Pansexuality is a stupid label

[FuzzyBlueElf]

Epistemic

FuzzyBlueElf

Yeah, it is complicated, but labels are there to simplify things so that your brain can handle ideas more efficiently. That's why humans categorize things the way they do

It is not a universal to divide into two genders. There are a few cultures that either still do or used to recognize a third gender. In some cases, those in the third gender were seen as being endowed with special powers in the tribes. There are actually...5? I think different gender sets in the human genome. We do actually divide them up and label them. XX=female XY=male and the rest are considered in western culture to be syndromes or disorders. We're not very friendly to the others, we call them a mutation basically.

Either way, that's still not even taking into consideration gender identity "disorders" (there's that word again) or cross-dressing, etc. There's a huge amount of variation in human gender and sexuality. We just lump it into male/female, and refer to the other categories as either non-existent or "disordered".
~Tanek

No, I know all this stuff.. that's where the last post mentioned third-gender philosophies. But you're the first person I know who seems to know about a bigger picture? Are you pansexual? Just curious, because I want to hear the pov of someone well-knowledge who identifies as that.

And again, though, I wasn't saying that gender as a label specifically is just to simplify things for our brains. I was talking about classifications in general. I realize that different cultures have different classifications, but to those cultures and people who study them, those labels and categories are very very definite. They're not ambiguous like this whole pansexuality thing.

And I'm still going to argue that cross-dressing a.k.a. transvestivism is not a gender, let alone a biological sex. I think a "sexuality" geared toward transvestites would, again, not be a sexuality. If anything it would be a sub-label for a hetero-sexual/bisexual/homosexual. Just like "daddy" "twink" "top" "bottom" "BDSM" etc. Those aren't sexualities; they're sexual niches.

[Toffee Cuntwaffle]

I understand the idea behind it, but it seems that adding too many different lables just overcomplicates things. I suppose, technically, I'm pansexual. I don't think many people I know in real life would even know what that means. I consider myself bisexual. I'm attracted to men and to women. If those men and women happen to have the opposite gender's bits, I don't mind. Most people consider themselves to be either male or female, and I am attracted to both.

[Epistemic]

FuzzyBlueElf

Are you pansexual? Just curious, because I want to hear the pov of someone well-knowledge who identifies as that.

And again, though, I wasn't saying that gender as a label specifically is just to simplify things for our brains. I was talking about classifications in general. I realize that different cultures have different classifications, but to those cultures and people who study them, those labels and categories are very very definite. They're not ambiguous like this whole pansexuality thing.

And I'm still going to argue that cross-dressing a.k.a. transvestivism is not a gender, let alone a biological sex. I think a "sexuality" geared toward transvestites would, again, not be a sexuality. If anything it would be a sub-label for a hetero-sexual/bisexual/homosexual. Just like "daddy" "twink" "top" "bottom" "BDSM" etc. Those aren't sexualities; they're sexual niches.

Given the wikipedia version of pansexuality, I would definitely consider applying the definition to myself. I know I wouldn't rule anyone out based on gender, nor perceived gender. I know I have a preference for males over all though. Whether or not they started off male. Sociology was rather destructive to my former take on the world, I just can't take gender lines seriously anymore, which has a lot of implication on my relationships.

It makes me wonder where the idea of pansexuality comes from, it might be interesting to figure out who established the term. It seems to me to be a North American term, honestly. In that case, it would make a lot of sense really. In a way, it really isn't ambiguous, it's part of the larger movement to challenge gender roles. At least, it appeals to me as a way to create a more unifying term which challenges the tradition of gender, as well as functions as a sort of 'flashing light' for anyone who is looking for an individual tolerant of their particular lifestyle and choice. In a way, it's a homing beacon that the person will not cut another down for being transgendered/etc.

Though I do have to agree you bring up a good point. I'm unfortunately inclined to play devil's advocate. Cross-dressing, I would agree is not a sexuality. The state of being a cross-dresser, a transsexual, a top or bottom, etc. implies more a type of person, you are right. However, when explaining something like an attraction to a particular type of person, it expresses a preferred sexuality. If there cannot be a pansexual, why should there be a label of homosexual or heterosexual, or bisexual? Why is there no option for 'anything human goes'. Which is basically what pansexuality is. It's function is to express in fewer words the gender-type of person you would likely have sex with. Sub-groups of those would include personality traits such as sub/dom, top/bottom, etc.

