Coming out Pansexual

[princealbertofb]

Watching Samantha Fox explain that it's not the gender you fall in love with, it's the person, I think it's quite possible to find love in someone who doesn't want to be defined by their gender but by their ability to be loved and (more to the point) to love back.

[princealbertofb]

No there aren't. Gender is not a continuum, it comes in discrete values of which there are only two. And you can't be both or neither. Not buying that.


Just because some people think they are a whole gender on their own doesn't make it so. Some people just have an identity crisis, if you asked me, and confuse wishful thinking with actual reality of things.

For every such confused individual, it is possible to determine whether they are biologically male or female. Ergo, there is no middle ground. It's in their imagination only.

Actually, [MENTION=18789]artyboy[/MENTION] has a point. There are some people born with the two genders... then medicine helps the parents decide (if it's detected) whether to favour one of the genders above the other. It may also depend on how well developed each of the singular parts are.

[Pix]

Pansexuality strikes me as the ideal sexuality to aspire to.

And intersex births are more common than thought...apparently many infants are sexually mutilated to make them fit in the binary model (I wonder how many who don't identify as their gender were one of those mutilated as an infant?). Even so, there are people like this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36092431

When Alec Butler was born in 1959 it was assumed Alec was female. But after being brought up as a girl, Alec - now an award-winning writer and film-maker - realised they were intersex, someone whose anatomical, hormonal or genetic sex is neither completely male nor female.

I was about 12 when it really hit. I started to grow a beard and I had a period. So it was really confusing for me. My parents were a little freaked out. They took me to some doctors, but no-one knew about being intersex in the small town where I grew up in Canada. One doctor said, "We're going to have to put her in a mental institution until she learns how to dress like a girl and put on makeup." This was at the age of 12, when even most genetic girls aren't being forced to do that. Luckily my parents were outraged and they said, "We're not going to do that. We're just going to love you, and you can choose how you want to be." That was a gift. Lots of intersex kids don't have that.

[artyboy]

Pansexuality strikes me as the ideal sexuality to aspire to.

And intersex births are more common than thought...apparently many infants are sexually mutilated to make them fit in the binary model (I wonder how many who don't identify as their gender were one of those mutilated as an infant?). Even so, there are people like this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36092431

Well back in the 1950s there were a few experiments done on such kids as babies to work out if gender is learnt or they were born with them.

[meridannight]

I am well-aware of the intersex conditions. That's why I said biologically male or female rather than genetically male or female. In any case, intersex conditions don't help your argument, since most of them still identify discretely either male or female.

[MENTION=1766]princealbertofb[/MENTION], I am confused as to what you mean by 'being born with two genders'. Do you mean the genetic chimerism? That would be a better argument, if only such chimerism produced an individual who identified as something in between male and female. Which still is not the case, from what I've read. And in any case I don't support the premise that one or two (supposed) exceptions abolish our whole understanding of gender.

I have not seen a convincing argument for your case yet. Most in-favor points are flimsy at best, specifically tailored to suit their purpose. Whichever way you wanna look at this, absolutely every person is either biologically* male or biologically female when you get down to it. There's no arguing with the facts resulting from it.


* By this I mean both, their reproductive organs, and the testosterone/estrogen ratio. Whichever one has a more definitive influence. Maybe, 'physiologic' gender is a better term to use.

[TwisttheLeaf]

To be honest? I don't bother. For the most part, I introduce myself as bisexual just to field the questions.

If you want a definition? Then I'd say tell them it's not about if someone is male, female, or whatever in between they might be. For you, it's about -people- and -who- they are.... not -what- they are.

[artyboy]

Just because you are confused about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist lol.

Like saying I'm confused why your gay lol.

[JohnMusic]

I could call myself a pansexual but will not. I have no idea why people feel the need use that term. No offence.

[princealbertofb]

I am well-aware of the intersex conditions. That's why I said biologically male or female rather than genetically male or female. In any case, intersex conditions don't help your argument, since most of them still identify discretely either male or female.

@princealbertofb, I am confused as to what you mean by 'being born with two genders'. Do you mean the genetic chimerism? That would be a better argument, if only such chimerism produced an individual who identified as something in between male and female. Which still is not the case, from what I've read. And in any case I don't support the premise that one or two (supposed) exceptions abolish our whole understanding of gender.

