Queer-on-queer hate bingo

Post Reply New Topic

I've heard most of these in some form or another. It's such a sad thing when someone on the queer spectrum has ignorant views about people they should be supporting and working with. Has anyone else dealt with any of these? How do you typically react?

It depends. Unless it was something I found to be really really offensive, I would probably laugh it off and secretly think less of the commenter. If it were something like the "Transpeople are not actually their 'chosen' gender", I would tell the commenter to stuff it, and then glare at them a few minutes, before walking away. If it were "You're too young to know you're queer" I would most likely quip back something like 'You're too old to be interested in my sexuality.'

People can be bigoted whatever their social standing. You don't become a saint just because you're black, gay, poor, disabled or female. Otherwise I'd be a triple saint, and that would be tough for an atheist to live down.

oooh fun! i love bigotry bingos. i have had all the bi ones and come across a lot of the other sentiments as well. the one that ticks me right off(well they all do but this sh!ts me) are the "being gay is fine but why do you have to break gender roles, you should act less gay so people dont hate us, queers who fit stereotypes are bad, you're obligated to set a good example and not make us look bad " ones. theyre so assimilatory, defensive, cowardly, reactionary and i hate that anybody from our community might malign somebody else for it because its what makes them queer. being queer is all about smashing through the norms of society. why would you hate on somebody for that? i think people who do fit the stereotype must be brave if they have to deal with hate from within and without their community.

My personal favorite is "pansexuals are just bi but want to sound better than everyone else". I once got into a long-winded argument with someone about that one. They insisted that identifying as pansexual was somehow demeaning to transgender people, not accounting for the fact that people exist outside of binary identities and pansexuality is meant to include them as well.

A label is a label and helps establish a reference point but it still all comes down to how you feel inside and being happy with yourself and your sexuality and finding a person to be with and not getting beaten up or discriminated against because people that don't really like you for who you are and some use a 2000 year old book to hide behind.

Tell them that pansexuals are aroused by kitchen utensils. That'll confuse them.

I usually tell them that pansexuals are exclusively attracted to bread and flutes.

There are arguments that pansexual and bisexual are redundant terms that really describe the same population. Pan is a modern term designed to be more inclusive, but bi is a more established label--one that doesn't require explaining every time you tell someone that's what you are.

and goats fur leggings.

Well the issue is a lot of people who identify as bisexual do so because are only attracted to cis males and cis females. This isn't a bad thing, but it's an important distinction to make, because someone who identifies as bi in that way probably wouldn't be attracted to someone who is genderqueer, intersex, or trans.

There's even a small Bisexual Separatist movement, their mission being that they want to make it very clear that they aren't affiliated with pansexuals (the more extreme members don't want to be associated with any of the other acronyms).

Let's leave transsexuals out of this. They are their desired gender, and not a third gender. If they are convincing in that role, there is no reason a straight or gay person couldn't date them, let alone someone who's bisexual. The bisexual community has strong ties to the trans community. I have never heard of this 'separatist' movement.

The pan term is designed to describe the same population, but be more inclusive towards intersex and genderqueer people.

Recently there has been some conflict in the community over whether it was a necessary term to introduce though. While there are some bisexuals that like strongly masculine and strongly feminine types without the inbetween, most are quite content to date more androgynous types. For that matter, many people who identify as gay or straight can be attracted to androgyny as well. An attraction to androgyny falls within the range of what is possible for other sexual orientations, so it's questionable whether it needs to be recognized as a new category unto itself. Some people think it should be though. They see 'bisexual' as referring strictly to the binary sexes. Others consider 'bisexual' to mean an attraction to a scale of sexual morphology that is centered between two poles. 'Pansexual' or 'Omnisexual' would require introducing a third sex, when no such thing exists. There is no 'third set of genitals', so until aliens land here, you could identify as bi and be fully covered for anything that should turn up.

Personally I see it as a case of squares and rectangles. Everyone who's pan is bi, and most (but not all) people who are bi are pan. Are they exactly the same groups? No. But the amount of people that aren't both is insignificant enough to make the distinction irrelevant for most purposes, because the number of people who are out as either is a measly 2% of the population anyway. It is also debatable whether the terms represent a difference in programmed biological attraction vs someone's political mindset. So I prefer to err on the side of simplicity. I'm bi, I'm also pan (omni for that matter). If I walk around the city and someone asks what I like, I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion about gender with them. I'll just say I'm bi, since it fits, and they're far more likely to understand that. They don't need to know I'm a square, a rhombus, and a rectangle. Rectangle covers everything they need to know.

What???? No goats to F**K?!?!?!?

Tell that to the scientific community and they'll laugh you off as extremely ignorant or mentally impaired. The binary sexes are male and female, the non-binary sex is intersex. It's been a while but the last time I checked, 2+1=3. So, yes, there is indeed a third sex.

If you really want to get technical, there isn't just one "intersex". There's a wide variety of intersex conditons.

As Rorberyllium said, intersex is not a single type of morphology but hundreds of different types. It can happen many different ways. Biologically speaking, these people do not represent a third sex, but rather a continuum between male and female.

If they produced a third, unique type of gamete or had traits that could not be found on men or women, then they would represent a different sex. But instead they are chimeras, they have male and female traits. That is my central point: there is nothing on them that someone attracted to men and women would find alienating. The difference between bisexuals who are willing to date intersex people versus not strikes me as a political one rather than a biologically programmed difference in attraction. I could be wrong though.