[La Veuve Zin]

Epistemic

XX=female XY=male and the rest are considered in western culture to be syndromes or disorders. We're not very friendly to the others, we call them a mutation basically.

Because they are. Having extra sex chromosomes or only one is not good for you.

Women with Turner's syndrome are sterile. Women with triple-X syndrome (attn: perverts: this is not what you think) are usually mentally retarded. XXY and XYY men are often retarded as well, and they all have significant problems with muscle development.*

Quote:

Either way, that's still not even taking into consideration gender identity "disorders" (there's that word again) or cross-dressing, etc. There's a huge amount of variation in human gender and sexuality. We just lump it into male/female, and refer to the other categories as either non-existent or "disordered".
~Tanek

If your sex disturbs you so much that you'll pay thousands of dollars, take rigorous courses of hormones, and undergo major surgery to change it, I'd call that a disorder. And people like that are clearly not okay with being anything but the gender to which they transition.

Feeling like you don't fit into the gender constructs of male or female is fine. I consider myself only mostly female, as far as gender is concerned. But as for sex, I'm XX. 100% female. If I had a Y chromosome, I'd be 100% male. And sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. Sure, personality matters. But someone who's completely heterosexual will never find someone of the same sex attractive, regardless of the person's gender.

*Bruce M. King, Human Sexuality Today, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 1999.

[La Veuve Zin]

FuzzyBlueElf

And if you like animals, that is also NOT a gender. That's a species differentiation, and that needs to be made clear. There is no willing consent on the part of animals as well as children. I don't like the idea of this vague "pansexual" label that can include anything under the sun. Children can also not give consent, and I'm starting to get a little paranoid that ***** is going to be lumped into this discussion. :/

True.

Animals? Also male and female. Even naturally hermaphroditic animals are both male and female, not something else.

Transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, Transylvanian, and intersexed people? If they have a Y chromosome, they're male. If they don't, they're female. Simple.

Children? Same as adults, not that anyone should be having sex with them.

[Epistemic]

La Veuve Zin

If your sex disturbs you so much that you'll pay thousands of dollars, take rigorous courses of hormones, and undergo major surgery to change it, I'd call that a disorder. And people like that are clearly not okay with being anything but the gender to which they transition.

Feeling like you don't fit into the gender constructs of male or female is fine. I consider myself only mostly female, as far as gender is concerned. But as for sex, I'm XX. 100% female. If I had a Y chromosome, I'd be 100% male. And sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. Sure, personality matters. But someone who's completely heterosexual will never find someone of the same sex attractive, regardless of the person's gender.

Touche.

It just seems like playing 'holier than thou' when we outright assume that we are the norm and thus everything outside should be treated like some kind of disease. Perhaps I've just got too much of a hippie mindset on that. Though, upon further thought, I do have to concede on your point of sexual orientation being about sex and not gender. I still think it would be in my personal interest to stick with the pansexual label, simply because it does denote the social tolerance for those outside the gender lines.

[FuzzyBlueElf]

Epistemic

La Veuve Zin

If your sex disturbs you so much that you'll pay thousands of dollars, take rigorous courses of hormones, and undergo major surgery to change it, I'd call that a disorder. And people like that are clearly not okay with being anything but the gender to which they transition.

Feeling like you don't fit into the gender constructs of male or female is fine. I consider myself only mostly female, as far as gender is concerned. But as for sex, I'm XX. 100% female. If I had a Y chromosome, I'd be 100% male. And sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. Sure, personality matters. But someone who's completely heterosexual will never find someone of the same sex attractive, regardless of the person's gender.

Touche.

It just seems like playing 'holier than thou' when we outright assume that we are the norm and thus everything outside should be treated like some kind of disease. Perhaps I've just got too much of a hippie mindset on that. Though, upon further thought, I do have to concede on your point of sexual orientation being about sex and not gender. I still think it would be in my personal interest to stick with the pansexual label, simply because it does denote the social tolerance for those outside the gender lines.

