Demographics of Sexual Orientation and Identity

[theprestige]

Oooh, nice loaded question there, conflating what I assume is so-called "biological sex" with gender attraction.

Take your transphobia to the toxic thread. We'll have none of it here.

Has nothing to do with transphobia. Who are pansexuals attracted to that bisexuals aren't? If I prefer bears over twinks, is that a sexuality distinct from homosexuality?

If the cottagecore look doesn't do it for me, but the tomboy biker chick aesthetic really gets me going, is my sexuality something other than "attracted to women"?

Where do you draw the line? Do you really believe there's a separate sexuality for every single shade and nuance of gender and genderqueer expression? Do you think bisexuality implies a limitation in sexual attraction, to an undefined subset of gender expressions? What stops a bisexual person from being pansexual? Just how many different gender expressions does someone have to be okay with, in order to qualify as pansexual? Can you imagine a scenario where someone tells you they're bisexual, but you want to tell them, "you're attracted to both effeminate men and macho men, so maybe you're pansexual", or something like that?

 

[8enotto]

One thought from me. Bi would want 'regular " partners that act thier biological tool kit.
Pan would be OK with anyone in the alphabet soup of ideas out there. Trans doesn't always make friends with as an example.

 

[theprestige]

One tho from me. Bi would want 'regular " partners that act thier biological tool kit.

Do they, though?

 

[8enotto]

Do they, though?

Mostly? At least not denying it completely.

 

[arthwollipot]

Has nothing to do with transphobia. Who are pansexuals attracted to that bisexuals aren't? If I prefer bears over twinks, is that a sexuality distinct from homosexuality?

If the cottagecore look doesn't do it for me, but the tomboy biker chick aesthetic really gets me going, is my sexuality something other than "attracted to women"?

Where do you draw the line? Do you really believe there's a separate sexuality for every single shade and nuance of gender and genderqueer expression? Do you think bisexuality implies a limitation in sexual attraction, to an undefined subset of gender expressions? What stops a bisexual person from being pansexual? Just how many different gender expressions does someone have to be okay with, in order to qualify as pansexual? Can you imagine a scenario where someone tells you they're bisexual, but you want to tell them, "you're attracted to both effeminate men and macho men, so maybe you're pansexual", or something like that?

Allow me to explain it like you're five.

Bi sexual people are attracted to two genders.

I mean it's right there in the name.

Pansexual people, again it's there in the name, are attracted to all genders. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that for pansexuals, gender expression does not factor in to whether they are attracted to someone or not.

Clear?

ETA: "Cottagecore" is not a gender. Nor is "tomboy biker". You're confusing gender identities with stylistic expression. This might help.

 

[theprestige]

Allow me to explain it like you're five.

Bi sexual people are attracted to two genders.

I mean it's right there in the name.

Pansexual people, again it's there in the name, are attracted to all genders. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that for pansexuals, gender expression does not factor in to whether they are attracted to someone or not.

Clear?

Not clear at all. Gender is nowhere in the name. What's right there in the name is sex. Bisexuals are attracted to two sexes. Pansexuals are attracted to all sexes.

ETA: "Cottagecore" is not a gender. Nor is "tomboy biker". You're confusing gender identities with stylistic expression. This might help.

A long list of fanciful fiat gender self-identities does not help at all.

An autistic man identifies himself to himself as "autigender" - he sees himself as having a characteristically autistic understanding of his own gender.

So what? If a person who is sexually attracted to both sexes is attracted to this man, are they attracted to his self-perception of his gender? Or are they attracted to his maleness because they're sexually attracted to both sexes?

All this list does is reinforce my idea that bisexual and pansexual are the same thing. What is a pansexual person, if not a bisexual person who says, "I don't care what gender you think you are inside your own head, male or female I just wanna get in your pants"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Not clear at all. Gender is nowhere in the name. What's right there in the name is sex. Bisexuals are attracted to two sexes. Pansexuals are attracted to all sexes.

Which brings us back to the toxically transphobic idea that so-called "biological sex" (dogwhistle for pee-pee or vajayjay) is the only thing that matters in determining sexual attraction.

...What is a pansexual person, if not a bisexual person who says, "I don't care what gender you think you are inside your own head, male or female I just wanna get in your pants"?

You said it yourself, and you can't even see it. Male or female. Binary. Bi-nary. Bi. You literally just described someone who is bisexual, not pan.

At this point an honest person would say "Ah, I understand now. Thanks for correcting me - I learned something new today."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Another interesting data point is the relative frequency of MTF (male to female) transitions compared to FTM (female to male) in people who decided to undergo hormonal treatment.

It seems to be roughly 3:1 (MTF:FTM), but the gap is narrowing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906237/

 

[Darat]

One thought from me. Bi would want 'regular " partners that act thier biological tool kit.
Pan would be OK with anyone in the alphabet soup of ideas out there. Trans doesn't always make friends with as an example.

That's pretty much it.

