Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-19-2012, 08:51 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 4,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicalRose View Post
So I can't be attracted to something without being rebellious against something else?
You can be who you are and like what you like. I wasn't addressing you. I was answering BoringGuy's question from my own perspective. I am also not thrusting anything on to you. This is a message board where people share opinions.

Quote:
I don't think that is a particularly fair way to pigeonhole anyone or their preferences. Actually I get quite sick of people that tell me I'm just trying to be different. I like what I like and I don't need to be rallying against something else to like it.
Fine. For you. For some, the personal is political. I guess my own preferences partly stem from being a child of the 70s, where dumb and jock were synonymous in certain circles. I am not attracted to big muscle men, partly for political reasons ingrained in me in my young hippie days.

I like edgy people. Men with a feminine edge, women with a masculine edge, or when they dress femme, do it with a certain knowing irony. As I do.

Quote:
Are you also insinuating that people choose what they are attracted to and that if they somehow aren't attracted to everything under the sun then they are being discriminatory?
I wasn't. Discriminatory, probably not. Somewhat brainwashed by our culture, certainly. No, no one is required to be attracted to "everything under the sun," but our choices are probably sent in certain pathways early on by our culture. Either the mega culture or a micro culture, perhaps.

Quote:
I don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think anyone in here has been trans-phobic in any way. No hate has been spewed. Maybe for some their preferences of who to date and engage in sexual activities with is limited to born sex, but there is nothing wrong with that if they are content to live and let live. It doesn't mean that they are saying that transgendered or transsexual individuals are less than human, just that they aren't people they are interested in dating at the moment.

A straight person is not homophobic by default. A homosexual person is not heterophobic by default. Attraction =/= fear or disgust of whatever you aren't attracted to.
But heteros can be casually homophobic or transphobic, or culturally insensitive, without even meaning to. That is why I made the comment upthread about the edgy, "hip," liberal Conan O'Brien thinking it was fine to be making all the jokes about how disgusting transpeople, drag queens and cross dressers are. He just needed a little "consciousness raising" by my gf's letter (and probably others) to see his mistake. He was implying transpersons were "insane" and "disgusting" just for fun. And the audience was in stitches. Ho ho ho

Quote:
I don't think anybody in here meant to offend in any way at all, but in your perceived offense you are starting to say some things that may be hurtful or offensive in and of themselves. You are pigeonholing people and reading their minds without their consent when you say things like someone who is attracted to androgynous/gender-queer/transpeople is anti-establishment. The two are not one and the same and it isn't fair to thrust that on others.
Surely people can offend without meaning to be offensive. You also used the term "born sex" after I corrected another poster about why that is offensive and in fact, incorrect. A vagina does not make the woman, a penis does not make the man. The accepted term is cis-gendered.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. --Shaw

me: Mags, female, pansexual, 59, loving and living with
miss pixi, female, pansexual, 37
I am in a somewhat new relationship with Luka
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 4,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RfromRMC View Post
He was explaining that he is not personally attracted to those types, and is attracted to masculine biological men, and feminine biological women. Thus, he identified as definitely Bisexual and clearly not pansexual.

Does that make him transphobic?
The term "biological men/women" is also a subtle slur against transpeople, just was as your earlier term, "born man/woman". There is much about transpersons/intersexed persons that makes them the gender their brain is telling them they are. It could be genetic, it could be brain chemistry, it could be ambiguous genitalia. These conditions all involve biology. When you say biological, you are implying a penis makes a man and a vagina makes a woman.

The preferred term for what you are trying to say is cis-gendered, where your identity happens to match your genitals. Lucky cis-gendered people! We have privilege.

It chaps my ass when they say, "Heather was born a man," if she is a transwoman. If she was born a man, she wouldn't be identifying as female today.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. --Shaw

me: Mags, female, pansexual, 59, loving and living with
miss pixi, female, pansexual, 37
I am in a somewhat new relationship with Luka
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:03 PM
MusicalRose's Avatar
MusicalRose MusicalRose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 343
Default

People can be offensive without meaning to, but I think that nothing in this topic comes even close to Conan making fun of trans-people actively. That is a malicious thing. Making jokes at someone else's expense IS often meant to be offensive (but only to the small minority groups that cowards don't think will backlash against them, turns out when there was backlash he backed off). I don't think the comparison in this topic is fair. No one here was disparaging anyone, simply expressing sexual preference.

