My label fell off...

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".

Well, I am suggesting there are/can be 30 genders, not 3!

Men
Gay men
Transmen who ID as men
Transmen
Butch dykes
Drag kings
Soft butch (Chapstick lesbians)
Genderqueer
Genderfuckers
Androgynes
Intersexed
2 Spirits
Asexuals
Drag queens
Cross dressers (transvestites)
Lesbians
Femme dykes (lipstick lesbians)
Transwomen who ID as women
Women

That's about all I can think of.

And I'd like to add, since this is a poly"amory" board, that being attracted to somone of an alternative gender ID is just part of it. Actually loving a transperson is something else. It's not easy, loving a person who is transgender. It's a trip!
 
Last edited:
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.

Love the bolded part :)

RP, I will try to find some examples on here when I have more time. I kinda get that feel from the thread where everyone is listing their orientation though.

There may be something regional going on too. From the (few) bisexual people I know here I don't think any of them were necessarily excluding anything.
 
RP, I will try to find some examples on here when I have more time. I kinda get that feel from the thread where everyone is listing their orientation though.

There may be something regional going on too. From the (few) bisexual people I know here I don't think any of them were necessarily excluding anything.

I'm not sure if it's regional. I'm not sure if people who identify as bi are excluding. When I identified as bi it was because I hadn't thought of anything beyond the typical sexes. When I was made aware and thought about it and checked in with myself I changed my mind... which I think is a life time journey really. Maybe I will change my mind again.

I just haven't heard any pansexuals ever say that they are radically different than bisexuals. It just sounds like someone might be trying to one up another or show off about it, compete... if that is the case then that is just silly. Who cares what you identify as. Really it should just be a matter of curiosity about others and a way to perhaps understand them a bit more and that is it. It isn't a contest or a debate... its just a way to self identify and define oneself...

I just wondered if you had a personal story to tell about someone trying to say otherwise.... ? hope that makes sense? :rolleyes:
 
Well, I am suggesting there are/can be 30 genders, not 3!

Yes yes, I forgot about how "gender" is different from "sex". I should have said "sex" not "gender". I don't deal with the application of these concepts on a day-to-day basis so my working vocabulary is a little rusty.

This whole discussion reminds me of a book I read a long time ago. I'll have to dust off my little "queer library" and bring it with me tonight.
 
I think using the term pansexual is a way to a) put the focus on gender rather than biological sex and b) reject the idea of binary gender. (Both a and b combined, I mean, not either-or).
Of course I am straight (I prefer "androphile", incidentally) and feel like there are almost as many genders as there as people, if I'm making sense here. Because we're all unique human beings.

The way I see it, my attraction to people is based on biological sex. Of course it's not just that, but considering I have only ever been attracted, both physically and emotionally, to biological males, I think it's a fair description. That doesn't mean it's impossible for me to fall for a FTM someday, or a genderqueer, or maybe a MTF, or an intersexed person. Just that it isn't as likely, and for the sake of simplicity, I don't mention it.

The way I see it, "bisexual" is like me, but for both sexes at once.
"Pansexual" focuses on the idea of "everyone" rather than "both". "It doesn't matter what you identify as, I might be attracted to you."
I can also imagine that you can be bisexual but only attracted to "traditional" people, that is men who look like men and feel like men and women who look like women and feel like women.
If you want to specifically say that you aren't like that, using "pansexual" can make sense too, although it doesn't mean that "bisexual" implies it, either.

In a way, for me it also gives me an indication of the person's background. "Bisexual" means to me "transgendered and genderqueer might be included, but I'm not really part of a community where that's likely to come up", while "pansexual" means more "transgendered people and genderqueer people are part of my everyday life or likely to be".

Of course, that could simply be my own interpretation there.

In the end, it's a matter of point of view I feel. A bit like I prefer "androphile" to "heterosexual". I feel "heterosexual" is convoluted (step 1: what is my sex/gender? Step 2: what is the sex/gender of the people I'm attracted to? Step 3: are they the same or different?) while androphile is much more straightforward and to the point (unique step: what is the sex/gender of people I'm attracted to?)
Also, I like the "phile", which focuses on feelings rather than sex. I know the "sex" of "hetero-/homo-sexual" is biological sex, not the activity, but still, sex comes to mind, and I want to put my feelings first.

But in the end, I'm both heterosexual and androphile. In my case, they're both the same. Still, I favour the latter over the former.
 
The way I see it, "bisexual" is like me, but for both sexes at once.
"Pansexual" focuses on the idea of "everyone" rather than "both". "It doesn't matter what you identify as, I might be attracted to you."
I can also imagine that you can be bisexual but only attracted to "traditional" people, that is men who look like men and feel like men and women who look like women and feel like women.

Yes, I've met some bisexuals who only like manly men, and femme women. They wouldnt be attracted to a effeminate man or a butch woman.