I have not seen a convincing argument for your case yet. Most in-favor points are flimsy at best, specifically tailored to suit their purpose. Whichever way you wanna look at this, absolutely every person is either biologically* male or biologically female when you get down to it. There's no arguing with the facts resulting from it.


* By this I mean both, their reproductive organs, and the testosterone/estrogen ratio. Whichever one has a more definitive influence. Maybe, 'physiologic' gender is a better term to use.

And now there are people who are telling you that they aren't one or the other, or that they are both. Their bodies might be what you define as either male or female (but then what about intersex people? ) but they don't see it that way, nor feel that way. Why is their word not acceptable, if that's how they feel ?

You keep saying that there are only two genders, biological or whatever you wish to call them, and I'm saying maybe there is some other gender, something that has not been defined before, which doesn't mean that it didn't always exist.

Since gender is more of a social construct (and although I know angels may just be a pure invention of the mind, don't we say that they have no gender of their own, genderless?) why is it difficult to imagine that there is a new gender starting to be defined, much as once there was no concept of 'homosexuality' even if the facts existed.

Is it the Mormons who preach that there is no such thing as 'homosexuality'? All there is is the abnormal sin or behaviour of two people of the same gender engaging in sex together. And yet you'd be quick to tell them they were wrong.

So, I'm not insisting that I'm right, but I think the benefit of the doubt might be one of the options. I'm ready to accept that there are people out there who don't feel comfortable being plugged into the narrow definitions of male or female, and who don't need those to live fruitful lives. If they want to call themselves gender fluid, then that's who they are.

One more option, maybe I'm too dumb to understand what you're trying to explain, @meridannight.

[meridannight]

And now there are people who are telling you that they aren't one or the other, or that they are both. Their bodies might be what you define as either male or female (but then what about intersex people? ) but they don't see it that way, nor feel that way. Why is their word not acceptable, if that's how they feel ?

You keep saying that there are only two genders, biological or whatever you wish to call them, and I'm saying maybe there is some other gender, something that has not been defined before, which doesn't mean that it didn't always exist.

Since gender is more of a social construct (and although I know angels may just be a pure invention of the mind, don't we say that they have no gender of their own, genderless?) why is it difficult to imagine that there is a new gender starting to be defined, much as once there was no concept of 'homosexuality' even if the facts existed.

Is it the Mormons who preach that there is no such thing as 'homosexuality'? All there is is the abnormal sin or behaviour of two people of the same gender engaging in sex together. And yet you'd be quick to tell them they were wrong.

So, I'm not insisting that I'm right, but I think the benefit of the doubt might be one of the options. I'm ready to accept that there are people out there who don't feel comfortable being plugged into the narrow definitions of male or female, and who don't need those to live fruitful lives. If they want to call themselves gender fluid, then that's who they are.

I don't think it's plausible. A person's gender can be ascertained by their reproductive organs. In cases where that's in disagreement with the person's sense of self, then, neurological findings (although transsexuality is not currently defined by any neurological findings, I am convinced it has to be manifest in the brain for transsexuality itself to have any credibility) and sex hormones.

I also don't agree that gender is a social construct. Gender is biological/physiological (note that I am not calling it genetic). It's something we're born with. Clinical data and neuroscience back this up.



I also just don't like the idea of there being more than 2 genders. I don't like it or want such a reality. I do have a very traditional understanding of gender. All this genderqueering business, it's revolting, honestly. I have a very strong dislike of women, bordering on full misogyny, as is more or less known about me on this site. It's not so difficult to realize how I would find any idea of mixing the masculine gender with the feminine unsympathetic, to say the least.


But my personal aversions aside, just because we can imagine a spectrum, doesn't mean that it's there. I stand by this. I don't find this concept has any credibility. I'll change my mind when I start seeing some coherent studies and trustworthy accounts (not some confused accounts from anonymous adolescents whose brains are not yet fully matured* and who haven't even fully figured out their own identities yet). Also, as long as this stays a minority phenomenon, it is (if there is anything to it, which I am not buying) an exception, rather than the rule.

Say, if a friend of mine felt this way, and he was a mature adult male, not some teenage boy, then I might trust this whole theory more. As of now, I haven't seen anything trustworthy being said about it.


* This is actually a very important point. Brain doesn't fully mature till well in the third decade of life. Until then, people, adolescents especially, have been known to play around with their identities, try out different things and theories of self. It's all part of normal process. That might include gender fluid experiments for some. Which explains it all.