Reply to: Coming out as transracial

[SueEllen]

They have an update -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ar-Korean.html

Their family and lots of friends refuse to talk to them.

They can't see why people with Korean ancestry find them saying their gender is "Korean" is appropriation and they is going to get Korean citizenship.

[vetran]

Unless you are a Korean or other person from East Asian, particularly someone who is non-binary, as then you can call them out as having white privilege for saying they are transracial using your own story...

If you can get it stuck in a saucepan you are some sort of freak

most saucepans have a little ring on the end so you can hang it up so some of the little pricks on here would fit.

[d000hg]

Stuck?

If you can get it stuck in a saucepan you are some sort of freak

[northernladuk]

And what about that small but definite not non-existent group who are physically attracted to kitchen ironmongery?

I think even the LBQTI+ still have the catagory of Idiot for when it's needed don't they?

[vetran]

Unless you are a Korean or other person from East Asian, particularly someone who is non-binary, as then you can call them out as having white privilege for saying they are transracial using your own story...

I dunno, what would you like to be referred to as?

Cookie cutters?

Stuck?

[ladymuck]

And what about that small but definite not non-existent group who are physically attracted to kitchen ironmongery?

I dunno, what would you like to be referred to as?

[d000hg]

And what about that small but definite not non-existent group who are physically attracted to kitchen ironmongery?

[northernladuk]

Maybe that is where the term pansexual comes from? After romancing goats surely anything human isn't too much of a challenge to your morals?

He was supposed to be depicted as having a big manhood so I suppose we have that in common!

He was a letch so this may be why you may think this, he was the original slut god.

Interesting history to the word. Sigmund Froyd invented the word and it meant attraction to all ages and species including p-phillia and z-phillia so it's kinda surprising that it's been re-defined for use in a community that is so hung up on the meaning of their labels. Some bi people don't like the pan term and vice versa yet for some reason it's got a pretty dark meaning but it's been taken on.

[Paralytic]

Pan sexual

[ladymuck]

I had understood that bi-sexual meant "I find some men attractive and some women attractive - I'm attracted to both" whereas pan-sexual meant "I find some people attractive and their gender is not really a factor". A subtle difference and I'm not sure if it's right, or PS is just a more trendy term to demonstrate you don't believe in male/female in the first place.

I don't know if that is 'correct' but I like the distinction.

[Mordac]

Fail.

They are non-binary so they are neither he or she.

Ironically, in Korea 'they' would have to get used to being referred to as 'he'. Unless 'they' transitioned, in which case 'they' becomes 'she'. The Koreans don't seem to do 'non-binary' in the same way as some western countries, such as the UK.

[d000hg]

I had understood that bi-sexual meant "I find some men attractive and some women attractive - I'm attracted to both" whereas pan-sexual meant "I find some people attractive and their gender is not really a factor". A subtle difference and I'm not sure if it's right, or PS is just a more trendy term to demonstrate you don't believe in male/female in the first place.

[hobnob]

Apparently that is really offensive and pan-sexual was finding any human attractive. I will send them off to meet some of our posters They/Them/it will be celibate in a week or at least a bit more choosy.

In my day if you suggested you would shag anything vaguely human you were considered a pervert.

Pansexual is basically the same thing as bisexual, except that it includes people are non-binary.

It's not quite the same as "attracted to everyone", it just means that you won't automatically rule people out based on their gender. E.g. if a straight man goes on a dating app, he'd say "only show me women", but that doesn't mean he'll fancy all of them. Likewise, a gay man will say "only show me men", but then he'll pick and choose. A bi/pan person will say "show me everyone", then whittle down the list based on other factors.

[hobnob]

I guess but there surely has to be a limit somewhere where even the most lefty person looks at a situation and says 'that's a little bit odd'? Isn't there a line somewhere between supporting people in anything they want do and identifying where people have problems? Probably talking from the position of an old git that struggles to get to grips with all this.

For what it's worth, this version of "transracial" is frowned on amongst left-wingers. E.g. this article from the Guardian:
Rachel Dolezal's definition of 'transracial' isn't just wrong, it's destructive | Syreeta McFadden | The Guardian

"But transracial does not mean what some white Americans like Dolezal apparently wish it to mean. The term originates from adoptive and academic circles to describe the very lived experience of children raised in homes that are phenotypically and culturally different from their birth – people like my colleague Rebecca Carroll, who is black. She was raised in a white household and her white birth mother attempted to define her as “culturally white, and cosmetically black”."

[d000hg]

Nah. The Transexuals I know are fairly decent people and cope with people who get the wrong pronoun. It's not the transexuals etc. who are the problem. It's the flippin' activists. Bunch of trouble makers.

I didn't say getting it wrong. I said deliberately not using their chosen pronoun, or being corrected several times in a single conversation/interview and seeming not to notice.