Don't Call Me Queer - The LGB and TQ+ Must Split Campaign

so ‘pansexuality’ means someone who’s not going to shag someone they don’t like as a person…… I think that might apply to a lot of people 😆

"Sex-typed behavior
edit
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Differences in brain structure that come about from chemical messengers and genes interacting on developing brain cells are believed to be the basis of sex differences in countless behaviors, including sexual orientation.[1]: 25 Prenatal factors that affect or interfere with the interaction of these hormones on the developing brain can influence later sex-typed behavior in children.[1]: 24 This hypothesis is originated from experimental studies in non-human mammals, yet the argument that similar effects can be seen in human neurobehavioral development is a much debated topic among scholars.[2] Recent studies, however, have provided evidence in support of prenatal androgen exposure influencing childhood sex-typed behavior.[2]"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2951011/

See above.

In my head…
Gender - how I feel about what’s in my pants
Sexuality - how I feel about about what’s in your pants

straight - what’s in my pants is the opposite of what’s in your pants
gay/lesbian - what’s in my pants is the same as what’s in your pants
bisexual - I don’t mind what’s in your pants, as long as you don’t mind what’s in your pants
pansexual - I don’t mind what’s in your pants, even if you do
asexual - I’m not really interested in what’s in your pants, please keep them on, thanks very much.

And that’s the same as asexuality, which according to some can mean only wanting to have sex with someone you have a deep connection with. Which also applies to a lot of people.

Anything after the LGB is so ridiculous try hard, a desperate attempt to find an identity in normal human experience.

Not science, it's a biased activists report. Stop reading crap.

I don't have any doubt that you are right in your belief that some gendered behaviour exists from birth without culture. I'd be surprised if same sex attraction did not originate in the foetus.

Your problem, though, is that you use that to say it can therefore be conflated with sex and it can't. Because gender is a spectrum of behaviour and many or even most people will exhibit some behaviour which is more typical of the gender traits of the opposite sex.

Behaviour is also a choice. Choosing to behave like a man when I was in business did not make me one.

Did you actually read it? I don't think it helps the gender realist cause to call published and peer reviewed papers from one of the countries leading universities "crap".

I think that anyone who comes out with this sort of tosh has no real idea about the nature of genuine sexual attraction as opposed to some nonsense anime version.

So , exposure to hormones in utero may affect sexual orientation. Or may not. No mention of gender. However that is defined.

I'm a bi man, DP is about as heterosexual as it gets. We've been in a heterosexual relationship for nearly 20 years. That doesn't make me straight though, I'm still bi and will be till the day I die. My attraction to men doesn't disappear just because I'm in a relationship with DP, I just don't act on it, like I wouldn't with my attraction to any woman who isn't DP.

I'm definitely bi though, not pansexual. As I understand it, people who are pan are capable of fancying anyone. I'm not, I fancy male people, and I fancy female people. I like my male people to have male parts, and I like my female people to have female parts.

trans gayness

Bonkers.

When it comes to GI academia have destroyed any claim to expertise they once had. The countries leading universities are the main perpetrators of this hoax.
Such papers have been linked to before and used as evidence for something that's completely made up bollocks.
There comes a time when you've got to say, enough all ready, there is no science to prove anything the poster I responded to claimed.
If crap covers it then calling it crap is the simplest way to address it.

"Including sexual orientation" means its not the only behaviour.

Differences in brain structure that come about from chemical messengers and genes interacting on developing brain cells are believed to be the basis of sex differences in countless behaviors, including sexual orientation.[1]: 25

Honestly, I think the problem is the same as with the words "trans man" and "trans woman": new words should have been invented instead of using clearly defined words to mean something else.

"Straight" and "gay" don't mean shit when it comes to trans people. Entirely new words should be invented that clearly mark the distinction between what someone has in their pants (whether modified or not) and how someone wishes to be interacted with.

