My label fell off...

SC : good question.

I can sum it up easily, in the sense that 'Attraction" is based on multiple points to me. It is the sight of someone, hearing them, smelling them, the meeting of the minds, how they touch,..who they are, it`s everything. It all has to come together, to be part of my attraction to them.

When one of those things is absent, or vanishes, then the attraction disappears.

'Genitalia" would be a part of that. I can say without question, that the various physical aspects of being transgendered, is not physically attractive to me. That would be part of the 'sight', or the physical attraction.

Since I see no shame in anyone being transgendered, I would not suddenly recoil if I thought someone was of one sex, and they turned out to be transgendered.

Then, it would be much like any other type of initial attraction, then ends up dissipating. Not all the parts of attraction are there for me to follow through with.
For example, If I met a straight male, thought he was initially cute, but then some other aspect caused the attraction to diminish, ..
Well, a shrug of the shoulders would occur, and onward I would carry.

Since I have dealt with someone who was post-op having a interest in me, I can say without a doubt, that the attraction wasn`t there for me, though we continued to be good friends until I moved out West.

Could I guarantee it would always be this way ? Of course not. I can say that past behaviour is the greatest indicator of future behaviour, so most likely not. Who knows how I`ll feel when I am 40 ? 50 ? etc,...I can only be true to my personal laws of attraction as they stand right now.

This is protocol for all areas of my attraction to someone, and I imagine for most people. You start with interest, and based on what you find out, the interest grows, or dissipates.
 
I don't see where the psychobabble part supposedly comes in.


This is why I said it was "psychobabble":

So, what you guys are saying is that people think that when someone says that they're "bisexual", as opposed to "pansexual", it must mean they want to have sex with everyone they meet, just because they are male or female?

That's the silliest thing I ever heard. It would seem to follow that heterosexuals want to have sex with every person of the opposite sex, and homosexuals want to have sex with every person of the same sex. We're ALL attracted to "people not genders". I have never met a single person that was attracted to others JUST because they were a certain gender. That's like saying you're attracted to people just because they are a certain race. I know there are folks who date only people of certain races, but that still doesn't mean that someone who dates, say, only African Pygmies is attracted to every African Pygmie they happen to meet.


Get real.


But, this wasn't the first time you didn't read the entire conversation before responding, and i do not expect it to be the last, either. On this forum, it's fairly common for people to take things out of context and run with it. :)
 
Last edited:
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?

I think you may be reading into the language too much and not the context. When I read that I read "she has never been attracted to a transexual"

It doesn't say she can't be, just that she never has.

It would be like me saying I have never been attracted to short girls. When I was...oh 18 I had never dated anyone under 5'9. I had never been attracted to, and didn't believe it was possible for me, to be attracted to short girls. Boy was I wrong...

Thats my take on her posts anyways. Also if you read her post...#12, she does say she realized she wasn't likely pan and likely bi-sexual. So two vs all applies :)...

Ari
 
Ive met and spoken with lesbians who were partnered with a butch lesbian, then this butch realizes she is actually male, and transitions. The relationship may or may not survive. The nontrans partner, if she stays with the other, now male, person, may still cling to her dyke ID, even tho she now seems heteronormative when walking down the street with her transman or boi.

And now she's stuck with dealing with all that testosterone... just like straight women. God bless her heart.

Thanks for writing this. This is how I came into accepting pansexual as my definition of my sexuality. I was lesbian idenetified for about ten years and around age 30 there was suddenly more talk about trans and a bunch of my friends decided they were trans or genderless. I had been interested in a few of them and the thought of them changing genders or being genderless didn't change that. In fact it actually was more attractive as they were more confident. To me confidence in someone is very attractive, regardless of gender. In some cases I either sat up and noticed them more or was attracted more.

As to M to F?; this is newer to me and a bit more puzzling. While I keep my mind open, I haven't met anyone who I find attractive yet. I am open to the possibility though.
 
This is interesting to read because I identify as bisexual but could potentially be attracted to transgender people (I haven't really had to make that call in real life, that I know of, but I see no reason to rule it out). I am comfortable with the term bisexual since 1) I won't have to explain a whole new term to people at the same time I explain my orientation to them and 2) I feel it can cover attraction to transgender people regardless of what gender they started as. I also understand why people like the term pansexual, but sometimes the conversation makes it sound like bisexual people are never attracted to transgender people or genderless people, when many are and just prefer to use the more common word. I don't want someone to assume that because I'm bi, I am somehow not able to be attracted to those people or less accepting of those genders than someone who prefers the word pansexual.
 
