reminds you too much of someone who caused trauma or whatever. People are allowed their fluidity, especially once you start moving into less sex positive spaces. It is very much you saying we can control attraction to deny how sexuality operates.
Correct, people have their prejudices when it comes to partners. I think I’m starting to get the disconnect now. The comment I replied to stated that lack of attraction to trans people isn’t transphobic. I think people are reading transphobic in this sense as explicitly hateful, and I’ve been trying to state that while it might not be hateful, it is transphobic in the sense that it’s displaying a prejudice against trans people. Perhaps a misinterpretation of the term on my part, but I question if someone’s prejudice towards a trans partner stems from a level of internalized hate, conscious or not.
You are claiming that sexual attraction is never allowed to stop once it starts.
No I’m not, and if that’s really how it’s been coming across, then that’s a mistake on how I’ve been phrasing my argument.
The dealbreaker is absolutely allowed to be genitalia - it can also be a mole or an odor or a nose that you decide reminds you too much of someone who caused trauma or whatever.
I’ve been saying this over and over and I don’t know how else I can phrase it to make it clear that I don’t disagree with that idea. You’re allowed to have whatever deal breakers you want, but that deal breaker being solely that the person is trans is prejudice against trans people.
It is very much you saying we can control attraction to deny how sexuality operates.
Again, I’m not trying to say this and if that’s the position that’s coming across, then I made a mistake with my wording.
We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not refusing to date a trans person is okay, but I’m not trying to argue the morality of prejudice against a trans partner(though obviously I have opinions about it). You and the other person who replied to me may think that the prejudice is okay, prejudice isn’t inherently negative. But the argument I’m reading from both of you is that it’s somehow not prejudiced, which is simply incorrect by the definition of prejudice.
Bigotry is when you attack a person with prejudice. It’s not if a person just doesn’t date a person. No one is owed sex. Not getting sex is not a prejudice nor is it oppression.
And if a person didn’t go the distance to attack people they simply aren’t attracted to, attacking someone by calling them prejudiced just cuz they won’t have sex with someone is an incorrect use of the meaning of that word. This breaches on being malicious with intent to harass.
Evidently there’s something wrong with my word choice of “prejudice” because that word choice really seems to be the part everyone’s getting pissed over. Do you have any suggestion for a more appropriate word choice because you seem to at least kinda get what I’m trying to say.
Fucking preach. I’m bisexual and I’m attracted to anyone my brain and heart click with. Which is very few people. Luckily I found another me to date, then marry, and be togevva foreva with.
Bi = 2
Bisexual = attracted to people of the other sex AND my own = 2
Going to? They have always been here, but like the rise of TERFs or Cubans in Florida, now that a lot of the LGBTQ spectrum has gotten some progress–enough that the T part of that list is being addressed–some people are gonna play the “got mine, fuck you” game.
It’s a good reminder that even people who agree with 99% of what you do can still be assholes somewhere deep down in their cold hearts.
Only eats at a restaurant that has at least one Michelin Star, wears only black socks, listens only to music that was popular when they were between the ages of 12-18 years old, insists that video games and cartoons peaked when they were age 22.
It really gets under my skin when folks frame bisexuality as bigoted pansexuality.
Edit: I’m not saying he wasn’t making a lighthearted joke and I’m not even really saying he shouldn’t have said it. I’m just sad that for a lot of people this may be the first time they hear about pansexuality and assume it means that people who say they’re bi are transphobic, enbyphobic, or something else.
Yeah tons of people use the label “bisexual” even though by strict definition they might actually be pan. And that’s totally fine, you don’t always have to use the most specific terminology.
*word-forming element meaning “all, every, whole, all-inclusive,” from Greek pan-, combining form of pas (neuter pan, masculine and neuter genitive pantos) “all,” from PIE pant- “all” (with derivatives found only in Greek and Tocharian).
