this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
551 points (94.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43948 readers
496 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don't need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.
Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They're dumb, and you only need bi
And asexual
But I agree. The bi community already collectively decided we are trans and nonbinary inclusive. We don't need to further separate it out.
Why asexuals?
4th quadrant.
Oh the top comment meant that they don't consider ace also to be granted a separate mention
I agree. All the little bitty addages don't make sense. You can be bi and still have preferences. Just keep it simple gosh dangit.
I think thereβs value for folks in the community to have the hyper-specific labels. Iβm saying this as a bi person who agrees that pan, Omni, etc are sub categories of bi.
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Unexpected Schittβs Creek
I thought it was just a joke, since the first time I heard that word there was a picture of a pan. Similar to people who say they identify as spaghetti.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
Agree. I understand expressing acceptance of non hetero love so kids know that there are other options and they're valued, but i don't need to know what labels everyone has chosen, who they're having sex with, or what is under their undies. And i believe that many people who are medically trans are chasing a masculinity or feminity that they feel is not allowed as a male or female and it's sad that the stereotype is what they're moving towards or away from instead of individuality. Also, kinda drunk, so probably disregard.
Exactly, words that are synonyms to other words but have different linguistic backgrounds, history, and nuance should just be discarded.
Now please, help me burn these thesauruses.
Oh please how old can these terms be
Don't answer that it's probably older than I think isn't it
No don't worry. We can describe the totality of human sexuality and existence with three simple words: gay, straight, or bi. All these other labels confuse the straight people and therefore should be discarded to appeal to straight people's infinite compassion.
I say this as a bi person, not a straight
Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesnβt necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.
Yes it does. Read the bisexual manifesto.
Out of interest, why? Shouldn't it be the other way around, that bi is a subset of pan?
Read the bisexual manifesto. Bi has always included nonbinary people. If you are attracted to all genders, both bisexual and pansexual are valid labels you can choose.
Actually didn't know that, even though I identify as bi lol. Pretty sure my other bi and pan friends didn't know either from the kinds of discussions we've had. But then that's just a bad choice linguistically, no? It's very misleading because you literally have the terms bi and non-bi and you need to read some manifesto to understand that they're not a contradiction. Meanwhile aside from the stupid overdone cookware joke, I think nobody ever questioned the meanings of terms like pan or omni, because they make sense linguistically.
Homosexual is attraction to the same gender; heterosexual is attraction to a different gender. The bi in bisexual is both of these, not attraction to two genders. Think of the bi flag, pink, purple, and blue: what do you think the colors represent? Nonbinary people have always been included in bisexual if you take some time to think about.
I don't doubt your textbook correctness or the historical correctness of this, and maybe I should stress that I am not trying to exclude anyone from the bi term, but at least in my anecdotal experience, these terms are mostly used "wrongly", meaning that there is a lot of confusion. And the meanings of words change as people start using them with different intended meanings.
Therefore, given the premise that we want to simplify things by cleaning up some redundant terms, I would prefer to keep the one whose meaning is intuitively clear to everyone. I just don't see why - given bi, pan and omni all mean the same thing - one should choose the most misunderstood/misused term.
Personally, I would just keep the terms and let people choose whichever they like, I'm just trying to entertain this discussion of choosing to keep only one of them and the pros/cons for each choice.
Here's an unpopular opinion: you don't need any labels at all. You love who you live, you fuck who you fuck, you can advertise what you're looking for if you want to but all this identity business obscures the reality that humans are far more diverse and interesting than the boxes we build for ourselves.
Most people who call themselves straight would fuck someone from their own gender if there weren't cultural expectations against it hammered into them from and early age. Most people who call themselves gay would wander if they found someone they connected with. Very few of us rest at one end of any spectrum or matrix. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and far more mobile than we might realize.
What does bi cover that pan doesnβt :-)
If you say you're bi nobody thinks you fuck woks.
As a pansexual I feel that Bi and Pan have enough differences to both be justified while the others are micro labels (not invalid, just less useful as labels).
But I recognize I'm drawing that line very conveniently for myself.
If we're splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.
Also, there is some need for a fourth "none of the above" label...
I think this thinking falls into the common belief that "sexuality" and preference within "sexuality" are actually distinct things. I really think everyone's sexual preferences are unique, and so even microlabels don't do them justice. But I don't think the purpose of labeling your sexuality is meant to be perfectly descriptive, it's a way to connect with people over shared parts of their experience with sexuality and that can be as coarse or fine as you want it to be. You say there should be only straight, gay, and bi, but we could go even more broad and say there should only be cishet and queer.
Atheism isn't a religion, likewise asexuality is not a sexual orientation, but the lack of one, I say.
Why asexuals?
Gay community can be brutal. It's not the all-inclusive safe space some people like to think of it as. Gay or not they're still all male and are mostly into manly stuff and if one is not for example into femine guys it's not a taboo to say it out loud. Sexual harrasment is quite common aswell and probably wont get you canceled. Many would probably ban women from gay spaces if they could.
they are all made up
"All words are made up"
Cake is a made-up drug.
Not understanding what words mean isn't an unpopular opinion, you're just wrong
Not about the first bit, that's arguable
You definitely DO need more labels than straight, gay, and bi. For example: asexual or sapiosexual, those don't fit into any of the 3 you listed
Sapiosexual means you have a preference for smart people. Its not a sexuality.
Can't agree more. The microlabels are too much at this point. You do not need mix sexual orientation, which is the sex we are naturally attracted to, with having preferences, which are the qualities we find attractive in a person or a relationship. The two are completely separate.
don't worry, you're not sapiosexuals' type
I guess we found the actual unpopular opinion on this.
That's a very silly name, I love it.
Haha, thanks!