Sexual Orientation

[starthecat]

it just gets a bit hairy because separating trans men from cis men could mean a couple things

 

-objectifying for whats in their pants

-internally processing trans men as less than men, or a "compromise between the two"

-expressing a dislike for amab (assigned male at birth) genitalia, which would in turn mean that same person is also discriminating against trans women, and therefore does not like all women. Also files under objectifying for what's in their pants.

 

not to say she is doing any of these things, but those are some of the things to watch out for. Especially because if she tells a transman that she doesnt date cis men, he may be offended, or at the very least wary, of the above issues that could arise. She could have any number of other reasons, but the ones listed above are what makes separating transmen from cis men (or transwomen from cis women) a transphobic thing by nature. It's more of a side thing to mention, but for anyone wondering why it's bad to separate, those are a couple reasons

[Shienvien]

Please be careful when using "transgender" as a separate gender identity. Transmen are still men, regardless of whatever gadget is in their undies. Sexual orientation has to do with attraction to a gender, which is not inherently defined by trouser fairies.

"Transgender" isn't a gender identity, that I can agree on. Man/woman/agender/fluid/queer/etc (there are too many to name!) are. Trans just refers to some kind of mismatch between the gender and the phenotype.

 

I'd disagree on sexual attraction being necessarily related to gender - if anything, I'd say sex-based (so phenotype-related) sexualities form the majority (but not *all* sexualities!). So if I say I'm heterosexual, it means I'm attracted to people who are phenotypically much closer to the other distinctly sexed corner of the sex triangle than my own, and if I say I'm strictly androsexual, it very clearly tells I'm only interested in the male phenotype. (There is a bit of an awkward spot with homo-/hetero- prefixes for trans people, which is why I find gyno-/andro- prefixes are generally more inclusive.)

Which, yes, means that I cannot be attracted to *any* female humans regardless of their gender, and I *can* be attracted to any male regardless of their gender. Although, I'll admit that my consciousness would probably have me turn that interest off if I found out that a male I found attractive identified as a woman ... mostly because it somehow wouldn't feel right to, well, be attracted to a person who does not identify with their body only because they are phenotypically male. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can imagine that the vast majority of trans women would probably be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone being attracted to them *purely* due to their male phenotype.) Probably doubly so if they are dysphoric and/or may consider transition.

(And no, this has nothing to do with transintolerance, and I'd treat them just as I would any other person I don't intend to be physically intimate with. Preference of SO doesn't inherently mean intolerance of any kind.)

[starthecat]

Which, yes, means that I cannot be attracted to *any* female humans regardless of their gender, and I *can* be attracted to any male regardless of their gender. Although, I'll admit that my consciousness would probably have me turn that interest off if I found out that a male I found attractive identified as a woman ... mostly because it somehow wouldn't feel right to, well, be attracted to a person who does not identify with their body only because they are phenotypically male. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can imagine that the vast majority of trans women would probably be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone being attracted to them *purely* due to their male phenotype.) Probably doubly so if they are dysphoric and/or may consider transition.

(And no, this has nothing to do with transintolerance, and I'd treat them just as I would any other person I don't intend to be physically intimate with. Preference of SO doesn't inherently mean intolerance of any kind.)

 

Yes, you are correct in assuming a transwomen would not be happy if you only liked her for her genitalia. Plus, you very clearly wouldn't see her as woman, as you keep referring to her as a male. IF you don't want to sound "transintolerant", and you insist on assigning a "sex" to a trans person, it is best to use the terms AMAB or AFAB (assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth) instead of saying they are male or female.

 

saying that you can be attracted to any males, regardless of their gender identity, means nothing. You just said you can be attracted to any males. They must all identify as men, then, for them to be male. A Transman is not a female, a transwoman is not a male. Though I can agree that preference of SO is always something that exists, preferences can be biased, and they have nothing to do with your sexuality in itself, just to make that clear.

 

EDIT: I think, if I'm reading it right, you also said that attraction is sex-based majorly, rather than gender based? if that were so, you'd only feel attraction towards people whose genitals you've "identified" and made assumptions for yourself about. Gender is (usually) expressed outwardly through gender presentation, which is much more commonly what people see at first. You never know what's in someones pants just from looking at them, no matter how hard you believe you can.