The previous comment getting so many votes is saddening on lemmy. Someone asked a question that wasn’t bigoted and instead of taking the opportunity to educate another human they took the time to quote the article and type up a reply that was dismissive. These types of issues can only be resolved with education and someone taking the extra time to put someone else down is definitely not an ally.
Right. I personally struggle with a lot of the “terms” these days - not because I think they are wrong, only because I don’t always understand what they mean.
On Reddit, when I saw them used, I would ask for clarification and I’d learn something.
Being dismissive to people trying to learn isn’t going to bring them into the ally space.
Pansexuality is broader than bisexuality, and people who identify as pansexual may be attracted to people of all genders. Bisexuality is the attraction to two or more genders, but not necessarily all.
The terms broadly overlap, but the distinction matters to some people and that’s okay.
To clarify, most people had no idea what bisexual was before David Bowie put a label on it in the late 70s and I doubt people who are calling themselves bisexual are doing it to be exclusionary. Shit, people still have trouble admitting the Starman liked women and men to this day and the guy was dumped by the love of his life for that revelation.
Two or more. If you’re really dead set on saying bisexuality is inherently sexist or transphobic, that’s your own thing to deal with. I don’t get the sense that this is in good faith.
The definition I originally came across is a pansexual person is not attracted by gender but by the personality. So no rules or restrictions on sex organs or gender identity or presentation. It’s really attraction to the person underneath above all else.
From what I can tell bisexual can mean a couple of things depending on who you ask. Either an attraction to two genders eg. cis men and women, or perhaps an attraction to multiple but not all genders. Pansexual on the other hand means an attraction to all, including trans or nonbinary people, etc.
The “bi” part of bisexual implies a gender binary. Some people like that, some people don’t. Pansexual is just an alternative that is explicit in its attraction to non-binary people. Some people aren’t attracted to non-binary people, and use bisexual as a label to specifically mean only an attraction to men and women. Other people who might be described as pansexual describe themselves as bisexual simply because it is a more well known word. It all varies.
“Non superficial bisexual” isn’t the worst definition of pansexual, but saying pansexual is shorter.
I’ve always felt that bi = people of my sex or people of the other sex. Nothing about the word “bisexual” implies any gender to me, it just means I’m not explicitly gay or straight!
It is mostly because of the words themselves. The “bi” prefix means 2, or twice, etc. That would mean the word bisexual literally means “twice sexual”. Sexuality is inherently related to gender because it is a quality defined by relationships between people’s genders, and bisexual thus (literally, but often not functionally) means a person who is sexually attracted to two genders.
The “pan” prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.
The “pan” prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.
The “pan” prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is can be sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.___
Hetero, bi, and gay people are not attracted to any or every of their preferred gender. It’s a small difference in language but I think pansexuals would agree that phrasing it as “is sexually attracted to any and every gender” implies pansexuals are out there trying to bang anything with a pulse whereas the truth is just that gender or sexuality are not barriers to them. I guess it would be more accurate to say “pansexuals are sexually attracted to partners independent of sex and/or gender identity”?
This is probably oversimplified, but maybe helpful:
Straight - consider themselves sexually attracted to opposite gender/sex
Gay - consider themselves sexually attacted to same gender/sex
Bi - consider themselves sexually attracted to either gender/sex
I agree that pansexuality doesn’t mean an attraction to every individual of every gender, yes. I should have been more direct in how I said this part, but when I say “a person who is sexually attracted to every gender that there is or could be” I am just trying to communicate what you said. I suppose I would personally see a distinction between “attraction to a gender” and “attraction to a person of said gender”, where the prior means overall sexual compatibility with that gender, and the latter means a literal instance of someone feeling attracted to someone else. But I can see how there isn’t any actual clear distinction between the two, I should say it different.
No. Historically it kind of did, but the definition has evolved since the existence of non-binary started to be widely accepted in LGBT+ circles. Now it just means attracted to more than one gender. Pansexual is a subcategory of bisexual.