Back in the good old days when the B was getting added to the L&G bisexuals (who had to work hard to be accepted by both the homosexuals and heterosexuals - there was often a feeling of "betrayal" in the homosexual camp that led to bad blood) it was hard enough to explain and gain acceptance for people who weren't heterosexual, you'd have been on a hiding to nothing to try and get into anything more complicated

Over the last 50 years gender roles and expression have evolved so much that it's become apparent that there are folk who form sexual relationships not based on any particular genitals and gender expression so a new term was needed and pansexual is the term that has become the most popular.

As ever I think many of us struggle to really understand those that have different sexualities than our own. I certainly do, I can't understand for example someone who wants a sexual partner that has male genitalia but looks like one of the stereotypes of a woman, for example the "Kardashian" stereotype. That person would be unattractive to me as a sexual partner despite having the genitals I look for in a sexual relationship.

 

[theprestige]

Which brings us back to the toxically transphobic idea that so-called "biological sex" (dogwhistle for pee-pee or vajayjay) is the only thing that matters in determining sexual attraction.

Nobody is saying it's the only thing that matters. There's a whole spectrum of preferences, kinks, paraphilias, and fetishes that excite people. It seems lots of ladies prefer a taller dude. Some folks prefer a larger partner, or a partner who will eat and eat for their titillation. Some men appear to prefer a cruel and demanding partner, who takes all their money and withholds sex. Some folks are romantically attracted to airplanes*. But we don't understand a pansexual to be someone who's sexually open to the entire spectrum of fetish and paraphilia.

What sets a pansexual apart from a bisexual? Is it that they're into men when they act like men, but also into men when they act like women? But no, you said it's not about stylistic expression. (And if it were, wouldn't that mean that bisexuals are transphobes by definition?)

You said it yourself, and you can't even see it. Male or female. Binary. Bi-nary. Bi. You literally just described someone who is bisexual, not pan.

Since there are only two sexes, the two terms are synonymous.

At this point an honest person would say "Ah, I understand now. Thanks for correcting me - I learned something new today."

Nothing about your explanation seems correct to me. Nor is anything in it new information for me. It would be entirely dishonest of me to say I understand now what I didn't before.

---
*Though, interestingly, this woman still refers to her airplane as her boyfriend. Not her girlfriend or nonbinary soulmate or whatever. There's still an underlying current of bog-standard heterosexuality to her paraphilia.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's a fad.

Like left handedness, soon people will give up on it and go back to the natural order of everyone being right handed.

 

[Manger Douse]

Like left handedness, soon people will give up on it and go back to the natural order of everyone being right handed.

Is say it's more like the Satanic Panic when the media, activists and adults in positions of authority unquestionably affirmed the delusions of children

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is say it's more like the Satanic Panic when the media, activists and adults in positions of authority unquestionably affirmed the delusions of children

A truly innovative argument against the existence of bisexuality.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A truly innovative argument against the existence of bisexuality.

"I like men and women."
"No, you don't! NO, YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm pretty sure the individual is the best judge of their own desires, whether or not others find those desires acceptable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"I like men and women."
"No, you don't! NO, YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm pretty sure the individual is the best judge of their own desires, whether or not others find those desires acceptable.

Well the clear intent there was to change the topic from bisexuals to transgender children, because transgender adults are really just confused children or some other argument that makes no sense.

 

[Manger Douse]

A truly innovative argument against the existence of bisexuality.

Not the existence, the amount - the whole "fad" thing

 

[Manger Douse]

"I like men and women."
"No, you don't! NO, YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm pretty sure the individual is the best judge of their own desires, whether or not others find those desires acceptable.

Some seem to be making the argument that men and women aren't the only choices

 

[Manger Douse]

Well the clear intent there was to change the topic from bisexuals to transgender children, because transgender adults are really just confused children or some other argument that makes no sense.

What age group is most susceptible to fads?

 

[arthwollipot]

Nobody is saying it's the only thing that matters. There's a whole spectrum of preferences, kinks, paraphilias, and fetishes that excite people. It seems lots of ladies prefer a taller dude. Some folks prefer a larger partner, or a partner who will eat and eat for their titillation. Some men appear to prefer a cruel and demanding partner, who takes all their money and withholds sex. Some folks are romantically attracted to airplanes*. But we don't understand a pansexual to be someone who's sexually open to the entire spectrum of fetish and paraphilia.

Sexuality is not paraphilia, and it's quite gross of you to suggest that it is.

What sets a pansexual apart from a bisexual? Is it that they're into men when they act like men, but also into men when they act like women? But no, you said it's not about stylistic expression. (And if it were, wouldn't that mean that bisexuals are transphobes by definition?)

Since there are only two sexes, the two terms are synonymous.

Again with the disgusting transphobia. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with the false binary of the so-called "biological sex".

Nothing about your explanation seems correct to me. Nor is anything in it new information for me. It would be entirely dishonest of me to say I understand now what I didn't before.

Why am I not surprised?

You have latched on to a demonstrably false assumption - "there are only two sexes" - and you derive everything about sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender expression from that, despite the fact that gender is a far more diverse field than even so-called "biological sex" is.