This is interesting to read because I identify as bisexual but could potentially be attracted to transgender people (I haven't really had to make that call in real life, that I know of, but I see no reason to rule it out). I am comfortable with the term bisexual since 1) I won't have to explain a whole new term to people at the same time I explain my orientation to them and 2) I feel it can cover attraction to transgender people regardless of what gender they started as. I also understand why people like the term pansexual, but sometimes the conversation makes it sound like bisexual people are never attracted to transgender people or genderless people, when many are and just prefer to use the more common word. I don't want someone to assume that because I'm bi, I am somehow not able to be attracted to those people or less accepting of those genders than someone who prefers the word pansexual.

Thank you for saying what I have been too frustrated to put into words myself.

There are only two genders, male and female. I believe that people can fall along a whole spectrum when it comes to combining the two genders, but there is no such thing as a "third" gender, so the prefix "bi", meaning "two" works just fine.

Navel-gazing semantic psychobabble. Intellectual masturbation.
 
Thank you for saying what I have been too frustrated to put into words myself.

There are only two genders, male and female. I believe that people can fall along a whole spectrum when it comes to combining the two genders, but there is no such thing as a "third" gender, so the prefix "bi", meaning "two" works just fine.

Navel-gazing semantic psychobabble. Intellectual masturbation.

What of those who are identifying as genderless then? :D
 
I also understand why people like the term pansexual, but sometimes the conversation makes it sound like bisexual people are never attracted to transgender people or genderless people, when many are and just prefer to use the more common word.


I've been noticing the word genderless being used here. This is not a term I have heard used in the trans community. I think the preferred term is genderqueer, or androgynous, depending to whom you speak.

Thank you for saying what I have been too frustrated to put into words myself.

There are only two genders, male and female. I believe that people can fall along a whole spectrum when it comes to combining the two genders, but there is no such thing as a "third" gender, so the prefix "bi", meaning "two" works just fine.

Navel-gazing semantic psychobabble. Intellectual masturbation.


Actually, Neon, I respect that's your opinion, but as a genderqueer person myself, I object to it. Agree to disagree. Some traditional cultures that are accepting of transppl identify up to 30 genders. This may not be important to you as a woman firmly on your side of the spectrum, but it is important to many in the trans community, not "babble," which is a dismissive term.

For example, what would you call a person born with ambiguous genitalia? Do they have to choose sides to make you comfortable? Certainly doctors in Western culture choose a side for them at birth, assigning them one kind or another of sex organs through surgery. The doctors (our culture) are not comfortable leaving them be.
 
I've been noticing the word genderless being used here. This is not a term I have heard used in the trans community. I think the preferred term is genderqueer, or androgynous, depending to whom you speak.




Actually, Neon, I respect that's your opinion, but as a genderqueer person myself, I object to it. Agree to disagree. Some traditional cultures that are accepting of transppl identify up to 30 genders. This may not be important to you as a woman firmly on your side of the spectrum, but it is important to many in the trans community, not "babble," which is a dismissive term.

For example, what would you call a person born with ambiguous genitalia? Do they have to choose sides to make you comfortable? Certainly doctors in Western culture choose a side for them at birth, assigning them one kind or another of sex organs through surgery. The doctors (our culture) are not comfortable leaving them be.


Listen. I read books. I watch Star Trek. I know there are hermaphrodites with representations of both genitalia and gonads. But it takes TWO, not THREE or THIRTY genders to reproduce. This isn't science-fiction. Show me a picture of a "third gender". Something with bits OTHER than a penis or vagina. Something OTHER than testes or ovaries, or a combination of the two. SHOW me a Z chromosome.

No one has to "choose sides" to "make me comfortable". Just SHOW ME an example of a "third gender", other than an abstract intellectual concept.

"Psychobabble" in this case is taking an old idea and acting like it's new just because someone thought of a cool-sounding word for it.
 
Last edited:
Gender is in the brain, not between the legs.

It's not about reproduction only. I appreciate you wanting to simplify things, Neon, I just think it's dismissive.

An intersexed person I know has a V chromosome, like a Y with the bottom knocked off.

"Psychobabble" in this case is taking an old idea and acting like it's new just because someone thought of a cool-sounding word for it.

It's not "cool," it's more accurate. For me. I'd feel stupid using the word bisexual instead, at this point.
 
Gender is in the brain, not between the legs.

It's not about reproduction only. I appreciate you wanting to simplify things, Neon, I just think it's dismissive.

An intersexed person I know has a V chromosome, like a Y with the bottom knocked off.


Do these V-chromosomes actually exist under a microscope, or is it just something that sounds good on paper?

Chromosomes aren't actually SHAPED like the letters of the alphabet, are they?
 
Last edited:
It's also "dismissive" to say that bisexual people can't be attracted to someone with ambiguous gender. "Androgynous" is not synonymous with "extra" or "additional". Androgynous people combine aspects of the male and female genders. It is not a discreet "third gender".
 
Last edited:
Do these V-chromosomes actually exist under a microscope, or is it just something that sounds good on paper?

