View Single Post
Old 08-25-2010, 05:57 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,447

jast, question for you: How do you know you're not attracted to transgendered people? How can you be certain that a person is a man dressed as a woman, and not a man becoming a woman? Do you reserve attraction for the moment you see their genitalia and confirm their biological gender?

I'm especially curious since you identify as bisexual, meaning you don't have an aversion to either penises or vaginas. I can see how a straight woman could be attracted to men and men dressed as women but not men with their penises cut off, because the penis is tied to her attraction... but if that's not the case for you, then what gives?

If you found yourself attracted to a post-op male-to-female whom you'd believed was a man dressed as a woman, and later found out she was TG: would you claim that you had never really been attracted to her in the first place? Or would you maybe be forced to reconsider your sexual orientation?

Originally Posted by NeonKaos View Post
No, but several people have said that they use the word "pansexual" instead of "bisexual" to make it clear that they are attracted to "people, not genders". And I am calling that out as semantic psychobabble.
Of course it's semantic. The subject of discussion is the definition of the word pansexual. The definition of "semantic" is "relating to meaning in language" so by necessity, any discussion on the definition of a word is inherently semantic. I don't see where the psychobabble part supposedly comes in.

Bi means two. Poly means many. Pan means all.

The OP is attracted to men and women, but not transgendered. Therefore they are not pansexual. Pansexuals are attracted to "attractive people" regardless of gender, or lack thereof. Naturally, "attractive" is as subjective for pansexuals as it is for straight, gay, or bi people.

Originally Posted by NeonKaos View Post
But i think I see why some people find the need for the word "pan" now. It's because they want to convey an unlimited possibility of genders. What's wrong with the term "omni", then?
They both mean "all" in their respective root languages, but pan- refers more to inclusiveness and therefore is more appropriate:

Originally Posted by mac dictionary
combining form
all-inclusive, esp. in relation to the whole of a continent, racial group, religion, etc. : pan-African | pansexual.
ORIGIN from Greek pan, neuter of pas ‘all.’

combining form
all; of all things : omniscient | omnifarious.
• in all ways or places : omnicompetent | omnipresent.
ORIGIN from Latin omnis ‘all.’
* how cool of Apple to use "pansexual" as one of their example words in their dictionary! Convenient coincidence...

* omnisexual would be liking sex in all ways or places? Sweet!
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 08-25-2010 at 06:00 AM.
Reply With Quote