Like, I'm a transman. That means I have female genital bits but I wish to be interacted with as a man. So who's supposed to be interested in me (other than pansexual people, I guess?) ? Not gay people (lesbians don't want to romantically interact with me as a man, and gay men are not interested in the female bits), and not straight people (same in reverse). No, what I would need would be someone who is specifically attracted to transmen, and there's no clear word for that.

So yeah, I'm all for separating the LGB from the T. I even think it would benefit the T, since it would allow for the creation of T-specific sexualities.

It may be the case that prenatal androgen exposure influences childhood sex-typed behaviour. (Though, well ... "sex typed behaviour" ... hmm?)

But that can't alter the fact that a man sincerely saying he feels attracted to men must be telling the truth, whereas a man sincerely saying he feels he is a woman must be making a mistake. (Since feeling attracted is being attracted but changing sex is impossible.)

So: prenatal androgen, shmenatal androgen, gay is very different from trans. In other words, LGB doesn't belong with T. That's anyway obvious, no?

I too am a bi man in a relationship with a woman. I enjoy sex with men but have never had a relationship with a man. I think that isn't unusual to enjoy sex with both sexes but only have a relationship with those of one sex. I remember hearing Jeanette Winterson on Woman's Hour years ago saying that while she enjoyed having sex with a man she could never imagine living with one.

Your problem, though, is that you use that to say it can therefore be conflated with sex and it can't. Because gender is a spectrum of behaviour and many or even most people will exhibit some behaviour which is more typical of the gender traits of the opposite sex.

It's not my problem because its a fact that the concepts of 'man' & 'woman' are social constructs that by definition are not objective facts rather personal subjective value based beliefs that individuals may or may not associate purely with reproductive sex. In other words, you don't get to decide for others how they interpret the world because there is no right or wrong when it comes to subjective beliefs.

Gender & sex are two completely different concepts.

No. Woman = adult human female. Woman is not a social construct anymore than 'bull' and 'cow' are social constructs.

Indeed so. And LGB refers to sex, T to gender. So LGB doesn't belong with T.

Still obvious, no? (A fortiori, even.)

[Independently of any discussion about the ontology of gender.]

I forgot to add that as a bi man I am attracted to bodies of both men & women but would never be attracted to a woman who had her breasts removed or a man who has had his cock cut off & a surgical pocket created in his perineum. The idea of having sex with a "trans" person just gives me the ick.

Thanks for the link to the 'Sex-related variation in human behavior and the brain' article, Whisperingwaters, I had a quick read, it looks interesting, and will read it in more detail later.
I'll be reading in more detail to see how much of the evidence is from ' non-human mammals', and how much from humans.
It occurred to me that there must be a very small cohort of human babies who have the same hormonal make-up as the non-human mammals who have had their hormones manipulated in the laboratory.

And a smaller number of that already small cohort of humans who have been studied by neuroscientists.

I noticed that it is quite an old article in a fast-moving field of study - 2011 - and quite a few of the references are from the 1980s and 1990s.
I'm interested to see if the author has published anything more up-to-date, I'd read it with interest.

I always read the list of references carefully, I think it's a useful element in assessing an academic work.

I've put this one on my 'to be read' list
Nontrivial sex differences in throwing and intercepting: Relation to psychometrically-defined spatial functions
NV Watson, D Kimura
which I'll read with particular interest having seen the most incredible run-out in a women's cricket match on TV yesterday - Jemimah Rodrigues at extra cover missing a clean catch, recovering the ball from behind her, and scoring a direct hit to run the batter out.
Howzat, Watson and Kimura?😁

Oh and before I forget about the topic of the thread:
100% LGB✂T.
As other posters have said: different things, different people, different histories, different issues. There was no logical reason for attaching the T.
It was very useful strategically for the trans movement to piggyback on an existing movement, but not logical.

You are wrong. Man is an adult male. Woman is an adult female. They are not social constructs they are biological reality.

The words you are looking for that are culturally influenced are masculine and feminine.

Oh God. I'm attracted to practical non-stick cookware but also lust after well-seasoned iron skillets. What am I, then - pan pan?