Chromosomes aren't actually SHAPED like the letters of the alphabet, are they?

Actually they kind of are
 

Attachments

  • index.jpeg
    index.jpeg
    5.4 KB · Views: 4
Actually I have had and have two friends who have chosen to identify as "genderless" until they feel they can identify as something other than male, or female. I have never known anyone who is intersexed who has identified as one or the other other than to present someway in public and to me until they knew I was cool with them being/identifying as whatever.
 
Gender is in the brain, not between the legs.

It's not about reproduction only. I appreciate you wanting to simplify things, Neon, I just think it's dismissive.

Right. Many cisgendered people cannot reproduce, but that doesn't mean that they lack gender (or biological sex, which is what is being discussed here). As has been pointed out, biological sex is more complicated than just male, female, and hermaphrodite, so it shouldn't be surprising that people's experience of gender is more complicated than that, as well.

Being cisgendered, it's sometimes hard for me to keep in mind that other people's experience of gender can be that complicated. It's a real privilege to conform to cultural norms about gender presentation and performance! But those of us who are cis- are typically the ones who have done the least struggling with gender, and should be the ones who approach the subject as something to be open to learning about instead of thinking that we're the ones who have the answers. Especially when those answers render invisible other people's lived experience.
 
Sorry for using the wrong word. So is genderqueer the best word for someone that does not identify with either gender?

At least from a science perspective there is a differentiation between sex and gender. Sex is biological and gender is societal. In colloquial speech they are used interchangeably a lot of the time. I think some of the disagreement in this discussion could be from that distinction. It reminds me of a disagreement my fiance had with his classmate when they were talking about being inclusive of children that did not have a father (they are teachers). She was saying "but everyone has a father!" and he was trying to explain that saying that to a child could be hurtful, because while everyone has a male "sperm donor" not everyone has a father in the sense that someone plays that role in their lives. So along those same lines, biologically there are a limited amount of sexes (even including XXY etc - there are still a limited amount of viable combinations), but socially there could be many or theoretically even just one/none depending on the culture.

(For the record all the chromosomes look like X's, including somatic chromosomes that are identical between sexes and do not affect physical sex characteristics. The Y chromosome is small and stubby. Also it depends what stage of the cell cycle you're talking about - when cells are not dividing you cannot see any shape to the chromatin and when they divide the X's are torn into two straight lines).

Back to the discussion at hand, I think it is important to have a definition that is both accurate and does not marginalize anyone. I don't personally think that there has to be this huge distinction between "people that are attracted to males and females" and "people that are attracted to males females and everything in between" because there are so many intricacies in attraction already that do not get their own labels. I know a lesbian couple where one woman has zero attraction to men and never has, and the other has had male partners long term as well as an MFF triad, and considers herself lesbian. I don't think it's necessary to assign them each their own word even though their actual preferences are slightly different. When we are dealing with a culture that is not very accepting of non-straight orientations still, I think it can be counterproductive to keep adding new words instead of promoting the idea that sexual orientation is nuanced and ultimately comes down to an individual's preference on a case-by-case basis anyway.

For another analogy, most of us call ourselves poly but in practice there are so many lifestyles under the poly label. I think there is a much bigger difference between the various poly lifestyles than between "attracted to males and females" and "attracted to males females and other sexes and genders" yet we are not trying to label every variation on poly with its own name.

I have absolutely no problem with people identifying as pansexual rather than bisexual. It just bothers me when it is presented as this thing that is so radically different from bisexuality or if it is presented in a way that makes it look like bisexuals exclude transsexuals from their attraction possibilities. As mentioned on other threads recently, when you're bi it can feel like you're being misunderstood by both ends of the spectrum, and when you have other people with the same or extremely similar attraction patterns to you creating their own exclusive group... it can just be a sensitive subject.
 
Last edited:
@rabbit, can you give me an example of how pansexuals have represented as something radically different? I just have known most bisexuals to be quite firm that they are not interested in people who appear or identify in anything other than typical.

For the record, hemaphrodite=intersexed... I believe the latter is now preferred by that population?
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no problem with people identifying as pansexual rather than bisexual. It just bothers me when it is presented as this thing that is so radically different from bisexuality or if it is presented in a way that makes it look like bisexuals exclude transsexuals from their attraction possibilities. As mentioned on other threads recently, when you're bi it can feel like you're being misunderstood by both ends of the spectrum, and when you have other people with the same or extremely similar attraction patterns to you creating their own exclusive group... it can just be a sensitive subject.

This is basically it for me too. Sorry about yanking everyone's chain. I've been having a bad week and needed to blow off some steam, and besides that, S.Cat is so cute when she's irked by the things I say.

I don't care what anyone identifies as, as long as they are happy and not hurting anyone else and have their pets spayed or neutered.
 
Back
Top