LGBT flags and the Political Left (split from Random Rants LXXIII)

[Snerk]

I agree with both those points to a large degree but I think there's more reasons than that. A significant part of the electorate will imo be more emotionally swung by rhetoric than factual economical deduction.

@Arakhor I guess this whole thing can be put in a separate thread and let this get back to ranting.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Let's be clear: I never actually asked anyone about the flag. What happened is that someone was ranting and complaining about how "people" didn't just automatically know what the various flags meant. What I said was, 'Why don't you just explain it to them, then, if they ask?'... and the answer I got was basically, "I don't know what your agenda is, but mind your own business."

Maybe they mistook your polite attempt at enquiry for you telling them you knew better than they did about their own life experience or something.

 

[Arakhor]

@Arakhor I guess this whole thing can be put in a separate thread and let this get back to ranting.

Moderator Action: Done.

 

[Ryika]

I always thought pansexuality was the idea that one can be sexually attracted to literally anything, so not just a body, not just a human being, but an idea, something incorporeal, an ideal, any lifeform, a tree, whatever. Gotta admit I am wildly disappointed right now. I need a new phrase.

Depends on who you ask. There are people who will use the word that way, but these people are usually just posers who want to look extra special.

I don't remember who's stream it was on, but years ago there was a discussion with a guy who claimed to be pansexual in the most broad way possible, being attracted to basically everything. One of the other people in that stream responded by calling him a pedophile (because naturally, the argument the guy was making meant that he must be into little children as well) - I don't think I've ever seen anyone backpaddle faster than that guy.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

This is the rants thread.

I apologize for the tone of my answer, I just felt overwhelmed when I read how you interpreted that whole exchange and how you felt "snarled at" when someone told you to "mind your own business" (genuinely one of the least offensive terms I can think of), when people on YouTube comment sections (and many other websites) tell me, on a semi daily basis, that I should off myself. The internet has developed so incredibly fast and what is/what isn't considered "offensive" has aswell. You're an oldschool forum poster and that is totally cool and I respect it.

Depends on who you ask. There are people who will use the word that way, but these people are usually just posers who want to look extra special.

I don't remember who's stream it was on, but years ago there was a discussion with a guy who claimed to be pansexual in the most broad way possible, being attracted to basically everything. One of the other people in that stream responded by calling him a pedophile (because naturally, the argument the guy was making meant that he must be into little children as well) - I don't think I've ever seen anyone backpaddle faster than that guy.

pansexuality, the way I defined it in my post, is that one is possibly attracted to anything, not just a human body, not just something physical. in no way whatsoever does it logically follow that you would be attracted to everything (which would include children). that is just brainlet thinking.

a gay dude does not necessarily find all men attractive, same goes for literally any sexuality. so the person in question should not have backpedalled, but rather slammed his discussion partner

 

[sophie]

trans flag and the rainbow are the only good GSM flags.

asexual is neutral, everything else is bad.

Bi flag is good

 

[Ryika]

pansexuality, the way I defined it in my post, is that one is possibly attracted to anything, not just a human body, not just something physical. in no way whatsoever does it logically follow that you would be attracted to everything (which would include children). that is just brainlet thinking.

Yeah. But the guy in the stream went a step further and claimed that he was, in fact, attracted to literally everything.

Overall, Synsensa is right though; pansexuality is usually used to describe a person who is interested in any gender or sex, not a person who is interested in objects. At least in the kink-communities of the internet. It does not contain an attraction to items, and it does not even mean that a person claims to be potentially attracted to any person, as a pansexual individual can for example still have racial preferences and not be attracted to the characteristics that are common with people of certain races.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, tbh, "pansexual" isn't a good defining term. Consider that it is in analogy with (latin) omnivore re what the being eats. Etymologically "pansexual" would indeed mean that the person is sexually attracted to all kinds of species, not just humans or non-objects.
I do agree with TF that (by and large) bisexual means the same as this "pansexual" is intended to refer to, given one has to suppose a bisexual person will opt to view the trans person (assuming they don't accept transexuality, as some claimed in the thread) as just being of their original gender, and still will have such relations with them if they are found to be attractive.