The way I (a bisexual) have always interpreted the difference is that pansexuals feel the same attraction to all genders and that bisexuals feel different attraction to different genders. I identify as bi because I definitely feel different kinds of attractions towards men, women and enby’s.
I’d assume people that are bi are attracted to biological males and biological females, but not necessarily transsexuals or anything else on the sexuality/gender spectrum.
Sorry, that’s incorrect. Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, and thats any of the genders on the gender spectrum. Pansexuals are less specific; most define it as gender not being the primary part of their attraction. Some pansexuals are only interested in certain genders, others consider themselves open to any gender. The overlap for these two terms is pretty big, but there are a few differences nonetheless.
“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations.” (The Bisexual Manifesto, Bay Area Bisexual Network, c. 1990)
I’m pansexual.
In doing my research, both with myself and just with the world, I couldn’t say if I was bisexual, because I had to really see what that was, especially because I really have not gotten a chance to act on anything. So, I came to pansexual because — and I know that I’m completely messing up the dictionary meaning — but to me, pan means being able to be attracted to anyone who identifies as gay, straight, bi, transsexual or non-binary. Being able to be attracted across the board. And, I think, at least for me for right now, that is the proper place. I took pan to mean that not only can I be attracted to any of these people or types physically, but I could be attracted to the person that is there.
Good, student loans forgiveness is just a handout to the most capable earners of our generation.
The fact that this is such a big talking point for the left shows how little they actually care about marginalized groups, it’s just so easy to get middle/upper middle class white liberals to buy into whatever talking points they want
Right and I’m sure you’re just lined up with solutions to help those marginalized groups
Yeah, take the money that you want to go to rich white educated people who aren’t struggling, and put it towards programs that help those in poverty, give incentives for individuals to donate to food banks, donate their time to charities and after school programs for inner city kids.
I want to offer minorities after school programs to keep them off the streets, you want to give white people making 100k/year a handout. We are not the same
As a person who belongs to “the most celebrated people group in the US”, I think it’s important for people like me to see ourselves represented in the world. We are a minority, so it’s noteworthy when a public figure comes out.
And idk man I don’t feel celebrated all that much in the US. Every week I see religious protestors outside the gay bar in my city with signs saying that I’m going to burn in hell for all eternity. I’ve been called a removed more times than I can count for simply holding another man’s hand while walking down the street. I’ve been fired from a job waiting tables because the manager saw my boyfriend pick me up.
Maybe your perspective, as someone who does not live every day of their life as a member of this community, is different. You might see the push to advocate for acceptance of LGBT+ people as “celebrating” them. It is not. It’s tolerance, and we still don’t even have that.
As a person who belongs to “the most celebrated people group in the US”, I think it’s important for people like me to see ourselves represented in the world.
I’m Filipino, I’d like to see more people ‘like me’ represented, but biden just cares about flying the pride flag and ignoring actual minorities
Ok I’m just gonna move right past the “actual minorities” thing because… yikes. I hope that just came across wrong because it sounds incredibly insensitive
I think representation is important for all minorities and I can empathize with wishing our elected politicians would do more. Biden has done a lot during his term to support the LGBT community, but obviously there is a lot more that needs to be done. He has promised to pass a bill reaffirming the rights of LGBT people after the recent Supreme Court case. That would be huge but we will have to see if Republicans in Congress prevent it from passing, as they’ve done with countless other progressive proposals.
Here is some of the other work he’s done to support LBGT people. Hope you see that he’s paying far more than just lip service
Bitch I’m double oppressed, fuck is you talking about? It’s great for me to see a fellow black pansexual male that I grew up watching on TV (abc family who’s line is it anyway marathons) come out of the closet. Cis het black people can be stiflingly homophobic to their own skinfolk. And on top of that, black LGBT people have to deal with the racism and homophobia and prejudice of the rest of the country/world.
And both of you are very much valid, as well as anyone should be. Differences of sexuality makes no person lesser for them. So what if someone is attracted or not attracted to any specific thing? We’re all people nonetheless.