Edited December 31, 2015 by starthecat

[Shienvien]

Plus, you very clearly wouldn't see her as woman, as you keep referring to her as a male.

Sex != gender. Sex is phenotype. Gender is an identity. Sadly, we cannot change our phenotype too easily ... if it would make the life of many a dysphoric person much easier if we could. You must also understand that there is a difference between a theoretical discussion in a designated place and everyday interaction. In everyday interaction, gender is generally more relevant than sex unless you're specifically describing their appearance. Transman is a man, and ... that's it. What he has or doesn't have where is about as relevant as whether or not he has had his appendix removed.

(I also object to AFAB/AMAB, as those terms are only appropriate for people who had "corrective surgery" performed on them shortly after birth.)

 

If that were so, you'd only feel attraction towards people whose genitals you've "identified" and made assumptions for yourself about. Gender is (usually) expressed outwardly through gender presentation, which is much more commonly what people see at first. You never know what's in someones pants just from looking at them, no matter how hard you believe you can.

Gender presentation is only done IN WORD. Everything else is a matter of preference and doesn't indicate gender. A woman is just as woman when she opts to wear a pair of tattered jeans and a tank top, a man is just as man when he's wearing a fancy dress and generous amount of makeup. Period.

 

That left aside, "phenotype" encompasses more than just genitalia. Such as facial structure, voice, body type. If a person who has a deep voice, broad shoulders, narrow hips, no extra fat clinging to their pectorals, and some stubble on their face, then you can safely say that their secondary sexual characteristics match that of the male phenotype. Yes, even when they wear a dress and some makeup.

[starthecat]

Sex != gender. Sex is phenotype. Gender is an identity. Sadly, we cannot change our phenotype too easily ... if it would make the life of many a dysphoric person much easier if we could. You must also understand that there is a difference between a theoretical discussion in a designated place and everyday interaction. In everyday interaction, gender is generally more relevant than sex unless you're specifically describing their appearance. Transman is a man, and ... that's it. What he has or doesn't have where is about as relevant as whether or not he has had his appendix removed.

(I also object to AFAB/AMAB, as those terms are only appropriate for people who had "corrective surgery" performed on them shortly after birth.)

 

Gender presentation is only done IN WORD. Everything else is a matter of preference and doesn't indicate gender. A woman is just as woman when she opts to wear a pair of tattered jeans and a tank top, a man is just as man when he's wearing a fancy dress and generous amount of makeup. Period.

 

That left aside, "phenotype" encompasses more than just genitalia. Such as facial structure, voice, body type. If a person who has a deep voice, broad shoulders, narrow hips, no extra fat clinging to their pectorals, and some stubble on their face, then you can safely say that their secondary sexual characteristics match that of the male phenotype. Yes, even when they wear a dress and some makeup.

Gender presentation is how people outwardly express their gender. Dressing femininely does not mean the person ID's as female. The same is true when you switch it around. Masculine and feminine are inherently meaningless in themselves. The whole thing is a clusterfck of "nothing exists so how do we truly define anything". A person could be genderqueer or nonbinary or agender and dress how your mind would perceive "feminine" due to years of learned binary traits regarding the gender "female". For initial attraction, if you see someone on the street, you are looking at them and mentally processing what they look like to make assumptions about them in order to come to conclusions on how you should feel towards them.

 

I get that a phenotype is more than genitals, but literally no matter HOW you think you can ID the person as amab or afab, you wouldn't know unless they basically told you. Some trans people pass extremely well, and there's no way you'd guess they were anything but cis, or possesing a "male phenotype" as you'd call it.

 

Also, what is the issue with amab or afab? Corrective surgery has nothing to do with it. If a doctor said " Yo its a girl" then congrats, you've just been assigned female at birth by an entire society of people. Probably before you even popped out.

[Stromboli]

Nearly all major bisexual organizations say otherwise. And as I mentioned - have been saying so for decades.

