Text

Read More

Photo
applestrider:

castielscheesecake:

[snip]
but i don’t really understand why you would say “2 or more genders”-the functioning part of the word is "bi", which is for referring to things such as two, double, twice, etc. if someone were attracted to 3 or more genders, wouldn’t they be poly/pansexual?

thats a common misconception actually!
bisexuality, from the definitions bisexual community uses (link is in my first comment) is that, no, it is not attraction to two genders. it is the attraction to two categories of genders. so, basically the attraction to “your gender + other genders” or “other gender + other genders” those are two . it’s a very difficult concept to wrap the brain around. i certainly didn’t get it until after a while. feel free to message me or anything and i’ll try to help you understand.
obviously my statement doesn’t apply to everyone. it’s the person’s choice to choose how they identify. i made the graphic in the first place because people were confused i how i identified/interpreted my sexuality.

I… can see that.
I feel like there are potential problems in treating “the bisexual community” as monolithic and pointing to a set of definitions that certainly don’t all match up to support your claim.
I feel like the “same+not” is an unusual way to count two, and since any set has a complement within the universal set, it applies to, well, anything.
I feel like the “same+not” only works when dealing with attraction to all genders - someone who’s attracted to ladies, androgynes, and agendered people but not dudes would have to stretch the definition even farther to have, say “{ladies and androgynes}+{agendered folks}” to get to two, and it’s just… inelegant. It feels forced, is what I’m saying, and while you can technically partition “the set of genders this person is attracted to” into an arbitrary covering of two distinct subsets, it’s kinda… odd… to do it that way.
Which doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that, like you said, it’s a very difficult concept to wrap the brain around. And the more obvious interpretation, from what I’ve seen, is that it applies to two genders.
So while it’s not bad, - and this is still my main point - I also don’t think it’s unwarranted for people to use other terms for 3+ genders in an attempt to not reinforce the binary. Because keep in mind, the issue of word choice on the unconscious is less of an issue with people who’ve studied the various potential meanings. People who call themselves “pansexual” in order to make those around them aware of the non-binary nature of gender every time they say it are doing a good thing, and I don’t think that stops being good just because “bi-” can be interpreted as 2+ once it’s properly explained.

oh yeah definitely, i understand. im not trying to go against using pan or poly. sorry if it came off as that way. but i think the best thing we can do is to educate. 

Agreed :)

applestrider:

castielscheesecake:

[snip]

but i don’t really understand why you would say “2 or more genders”-the functioning part of the word is "bi", which is for referring to things such as two, double, twice, etc. if someone were attracted to 3 or more genders, wouldn’t they be poly/pansexual?

thats a common misconception actually!

bisexuality, from the definitions bisexual community uses (link is in my first comment) is that, no, it is not attraction to two genders. it is the attraction to two categories of genders. so, basically the attraction to “your gender + other genders” or “other gender + other genders” those are two . it’s a very difficult concept to wrap the brain around. i certainly didn’t get it until after a while. feel free to message me or anything and i’ll try to help you understand.

obviously my statement doesn’t apply to everyone. it’s the person’s choice to choose how they identify. i made the graphic in the first place because people were confused i how i identified/interpreted my sexuality.

I… can see that.

I feel like there are potential problems in treating “the bisexual community” as monolithic and pointing to a set of definitions that certainly don’t all match up to support your claim.

I feel like the “same+not” is an unusual way to count two, and since any set has a complement within the universal set, it applies to, well, anything.

I feel like the “same+not” only works when dealing with attraction to all genders - someone who’s attracted to ladies, androgynes, and agendered people but not dudes would have to stretch the definition even farther to have, say “{ladies and androgynes}+{agendered folks}” to get to two, and it’s just… inelegant. It feels forced, is what I’m saying, and while you can technically partition “the set of genders this person is attracted to” into an arbitrary covering of two distinct subsets, it’s kinda… odd… to do it that way.

Which doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that, like you said, it’s a very difficult concept to wrap the brain around. And the more obvious interpretation, from what I’ve seen, is that it applies to two genders.

So while it’s not bad, - and this is still my main point - I also don’t think it’s unwarranted for people to use other terms for 3+ genders in an attempt to not reinforce the binary. Because keep in mind, the issue of word choice on the unconscious is less of an issue with people who’ve studied the various potential meanings. People who call themselves “pansexual” in order to make those around them aware of the non-binary nature of gender every time they say it are doing a good thing, and I don’t think that stops being good just because “bi-” can be interpreted as 2+ once it’s properly explained.

oh yeah definitely, i understand. im not trying to go against using pan or poly. sorry if it came off as that way. but i think the best thing we can do is to educate. 

