Sorry, I stand by my belief it's claptrap. Someone's sexuality cannot possibly be influenced by someone else's individual identification of themselves. I'm gay. I find men attractive. I don't instinctively know if they would prefer to be a woman!
Could you provide some evidence for this statement? Given how complicated sexuality is, I really wouldn't be surprised.
Further, pansexuality is the opposite. It means that a person can be attracted to someone else reguardless of their sex/gender and how they identify.
I would actually suggest that rather than more public discussion, we could do with less, or rather a brake on some of the more outlandish discussion. It's becoming counter-productive sadly and People's urge to appear understanding and inclusive risks creating a less understanding and inclusive world.
Why is it outlandish to have a sexuality that includes transgender, gender non-binary, and other forms of gender queerness? And how is such discussion counter-productive? To me, it seems as that the backlash of people who are as dismissive as you appear to be about different types of sexuality and gender identity fuel said 'less iunderstanding and inclusive' world. The solution to that is not for people who identify in such a way to shut up and go away.
The cliche double-entendre of "I don't mind gays so long as they don't ram it down my throat has more than a smidgen of truth.
She did yes, in the Commons during a debate on self identification of gender. She said "I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body."
The full quote and the debate in Hansard can be found here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...87B1-9B77F32EA155/Self-IdentificationOfGender
It's absolute claptrap, and in the context of the debate wishy washy and meaningless. Along with Swinson's infamous failing to be able to say what a woman is during the election campaign, despite her campaign's second pillar being her being a woman, it's another example of people falling over themselves to be, and I dislike the term but it fits here, "woke."
Or, it's her coming out as having a sexuality other than straight.
Pansexuality is a claim to be attracted to "every" gender without declaring any knowledge of how many there are, which is why
being "able to see people's souls"
...is sort of what it is; it's a claim of being attracted explicitly to people's personalities with zero consideration for the person's physical form. It's not possible to logically claim you're attracted to every single gender when you claim there are infinite ones, essentially on a sliding scale - because you can't possibly know every gender and hence can't claim that you will be attracted to every gender.
It may be more helpful to think of it as attraction "regardless" or sex or gender identity.
It isn't necessarily seeing into "people's souls". Physical attraction is part of pansexuality. But, said physical attraction also exists for people with other gender identities.
A person who has experienced attraction to 2 or more genders may identify as pansexual without having experienced attracted to every single gender. There is no other way to express this other than to call oneself a 'pansexual' (possibly 'bisexual' - some bisexuals are attracted to genderqueer people). It leaves the possibility open.
It is also slightly silly to mandate that one has to be so specific with one's identity. "I'm pansexual, except for Agender people".
It is unrealistic to expect pansexuals to go through every single gender and say "have you been attracted to them? You haven't? Then you can't identify as pansexual." That's not a thing, and should not be a thing. Effectively, one could define pansexuality as covering people who are sexually attracted to between 3 and ∞ genders.
The entire gender thing will be seen by future generations as a bizarre mass hysteria event perpetuated by a tiny fragement of a culture far too bored with itself.
Please tell me more about how you can see into the future. And perhaps the lottery numbers for a big jackpot weekend in the coming year as well.
To any pansexuals reading this, please tell me if I'm getting stuff catastrophically wrong. I'm not pan, so I'm not going to know as much as you will.