 

Links may have language - I didn't check too closely.

http://www.biresource.net/whatis.shtml

http://www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/Definitions

http://www.bialogue.org/Pages/BiDefinition.html

http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/files/ccig/The%...%20Feb.2012.pdf

http://internationalspectrum.umich.edu/life/definitions

http://www.biresource.net/aboutus.shtml

 

Bi people run bi organizations. Here they are saying bi = multiple, attraction to other + same genders, etc.

 

I do not care what the word "literally" means. Hey, literally itself doesn't even mean just literally anymore. It also means figuratively. Because...

 

Language evolves and changes.

Quoting this, because several of these were articles that helped me when I was first like "Dude, I'm not straight, what is this," and didn't know much at all about bisexuality. And once I learned about it, hey! Guess who turned out to be bi.

 

The first two in particular are good reads.

 

 

 

And on that note, I'm out until the linguistics debate dies down. If we're gonna ignore and oppose the way actual bisexuals define and use "bisexual," I don't think there's much to discuss that won't just make circular arguments.

 

Happy New Year, y'all.

[starthecat]

And on that note, I'm out until the linguistics debate dies down. If we're gonna ignore and oppose the way actual bisexuals define and use "bisexual," I don't think there's much to discuss that won't just make circular arguments.

 

As am I. I've said my piece and, and I'm getting a headache. Bout to eat dinner, happy new year and whatnot~

[Shienvien]

Some trans people pass extremely well, and there's no way you'd guess they were anything but cis, or possesing a "male phenotype" as you'd call it.

Phenotype quite simply means how your body physically looks and is structured. If a person who was born male later has their a penis and balls removed and takes the appropriate hormones for a few years, then they will have the female phenotype due to having those physical traits. So yes, a trans woman who has decided to alter her body to match will factually have the female phenotype once her transformation is complete. She doesn't "pass" for having the female phenotype, she just has it now. A trans woman who has left her body alone will still have the male phenotype (which doesn't make her any less of a woman).

Phenotype is not a matter of "passing", it just is. You can accentuate or hide some aspects of it, but it just is regardless.

 

And sure, you can't always tell for certain, and some people simply are phenotypically ambiguous to begin with (remember - the human sex can be roughly represented by a triangle, it's not just two dots). I have been mis-sexed while wearing non-form-fitting clothing before. I'm generally fairly feminine, but I suppose having a somewhat strong jawline might make me a bit masculine in the face. And I can't even care to count how many times I've been misgendered.

 

Masculine and feminine are inherently meaningless in themselves.

They are appropriate when we are speaking of phenotype. Any other sense? Yes, they are meaningless.

A person could be genderqueer or nonbinary or agender and dress how your mind would perceive "feminine" due to years of learned binary traits regarding the gender "female".

No such thing as "feminine clothing" exists. A person can be feminine if they have defined breasts and hips as broad as their shoulders, for instance.

 

Also, what is the issue with amab or afab? Corrective surgery has nothing to do with it. If a doctor said " Yo its a girl" then congrats, you've just been assigned female at birth by an entire society of people.

Because there are male women and female men and intersex women and female genderfluids and ... sex does not equal gender.

 

Assigning gender = writing down "this is girl/boy/whatever word refers to gender".

Assigning sex = physically adjusting the body to correspond to the designated phenotype, via surgery, hormones, or both. Male/female/intersex/sexless are sexes, not genders. Female/male is NOT a gender. Many forms make the mistake of asking for gender when they want sex because "sex" is occasionally still seen as inappropriate word. I was not "AFAB" unless I was born with a penis, had it amputated, and never learned of it.

 

If we're gonna ignore and oppose the way actual bisexuals define and use "bisexual."

If you ask different bisexual people, you're going to get different answers. And there is also the chance that people who have labeled themselves differently will go "Yes, this would actually make more sense to call myself polysexual" if explained things. And others will stick with their old label out of habit. And yet others will find that bisexual actually fits them best, since they don't seem to take interest in sex-wise ambiguous individuals (or similar).

- Doesn't mean they will have to adapt said terms. Simply adding them to the list of available labels will not do anyone harm. It's a bit like religion. Even if a Christian might not opt to change their religion, it doesn't mean their local library should absolutely not contain any books on Hindu myths because it's "offensive to the Christian culture".

