top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 124 points 1 month ago (41 children)

Every definition I have heard for pansexuality or similar that defines the term in contrast to bisexuality reads like slander to my ears.

Bisexuality is a broad category, and it was never exclusionary. Bisexuals can be attracted to trans people, and enbies, and those with or without gendered presentations, but critically they don't have to be. Its a category not a checklist.

Bisexuality is broad. Other terms are more specific, and there is some amount of overlap.

As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.

  • source
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.

    This. Trans women are women. As a bisexual woman, I am attracted to women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    Trans people are also included in the bisexual manifesto, written in 1990

    In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders.

    The way I always understood it was bisexual = attraction to your gender and other genders

    and pansexual = attraction regardless of gender

    now, functionally speaking, there is no distinction, but in terms of experience, I always identified more with pansexual than bisexual, as someone's gender was just never something I took into account when determining my attraction.

    I often to use both, as I consider pansexual to be a sub-distinction of bisexual.

    That being said I recognize there is no consensus on the distinction in the community so I usually go with bi for ease.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I've always understood it as pansexual being attracted to personalities and bisexual being attracted to physical attributes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It's just more bi erasure.

    Not gay enough for the gays Not straight enough for the straights Not bi enough for the pans

    Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    bisexuals only care about looks

    You're reading more into it than you need to.

    All homo- and hetero-sexuals care about physical attributes too.

    All pans I've met, doesn't care about any physical traits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    absolutely, and therefore i like the def of HalfSalesman. It nicely distinguishes between pan and bi, whilst avoiding any dated anti-trans ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I would like to hear that definition if you have it on hand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    it’s in this comment section: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/25858715

    Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.

    "Pan" because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn't matter.

    Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.

    "Bi" in the sense of being "bi-directional" in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.

    For instance, I'm finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Ok yeah that makes sense. The way I’ve conceptualized it is that pan is attracted to all genders or to people regardless of gender and bi is attracted to two or more genders. I think the way that commenter phrased it is a great way to think about it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    As a trans person and a pansexual, I would describe it like this:

    I don't have a type. I don't even necessarily tend to find people attractive until I get to know them a bit. The people I find "hot" aren't tall people or feminine people or strong people or anything like that, instead I think clothing choices that tell me something about you and give me a feel for who you are as a person are hot.

    If i'm attracted to you, I will find myself attracted to your body, rgardlesss of what your body happens to be like. You could literally be a glob of goo or an alien or a talking rock, if I like you I'll start thinking you're hot.

    If you're thinking "isn't that demisexual"? then you're halfway there - i'm not ace. I do think people are hot when I pass them on the street, except what i'm attracted to is their "vibe" rather than anything about their physical form.

    Naturally, pansexual is a subset of bisexual - i'm also proud to be bi and I use that label frequently. And yes both bi and pan are trans-inclusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying "Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that". Because there's a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If I can get enough of a read on someone's personality, then yes I can be aroused, lip bite, let's fuck, etc. more or less right away. I do need to get to know someone to be into them but that process can happen extremely quickly, including at a glance if I can get enough of a sense of someone's personality from what they're wearing/other context clues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Ah gotcha. I cant relate to the feeling but I can conceptualize it I think. I fall under demisexual so while I'm highly sexually charged, arousal by a random person takes a lot of work to get to. To clarify further, I'm male, but I have so many turn-offs that people are essentially classified as unsexy by default until I've done heavy vetting (social and psychological conversational prodding to determine a person's place in the metacontextual zeitgeist). Then on top of that I have physical and presentational preferences so finding partners is practically impossible. I got lucky that a Tinder date turned into the best LTR of my life, and a person I couldnt imagine being without now.

    This said, I'm very familiar with attraction after vetting, but social signifiers have rarely in my experience told me who a person was. Perhaps I'm more distrustful than you, but I can't imagine getting past my sensors with only a glance. I've learned too many times that people are seldom what you think they are at first glance.

    To this extent, are you saying that a bi/pansexual has more physically charged sensors for attraction, and so that conversation is not necessary? To that end, is additional conversation LESS attractive? I ask because I've run into this feature with cis straight women, where my yapping turns them completely off, even if my body was green for them. Not through offence mind you, I notice they just get bored or overwhelmed with the conversation and wanted a spicier encounter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Yeah, the only way pansexual makes sense, to me at least, is if bisexual excludes feminine presenting men and masculine presenting women, but I don't see why it should. I feel like pan was just created either to make certain people feel like they're being more inclusive than just normal bi people, or to make bi people feel like they're being exclusive.