And I have a transgendered friend who is only attracted to butches and femmes, but it doesnt matter if the butch has a penis or the femme a vagina. They are not attracted to androgynes.

Some so-called bisexual women, or straight men, would even be appalled if they found out the very feminine woman they are on a date with, was a post-op transwoman. "OMG, you USED to have a cock?"

This is a difference between bi and pansexuals.

In a way, for me it also gives me an indication of the person's background. "Bisexual" means to me "transgendered and genderqueer might be included, but I'm not really part of a community where that's likely to come up",

Or not, as above.

while "pansexual" means more "transgendered people and genderqueer people are part of my everyday life or likely to be".

Of course, that could simply be my own interpretation there.

I agree with you there.

In the end, it's a matter of point of view I feel. A bit like I prefer "androphile" to "heterosexual". I feel "heterosexual" is convoluted (step 1: what is my sex/gender? Step 2: what is the sex/gender of the people I'm attracted to? Step 3: are they the same or different?) while androphile is much more straightforward and to the point (unique step: what is the sex/gender of people I'm attracted to?)
Also, I like the "phile", which focuses on feelings rather than sex. I know the "sex" of "hetero-/homo-sexual" is biological sex, not the activity, but still, sex comes to mind, and I want to put my feelings first.

But in the end, I'm both heterosexual and androphile. In my case, they're both the same. Still, I favour the latter over the former.

That's a cool explanation.
 
I think, once upon a time I was in this thread, so I am going to ask something,

Magdyln, Can you elaborate on 'So-Called bisexuals' please ? Other then someone who is doing something, they truly do not want to do.

I am having a hard time, seeing that applying to anyone else.

Also,..is there anyone here who actually has intimate, sexual relationships with people who are transgendered ? That`s who I`d want to hear from.
 
Sorry for using the wrong word. So is genderqueer the best word for someone that does not identify with either gender?

Well RP said she knows a couple people who are OK with the "genderless" term. Most people in the trans community that I have met prefer genderqueer, or gender fluid. If they are the outgoing rebellious sort, they might ID as genderfuckers. Like, "Look at me, people on the street. You cant tell how I ID just by looking at me. Go ahead and try and put me into a box. You can't. Fuck you."
 
I think, once upon a time I was in this thread, so I am going to ask something,

Magdyln, Can you elaborate on 'So-Called bisexuals' please ?

Sorry, that was flippant. I meant, bisexuals who are attracted to a transperson, but then are appalled to find out that person is trans, either pre-op or post-op.

Also,..is there anyone here who actually has intimate, sexual relationships with people who are transgendered ? That`s who I`d want to hear from.

I guess i thought people here knew my gf was trans. I talk about her all the time... arent you all hanging on my every word? :p
 
Excellent,..I like learning a bit about peoples relationships on here. Had no idea about Magdalyns trans gf. I don`t tend to talk to anyone off threads. That spurs lots of questions from me. I hope you will be ready. :)

I admit this thread is making me a bit crusty. I`m sure its come through in my posts. I am going to try and explain some parts of that, and why. I get crusty when I feel people are starting to get a superior attitude , or a bit elitist about things.

1st I have to say, that I don`t think someone handling a situation badly, where they find out a person is a post-op transexual is a 'so-called' bisexual. They are just as bi-sexual as any other bi-sexual, albeit obviously a jackass, if they are rude about it.

Onward,...
There is a division in my head personally, between what I am attracted to, and the regular part of me, that believes in treating human beings properly and not judging them or their bodies. I am not only open or accepting, but truly see someone as my equal, and of no shame for being different,..

That doesnt mean I am going to be attracted to them. I haven`t in the past. That includes post-op transexuals.

I read the posts here and reflected on why that is. I have come to the conclusion, that I believe, a lot of it has less to do with shunning a member of society then people would like to think. I know for myself, I realized a common denominator in my attraction. I like natural bodies, and am not big on any type of major body modification. Of course someone can pick flyshit out of the pepper jar, and start saying ' What about ear piercing, and hair dye ?' blah blah blabbedy blah. Point is, its a part of attraction to me. Has nothing to do with any sense of ' rejecting of the gender differences'.

In my original post, I should of explained why my attraction to the young man who was a cross-dresser was being marvelled at by me. It wasn`t some 'new' thing that I don`t normally associate with. It`s the fact that I usually like men for being men. I had then wondered about the pansexual label, but it wasn`t clear in any definition I saw, where one sits, if they were attracted to someone who cross dresses, but nothing further then that. (Obviously typing it out, I ended up answering my own question.)

When I am in domme mode, I don`t enjoy , and refuse, to sissify men. Some Dominas like doing that, and a whole lot of submissive men enjoy it. Thats fine. For me, to use feminity like it is weak, or something to mock, does not sit well with me. I enjoy men, but I like men to be men, and women to be women, because I APPRECIATE the differences in the (original ? ) genders.