Edited January 1, 2016 by Shienvien

[starthecat]

That's too much for me to quote on moblie, but I don't understand why you're arguing with me about what feminine is when I had literally said feminine inherently means nothing and anything has the possibility to be feminine, then you act like that's not what I said? And I've stated earlier that "biological sex" is not something I believe exists, so all of the points you made about sex not equalling gender are irrelevant for me specifically. Most of your argument also consists of words and the technicalities behind them and the apprent scientific need to gender babies. That said, I'm not going to argue this further. This topic is for discussing sexuality and seeing as we've veered off into gender territory, it has become a tangent and no longer belongs.

[TameTheHarpie]

why do you care so much what people call themselves? it's just a word. chill out. if people want to personally ID as bisexual because they view the term as meaning something other than your personal definition why do you care??? good grief

Edited January 1, 2016 by TameTheHarpie

[Shienvien]

This topic is for discussing sexuality

And sexuality inherently ties into which sexes people are and which sexes - or other qualities - they are inherently attracted to. Hence, whether sexuality most commonly refers to which sex or which gender one is is relevant to the topic.

 

I also do not see how "not believing biological sex exists" excludes sex from the topic - it is a tangible, physical thing and something a vast part of sexuality relies on. It does not need to be believed in to exist. If it did not exist, trans people would not exist (and no, trans people are not the result of "society telling them they are X word" - they exist because there is a physically detectable mismatch or ambiguity between the different parts of their body). If it did not exist, we'd all be replicating vegetatively. And so on and so forth.

 

@TameTheHarpie: This is a debate topic specifically meant for discussing/debating those things. Obviously I won't question a random person on the street what they mean (although I will by default assume that they use the word by what it actually says).

[TameTheHarpie]

yes, it's about discussing sexual orientation, not superimposing your personal definition of a label onto those who ID with it.

Edited January 1, 2016 by TameTheHarpie

[TehUltimateMage]

This discussion reminds me of the couple/few/some/handful debate.

 

[atheistcanuck]

I believe there is actually a gender identity thread somewhere on this forum, perhaps the discussion of gender identity should be moved there?

[sirrichardcholmondeley]

gay asexual dude here!

[Omega Entity]

This discussion reminds me of the couple/few/some/handful debate.

 

I'd still argue couple = two. Couple, trio, quartet. 2, 3, 4. Bi = two. Bifocal, biannual, biathlon, biaxial. Two-lenses, two years, two events, two axes. None of these words are ever misconstrued as more than two, or are ever even considered to be more than two. Just because 'I say so' or 'that's how I think it is' does not negate the basic, literal meanings of these kinds of words. It's simply not subjective, no matter who wants it to be otherwise. We'll just have to agree that the interpretation of bisexual to some is simply linguistically inaccurate, and I'm sorry if some people simply can't reconcile that with their personal beliefs.

 

This is the last I'll say on the subject. Y'all can keep your inaccurate vocabulary, if that's what floats your boat and makes you feel good about yourself.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Omega Entity

[Stromboli]

Sorry, I said I was going to let this topic drop, but I'm having a hard time keeping quiet on this anymore.

 

 

 

Bisexual people face some unique challenges in the LGBT+ community, one of which is that we're constantly having to legitimize our orientation. When a person comes out as bi, they're met with skepticism. Bisexuality doesn't really exist, it's just a phase, they're really straight and just want attention, they're really gay and want to keep one foot in the closet, on and on and on. Then, of course, if you're bisexual and you find yourself in a long-term monogamous relationship, you're assumed to have been "really straight" or "really gay" all along. We have to reaffirm our identity over and over again.

 

So I'm sure you can see how having people come and say we're using our terminology wrong sort of pokes a sore spot for bisexuals. And when we give you the voices of bisexuals saying "This is what bisexuality is to us, the people who are bisexual," and you continue to override us it's... exhausting, to be honest. This isn't the first time I've had a conversation like this, and I know it won't be the last, and it's so tiring but... either we keep explaining our terms, or we let others define us. And honestly, letting others define us is what got us labeled with the word "bisexual" in the first place. That in mind, I'm going to take one last crack at it.