What I find so bizarre about this pansexual label is that transexuals, in my mind, HAVE to believe in gender construction or else why bother with transition? If you didn't buy into gender, there would be no NEED for gender reassignment surgery. I stress need here because I'm not saying it shouldn't be an option, but with the exception of Kate Bornstein, I don't think there are many transexuals who have willingly peeled away gender construction. If you want to have a p***s, fine. If you want to have a v****a, fine. But it's a different concept entirely to think that you need those bits to be a man/woman.

I find it completely bizarre that transexuals, then, would be comfortable around pansexuals who don't believe in gender construction. How would a relationship work where the transexual's partner simply doesn't care about the reassignment he/she worked so hard and struggled with for so long?

I don't know. I mean...I think it's much easier to use sexual orientation as a biological guide, and have face-to-face discussions about the rest. Particularly if you're talking to a transexual person. The last thing I'd want is to be lured into a sense of security because someone identifies as a pansexual, and then have them bring up gender politics and gender theory around me. It seems almost damaging. What if the transexual starts to follow gender deconstruction theory and then has a breakdown over the fact that they struggled so hard to be something that, in this particular theoretical perspective, doesn't exist?

[Corrupted Coco]

La Veuve Zin

FuzzyBlueElf

And if you like animals, that is also NOT a gender. That's a species differentiation, and that needs to be made clear. There is no willing consent on the part of animals as well as children. I don't like the idea of this vague "pansexual" label that can include anything under the sun. Children can also not give consent, and I'm starting to get a little paranoid that ***** is going to be lumped into this discussion. :/

True.

Animals? Also male and female. Even naturally hermaphroditic animals are both male and female, not something else.

Transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, Transylvanian, and intersexed people? If they have a Y chromosome, they're male. If they don't, they're female. Simple.

Children? Same as adults, not that anyone should be having sex with them.

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on the chromosome bit. When I'm post op, I'll still have that Y chromosome. Does that suddenly mean that any guys who find me attractive are gay? Does that mean that my boyfriend will be engaging in gay vaginal sex with me? Anyone who looks at me naked will be able to see my breasts and v****a, but they can't see my chromosomes.

[Corrupted Coco]

FuzzyBlueElf

Epistemic

La Veuve Zin

If your sex disturbs you so much that you'll pay thousands of dollars, take rigorous courses of hormones, and undergo major surgery to change it, I'd call that a disorder. And people like that are clearly not okay with being anything but the gender to which they transition.

Feeling like you don't fit into the gender constructs of male or female is fine. I consider myself only mostly female, as far as gender is concerned. But as for sex, I'm XX. 100% female. If I had a Y chromosome, I'd be 100% male. And sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. Sure, personality matters. But someone who's completely heterosexual will never find someone of the same sex attractive, regardless of the person's gender.

Touche.

It just seems like playing 'holier than thou' when we outright assume that we are the norm and thus everything outside should be treated like some kind of disease. Perhaps I've just got too much of a hippie mindset on that. Though, upon further thought, I do have to concede on your point of sexual orientation being about sex and not gender. I still think it would be in my personal interest to stick with the pansexual label, simply because it does denote the social tolerance for those outside the gender lines.

What I find so bizarre about this pansexual label is that transexuals, in my mind, HAVE to believe in gender construction or else why bother with transition? If you didn't buy into gender, there would be no NEED for gender reassignment surgery. I stress need here because I'm not saying it shouldn't be an option, but with the exception of Kate Bornstein, I don't think there are many transexuals who have willingly peeled away gender construction. If you want to have a p***s, fine. If you want to have a v****a, fine. But it's a different concept entirely to think that you need those bits to be a man/woman.

I find it completely bizarre that transexuals, then, would be comfortable around pansexuals who don't believe in gender construction. How would a relationship work where the transexual's partner simply doesn't care about the reassignment he/she worked so hard and struggled with for so long?