I’m black and pansexual. You have poor reading comprehension, no life, and a microdick. I’m not going to let you sit here and tweak your nipples while you attempt to piss off kind folks with your shitty takes. you’ll be blocked shortly after your next response or in the next 5 minutes, which ever comes first.
Edit: I just remembered it’s not my responsibility to educate your dumbass. That’s your job. Byee
Yes, in the wake of stripping women of abortion rights saying they should consider doing the same for gay marriage is a horror. Are you fucking kidding me?
See right there, everything you stick up for and all your flags are necessary to put on the white house.
But if it’s any flag you disagree with, it’s because they are somehow so privileged that they shouldn’t be represented? You have no principles to support your opinions, only how you feel.
Foreign investors and real estate speculators are squeezing the middle class dry. The only options out there if you don’t want to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere are either really really old properties, really really shitty properties, or too far above your means to be able to afford it.
Renting should be the most affordable option, yet if you actually look at the numbers, you are paying almost as much as the value of an entire mortgage with one monthly rent check in some areas. Properties built in the 60’s that are falling apart and lacking modern amenities should not be going for $2,500/month, but that’s the reality I live in right now. I’m on the fucking brink and I’d do anything to have a chance at climbing on the real estate ladder right about now. I don’t care if my house never gains a cent in value, at least it would be mine.
It’s been the case in my town for decades that a mortgage is much less expensive than rent. The only way renting makes sense if you don’t plan to live here more than a few years or don’t want to deal with maintenance and taxes.
I manage the business lending department at a credit union ($400MM in assets) and lately we’ve just had a ton of investors looking for single family homes. For the most part, they’re all just couples looking for properties and they only have a few of them but we also have some realtors buying up a bunch of them. Looking for a new job solely because of that. Feel like I’m contributing to the lack of affordable housing. I liked the job more when we were doing loans for farmers/truckers/commercial real estate/or people that needed equipment. I hate dealing with single family homes.
We need legislation now.
50% tax on any property past your 2nd. Let people downsize and rent their home to young families, while buying a condo for retirement or whatever. But if we keep on this path we will truly be living our entire lives as a subscription model and never own a thing
Rent has been high for a LONG time… and yet somehow it keeps going up. I’m very fortunate in my rental situation… but I do see the other side of the crunch, which is LIFE is fucking expensive. Every last thing we do these days is expensive. When you are getting squeezed in every single direction…
I just got a 24% raise. Went to negotiate it lower and they basically just said “the market is the market”
I’m not getting a 24% better apartment. Their property tax has gone up only 6.9 % and I know based on two employees their labor costs didn’t change.
The sad thing is moving to a slightly cheaper, and much worse, apartment will cost me about the same over the course of one year as staying. Because of paying a deposit and pet deposit etc
I just got a big raise and it’s all gone to rent now. One step forward one step back for a decade I feel like. Doubling my salary in 5 year means nothing to my quality of life
Yup. I currently am renting a house built in the 60s. Hasn’t been updated since the 70s, so not only is rent sky high, but so is our utility bill. My landlord doesn’t give a shit enough to upgrade the house. Why should he? He’s raking in the cash without having to spend a dime, and the fucking state I live in allows it to happen.
Used to live in a 110 year old house with paper thin wall, leaky roof, a basement that flooded at every drizzle, a shit claw tub"Shower" and the rent was stupid high for that crap box.
All I can say is the absolutely shit apt I lived in in South Florida, wasn’t maintained, gross and expensive for 2300 a month wanted to raise our rent to almost 2400 a month for an apt that should cost 1600(being generous).
I did look into that, my entire area is insanely expensive to rent in. With moving costs and deposits I’d be spending more in a year by moving.
I am looking into moving states but wouldn’t have time to get a new job. Going to have to bite the bullet and start planning for next year. Working on IT certs to get better paying jobs.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.