    A lot of the gender and sexual orientation language of recent times is good and removes ambiguity. Some of it though, like pan, feels like people just treating it as a contest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I always took the difference as pan means you're sexually aroused and attracted to people's personalities, regardless of their body, and bi means you like dicks and vaginas. It's probably not very useful but out of the people I know that go both ways, the ones that are ok with casual sex call themselves bi and the ones that aren't use pan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    No? That's demisexual. Pansexual is you're attracted to all (pan- means all) types of people, which is effectively equivalent to bi. Note attraction does not mean you like that person. You don't even need to know someone to be attracted to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    But liking a person can cause attraction, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Sure. Sexual orientation is defined as the innate attraction though. It's the attraction you have to someone you see walking down the street. Obviously the right kind of interactions can overcome this and make someone attracted to someone they weren't originally attracted to though, or vice versa.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    The way I frame it is: Bisexuals are attracted to you because of gender, pansexuals not. The ven diagram of attraction is mostly the same. It's more about the why. Like I find masculine and feminine traits individually hot no matter who presents them, makes me bi.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I learned what bi/pan was from a random discord user back in 2016 and I still think its the best description

    Bi: Sexually attracted to looks, personality can obv play a big part/be a deciding factor but your main attraction comes from how physically attractive you think they are

    Pan: Sexually attracted to personality, looks can obv play a big part/be the deciding factor but your main attraction is how much you like their personality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    Again... Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there's no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    All heterosexuals and homosexuals care about physical traits, often regarding a genitalia.

    It's not about being shallow, when 90%+(?) of the population shares that commonality.

    I consider myself a panromantic, heterosexual non-binary person.

    Sure personality matters a lot to me, but I can't sexually engage with a penis. It's just how it goes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality

    Although... Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    No no no. Hi it's me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don't put words in my mouth.

    That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn't a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.

    This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that's fine. The real world doesn't fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.

    Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.

    We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn't need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn't commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I'm being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc...).

    But we don't unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The death murder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.

    All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don't think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don't really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It's why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In "losing" ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn't mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.

    Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of "oh there's x person. He's gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he's problematic because x thing vs y thing..." And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they "know" immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc...

    Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society's addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn't boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn't really communicate anything, because there's not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who's using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It's a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn't.

    I actually yearn for a world where labels don't really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there's no immediate categorization of this person's identity. It's probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).

    And it's not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don't know exactly how it would look, and that's the cool part: I don't have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our "normal".

    But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I'm leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I mean, practically, if someone tells me they're bi or pan, it doesn't really change my view of them. Like there's not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I'm trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn't. But if they're bi or if they're pan, it doesn't change that.

    There is a difference, I'm not saying there isn't, and I'm not saying we should only use one if the two. I'm just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I'm curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it's not super critical for anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    What's the alternative you're suggesting? That they don't use the label that best suits them? That they don't use the definition they prefer when asked why they identify as they do? This feels sort of half baked. I get where you're going, but to what end? Suggesting they use a different definition or a different label just for convenience is pretty problematic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    To be clear, that wasn't my point at all... I think it's perfectly fine for people to use whatever words they want for themselves, and to describe their sexuality with those words however they please.

    My point is moreso that attempting to separate pansexual and bisexual beyond the individual level is useless because they aren't meaningfully distinct concepts. People can pick one or the other or neither and use it in whatever sense they want, but the problem arises when they try to generalize their pet definition to others. You see people in this thread arguing about the definition, saying "I think this is what it means" and then someone else comes in and says "no you're wrong it doesn't mean that". Some of the people saying that are because the definition was transphobic or something, but some of them are just disagreeing about the definition.

    I think this is all a nonsense prescriptivist debate with no relation to reality (which is part of the appeal of course, but still). People just argue what they think the word should mean rather than thinking about how it's actually used. And if you think about how it's used, I don't think it's possible to separate the two. One person's pansexual is another person's bisexual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    The definitions I've known are that bisexuality is that you are attracted to all body types and pansexuality is that you are attracted to people.

    So, one is more physical and the other is more social, but there's no slander to either, no?

    I for example wouldn't say ace biromantic, I'd define it as ace panromantic since bi has more of a physical vibe. Idk, it's not so deep.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Bisexuals that grow from the ceiling are called “bicicles”

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago

    Oooooh, so THAT'S what was growing in my sex cave

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (40 children)

    As a bisexual girlie, would someone let me know what the true difference is when it's figured out??

    Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I've heard a ton of different definitions, but honestly I think people just pick the label they like better and there isn't a functional difference. I identify as bisexual because the flag is better haha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    bi is also one character less to type

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • I am convinced that they are the same thing and the only difference is the label itself. Any definitions I've seen are either equivalent, or denigrating to one of the labels and unrepresentative of how many people use them. Regardless of the history, trying to hammer down that one must be used over the other is a waste of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I'm gen z and consider myself pan because the flag colors look like an ocean sunset and yummy ice cream. And also because gender is irrelevant to me in regards to attraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    My personaly definition is:

    bi is attracted to people of multiple genders (could be all or could be limited to specific ones)

    Pan is attracted to people regardless of gender entirely. Gender simply isnt a factor when it comes to attraction.