Using the term born sex correctly is not offensive. Sex and gender are different and I am fully aware of that. A vagina makes a biological female, not a woman, but a biological female, and a biological female (that is super feminine) is what the person in question is attracted to. I meant it that way.

All I am trying to say is that no one is trying to hurt transpeople in this topic and your inflammatory reaction isn't doing your cause any good. No one was trying to offend in any way shape, or form. If someone might have been mistakenly offensive, instead of coming in here and calling people names (transphobic), perhaps you could have asked for clarification instead. Now you are defending your reaction that turned out to be rallying against something that didn't even happen in the slightest.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:08 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 4,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicalRose View Post
A vagina makes a biological female, not a woman.
I'm sorry. You're implying a difference between female and woman? I thought woman was the commonly used term for a human female.

A vagina did not make my friend A, who is a transman, either a woman or a female. He's a dude. *shrug* He'd be highly offended if you called him female, or woman, or she. And sure, people do, every day. And it sucks.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. --Shaw

me: Mags, female, pansexual, 59, loving and living with
miss pixi, female, pansexual, 37
I am in a somewhat new relationship with Luka
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:16 PM
AnnabelMore's Avatar
AnnabelMore AnnabelMore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,250
Default

Why is it that any time someone says "I find this offensive", someone else feels the need to say "You're overreacting, that's not offensive."? I just dont get it. The person pointing out their feeling of offense -- unless they're just tying to get attention or defame someone else, which Mags, a long time poster with no vendettas against anyone, is clearly not after -- is actually doing a service. When something offends you, you can respond with vitriol, or you can leave the discussion in a huff, which are very understandable reactions but which help no one. OR you can calmly and rationally explain what your problem with it was. It's then up to the person who made the original statement to decide if they want to look into the issue deeper, to avoid giving offense to that individual or others in the same group in the future, or whether they are comfortable with their initial position. I say it's a service because you're giving someone an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have had, the opportunity to see things from another's perspective and, if they deem it appropriate, to learn and make a change.

To step in and derail that, to try to shut down the person taking the initiative to do the harder thing by responding with an explanation of their concerns (versus vitriol or huff), I just don't see the point or the good it does. Like, if you yourself are a member of the group being discussed, and want to share your informed perspective, cool. But in this case, if you're not trans, how is it reasonable to even say "this shouldn't be offensive to trans people"? You don't know their lives or their struggles.

Personally, I don't think it's fair to expect to know what's in someone's pants, or hormones, or genes, before you get into bed with them, or even after, if it doesn't affect you. If someone has an std, ok, they have an obligation to disclose that because that could affect the other person. But if I pad my bra, do I have to tell you before I take off my shirt? If I have a small penis, do I have to tell you before you reach in my pants? If I take hormone replacement medication because my hormones are out of whack, does a one night stand have a right to know? If I was born with ambiguous genitalia, and a surgeon re-shaped me to look like one sex or another, what does that affect you as long as we're both into each other and both pleasing each other? How is it different with trans people??

You have a right to info that affects your health or safety. Anything else is an individual's choice to share or not share with you.
__________________
Me, 30ish bi female, been doing solo poly for roughly 5 years. Gia, Clay, and Pike, my partners. Davis, ex/friend/"it's complicated." Eric, Gia's husband. Bee, Gia and Eric's toddler.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:44 PM
MusicalRose's Avatar
MusicalRose MusicalRose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 343
Default

Magdlyn: Typically in discussions of this sort, I have always heard male/female in reference to sex/biology and man/woman in regards to gender. It is a way to differentiate the two and clarify that sex is separate from gender. So your friend was born a biological female (ovaries/vagina/female sex characteristics are all that is needed, not a feminine gender identity) and who has the gender of a man/boy. I would refer to your friend as he in all conversation and show deference to his gender over his chromosomal/biological sex. All I am saying, is that there is nothing wrong with having a preference that doesn't include people who weren't born cis-gendered or having their gender match their original sex.

Not to mention, the original comment that you reacted to really had nothing to do with that at all. It was simply them saying they liked feminine women and masculine men. It had nothing upon nothing to do with transgendered or transsexual individuals.

Annabel: I'm not trying to say what should or shouldn't be offensive. I'm trying to say that I think Magdlyn very clearly misunderstood the intention of the post and put something into it that wasn't there to start this whole thing. I don't see how saying one likes masculine men or feminine women in any way translates into transphobia, and most of the other people in this topic are agreeing. It wasn't even some careless or ignorant slip of speech. It literally had nothing to do with transpeople at all and Madglyn made it about that.

