Humansexual?

[Lani]

I agree Kristopin, this is so true.

btw, thanks for your invite to meet for a coffee, coz, you probably know that I don't drink (anything w/ alcohol, that is). Yes, we'll do that when my schedules gets a little open.
And it could be a chance to chat, one thing we can't do in the club because of the loud music and the ****** energy there lol!

our earthly presense defines us in the physical, our unfortunate limited capacity to communicate requires us to have labels. i.e. a red ball

the previous snippet from buddhist belief is one i personally adhere to. Is there such a thing a gender? only on the outside as our labels apply. on the inside we are all the same in my thoughts. we all love, hate, etc.

'She responded that there was no male and no female' .

If as a society we could all grasp this spiritual notion then perhaps we would not need labels. then again maybe we need to develope our telepathic communicative powers then we would know no lies deciept gender etc . we would all be the person inside.

[Rantsalot]

I saw I read I was shocked.

Pansexual, metrosexual, humansexual, asexual, bisexual, transexual, etc etc


Despite all the chat on this thread it still comes down to labeling.

"Drat. Rantsalot is opening his big fat mouth again and spewing forth irrational polysyllabic propensities. Best ignore what he says."

To those that say that or think that I say thank you for at least I'd rather be addressed as Rantsalot , as someone with a name/title instead of as a neologism.

toban is toban
Nikki is Nikki
Jenllani is Jenllani
cobbler is cobbler

Does it really truly matter what their sexual make up is?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for positive discussions and debate of various topics but my dear comrades down deep this thread does not sit with me well at all.

R.

a.k.a. someone who doesn't know at times when to keep quiet or stay out of the loop.

[LadyMissKier]

toban is toban
Nikki is Nikki
Jenllani is Jenllani
cobbler is cobbler

So one question to ask:

Who is Lady Miss Kier?

I adopt the philosophy of his holiness; the 14th Dahlia Lama...

[merelypink]

intereting post i would argue that everyone fits that catergory

[Rantsalot]

...

So one question to ask:

Who is Lady Miss Kier?

I adopt the philosophy of his holiness; the 14th Dahlia Lama...

Lady Miss Kier is Lady Miss Kier. Simple enough. Point being I'm not titling you as a "type" per se.

[Foxy Basket]

Deconstructive logic

The whole thing about "humansexual" isn't simply that it's a replacement for exclusive categories - it removes the need to categorize your partner.

Agreed, we're all who we are - but in order to fit into any existing sexual paradigm, we have to identify ourselves (and our partners) to explain our attraction to them. This category reduces us to our most basic category (human) while eliminating the need to squeeze into any other boxes.

Potentially, anyone can identify as humansexual, and if everyone recognized this possibility, we'd have no need for any identification at all.

I've said too much on this, and I'm starting to so I'll leave it be for now. But I want to stress that "humansexual" isn't simply another category among many - it's a category that has the potential to remove the need for categorization. It's a self-describing, self-destructive label that simultaneously reinforces our most basic human nature, while challenging the need to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller boxes. If being human is all you ask of your partner, there's no need to explain yourself any further.

I'm well past my two-cent quota, so I'll leave this to others to debate.

[Bootboi]

I think too many people are caught up in semantics.

"Humansexual"?? What's the point. It's just a word to sit around and intellectualize. We as people love to categorize. I have no problems with labels or categories because nothing is limiting. Categories do not have to define you. Everyone is free to explore how they wish.

[orientcutie]

I think too many people are caught up in semantics.

"Humansexual"?? What's the point. It's just a word to sit around and intellectualize. We as people love to categorize. I have no problems with labels or categories because nothing is limiting. Categories do not have to define you. Everyone is free to explore how they wish.

exactly,.. i strongly agree....

anyways all will always ends up in a great sex!
whatever your label or category is!
hehehehehhehe

[kristopin]

crucified again

ok im am willing to take the heat on this one.

first off labels labels labels. i hate them as they can be used to denigrate and persecute.
now having said that we must all realise that inder for us to communicate in a reasonable fashion then we need labels in our language to understand what we are talking about. for instance an attempted explanation of baseball with out labels for the equipment..


so what is baseball?
it is a game played for fun.
what is fun?
it is something we do that makes us happy.