 

[Ryika]

What about intersex individuals?

 

[Kyriakos]

What about intersex individuals?

They wouldn't be covered (i suppose) by a bisexual, but they still fall far short from what would be covered by actual pansexuality.
In all kinds of things you rarely see categories covering every single case (in fact you only see those in scientific taxonomy)

 

[Ryika]

Why would they not be covered by pansexuality? Isn't it meant to include exactly these people? The way I am familiar with the label it basically means "is into men, women and anything in-between".

With that said though, I am bisexual and I don't think I could fall in love with a F2M trans individual. M2F is fine, but F2M is something that I just don't like, so I think your description of how bisexual people interact with trans individuals is at least not universally true.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why would they not be covered by pansexuality? Isn't it meant to include exactly these people? The way I am familiar with the label it basically means "is into men, women and anything in-between".

With that said though, I am bisexual and I don't think I could fall in love with a F2M trans individual. M2F is fine, but F2M is something that I just don't like, so I think your description of how bisexual people interact with trans individuals is at least not universally true.

I meant that if they had a category just to define their inclusion, that category would fall short of being in tautology with the vast "pansexuality" one

"Pansexuality" as a term makes me think of some person who (for whatever reason) is attracted to literally EVERYTHING, and not just human, nor just living beings or non-objects.

 

[Snerk]

Even panflutes?

 

[Yeekim]

These too. And also to Polish noblemen.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And Toasters! (usually resulting in trips to the E.R.)

 

[Ryika]

It's called pan sexual for a reason.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Hm, tbh, "pansexual" isn't a good defining term. Consider that it is in analogy with (latin) omnivore re what the being eats. Etymologically "pansexual" would indeed mean that the person is sexually attracted to all kinds of species, not just humans or non-objects.
I do agree with TF that (by and large) bisexual means the same as this "pansexual" is intended to refer to, given one has to suppose a bisexual person will opt to view the trans person (assuming they don't accept transexuality, as some claimed in the thread) as just being of their original gender, and still will have such relations with them if they are found to be attractive.

The better comparison is pansexuality and pantheism. Pantheism either

1) sees spirituality/god/energy in all the universe or
2) believes that the universe is the manifestation of god/energy/spirituality or
3) is the adherence to many different beliefs taken from already established religions: mixing and mingling

goes along pretty well with ""my"" definition imo

 

[Yeekim]

These too. And also to Polish noblemen.

... and chimpanzees, can't forget chimpanzees!

A banana for everyone who gets it.

 

[Synobun]

Hm, tbh, "pansexual" isn't a good defining term. Consider that it is in analogy with (latin) omnivore re what the being eats. Etymologically "pansexual" would indeed mean that the person is sexually attracted to all kinds of species, not just humans or non-objects.
I do agree with TF that (by and large) bisexual means the same as this "pansexual" is intended to refer to, given one has to suppose a bisexual person will opt to view the trans person (assuming they don't accept transexuality, as some claimed in the thread) as just being of their original gender, and still will have such relations with them if they are found to be attractive.

Quite literally incorrect. I don't understand how people can be this confident in asserting themselves on questions of definition. All relevant literature explicitly goes against what you think.

It's also bewildering that in the same breath you can suggest pansexuals are open to having a good time with their car or the local cat (which is amazingly rude to imply, by the way) but then switch gears to saying "pansexuality is the same thing as bisexuality" and then just using a eraser on the distinctions between the two because, I dunno, you don't like thinking about them.

Having this thread split off and letting people soapbox about how LGBT+ people should define themselves was an amazing mistake.

 

[Lexicus]

letting people soapbox about how LGBT+ people should define themselves

It's kind of funny ain't it
Like "Man On Internet Creates Huge Waves By Disproving Commonly-Used Definition of Pansexual"