Agreed :)

Photo
applestrider:

momothefiddler:

applestrider:

momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

but bisexuals arent trying to enforce the binary either?

(whoops, messed up on responding to this somehow: )
thus “specifically avoiding reinforcing”. My understanding is that “bisexual” is the older word and that a large number of people who use it use it to mean “attracted to people in general rather than limited to a certain sex/gender”, and that there are people who use “pansexual” to mean exactly the same thing, but they want to use words that don’t reinforce the binary. It’s sort of like how people who say “postman” aren’t evilly trying to support the profession as male-only; just that some people go out of their way to say “mail carrier” or similar to avoid feeding into the overall trend.
I hope that makes sense? I did not mean to come off as accusative or anything.

yep! i understand now. i get where youre coming from, but i guess its problematic because then one is associating bisexuality with the reinforcement of the binary instead of explaining why bisexuality doesn’t actually do that? of course someone can identify as pansexual if it suits them better, but if they think it implies the negative connotation in how bisexuals contribute to the erasure of nb people then thats….. not good….

Hm.
I mean, like I said, I understand the evolution of the term. But can’t you see where people are coming from in seeing it that way? By the evolution of the term it’s fine, but purely etymologically “bi-“ does mean “two”, and if you’re using “bi-” to mean “all”, there is certainly validity in the idea that you’re erasing enbies. I don’t think that people are bad for using “bi-” to mean “all” (or “three”, or “several”, etc.), just like I don’t think anyone’s bad for people to say “postman” to mean “a person of arbitrary/indefinite gender who delivers mail”. But I think that some people are paying close attention to the effects of the words they choose and I think it’s good for people to use “pan-” and “poly-“, just like I think it’s good for people to use “mail carrier”. If nothing else, it draws attention to the binary that is embedded in our societal unconscious and that is a good thing.

applestrider:

momothefiddler:

applestrider:

momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

but bisexuals arent trying to enforce the binary either?

(whoops, messed up on responding to this somehow: )

thus “specifically avoiding reinforcing”. My understanding is that “bisexual” is the older word and that a large number of people who use it use it to mean “attracted to people in general rather than limited to a certain sex/gender”, and that there are people who use “pansexual” to mean exactly the same thing, but they want to use words that don’t reinforce the binary. It’s sort of like how people who say “postman” aren’t evilly trying to support the profession as male-only; just that some people go out of their way to say “mail carrier” or similar to avoid feeding into the overall trend.

I hope that makes sense? I did not mean to come off as accusative or anything.

yep! i understand now. i get where youre coming from, but i guess its problematic because then one is associating bisexuality with the reinforcement of the binary instead of explaining why bisexuality doesn’t actually do that? of course someone can identify as pansexual if it suits them better, but if they think it implies the negative connotation in how bisexuals contribute to the erasure of nb people then thats….. not good….

Hm.

I mean, like I said, I understand the evolution of the term. But can’t you see where people are coming from in seeing it that way? By the evolution of the term it’s fine, but purely etymologically “bi-“ does mean “two”, and if you’re using “bi-” to mean “all”, there is certainly validity in the idea that you’re erasing enbies. I don’t think that people are bad for using “bi-” to mean “all” (or “three”, or “several”, etc.), just like I don’t think anyone’s bad for people to say “postman” to mean “a person of arbitrary/indefinite gender who delivers mail”. But I think that some people are paying close attention to the effects of the words they choose and I think it’s good for people to use “pan-” and “poly-“, just like I think it’s good for people to use “mail carrier”. If nothing else, it draws attention to the binary that is embedded in our societal unconscious and that is a good thing.

Photo
castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

also a quick note on venn diagrams: the above does actually indicate that pansexuality encompasses bisexuality and more - it claims that all pansexuals are bisexuals but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, which is exactly correct if you define bisexual as two or more and pansexual as all.

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

also a quick note on venn diagrams: the above does actually indicate that pansexuality encompasses bisexuality and more - it claims that all pansexuals are bisexuals but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, which is exactly correct if you define bisexual as two or more and pansexual as all.

