Layla Moran: Potential Lib Dem leadership candidate becomes first MP to come out as pansexual

[stumbledin]

Quote: Ms Moran, 37, told PinkNews that she had not previously had same-sex relationships and was “surprised” to find herself attracted to a woman, but added: “Sometimes, when you meet the right person, it just kind of happens.”

She said she was more comfortable with the label “pansexual” than “bisexual” or “gay” because it referred to the idea of love for an individual person for who they are and not their gender or sexual identity.

end quote

[headbang]

A better ‘hook’ would be to position themselves left of centre in the space left by the Labour Party.

It’s shit* being bisexual when you have public figures insinuating you’re exclusionary by being capable of attraction to 100% of humanity.

*not as shit as being cotton-ceilinged/gay bashed, but there is a scale of shit and this isn’t nice. I think true biphobia (not homophobia directed at bisexuals) is rare - and pansexuality & the underlying anti-bi ideology is a good example of it.

Possibly a sign of the times but when I saw her talking on TV this morning with the sound down (I was getting dressed for work and didn't want to wake my missus) I saw the ticket tape saying she was declaring as pansexual and assumed from the look of her that she was a transwoman.

They don’t need to ‘pivot hard’; the are there already.

Amongst sections of the membership maybe, but they haven't made it central to their policy platform so far. Their manifesto at the last election was mostly about stopping Brexit and introducing various soft left and soft green economic policies.

By 'pivot hard' I mean they could move from self-ID being a policy to being a campaign issue.

A better ‘hook’ would be to position themselves left of centre in the space left by the Labour Party.

That will only work if Labour choose another left winger as leader. If Labour go for a moderate like Starmer, then the Lib Dems may be tempted to try something more radical to distinguish themselves.

The fact that she has chosen not to identify as lesbian makes her homophobic in my book and tells you just how desperately anti-lesbian and anti-feminist the woke element of the left are

But why would she identify as lesbian when she has had relationships with men?

There have been plenty of posts condemning people for identifying as lesbian whilst being willing to consider relationships with trans women, on the basis that if you have ever had sex with a male you’re not lesbian.

Here is a woman saying she’s pansexual, being condemned for not considering herself lesbian. If she’d said bisexual would that be ok?

I mean, it’s not erasing lesbians, or homophobic, to not call yourself a lesbian when you actually go for both sexes.

NotDavidTennant self ID was pretty prominent in their last GE campaign and right there in their manefesto. You surely couldn’t have missed the several car crash interviews the Lib Dem’s did on MSM trying to justify the unjustifiable?

Oh what a tangled web indeed.

I was just listening to Morans utterly ridiculous commons statement, the one about souls. The way she dragged women with polycystic ovary syndrome into the debate was a disgrace. I can't stress enough the pain that condition causes women.

Women having ANY medical condition does NOT make them men. In any way. Ever.

I hate this.

I wonder if they're going to get that "independent" investigation company (Veritas?) back in, for another whitewash they can sweep under the carpet.

Pansexual has unfortunate connotations for me, and for a lot of people.

You know where you are with good old bisexuality.

Pansexual seems to be all over twitter as Janelle Monae apparently talked about it to rolling stone. And now Layla. So it's well cool. Lots of questions about it though...

Bisexual is now, from what I can tell from a brief glance over twitter replies, being framed as attraction to "cis" people. And so 'lesser'. But it seems to be what ever you want it to be.

More erasure.

I can't make out the difference between these two definitions below.

Actually as a pp said, the more grown ups use these terms, the more kids will shy away from it with embarrassment. Like Facebook.

Not satisfied with attempting to wipe out the L bit of LGBT, it seems some people are after the B bit too.
Saw a journalist on BBC news just now waxing lyrical about all the different genders and then remarking on gay a bisexual MPs without realising (?) that gender and sex are not synonymous words. Disappointingly Carrie Gracie (is that her name?) didn't call the journo out on it.

The fact that she has chosen not to identify as lesbian makes her homophobic in my book and tells you just how desperately anti-lesbian and anti-feminist the woke element of the left are

This makes no sense at all. Why on earth would she "identify as a lesbian"? By the definition of "lesbian" which FWR regulars insist on she can't possibly be a lesbian.
She has had a relationship with a man in the past and clearly in her own words isn't excluding the possibility of doing so in the future.

I'm really not seeing why some of you are getting so wound up about this. "Pansexual" sounds a bit silly but does it mean anything more than "would not exclude straight, gay, (for sake of definition here) "cis" or trans individuals if I found them attractive"

I am not pansexual, bisexual or lesbian because I am only interested in having a sexual relationship with a partner who is a natal male and who looks and says he is a natal male. Does that make me lesbophobic/transphobic/ homophobic ? No, it doesn't. So I'm completely failing to see why LM saying she is pansexual is homophobic.

I mean, it’s not erasing lesbians, or homophobic, to not call yourself a lesbian when you actually go for both sexes

It really isn't. The twitter thread pointing out how ridiculous criticising her for being pansexual is justified.

