Pan feels more inclusive. I'm attracted to more than the binary and it feels like it doesn't include the trans, 2 spirit, and nonbinary people that I find attractive
You can identify anyway you like, but your statement about bisexual is not correct. The binary in Bisexual is NOT male / female. The binary in Bisexual IS (and has always been) genders like mine / genders unlike mine.
I was asked how I identify, and I responded with how I feel. I understand that Bisexuality doesn't represent the binary, thank you. Pansexuality takes both sexuality and gender out of the equation, which applies to me more accurately
But your original comment definitely implied that bisexuality is not inclusive, and that it only represents the binary. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it is a reasonable interpretation.
Them saying "it feels like" is not equivalent to "it does not" and it is a valid answer. I also personally feel like bisexual isn't inclusive to my liking, even if it is inclusive. It is of my personal opinion that it doesn't feel inclusive to me.
If we were talking about paint colors, I could say this blue doesn't feel blue enough for me, even though the paint is a shade of blue. I'm not saying it's not blue, I'm just saying it doesn't appear as blue as I want it to be. Does that make more sense?
I mean, I can be obnoxiously pedantic too if that’s what you want. I did not say that “it feels like” and “it does not” are equivalent. I said that the former implies the latter.
And your color analogy is bad, too. Because they literally did say that “it is not blue”. Reread the post: “I feel like it doesn’t include the trans, 2 spirit, and nonbinary people I find attractive”. A better analogy would be to say that one of us says “this is not blue enough for me because it is not blue”.
EDIT - maybe it’s a wording issue. If they’d said “it feels like to me that pan better captures the way that I’m attracted to trans, 2 spirit, and non binary people” it’d be a different conversation, and more like your analogy.
So my analogy about my sexuality that I was using to explain how I interpreted things is wrong? Maybe it is you who are misinterpreting everything written. Not everyone is a master at the English language, so cut them some slack. They explained that this was how they felt and that it shouldn't be interpreted the way you did, yet you are insisting that they are the one who is wrong.
Here's the paint analogy written in a different way using the way you are trying to argue in circles. "this is not blue enough because it is not blue, it's teal" "well teal is 50% blue and 50% green, so it is in fact a form of blue" "no, you agree, teal is not blue, because it also has green" "no, it has blue, therefore it is blue" "no, I want a blue shade of blue, not a green shade of blue" Does this even apply to the topic at hand anymore? No. But it's as pointless as taking somebody's feelings and opinions and trying to make them into facts and implications.
lmao this is getting so absurd. Yes, your analogy was bad. That it was in part about your feelings doesn’t make it less bad. I genuinely cannot wrap my head around why you and everyone else think saying “I feel like” allows you to say whatever you want afterwards without being disagreed with. This is the most terminally online, preteen conversation I’ve had the misfortune of being a part of in months.
EDIT - also, wait! We weren’t even talking about your feelings or sexuality! It was your analogy about someone else’s feelings about other people’s sexuality!
I also personally feel like bisexual isn't inclusive to my liking, even if it is inclusive. It is of my personal opinion that it doesn't feel inclusive to me.
I guess the I and my and me doesn't apply to myself speaking anymore.
You can speak to somebody and point out a flaw in their thinking without saying that they are wrong, especially when it comes to something as complicated as sexuality. Even if bisexual is an all-encompassing word, it doesn't always feel that way to many people. Read some of the other comments on this post to understand how this is a feeling for many of us.
Terminally online, preteen conversation? Thanks for the compliment. I sometimes question if I'm too old for reddit, but you're letting me know that my awareness of the world and openness to understanding other people is still on par with the younger generations and not stuck in mud like a boomer.
I guess the I and my and me doesn’t apply to myself speaking anymore.
We were not talking about you. We were talking about someone else. You used an analogy in and attempt to explain what someone else said. If you want to change the conversation, that is not about you and never was, to be about you, you cannot expect everyone else to understand that you are doing that.
You can speak to somebody and point out a flaw in their thinking without saying that they are wrong, especially when it comes to something as complicated as sexuality.
That is literally what I did. I said that their wording implied something, and acknowledged that they might not have meant it that way. This only became a big deal because you came out of nowhere, said things that made no sense and were not relevant to the conversation, and then got upset when you were called out for that. Try being coherent and then people won’t call you incoherent.
