erm I know I'm going to get my head bitten off here.
And why am I posting, once a thread has more than a page no one will read it.
And I'm probably never gonna read replies, maybe I'll try to but I'll probably forget.
Why am i posting it must be some weird compulsion...anyone else feel that?
Anyway as a bisexual yes stereotypes are annoying.......accept when they are really funny i.e. in a joke. i.e. a joke with other LGBT people when we've been drinking or trying to freak people out. flamboyantly gay men do grate somewhat. Its seems so fake, unatural and overaffected. not liking fashion or decorating i mean if you like that fine but the whole shreiking, fabulous, darling thing is very very irritating its like I'm watching a bad parody of something. now stereotypical gay women are unfortunately for gay men just great. i mean butch, femme either way usual fun, great personalities, laid back so really work on your stereotype.
that is said slightly jokingly don't freak out.
As a bisexual person (FEMALE but who cares) who ran an LGBT group and I've met lots of gay men, gay women, bi women and men and a few trans and a shit load of pans. as in pansexuals not cooking utsensils.
I've also met genderqueers, asexuals, bigendered whoopdeewooopdeedidileedoppsexuals.....yes I'm mocking them.
Theres always someone, some person who does not quite fit. Well duh everyones tastes and hormones and bla bla are slightly different. you think every straight person has exactly the same sexuality? god no. so why do you feel the need to be so self important you need a new word for you. because to think the whole universe will memorise fiftybillion words on sexuality is not bloody likely and it makes the rest of the LGBT look bad because yes they do lump us altogether and no amount of complaining will remedy that.
All these erm whatever people with their words most of them I've met if they were gay they were gay if they were lesbian they were hot i mean lesbian, in most cases if they were bi they were bi and most real bis can tell a faker and most transexuals were really transexual. as for the whoopdeedoops i.e. the rest they weren't. they changed their label like they changed their clothes. Its because they were gay straight or bi but didn't quite fit.
Look pansexual means there are more than two genders and its based on the person not their physical presence.
1) gender is a social construct and doesn't really exist and there are 2 sexes male and female. now really there are 3 sexes as intersexed people are really both and trans people not finished their transistion are really really both. note the word both here. as in not a new sex of aliens but a MIXTURE of the prexisting male and female.
All other genders sexualities bla bla are a MIX of male and female. 2 inescapable concepts. everyone will have elements of male and female. nothing else.
you either like female qualities -boobs, vagina, soft features or male qualities penis, not curvy, harder features or BOTH. Now both BISEXUAL like both hence they are gonna probably like some or all combinations of both so yeah trans, intersexed. there is no other name needed. to like both would mean the potential to like both in many combinations in one person. Pansexuality is a redundant term.
now based on personality alone= no sex drive based on appearance =asexual, unsexual not pan but asexual. many asexuals date both/all gender due to lack of looks mattering so pansexual.........
I do not mean to be aggressive I'm just saying through a life of being bisexual i know what its like to feel rejected, an outsider, not taken seriously, to not fit. I know how it feels so i hate to reject I do but logically, expirically having thought about it i cannot see the use of this word it seems a synonym for bisexual or asexual.
A useless term that frankly if you think about it is kind of damaging for bisexuals. the cruel outside world will lump us together. it is hard to make gays and straights accept and take us seriously as it is so it is irritating when we start saying all this fluid not scienctific crap. bisexual makes sense logically. If one could argue based on the points I've given that pansexuality is not a synonym I will accept it. addressing and disproving these points right here.
I'm sorry but i just don't see it.