There seems to be a reasonable amount of pushback on pan from the TRA side too. They (pans) self describe as explicitly inclusive of trans people, implying that (a) bis are not, and (b) trans people are neither their birth sex nor their acquired gender, and could only be attractive to people with a specific trans-inclusive orientation. Biphobic and transphobic.

I know HQ have asked us not to poke fun (and tbh the cookware jokes are old) but I think critiques of pansexuality as a belief system are legitimate under the site rules. By its own definition it’s not a sexual orientation as it has nothing to do with sex.

If she’d said bisexual would that be ok?

It would be accurate.

But she can't say that because she loves the queer theory, which denies actual sexuality (only three options available) and so went for the pansexual label. People - for example, me - who think queer theory is, at best, a load of old pomo-addled, bourgeois bullshit are going to take the piss out of her for the word choice. It's hardly the end of the world.

But she hasn't "come out" as pansexual. She's thrown a dead cat on the table because she's in with a chance of Lib Dem leader but her choice of partner might fuck that up due to alleged political shenanigans. Layla wants you to talk about Layla's self-ID sexuality label, not what her partner is alleged to have got up to.

Saying you're pansexual as it's "about the person, not the gender", just screams (internalised) homophobia to me. "I'm still straight, honest, this is just a one off!"

It seems less open to same-sex relationships than "bisexual".

I wonder if they're going to get that "independent" investigation company (Veritas?) back in, for another whitewash they can sweep under the carpet.

That was the Greens, wasn't it? I don't think the Lib Dems have bothered with any of that.

Certainly sounds like Moran would be an extremely poor choice of leader. Given what a mess the LDs are in, maybe they should choose her anyway.

Does their new leader have to be an MP? If so not much choice.

Saying you're pansexual as it's "about the person, not the gender", just screams (internalised) homophobia to me. "I'm still straight, honest, this is just a one off!"

I think you are twisting that to be the worst possible interpretation. I take it to mean the person is saying they are happy, provided the other person is right, to consider straight, gay, male female, "cis" (for sake of definition) and trans partners.

Unlike me. I am only willing to consider natal men who present as men. I would never be interested in a trans man, no matter how well they passed, or a trans woman or a woman. Do I have "internalised homophobia"?

"cis" (for sake of definition)

You mean women who identify with harmful sex stereotypes? And therefore are at fault for having to deal with them?

Me: "I wonder if they're going to get that "independent" investigation company (Veritas?) back in, for another whitewash they can sweep under the carpet."

Pink: "That was the Greens, wasn't it? I don't think the Lib Dems have bothered with any of that."

You could be right, soz. I was thinking of Challenor and I thought they'd had warm welcomes and dealings with the LD (as well as Greens?)

I take it to mean the person is saying they are happy, provided the other person is right, to consider straight, gay, male female, "cis" (for sake of definition) and trans partners.
In my limited experience, everyone I've known as pansexual has been opposite sex partnered. So with that limited experience in mind, I think "it's a one off!" can be true in some cases.
Thinking about it from a personal point of view, (and bearing in mind us homosexuals have been guilty of biphobia in the past) it still feels like the same sex partner has an uphill battle to fight.
If it's all about the person and there is no physical attraction without a personality match (for want of a better phrase) then any interpersonal issues become a big deal. Your partner finds nothing about your actual body particularly attractive but your personality pleases them? Phew. Hard work.
I'm sure most people have had arguments with their partners but still fancied them rotten. Is that shallow? Is physical, visual, sexual attraction a shallow thing? Ever had a crush on someone you dislike?
A bisexual person makes a statement - they are sexually attracted to some men and some women. It says "I find the same sex sexy".(I think it's around 85% who are opposite sex partnered however).

A pansexual person states they require a personality match - I wouldn't be surprised if that group had a similar percentage, or higher, of opposite sex partners.

And for me that's the issue, firstly pansexuality as an idea suggests the rest of us give in to our base desires without any mental, social or spiritual interaction. I find that a bit insulting. Secondly in practice if most pansexuals are opposite sex partnered they are straight. The world perceives and treats them as straight, regardless of their self identities, and as such those people don't experience what (for example) homosexuals in a homophobic environment do.

Obviously this thread should remain focussed on the actual political scandal and I've gone off on a tangent sorry. Stealing data, selling it, faking emails and threatening journalists are not good looks, and neither is domestic violence.

A lesbian couple who've recently finished A levels told me that bisexual yp people in their school were bullied as there was a belief they were "easy." I hope that's not why and how pansexual came into being.

Still don't understand it.

I not certain I understand the difference between bisexual and pansexual.

One thing I agree with - once MPs start identifying as panssexual, it will cease to be cool.

A lesbian couple who've recently finished A levels told me that bisexual yp people in their school were bullied as there was a belief they were "easy." I hope that's not why and how pansexual came into being.

That's the sort of unpleasant subtext I get from Moran's definition of 'pan' as 'love for an individual person for who they are and not their gender or sexual identity.' - because if that's what Pan is, what is she implying about others and particularly bisexuals?