 

Did you know that Kinsey (of the Kinsey scale) and his fellows didn't want "bisexual" to be used to describe sexuality? He thought it should remain in it's original definition of an organism presenting both male and female reproductive organs, usually pertaining to plants. But "bisexual" was the word that caught on, became well known, and was accepted as the term for people who fell somewhere outside of homo- or heterosexuality. Initial research only asked people to express whether they'd had either hetero- or homosexual attraction (or both) over their lifetimes, so the "bi" prefix made sense at the time.

Rather as bisexual was adopted as the common term despite opposition, it remains the common term even though its root is not entirely congruent with what it has come to mean. The thing is, the word "bisexual" is part of the vernacular. It's accepted, widely known, and its most basic elements still work. It's still a sexuality falling between or outside the homo/hetero dichotomy, and denotes an attraction to more than one gender. Though at it's root it seems, and originally was, a more specific term, it's become the umbrella term for polysexual orientations.

 

For the purists, there has been a definition floated that does still preserve an idea of attraction to two groups, though it's not two genders. Instead of "attraction to males and females," the definition of bisexuality was phrased as "attraction to similar genders, and differing genders." This, of course, still raised concerns among agender, gender queer, and gender fluid people, to name a few, who don't experience a strong alignment with a particular gender. So, determining "same" and "different" gets a bit dicey. Which is why many tend to go with the looser "attraction to multiple genders." I'll link you to one more article, in which two bi activists talk more about how bisexual doesn't imply only two genders exist, or are all that bisexuals are attracted to.

 

 

There are reasons why this term has been kept and its definition evolved over the years. A lot of history in the LGBT+ community to be explored. Heck, it's been my hobby for a year and a half now and I've hardly scratched the surface. And I don't think you were trying to be rude, but when you say you can have your inaccurate terms if that makes you feel better, it feels like you're pandering and not making an effort to hear what we're saying. I certainly hope, though, that you'd be inspired to look more into the history of bisexuality, and see if you can't reconcile it with your own views on the rigidity of language.

 

 

Okay. Got that out. Sorry, that was longer than I'd meant it to be, I just needed to address this.

 

and i mean, we live in a world where the word 'literally' LITERALLY has been defined as 'not literally' like what the heck is that about, this language makes no sense anyway

[Pixxelation]

Personally, I disagree that gender has anything to do with sexual orientation; rather, I feel that gender has to do with romantic attraction, while sex is what defines sexual attraction. When it comes down to it, it's typically (not always, but typically) which set of parts someone has that really dictates whether someone is able to comfortably have sex with someone else. For me, bisexual means attraction to the typical sexual binary, while pan sexual encompasses both that and attraction to intersex people. I find that gender has more to do with "could I love this person romantically" than it does "could I have a sexual relationship with this person". That's why trans issues get somewhat confusing when it comes to sexual orientation; regardless of acceptance of a person as their gender, one can't help what makes them sexually aroused, and a lack of a certain set of parts can cause issues on the dating scene.

 

I identify as bisexual because I am attracted to both male and female sets of reproductive organs, though I am unsure whether I could develop a sexual relationship with someone who is intersex--though I haven't entirely ruled it out, as I am too young to have had the chance to experiment with such people.

 

I know I'm going to probably be viewed as transphobic for this idea regarding gender, but I'd like to see counterarguments and have the chance to consider and discuss them before someone does call me that for this personal viewpoint.

[Natayah]

Yah, people can pull apart the term "bisexual" to literal terms, but if you want to do that, I think the term "demisexual" is a better one to pull apart because its meaning makes NO sense with the way it is used and what the terms mean.

 

For many adults who don't fit a certain non-flattering stereotype, we don't even WANT to use the term bi-sexual. We don't want to talk about it. We don't want to claim it because of all the horrible characteristics people assign to us. Something about being really sexually active without mores, psychologically damaged on several different levels and diseases, in need of constant attention and thus constantly doing attention seeking activities, behaving as one would negatively describe a tween to young adult, etc etc.