    I personally am far more in the Pan side of things but I rep the Bi flag because its much much better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think the most reasonable definition is that bi means you are into either and pan means you don't care. So bi means you have two "prototypes" you're into, one male and one female, and pan means your "prototype" is not gendered. Having a gendered prototype doesn't mean it excludes trans people. A trans person can be close enough to either or both, depending on their state of transition and your focus. I hope I'm making sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 5 points 1 month ago (20 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    This is transphobic because it insinuates that trans people are some third gender rather than their actual gender. There is nothing about bisexuality or the "bi" prefix that would imply that bi people are only attracted to cis people unless you believe that trans and cis people are separate genders.

    Nonbinary people, on the other hand, I can see how "bi means two" can be conflated to mean bisexuals can't be attracted to nonbinary people although I think that ignores the history of the term bisexual, as well as ignores the reality of nonbinary genders, i.e. you can't necessarily tell someone is nonbinary by looking at them. I think when people say they're "not attracted to nonbinary people" if they're not bigoted they likely mean something like not being attracted to androgyny, but not all nonbinary people present androgynously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Not all trans people pass, and some trans people don’t exhibit their gender in a way someone else would like.

    Some do pass. How would those people who think they aren't attracted to trans people even know until clothes come off? And even then, they might not be able to tell if a person is trans, cis, or intersex.

    It's like when people say they aren't attracted to bisexual men. It's personal preference rooted in bigotry, even if they're not conscious of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Because the only trans people they personally know are ones they aren’t attracted to?

    That doesn't mean they won't be attracted to any and all trans people.

    There's nothing different about a bisexual man and a straight man when it comes to dating. If someone doesn't like bisexual men because bisexual men are also attracted to men, that is a preference rooted in homophobia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    You aren’t the only person in the world.

    I'm not trans, but ok.

    It also doesn’t mean they will be either.

    That's the point. They don't know either. So to assume that every single trans person is not attractive to them is an assumption based in bigotry.

    Yeah, because gay and straight people totally always have the same culture and behavior right?

    They can overlap a lot depending on the person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    That has nothing to do with being bisexual or not though. I might not be into bodybuilders "exhibiting their masculinity" by being absurdly jacked, but that doesn't make me not bisexual. I'm just not attracted to that particular gender presentation.

    I think when people say "I'm not attracted to trans people" they have a particular idea of a trans person in their head, but plenty of trans people pass and some go "stealth". "We can always tell" is patently false. I suppose I can imagine a person who is so caught up in gender who would be turned off if they found out someone is trans, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone not asexual who wouldn't find some trans person initially attractive, at least post-op.

    I agree with your last point though. At this point I've mostly given up on pansexual/bisexual and just call myself queer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (12 children)

    That makes me hesitant to ever identify as bisexual though and honestly that makes me really sad. I've become quite attached to bisexuality as a part of my identity and adhere to the definition @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone used here:

    the bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody’s left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).

    I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I'm rejecting them based on my own identity.

    Edit: Ugh you? Yeah I'm not going to go with your definition of anything with comments like these in your history

    I like interacting with butch (not sure if that term is still in vogue, havent had the courage to ask) lesbians, they're never as bitter as the fems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    All of this is just retroactive attempts to delineate the two labels after the concept of being transgender started to become understood by a wider portion of the public (and the queer community, for that matter). Don't let faux-academic definitions define your identity. If "bisexual" feels like it fits but gender-nonconforming, agender, androgynous-presenting, and/or genderfluid people are also your thing, that's entirely fine.

    (Edit: and it doesn't in any way invalidate other people's self-labeling when they categorize it differently to you. Labels are only there to simplify communication of ideas. They're not a sports team.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I’m rejecting them based on my own identity.

    That would imply being anything other than pansexual is wrong and discriminatory, period.

    It's worth stressing that it's perfectly fine to reject someone as a potential partner for any reason or even for no reason at all. For example if you find white women more attractive than black women, I don't think it makes you racist if that's just about attraction, not respect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think that distinction just grew up with the current trend of trans-exclusion. I identify as bi and my bi club is explicitly inclusive of trans and NB folk. The transphobes will have to pry the ol' pink and blue from my cold dead sexy bisexual hands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -3 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You have no idea if I'm butch or fem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    who assumed that you are a man?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's bigoted as fuck to assert that all butch lesbians are cool and all fem lesbians are bitter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Assuming that I'm fem because you don't get along with me is a bigoted way of thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›