Bi-sexulaity currently taking a kicking over at the Guardigan

[Bebstar123]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/14/the-pansexual-revolution-how-sexual-fluidity-became-mainstream#comments

"Nick, a 22-year-old physics and philosophy masters student at the University of York, initially thought he was bisexual as a teenager, but also now feels “pansexual” better fits his view that attraction isn’t really about gender. “I just find characteristics generally about people attractive"... a bi person might find tall guys attractive, and short girls. But he tends to fancy tall people, regardless of whether they are male or female.

As a bi sexual female who thinks gender is social BS, I had been under the impression that bisexuality related to both sex attraction. Apparently not, thanks random 22 year old bloke, thanks for sorting that out for me.

That's always the case in discussions in this area isn't it?

Exactly.

According to the stonewall umbrella pretty much everyone is trans so not niche at all.

If being trans is just ‘well I feel a bit transy’ then how are people supposed to be able to say whether they might fancy a trans person or not. That’s not how attraction works.

I think that’s what’s happening here. For whatever reason, there is a group of people who no longer feel that the word ‘bisexual’ applies to them, so new language has been created to reflect that.

Yes exactly. And that’s the problem.

They have decided that the word bisexual means something other than its meaning and therefore inflicted a definition on people that already belonged in that category.
Just like they have the word woman.

In order to believe that the word bisexual does not include trans people you have to concede that there are more than two sexes. Which there isn’t.

This isn’t a banal language evolution it’s a bait and switch to legitimatise trans ideology. That people can transcend sex and it’s gender that’s immutable.

This is a much wider philosophical question! So much art and literature is an exploration of this exact dilemma. Its certainly not novel to this particular debate.

Post modernism has its place as a way to question the world around you but it’s not practical to apply it to every day life.
It’s an interesting thought experiment but words need definitions or we all end up in hyper individual realities and lose all power to communicate effectively.

They have decided that the word bisexual means something other than its meaning

I think this is pretty cynical, and I also think you’re throwing a lot of people under the bus if you believe anyone identifying as pansexual is only doing so to score ideological points in the transgender debate. Maybe the biggest thing pansexuals ans bisexuals have in common is facing erasure.

It’s an interesting thought experiment but words need definitions or we all end up in hyper individual realities and lose all power to communicate effectively.

It’s more than just a thought experiment, it’s an absolutely routine part of humanity. Of course words have definitions, but you can’t deny that these are open to interpretation. There are plenty of examples of words having definitions and yet being applied to completely contradictory scenarios, scenarios which might even be in direct conflict with one another. And then when you have words which serve as labels defining a large group of people, you will get many people within that label profoundly disagreeing with each other in respect of what is and isn’t an acceptable part of that definition.

If words never changed their meanings, if they were never appropriated and never evolved, we wouldn’t have the word ‘gay’ meaning ‘homosexual’. The word ‘n**r’ would only ever be a slur, and not a term that POC have reclaimed to use of themselves in an empowering way. The word ‘sis’ would only literally be a shortened version of ‘sister’ meaning your female sibling instead of a term of endearment used by women of others unrelated to them. These are all words which had definitions but which have evolved into something new. The result hasn’t been a descent into some kind of Pinter style hell-farce where words are meaningless and none of us can relate to one another. It just means we have a new understanding, and a new layer of meaning. This is what language does!

And I’m not saying there is never an agenda behind the evolution of language, because of course there can be and often is. But in this case, to assert as fact that pansexuality only exists because a cabal of former bisexuals are seeking to further trans inclusivity isn’t fair, and isn’t supported by any kind of evidence.

The meanings of words aren’t immutable. Language evolves.

There's a difference between natural evolution and top down compulsion, such as the 'cis' word, which not only doesn't catch on but becomes actively rejected by the people it's intended to compel, and between evolving language and fashion fads.
Most people know what 'groovy' means, or 'wicked' means, but it belonged to a small group reflecting a passing social fashion among that group. It's not 'evolved' the language: if you go around saying 'groovy' you look a bit daft and very dated.

In this sense we have people not only inventing fun new fashionable words and terms but trying to force other people to change their language and meaning and to supercede the original meaning for a political purpose. Since the primary purpose of language is shared meaning, this is doomed to failure. For example anyone is welcome to call themselves a vegan, it's a free term. However if you go around shouting about how vegan you are while knocking back beef steaks (and insisting that all the politically purest vegans love beef steaks) and that you actually re define yourself and all other vegans as vejaks as vejaks are more inclusive and better vegans, at best people are going to think you're a bit odd.

I think we probably have to agree to disagree on whether pansexuality is just a vehicle for pushing trans ideology, rather than a valid sexual identity. I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you’re making out, and I think if pushed you would struggle to evidence that claim.

I’m sure some people are bashing bisexuality on the basis that they see it as being overly concerned with sex rather than gender, and I am sure that there are bisexuals who see the label as totally inclusive of trans / non-binary / intersex people (that’s more or less where I am). But I think it’s speculative, simplistic, and a form of erasure to insist that pansexuals are just bisexuals who want to push trans ideology.

assert as fact that pansexuality only exists because a cabal of former bisexuals are seeking to further trans inclusivity isn’t fair, and isn’t supported by any kind of evidence.

But that is literally what happened.

Bisexual meant fancying people of both sexes aka everyone, then someone decided that this didn’t include trans people so coined pansexual, to include trans people insinuating that bisexual excluded them because trans people where apparently not covered by the two sexes in bi sexual.

Of course meanings of words evolve, but words also have power hence why people reclaim slurs. Evolution of language especially ones used by and about marginalised groups is rarely NOT political.

And of course language around queer theory is being used in a cynical way to confuse the trans debate.

‘Trans women are women’

Can mean everything from you believe that anybody who identifies as a woman even for a second is literally a woman, of the female sex and always has been. To I don’t think that people can change sex but men who’ve had the surgery probably are very vulnerable so we should treat them like women as much as possible.

Have you been on Twitter??
It’s full of people having conversations at cross purposes because the language is changing so fast and is so individual.

I agree bi erasure is a problem, and redefining bisexuality to mean something else is a prime example of it.

I think we probably have to agree to disagree on whether pansexuality is just a vehicle for pushing trans ideology, rather than a valid sexual identity.

Of course it’s a valid sexual identity. But it’s a sexual identity that ready has a name,

But I think it’s speculative, simplistic, and a form of erasure to insist that pansexuals are just bisexuals who want to push trans ideology.

Ok then, what is the difference between a pansexual and a bisexual.
Except the fact that pansexuals are explicit in the fact they would include trans people in their dating pool? And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

I think th is is probably key. The definition doesn’t exclude it, but some bisexuals would in terms of their own orientation. Do we have separate umbrellas for people on that basis, or do we have one umbrella that encompasses groups of people who don’t actually have the same sexual orientation?

I don’t know the answer, or what’s best. I’m generally in favour of letting people self-ID and it makes me very uncomfortable to suggest that we should be saying to people who identify as pansexual ‘stop doing that, we think you actually belong in this label over here’. I know how it feels to be told the label you’ve chosen isn’t yours (because people insinuate or even outright say that since I’m now married to a man I’m straight rather than bi, and because I’ve been accused in the past of being a straight girl looking for attention) and it’s not nice.

Have you been on Twitter??

No, thank god!

But that is literally what happened.

I completely accept that this is what you believe, but just asserting it doesn’t make it true. I would need to see evidence of this because it doesn’t chime with my experience and I think it’s a cynical retrospective analysis of something that I believe has evolved organically and without coherent malicious intent.

And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

It's about signalling. Rather than what a bisexual person would do in practice, beyond following their sexuality.