 

The term "pan" sexual also causes issues because 1. It's not really mainstream and sounds weird to many people to bring up in normal conversation and 2. People confuse sexuality with sexual practices. Just because I do not have an issue with who I am attracted to and don't have hang ups about it and accept them as a person doesn't mean I am ok in participating on all sexual activities. I know many people who are into all these terms would "know", but most people don't. And I don't want to have to define this. And I don't like the word. I'm sorry, but most adults that I know in normal conversation do not use this term. I appreciate that younger people find it fine to use. No one close to my age or older uses it. I didn't know what it meant when I first found it. I don't even really understand the point of it, and don't really care either. I only begrudgingly take on the term of "bisexual" with some people is because, after a long discussion with my co-worker, they explained that there is a strong need for people in the maintream world actually know that not everyone who is "bisexual" is a crazed insane person. This thought process is changing, but it is slow. This way they can see a respectable adult person with a job and a long term committed monogamous relationship still be bisexual and challenge their preconceptions and only because I feel obligated to at to at this point in time that it is the "right" thing to do.

 

Sorry, I'm not slapping the badge Pan-sexual on. I appreciate that a certain generation or certain people think that term is great and are happy to use it. More power to you. Many people can barely stomach the thought of wearing the term bi-sexual. I wish you and your generation well. But until a lot of people age and stuff changes, the term is strange, makes no sense, and seems goofy and leads to various negative associations that are slapped on the Millennials generation. I'm not saying its right or wrong. But I'm a tail end Gen-Xer and that forms my opinions. I'm not going to use it, and ... as I said, all these terms might be great for people who want to use them, or more of a Millennial thing, but its certainly not my thing. And nor is it the thing of anyone I speak with. So you may not like it, but if you are trying to reach out to all people, you need to understand how we use language and you use language isn't going to change anytime soon, and you need to realize that the word isn't going to change its meaning just because you want to play with its latin roots and "literal" meaning.

 

Being "Bisexual" was hard enough and only done because I felt it was necessary. I'm more than happy to just dump the labels all together and leave it for people who feel they need or want to have labels. Cuz as a Gen-Xer, I don't want labels, don't care what you think, and don't care if you care or don't care. Not that I'm apathetic, but that's just how I grew up. Labels are evil and fight "The Man" that wants to define you. Define yourself. But not literally create a laundry list of labels to do so. That I will never understand, so that's just what you are up against.

 

XOXO

Edited January 2, 2016 by natayah

[Stromboli]

That's interesting, 'cause for me it's really... layered, I guess? 'Cause you know they talk about how bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, but not always to the same degree or in the same fashion and as I started to think about my attraction and reactions it all became very... complex.

Like, for me gender does play a factor, as does the anatomical equipment someone might have. And changing up those variables changes the way I experience attraction to them. Take suits for example. I love people in suits. But a guy in a suit is gonna give me a different reaction from a girl in a suit, or a nb person in a suit. All of them are like 👌👀 good stuff, but it's in different senses.

 

Weird intangible stuff that I cant express easily at almost one in the morning. Huh.

[steeve]

I think I can add some clarity to the confusion between bisexual and pansexual, since I have spent a while figuring which and why is more specific to me.

 

Bisexuality is attraction despite gender, while pansexuality is attraction regardless of gender.

 

Which basically means that bisexuality considers gender as a factor, while pansexuality totally disregards gender. Which is also why nonbinary genders are more included when it comes to pansexuality.

 

Plus, activism-wise, bisexual folks' focus is mostly on the recognition of sexuality (ie breaking that stigma), while pansexual folks typically focus more on gender acceptance. So I think the two terms absolutely are necessary, since they are very different, especially to queer people, rather than straight people. It's a fine nuance that's actually pretty essential to understand.

Edited January 2, 2016 by steeve

[Aquenee]

I'm mostly looking into how the labels of sexuality makes it easier for those without the knowledge to understand what it means. Taking the roots of a word apart can give you a good gist of what that word means, without having to go through the more complex explanations of why and how that word means something different from the root. It's easier to immediately associate the word "bisexual" with an attraction to two genders... otherwise, you have people going "what, why?" and arguing about it (as is going on here, although this is more of a civil debate than an argument <3) because having another similar meaning can be misleading. Not to mention, most other labels of sexuality do closely follow the roots of their respective words.

 

Now, words can be pulled around and used to mean different things, and I believe "bisexual" is a very good example of that. Stromboli put it quite well.