I don't know. I mean...I think it's much easier to use sexual orientation as a biological guide, and have face-to-face discussions about the rest. Particularly if you're talking to a transexual person. The last thing I'd want is to be lured into a sense of security because someone identifies as a pansexual, and then have them bring up gender politics and gender theory around me. It seems almost damaging. What if the transexual starts to follow gender deconstruction theory and then has a breakdown over the fact that they struggled so hard to be something that, in this particular theoretical perspective, doesn't exist?

It's not so much about believing in gender construction as it is about being comfortable in one's own body. I think gender roles are idiotic and will do things my own way no matter the body I'm in, but I still have the need to transition to end the pain my body causes me.

[FuzzyBlueElf]

thanks for contributing coco. you make some good points. Post-op, for all purposes (including sexual orientation in my book) you would be consider female. That is, after all, the point of it. It'd be insulting to consider you anything else without you self-labeling as third gender or male or whatever.

That being said, it's extremely hard for me to understand the drive to transition without some belief in a gender binary. I get that you aren't comfortable in your own skin, but what I don't get is why. And if you don't attach gender to the bits you have, then would there really be a need to be defined as a woman post-op?

I don't know. I mean, I really want to hear how you feel about why you personally aren't comfortable with your body, and what it means to you to transition, how you feel about gender/sex, etc. I know it's off-topic, but these are the kinds of discussion I think we need to have in order to avoid misinterpreting labels and self-identifiers.

[MIssLovelyPenguin]

i believe on dating based on personality first, but i'm stright so there fore into guys. however, i don't think that all bisexual people are slutty or anything and i honestly don't have a problem with them. i think it's to each their own who they want to love and society has no right to judge or base people off it. there are slutty whoreish bisexuals/homosexuals, but what angers me is people don't see how many straight people do the same exact things!!!! stereotypes=tres stupid.

[La Veuve Zin]

Corrupted Coco

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on the chromosome bit. When I'm post op, I'll still have that Y chromosome. Does that suddenly mean that any guys who find me attractive are gay? Does that mean that my boyfriend will be engaging in gay vaginal sex with me? Anyone who looks at me naked will be able to see my breasts and v****a, but they can't see my chromosomes.

You're right, I did word that kind of funny. That applies more to intersexed people, not trans people who've undergone reassignment surgery. I was thinking in terms of an XXY guy being male.

But it's still a matter of physiology. No matter where someone is in terms of plumbing, they'll always be male, female, or a little of both. Your intent is to be female, and I'm guessing you'd change your chromosomes if given the option.

[Lord Vyce]

FuzzyBlueElf

Well, thanks for trying to offer insight, but I know a lot of pansexual people who tell me that they don't think they could date hermaphrodite or transexual people. Which is why I made this thread.

Then they're not pansexual, are they?

Epistemic

It is not a universal to divide into two genders. There are a few cultures that either still do or used to recognize a third gender. In some cases, those in the third gender were seen as being endowed with special powers in the tribes. There are actually...5? I think different gender sets in the human genome. We do actually divide them up and label them. XX=female XY=male and the rest are considered in western culture to be syndromes or disorders. We're not very friendly to the others, we call them a mutation basically.

Either way, that's still not even taking into consideration gender identity "disorders" (there's that word again) or cross-dressing, etc. There's a huge amount of variation in human gender and sexuality. We just lump it into male/female, and refer to the other categories as either non-existent or "disordered".
~Tanek

Mutation:

1: a significant and basic alteration : change
2: umlaut
3 a: a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes ; also : the process of producing a mutation b: an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

It has nothing to do with friendliness. Being an albino is not being another color, it's a mutation where pigment is not produced. It is a mutation. Doesn't mean we're not friendly with albinos. A mutation is a mutation. You're just being PC. Mutation isn't necessarily a bad thing. What it is is a mutation. Sexuality is another matter. Variation there is the point I'll agree with you.

And honestly, how can a Gender Identity case not be a disorder? Are you telling me that a person that does not see their self as the gender they were born with isn't a disorder? Any identity issue is a disorder, because it's not part of the natural order of things, durr hurr.

Oh, and can you tell me what cultures identified the third gender? Where those the same kind of tribes that hailed white people as gods? There is a mysticism in difference, especially within primitive people. Whether there's good or bad associated with that superstition varies with each case.

[The Red Duck]

QUACK.
Can pansexuals date animals?