People are more than welcome to educate others when it comes to thoughtless or offensive speech. I do it all the time. However, I don't think this is something that most people agree falls under the domain of offensive speech. People sometimes bring their own baggage to conversations and I feel like this is what is going on. If Magdlyn is dating someone who is a trans-person Magdlyn may be more prone to view any discussions of gender through the lens of trans discrimination because of what she has seen her partner go through.

It isn't fair to expect to know what is in anyone's pants. For the man discussed who said he'd prefer women who were born females, I don't know how he would know, but if for some reason he could tell, then he wouldn't be attracted to it. There was no demand for disclosure implied.

All I have been trying to say is the reason transpeople are being discussed is because Magdlyn brought it into the discussion by mistakenly assuming people were talking about that without clarifying when there was no evidence to suggest they were being discussed.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:50 PM
BoringGuy BoringGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,647
Default

Trans people were (are) being discussed by implication. The title of this thread includes the term "pansexual" which encompasses/includes trans people and other quasi-male/female orientations and identities.

Last edited by BoringGuy; 09-19-2012 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:00 PM
MusicalRose's Avatar
MusicalRose MusicalRose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 343
Default

But in the post in particular in question? The one about using bisexual instead of pansexual because someone likes the extreme ends of that?

I feel like it is a REALLY far stretch to get trans-phobia out of that. Far enough of a stretch that asking for clarification was probably warranted, rather than launching into name calling and jumping to defend trans people over something that might have been implied in a very vague fashion in that one post.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:11 PM
ThatGirlInGray ThatGirlInGray is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnabelMore View Post
Why is it that any time someone says "I find this offensive", someone else feels the need to say "You're overreacting, that's not offensive."? I just dont get it. The person pointing out their feeling of offense -- unless they're just tying to get attention or defame someone else, which Mags, a long time poster with no vendettas against anyone, is clearly not after -- is actually doing a service. When something offends you, you can respond with vitriol, or you can leave the discussion in a huff, which are very understandable reactions but which help no one. OR you can calmly and rationally explain what your problem with it was.
I understand where you're coming from, Annabel, but I think this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
That's kind of transphobic, actually.
followed by this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magdlyn View Post
Or does he just mean, "Has a pussy?" Would he date a femme post op transwoman or would he puke and beat her up if he found out she was trans after he'd fucked her?
is what came across as more accusatory than explanatory. Calling something transphobic, or any kind of phobic, is a rather serious accusation. Softening it with "kind of" didn't help much- a better way might have been "That seems kind of transphobic to me. Can you clarify the person's opinion and intent?" And we're not even talking about another poster- we're talking about comments made TO a poster, so the individual in question isn't even present to read any of this to defend, explain, etc. And then the "puke and beat her up" part was, in my opinion, inflammatory. It didn't serve any purpose except to insult someone who isn't even here. That's what led me to post a "hey, I think I get where you're coming from, but you're going a little overboard" message.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~
Pan Female, Hinge in a V between my mono (straight) husband, Monochrome and my poly (pan) partner, ThatGuyInBlack
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:11 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 4,041
Default

Calling an attitude transphobic is not name calling. Transphobic is an adjective, not a noun. If I called RfromRMC's friend a stupid jerk, that would be name calling.

As BoringGuy said, this entire thread is about whether being bi or pansexual is just semantics, so I believe I am quite on topic.

Actually, I am now having fun imagining the guy in question, with his super girly girl, womanly woman, 2nd date, and they get into a clinch and he discovers she has a little something extra in her pants. What would be his reaction in the heat of the moment? After all, he likes guys, he's played with their cocks (I assume). Would he just stop and say, "Oh, I'm sorry ma'am, your clit is too big for me. Gotta run!"

Or does he just go with it?

Or, does he quiz every woman before the first sex act (makeout session where there is genital contact of some kind), "Ma'am, are you cisgendered?"
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. --Shaw

me: Mags, female, pansexual, 59, loving and living with
miss pixi, female, pansexual, 37
I am in a somewhat new relationship with Luka
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
attractions, bi-women, biamorous, biamory, bisexual, bisexuality, heterosexuality, love, meditation, pansexual, poly vs. open, polyamorous, polyamory, polysexual, steriotypes

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 AM.