Instead of "attraction to males and females," the definition of bisexuality was phrased as "attraction to similar genders, and differing genders."

THIS makes sense to me. I said earlier that I identify as bisexual as I am attracted to males and females. These are two different genders I'm attracted to, and fall within the limit of two as described by the bi- prefix.

 

However, you could just as well say "I am attracted to the same gender and different genders."

Because the bi- prefix can be applied to a group of genders as well as a singular gender, since that is not at all specified by the word, that sentence could still be perfectly be put to a bisexual label and still make linguistic sense.

 

Now, this does bring me to my original point. Saying "I am attracted to two or more genders." .... while this statement would be technically true in the second example above, it is still linguistically misleading to apply the bisexual label, since you are specifically saying "two or more" to accompany a prefix meaning "two."

 

Wording is weird, but I'm starting to see where both sides are coming from. "I'm attracted to multiple genders" can be a much simpler, less wordy way of saying "I'm attracted to similar and different genders."

And I'll be honest, the less wordy way is probably easier to explain to people who aren't familiar with this kind of knowledge. It is, however, much more confusing when you take the roots of the bisexual label.

 

silently hoping I made some progress with this idea.

[bluesonic1]

Personally, I disagree that gender has anything to do with sexual orientation; rather, I feel that gender has to do with romantic attraction, while sex is what defines sexual attraction. When it comes down to it, it's typically (not always, but typically) which set of parts someone has that really dictates whether someone is able to comfortably have sex with someone else. For me, bisexual means attraction to the typical sexual binary, while pan sexual encompasses both that and attraction to intersex people. I find that gender has more to do with "could I love this person romantically" than it does "could I have a sexual relationship with this person". That's why trans issues get somewhat confusing when it comes to sexual orientation; regardless of acceptance of a person as their gender, one can't help what makes them sexually aroused, and a lack of a certain set of parts can cause issues on the dating scene.

 

I identify as bisexual because I am attracted to both male and female sets of reproductive organs, though I am unsure whether I could develop a sexual relationship with someone who is intersex--though I haven't entirely ruled it out, as I am too young to have had the chance to experiment with such people.

 

I know I'm going to probably be viewed as transphobic for this idea regarding gender, but I'd like to see counterarguments and have the chance to consider and discuss them before someone does call me that for this personal viewpoint.

I agree with part of this. From the sexuality studies I've been exposed to, I think gender and sex can be even further separated, as well as sexual orientation.

 

For example: My sex is female, my gender is genderfluid and my sexual orientation is asexual. While all 3 interplay with one another, they can be viewed as independent from each other as well. Someone's sex might be intersex, but they may identify more with male or female; the terms sex and gender help distinguish that, and help us understand how you can be both at once.

 

In terms of attraction, there's another set of 3 that aren't often considered: Sexual, romantic and aesthetic. Again, while all 3 interplay, they can be viewed as independent from each other. (Crude) examples: (Aesthetic attraction) I'm a straight male and I can understand why that man over there might get a lot of female/male attention because he's attractive, (Romantic attraction- think "love" here) You don't turn me on but I love you, and I can see us building a future together, (Sexual attraction- think "lust") I want to engage in sexual intercourse of some form, whether it be forever or a one night stand.

 

The attraction differences become really important for me to understand when I realised I was asexual. Being asexual doesn't mean we don't have libido, we just lack the sexual attraction part. That also doesn't mean we still can't fall in love and pair-bond with another person, or understand how some people would find certain celebrities to be "hot". Understanding these subtle differences helps give foundational context towards understanding why the topic is so complex, and why there is so much variety.

[Predat0rs]

I'm Trisexual: Meaning I'll try anything sexual.

 

Technically speaking, I'm Pansexual, but a lot of people have never even heard of the term, so I usually say that I'm Bi. I'm not biased on gender when it comes to love. My original post in this thread said I was Bisexual, but things have changed since then.

[arcadegannon]

personally im .. incredibly aceflux meaning some days i want Nothing to do with it and other days im practically hypersexual? this has to do with my mental illness tho so. and im also demiromantic, idk if thats been mentioned before on this thread (i didnt read the whole thing lmao)