(via momothefiddler)

Tags: mdl
Photo
momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

also from my friend hutch who does not have the battery power to comment himself:

I’m with [castielscheesecake], pansexuality should be the larger circle, and further I think that bisexuality does exist not to reinforce the false binary but to acknowledge people who truly are only attracted to more extreme ends of the spectrum
I’m not saying they’re incapable of being attracted to someone who falls more along the middle, I’m certainly not gonna deny anyone who identifies as anything they identify as (I myself occasionally still call myself gay) but I guess that’s how I see the division between bisexuals and pansexuals
——-
I think for people like me, pansexuality exists as a bit of a catch-all. Sort of the last place to sort someone if they’re looking to be sorted at all. I started by assuming nothing about my sexuality, which I think the unfortunate circumstances of our society automatically puts you in the Straight box for that. Then I realized men were a viable option and assumed I was gay, then realized I still liked some women so I assumed I was bisexual, then learned about the gender spectrum and became more aware of the binary and realized, all along, gender was never a part of the equation (more like a bonus, like, hey I love this person and they happen to be a cis male so I have thick body hair and a penis and the chest and a beard to play with and also we have a bit in common right from the start, whereas if he were from a different point on the spectrum that would come with different bonuses)

I have also heard bisexuality used that way! Which is why I had the waffly tags. But yeah, I think it’s an evolution of language thing - from the binary assumption, being attracted to people regardless of gender naturally gets defined as “bisexuality” (like with hutch, above). Then if you progress to defining gender as more-than-binary (I dislike the ‘spectrum’ idea but that’s for a separate post), of course you would come up with a new word - but some people are already using “bisexuality” to mean “multiple genders” or even “all genders”, and some really do mean “two genders”, and because of how language works, they’re not just gonna switch over to new words as soon as you define them. So now you have some people who mean exactly the same thing by “pansexual” as others do by “bisexual” and other people who mean entirely different things with those words. And that’s normal! That’s how language works! People who use “bisexual” to mean “female and androgynous” aren’t bad or wrong, and neither are people who use “bisexual” to mean “anyone”. Same with “pansexual” for “any human” vs. “pansexual” for “any being of sufficient cognitive ability to give informed consent”.

momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

also from my friend hutch who does not have the battery power to comment himself:

I’m with [castielscheesecake], pansexuality should be the larger circle, and further I think that bisexuality does exist not to reinforce the false binary but to acknowledge people who truly are only attracted to more extreme ends of the spectrum

I’m not saying they’re incapable of being attracted to someone who falls more along the middle, I’m certainly not gonna deny anyone who identifies as anything they identify as (I myself occasionally still call myself gay) but I guess that’s how I see the division between bisexuals and pansexuals

——-

I think for people like me, pansexuality exists as a bit of a catch-all. Sort of the last place to sort someone if they’re looking to be sorted at all. I started by assuming nothing about my sexuality, which I think the unfortunate circumstances of our society automatically puts you in the Straight box for that. Then I realized men were a viable option and assumed I was gay, then realized I still liked some women so I assumed I was bisexual, then learned about the gender spectrum and became more aware of the binary and realized, all along, gender was never a part of the equation (more like a bonus, like, hey I love this person and they happen to be a cis male so I have thick body hair and a penis and the chest and a beard to play with and also we have a bit in common right from the start, whereas if he were from a different point on the spectrum that would come with different bonuses)

I have also heard bisexuality used that way! Which is why I had the waffly tags. But yeah, I think it’s an evolution of language thing - from the binary assumption, being attracted to people regardless of gender naturally gets defined as “bisexuality” (like with hutch, above). Then if you progress to defining gender as more-than-binary (I dislike the ‘spectrum’ idea but that’s for a separate post), of course you would come up with a new word - but some people are already using “bisexuality” to mean “multiple genders” or even “all genders”, and some really do mean “two genders”, and because of how language works, they’re not just gonna switch over to new words as soon as you define them. So now you have some people who mean exactly the same thing by “pansexual” as others do by “bisexual” and other people who mean entirely different things with those words. And that’s normal! That’s how language works! People who use “bisexual” to mean “female and androgynous” aren’t bad or wrong, and neither are people who use “bisexual” to mean “anyone”. Same with “pansexual” for “any human” vs. “pansexual” for “any being of sufficient cognitive ability to give informed consent”.

Photo
applestrider:

momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

but bisexuals arent trying to enforce the binary either?

(whoops, messed up on responding to this somehow: )
thus “specifically avoiding reinforcing”. My understanding is that “bisexual” is the older word and that a large number of people who use it use it to mean “attracted to people in general rather than limited to a certain sex/gender”, and that there are people who use “pansexual” to mean exactly the same thing, but they want to use words that don’t reinforce the binary. It’s sort of like how people who say “postman” aren’t evilly trying to support the profession as male-only; just that some people go out of their way to say “mail carrier” or similar to avoid feeding into the overall trend.