This is something i`ve known about myself since I was 20. I think that knowledge carries over, and does have a few self placed blinders on. It doesn`t mean I won`t be open to it in the future, but for right now, I guess I like to keep my genders apart. Does that make me some type of failure because I know what I do, and don`t like ? If so,..I have to be honest with you,.I`m quite fine with being that type of failure.


As for all the labels. I am really trying to appreciate peoples needs for self identification. For a label they enjoy, and feel good with. BUT DAMN PEOPLE,..in the bigger picture , it just doesn`t qualify as good reasoning.

I remember a thread where someone talked about biamory. I cannot remember the details right now, but what I do remember, is that the OP stated his case in a very factual, well typed, way. It did not seem to strike me with the same elitist attitude that this thread has leaned towards.

This thread I have heard of 30 + genders,...which actually interests me. What doesn`t interest me, is the mindset, that if we don`t know all 30, are not current on all 30+, that somehow we need to apologize because we have slighted someone out there, somewhere.

This,..is how people lose credibility. And before you all get your panties and briefs in a bunch. Think of a few things first.

In the business word, they know no matter how many times a company changes hands, merges, or reinvents itself,...if they constantly change company names, they will lose customers and clients. People will not keep up and follow. That is why even very prominant places know to go with one name or the other, or merge names. Your MSNNBC, or your TD Canada Trust,..are merged for a reason. So people can still follow a line of association.

There is always going to be part of the population that has a bad experience with a word or label. Every 5 to 10 years, you will have a 'new' crop of self identified people, and all this label changing, is NOT good for the overall picture of acceptance or credibility.

Many of us, have had our real first or last names mocked, made fun of, or twisted into some interesting, or rude nickname. For very few individuals, they legally change their name. The rest of us, learn to ignore and be proud of our name. As adults we kind of 'reclaim' it back from whatever jokes were made about it in our youth.

Same goes with words like 'slut',..people are being told to 'reclaim' that word, and put a positive spin on it. I`ve asked this before, and am asking it again. Does it not then make more sense to reclaim other sexual orientation, and gender specific words, rather then coming up with 20 new names, to appease the over-sensitivity of people ?


Anyhow,...all this is just food for thought.

( I dislike being wordy. Take your time responding, cause I need a break from my gift-of-typing)
 
I think that knowledge carries over, and does have a few self placed blinders on. It doesn`t mean I won`t be open to it in the future, but for right now, I guess I like to keep my genders apart. Does that make me some type of failure because I know what I do, and don`t like ? If so,..I have to be honest with you,.I`m quite fine with being that type of failure.

Failure, nope. It means you are bisexual to me. That's it.

Thanks for sharing what your bisexuality is about for you. I personally love men being sissies. I don't see it as mockery because they have no idea how to be strong powerful self assured women, because they aren't. They are a whole other thing that is far from actually being a woman. I see it as entirely different than being a woman. Thanks for making me think of a different way of looking at it however.

Does it not then make more sense to reclaim other sexual orientation, and gender specific words, rather then coming up with 20 new names, to appease the over-sensitivity of people ?

I think 20 plus new names is awesome. The more the merrier... for me it is a way of reclaiming. I don't need to re-claim the word "slut" for example. That word is what it is and I have moved on to other words that created an image of what "slut" is trying to reclaim. Like "floozy" "jezebel" and my favorite because I use it as my burlesque name of pepperminx...."minx." All of these are different yet similar. These kinds of labels I give myself and hear from others make it more specific and invite conversation and interest on my part. They make me wonder about the person who uses them rather than assuming I know or seeing them as a failure or something to judge.

Really, pan or bi.... who cares, there is no shame in one or the other, just difference and that makes my heart sing personally. I love diversity and everything in it, even when the diversity is seemingly mainstream... by now, mainstream IS diversity to me actually :p
 
Thank you Redpepper. I think your whole post gave me a true appreciation of seeing it from a different angle , thank you.

I will probably always wince though, when people carry labels forth, like it is a 'must do'. Otherwise I can understand, and relate to the joy of diversity.

One of my best friends is a long term domina as well, and she loves the sissy men. Its her favourite thing. I do understand how that is not a negative thing, and hope it didnt come across like I see it as negative for others.

My start in BDSM was different as I started out not with natural subs, but with dominating other dominants, so that probably has a lot to do with my view on those things...and the carry over continues. :)

Thanks for the great post.
 
My start in BDSM was different as I started out not with natural subs, but with dominating other dominants, so that probably has a lot to do with my view on those things...and the carry over continues. :)

Oh my, what does that mean... sorry, might be a hyjack or too personal. Please feel free not to respond or PM. :)
 
@ Ariakas - Whatever ! :p You already know my history. No worries for you.

@ Redpepper - Nothing real personal about it. I just see a connection to the fact that my first experiences with D/s, were with people who had always been Dominants, and decided they wanted to try the other side. Obviously, they felt safe exploring that side with a young 'newbie'. Still, I was highly attracted to it.
 
Back
Top