so how do you play base ball?
well a man with a thing standing on a hill throws that thing past a man standing there at the rubber thing on the ground and has to hit the thing that was thrown at him with a thing in both his hands. if he hit the thing thing with his thing and that thing goes way out of the park then he car run around the lines touching all the other four things until he get back to the thing he started running from and he scores a point for his team. if he doesnt hit the thing with his thing and someone catches the thing with the thing in their hans then he is out. if the thing hits the ground first then they have to get to the thing and try to throw it to a man standing on the first thing who has to catch that thing with the thing on his hand


etc. etc.etc. not very entertaining or communicative.

so we all know the words for our sexual attitudes preferences etc. except there is one word that is missing. the 'label' for a man or woman that prefers to be emotionally or physically involved with a transexual. i have suggested transexualist for this and it has been met by some as great and others not so great. i am not a linguist if there are any other words, labels that we can use then we need to use them. if i tell someone i am gay then thay know what i mean. if i try to explain my preference to someone with out a 'label' then it becomes very awkward for me to explain and for them to conceptualise. we do need labels. if i can tell someone i am a transexualist then they can go an look that up if they want more information and wnat to understand.

now there are varying degrees of transitioning and perhaps some will take offence to the word tansexualist. we cannot have nor can we use a language that is totally politically correct and does not offend someone. it is unfortuate and can only be avoided when we transition from moralists to non moralists and accept all human sexuallity in all its various formats and we have learned to talk by telepathy where there can exist no lies or hidden meanings.

so here is to us all. enjoy life. dont worry about a word or label, if people dont understand it is ok. we cannot force them to accept. it is better if they have something they can look up and research.

[toban]

You are right on, Kris - no heat from me. Everyone is known by a label of some kind

There must always be labels. We were first known personally, by the labels given to us by our loving parents, e.g. Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, etc. As we mature we may become known and labelled by our profession, as e.g. carpenter, engineer, doctor, nurse, student, professor, soldier, no-good drifter etc., etc.

I have been known by many labels other than my given name, Bill, or my Forum name, Toban. Some other names I have been labelled with relate to my former professions (2), some to my hobby, and as a teacher for some time I can tell you that I have also been known by more than a few other very descriptive names too,

Example: All the different makes of automobiles or cars are known by one of many labels. You never just walk into a dealership and say I want to buy a car without viewing all the models each labelled with it's name. The label might be very basic as in Pedal Powered, Diesel powered, Gasoline powered, Natural Gas powered, Battery powered, or maybe by a brand name or model name like Tonka, Mercedes, Prius, Volt, Maxima, Nano.

Example: Likewise it would be kind of difficult to know what you were getting if you went to a butcher shop and simply said "I want two pounds of meat please". You might just be handed two pounds of kidneys, or chopped liver or a big bunch of pig-tails.

We know enough to ask for exactly what we want by its' label e.g. Pork tenderloin, salmon steaks, corner-cut rump roast, etc., all of of which are commonly used labels which allow us to acurately identify things.

Labels can never be eliminated, labels are absolutely necessary! While some labels might seem to be discriminating, changing them does not change the object so labelled. The only the change is in what you call it!

[Burlierminotaur]

I think the part I like best is that it shows how silly the current terms really are. It's simultaneously an all-encompassing term, as well as a term that subverts the legitimacy of the current lingo we use to assign sexual tastes.

The common redneck might not use it, but this term is not meant for the simple-minded to use as their own; it's merely a simple term that they can understand (whether they accept it or not). His/her insistence on traditional categories will look foolish in the face of new, enlightened ways to determine sexuality.

Or not. It's hard to tell what them crazy rednecks will do when faced with something strange and uncomfortable. All I know is that I like the term better than "pansexual" and for those worried about their sexuality, this removes that constant need to squeeze yourself into a category that just doesn't fit.

When the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were created (around 1869 for homosexual, and about two years later for heterosexual) trans people quite literally didn't exist as we know them today. The term didn't exist, the medical technology didn't exist, and there hadn't been any cases of people who had actually crossed the gender divide, hormonally and surgically. So how does it make sense to incorporate a new "type" of person into a sexual binary that didn't even account for our existence?

I'm rambling now, but there's a cause behind it - new ideas require new words to describe them. We've had no problem incorporating words like internet, sex work, and transgender into our general lexicon; maybe it's time for humansexual to join the ranks.

Or not. That's more up to the rest of you than it is to me; use whatever words you like best, but if this one fits, then enjoy it!