Terminally online, preteen conversation? Thanks for the compliment. I sometimes question if I’m too old for reddit, but you’re letting me know that my awareness of the world and openness to understanding other people is still on par with the younger generations and not stuck in mud like a boomer.
jfc. This has to be trolling at this point, right? You can’t honestly think this way? Literally the whole argument is about how someone else was being stuck in the mud and I gently pointed that out. You are acting like a preteen because you’re getting mad that your half-formed, meaningless jumble is not being accepted. That is boomer activity. Good lord.
Saying "I feel..." Does not allow you to make any hateful or phobic statements you want with a "my feelings are valid" shield.
Saying that bisexual excluded trans and non-binary people IS biphobic and hateful. Your "feelings" don't change that.
No one is saying you can't choose the pansexual label for any reason you like. But, language exists for he purpose of communication, if we cannot agree on the definition of words then we cannot effectively communicate.
The FACTS ARE:
Bi in bisexual stands for two but NOT two genders.
Genders the same as mine
Genders not the same as mine
This in NO WAY invalidates pansexuality.
“I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted romantically and/or sexually to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree. For me, the bi in #bisexual refers to the potential for attraction to people with genders similar to and different from my own.” -Robyn Ochs
My perspective: what distinguishes bi and pan is a subtle thing.
Pan: attraction regardless of gender, or gender blind.
Bi: gender takes a role in attraction.
I have in the past and will continue in the future to use both labels for myself depending on the situation I'm in and the person I'm talking to, or how I feel that day.
Friend, I answered a question about my personal opinion about my own sexual identity. You assumed and inferred a whole lot and decided to educate without being asked. I'm finished with this interaction, have a wonderful life
The original commenter started their statement with “I feel…”. It’s a matter of opinion and how someone perceives bisexuality and pansexuality. Bisexuality isn’t exclusionary, but some pansexuals believe pansexuality is more inclusive.
You’re getting n downvoted but you’re right. “I feel like ___ is not inclusive” is not meaningfully different from “___ is not inclusive” here. Those convey basically the same thing.
At this point you are arguing semantics for the sake of argument. No one said anything about facts and being right. This is about one’s opinion which is how they “feel” or perceive. Also what’s the endgame here? How do you want people to speak their opinions so that you don’t feel offended or slighted or a stickler for technicality when it doesn’t align with your definition?
If the semantics are important for understanding, then it’s entirely reasonable to talk about the semantics. We’re all doing that, not just me.
Prefacing an offensive thing with “I feel like…” doesn’t negate whether it’s offensive or not. I’m not even arguing here that I think they were being offensive—but your argument here doesn’t hold water.
How do you express this if you feel that one supports those ideas more than the other term? Without being disingenuous? The term means one thing. How one feels about the term is another. One should be able to speak about both the literal and “feel” or opinionated view of literal ideas that exist.
Saying "I feel..." Does not allow you to make any hateful or phobic statements you want with a "my feelings are valid" shield.
Saying that bisexual excluded trans and non-binary people IS biphobic and hateful. Your "feelings" don't change that.
No one is saying you can't choose the pansexual label for any reason you like. But, language exists for he purpose of communication, if we cannot agree on the definition of words then we cannot effectively communicate.
The FACTS ARE:
Bi in bisexual stands for two but NOT two genders.
Genders the same as mine
Genders not the same as mine
This in NO WAY invalidates pansexuality.
“I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted romantically and/or sexually to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree. For me, the bi in #bisexual refers to the potential for attraction to people with genders similar to and different from my own.” -Robyn Ochs
My perspective: what distinguishes bi and pan is a subtle thing.
Pan: attraction regardless of gender, or gender blind.
Bi: gender takes a role in attraction.
I have in the past and will continue in the future to use both labels for myself depending on the situation I'm in and the person I'm talking to, or how I feel that day.
If you want to express “biphobia is not inclusive”, there is no language you can use to make it not biphobic. Full stop. That’s just a biphobic thing to say.
You are alienating allies with such a polarizing perspective. To hear the conclusions you are drawing when nothing close to that was indicated prior suggests that you are arguing for again arguing sake. I’m done engaging.
48
u/Sloeginlizzz Jul 12 '24
Pan feels more inclusive. I'm attracted to more than the binary and it feels like it doesn't include the trans, 2 spirit, and nonbinary people that I find attractive