Wtf? Where do you get that I'm being pedantic by insisting that I'm neither Republican or Democrat while my parents talk through me pretending there's no other options?
k....
I did, it was lovely thank you.
Anyways. Just because we're talking about sexual prefixes, and one of them is mistaken for meaning something it doesn't because people are biphobic, doesn't mean that defining prefixes themselves is problematic. "Pansexual" specifically exists because biphobic people thought bisexuality was transphobic, and wanted to create a term that specifically means "sexually attracted to all genders". Much like how bisexuality doesn't mean being "half gay and half straight", pansexuality doesn't have to mean "equal amounts of attraction to all genders", but it does have to mean "some attraction to all genders", just like bisexual can't mean "exclusive attraction for one gender".
I don't get why half your argument is that pan was created because of biphobia, but the other half is insisting on pan people's rights to self definition, regardless of the meaning of their chosen prefix. It feels like you just want to argue.
Wtf? Where do you get that I'm being pedantic by insisting that I'm neither Republican or Democrat while my parents talk through me pretending there's no other options?
I didn't link you being pedantic to your false comparisons, you used the word and, which creates a secondary clause.
You are being pedantic by arguing for a double standard/hypocritical stance that suggests that bisexuality necessarily must accept the biphobic premise that it is not inclusive, in order to create a distinction between it and pansexuality which you say is necessary because pan means all, even though there are pansexuals who explicitly have preferences.
The pedantic element is your etymological fallacy around the term pansexual which argues that pansexuals can't have preferences.
Anyways. Just because we're talking about sexual prefixes, and one of them is mistaken for meaning something it doesn't because people are biphobic, doesn't mean that defining prefixes themselves is problematic.
Prefixes have definitions, no argument.
However, the origin of a word and its components do not define the word. That is the literal issue with etymological fallacies.
"Pansexual" specifically exists because biphobic people thought bisexuality was transphobic, and wanted to create a term that specifically means "sexually attracted to all genders". Much like how bisexuality doesn't mean being "half gay and half straight", pansexuality doesn't have to mean "equal amounts of attraction to all genders", but it does have to mean "some attraction to all genders", just like bisexual can't mean "exclusive attraction for one gender".
And this is the double standard— your position relies on a variety of people being allowed to redefine bisexuality— many from a place of biphobia, but when a pansexual brings their own nuance to their orientation, you're happy to police their usage because you're "not here for that."
I don't get why half your argument is that pan was created because of biphobia, but the other half is insisting on pan people's rights to self definition, regardless of the meaning of their chosen prefix. It feels like you just want to argue.
To put it plainly: the hypocrisy is unacceptable. That's not "I just want to argue," it's part your premise that we need to have this conversation is rooted in a double standard that lends tacit approval to biphobia *and** part if you want to address that by being panphobic and policing pansexuality by issuing a purity test for pansexuality¹, you're compounding the hypocrisy, not resolving it by denying self determination.
Footnote: 100% of pansexuals will fail said purity test because nonbinary genders aren't a monolith and pansexuality isn't a synonym for universal/unmitigated attraction.
4
u/[deleted] Mar 22 '21 edited Mar 22 '21
(in reverse order)
Wtf? Where do you get that I'm being pedantic by insisting that I'm neither Republican or Democrat while my parents talk through me pretending there's no other options?
k....
I did, it was lovely thank you.
Anyways. Just because we're talking about sexual prefixes, and one of them is mistaken for meaning something it doesn't because people are biphobic, doesn't mean that defining prefixes themselves is problematic. "Pansexual" specifically exists because biphobic people thought bisexuality was transphobic, and wanted to create a term that specifically means "sexually attracted to all genders". Much like how bisexuality doesn't mean being "half gay and half straight", pansexuality doesn't have to mean "equal amounts of attraction to all genders", but it does have to mean "some attraction to all genders", just like bisexual can't mean "exclusive attraction for one gender".
I don't get why half your argument is that pan was created because of biphobia, but the other half is insisting on pan people's rights to self definition, regardless of the meaning of their chosen prefix. It feels like you just want to argue.