[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I still don't get why people care? If someone wants to say they are bisexual, pansexual or demisexual....why does anyone else care? Why can't they have that label? Why should they conform to something they don't believe they are?

Well it doesn't matter, I don't care per say, people can call themselves what they like but pansexual has as much validity as someone saying they're gingersexual ... Neither are actual sexualities, but people can still call themselves it.

[smudgie]

Not a clue, but it doesn’t really matter does it?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Well it doesn't matter, I don't care per say, people can call themselves what they like but pansexual has as much validity as someone saying they're gingersexual ... Neither are actual sexualities, but people can still call themselves it.

To someone who identifies as pansexual it has validity. Who gets to decide what what is valid and what isn't?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

To someone who identifies as pansexual it has validity. Who gets to decide what what is valid and what isn't?

And someone who identifies as gingersexual would see that as valid.

No-one needs to "decide" anything, the descriptors for the three types of sexuality are perfectly fine. One is either attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes. If people want to add random qualifiers like "I'm only sexually attracted to people I like the personality of" or "I don't care if a man identifies as a woman" that's up to them, but it doesn't change their sexuality. Any more than someone who likes gingers of both genders would need their own label.

[Redway]

Shall we try again in 2023?

[GoldHeart]

I believe it's basically bisexual... but the difference is they also date trans people. I heard pansexual use to mean they liked someone for their personality first, but that could go for most people regardless of sexuality . So it just seems like a pointless extra label... as it just seems like another way of saying bisexual .

[Swan]

It's a social media attention seeking fad. Just like most others.

People can say what they like and identify as they wish, fine. But in reality, you either like men, you like women, you like both, or you don't like either.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I believe it's basically bisexual... but the difference is they also date trans people. I heard pansexual use to mean they liked someone for their personality first, but that could go for most people regardless of sexuality . So it just seems like a pointless extra label... as it just seems like another way of saying bisexual .

Pretty much. Apparently they go into trans.-relationships with a more open mind than someone who’s just bisexual (so they just take potential partners/fcuk buddies as they are otherwise and not because they’re attracted to a vagina or dick per-se in the way a bisexual person is). They’re looking to get funky with whoever they get funky with but sexually there’s nothing in particular they’re looking for.

Erm.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Redway

Shall we try again in 2023?

In 2023: sexuality is still based on perceived sex, and there are two sexes that can be perceived. Bisexual is still the actual name for pansexual.

[Liam-]

The last thing this forum needs is more ‘debate’ about sexuality

[Alf]

It's not called pansexual in China. It's called Woksexual.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The last thing this forum needs is more ‘debate’ about sexuality

This.

This is the last place I would ever open a debate about something the vast majority of active users know squat about

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

This.

This is the last place I would ever open a debate about something the vast majority of active users know squat about

Are you in that vast majority or are you an expert?

[Glenn.]

Well I don’t have pink blemished skin and im not triggered by LGBTQ so not part of the majority

[Redway]

https://youtu.be/ITjTcWGQmC4

This video’s a really interesting one, still. I’m sure some people will come out with nonsense about how the main presenter’s supposedly a big reverse-racist for having an all-black show/panel but I’d implore you to forget that for a moment and listen to what these people are actually saying.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Redway

reverse-racist

Redudant, it's just racism.

(Maybe not in her case, don't know enough about her to say if she's racist or not)

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Redudant, it's just racism.

(Maybe not in her case, don't know enough about her to say if she's racist or not)

She’s definitely not but as far as her video’s concerned that one is literally neither here nor there. But I know people are fond of bringing up that silly, nonsense argument (where it’s not actually warranted) whenever black-specific needs are catered for and pan-racial people get jealous.