I hope that makes sense? I did not mean to come off as accusative or anything.

applestrider:

momothefiddler:

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

but bisexuals arent trying to enforce the binary either?

(whoops, messed up on responding to this somehow: )

thus “specifically avoiding reinforcing”. My understanding is that “bisexual” is the older word and that a large number of people who use it use it to mean “attracted to people in general rather than limited to a certain sex/gender”, and that there are people who use “pansexual” to mean exactly the same thing, but they want to use words that don’t reinforce the binary. It’s sort of like how people who say “postman” aren’t evilly trying to support the profession as male-only; just that some people go out of their way to say “mail carrier” or similar to avoid feeding into the overall trend.

I hope that makes sense? I did not mean to come off as accusative or anything.

Text
but bisexuals arent trying to enforce the binary either?

thus “specifically avoiding reinforcing”. My understanding is that “bisexual” is the older word and that a large number of people who use it use it to mean “attracted to people in general rather than limited to a certain sex/gender”, and that there are people who use “pansexual” to mean exactly the same thing, but they want to use words that don’t reinforce the binary. It’s sort of like how people who say “postman” aren’t evilly trying to support the profession as male-only; just that some people go out of their way to say “mail carrier” or similar to avoid feeding into the overall trend.

I hope that makes sense? I did not mean to come off as accusative or anything.

Photo
castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.


well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

castielscheesecake:

applestrider:

my work here is done

lovely! but shouldn’t it be the other way around? pansexuality encompasses a wider range of gender than bisexuality does.

well there’s the interpretation that bisexual and pansexual mean the same thing but pansexuals are specifically avoiding reinforcing the false binary.

Text

officialunitedstates:

I like globes that have the bumps on them for mountains.  let me feel the earth, run my fingers over your himalayas, caress your inner alps

(via castielscheesecake)

Text

enigmaticagentalice:

I’ve been re-reading the 'Luminosity' Twilight fanfic by Alicorn, which I haven’t read for ages and it is just…it’s so weird to read. Because I like it so much. It’s a good story.

But it’s Twilight. But then…it also isn’t. The characters are likeable, logical, reasonable people, who care about each other and care about the world around them too. They’re not perfect, they have their flaws, but they act in understandable and sympathetic ways. It’s as if they’re the characters they were always meant to be, and I find myself genuinely liking Bella Swan and even (god help me) liking Edward too. I like them individually and I root for them as a couple.

The story is exciting. There’s action. There’s suspense. There are twists that I didn’t see coming. There are a whole host of new characters interacting with each other and established characters in ways that introduce whole new relationships. There are a bunch of awesome female characters. There are canonically queer characters. There are morally grey characters whose moral ambiguity isn’t constantly glossed over and apologised for.

It’s just so damn entertaining, and I know in my heart that it’s not a perfect story but I enjoy it so much because the author just takes all that wonderful potential that Twilight had and runs with it, turning it into something creative and enjoyable, even with the basic framework still recognisable underneath.

(via luminousalicorn)

Quote
"Zoomspspspsss… What? Yeah."

my super genius brother

Photoset

seraphica:

Incredibly lifelike driftwood horse sculptures by James Doran-Webb [via]

(via luminousalicorn)

Text

castielscheesecake:

robots who don’t understand sexism

robots who are incapable of computing why someone would catcall a woman or why people would mock women for being emotional or bossy or whatever because that is how that human is made, why would you find issue with a human functioning the way they are designed?

robots who spend days going in and out of different environments to study and experiment with active sexism and always finding the victim afterward to apologize and do their best to compensate the victim and put them at ease and help them with any resulting problems with the sexism

robots launching thorough and patiently efficient programs and charities and learning environments to combat sexism because it is obvious that this is an incredibly inefficient and counterproductive and harmful part of humans’ lives

Tags: mdl
Text

a-creepy-weirdo-has:

bitcheslovemyjingleballs:

a-creepy-weirdo-has:

what do birds do 

image

I apologise for my ignorance, birds are important

(via castielscheesecake)

Tags: faygele
Photo
pleasuresofpan:


mandrag:

by Johnny Clasper

pleasuresofpan:

mandrag:

by Johnny Clasper

(Source: johnnyclasper.co.uk, via luminousalicorn)