Hey careful there Nikki I'm one of them thar "rednecks" dontcha know! :P and as fer yer new word...Well I like it better then fag or queer by a long shot But..only time will tell if it flies or falls with the masses won't it?? ') Have a good un Nikki! hope 2 catch ya in the lounge someday! ')

[kristopin]

politcal view point of transexualist

while doing a goolge on the word 'transexualist' i found this blog that may be of interest to the politically inclined

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archive...he-same-thing/

[Foxy Basket]

while doing a goolge on the word 'transexualist' i found this blog that may be of interest to the politically inclined

Yes, I read the entire post, instead of just the single comment where someone defines your category without qualification or further explanation. But having read the entire article, it actually proves my point even further!

I don't anyone actually understood the point of my post at all.

I understand the need for categories all too well - I've been crushed, crammed and stuffed into plenty of them over the years, and that's still happening every day. But when you call yourself a "lawyer" or "baseball player" or "drunk" you're only categorizing yourself, based on your own actions, in reference to others who do something similar to what you do.

The difference is this: a label of sexuality doesn't just categorize yourself - it categorizes your partner as well!!!

That's what I've been trying to say from the start. All other sexual categories serve to "box in" your partner, but "humansexual" opens that category to everyone who can be identified as "human"! That's the whole point!!!

I don't like "transexualist" or "tranny chaser" or "trans-sensual" because it makes the "trans-ness" of your partner more important than any other attributes. None of you guys seem to truly understand what it's like, and I can't explain it to you easily, but I'll try:

We're not trans by choice; we're trans by necessity. I do all this political and education stuff simply because it needs to be done, and there's nobody else who is willing to do it. I identify as "tgirl" because it takes a great deal of weight off my shoulders - I don't have to worry if I'm "passing" or "fitting in." But it's the "girl" part that's important to me, the part that I define myself by; the "t" merely reflects my experiences and my reality.

But make no mistake - if I could go back into my mom's womb, and decide if my chromosomes would be XX or XY, I'd choose XX without a second thought. And I'd leave all the trans-bullshit behind, because going through this process is a fucking nightmare sometimes! So many people sit there and eroticize it without realizing just how exhausting and difficult it can be. Sure, I make the most of it, just as many others do, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't trade it in (in a heartbeat!) if we only had the choice. Our options are either to transition and take the really hard road, or live in denial and take the really, really, really hard road. Great choice, huh?

When you call yourself a "transexualist" you're not just defining yourself, you're defining ME - and you're doing it in a way that I really don't like. You're differentiating me from other women (and don't even fucking dare with the "well, technically. . ." again, because I can prove every stereotype wrong, and refute every definition of "woman" that you can possibly conceptualize) and you're separating me as something "different" and "unusual." When you call yourself "this", you're calling me "that" - and you're certainly not calling me what I feel I should be called.

We're always being categorized according to the desires of others, being categorized as you see us, not as we see ourselves.

This very forum seems to exist to position us only in reference to the guys who fuck us; they can review us (and include infinitely detailed minutae about our bodies, attitudes and experiences) but we can't review them. Guys can call us fakes and say our pics don't match our appearance, but when clients do the same with us, our posts get censored. Guys can define us as TG's, TS's, TV's or CD's, and we play into it by arguing like fucking 5-year-olds about who counts as what and why. We're constantly being pitted against each other in stupid catfights over ridiculous bullshit arguments, and guys just egg us on, cheering as if it's a goddamned mud-wrestling contest in a dirty strip club.

Still want to categorize me? Then just categorize me as a human fucking being, and leave the rest of the details out of it! Can't do that? Then just try to pretend to accept me as a girl, and quit ramming the fucking T down my throat all the time. I'm fully aware that your basic definition of "female" doesn't include people like me; please, just do me a favour, and stop reminding me every chance you get.

[bubblee]

How about "Trans-cendentalists" for an option.

Humansexual? IMHO nice thought but it lacks poetry. It also seems to imply that some of us might prefer coitus with non-human sex partners like lichen, fish, bats, insects and lizards -- and thus the distinction. Mind you, I do like my sushi so maybe you've got a point. I draw the line though at "Arachnasexual".

[kristopin]

labels again

who gives a shit about who likes what label. i dont. you dont like a label cool. if you had been living in my days you would have heard the expression 'just be yourself'. simply be yourself. again we need labels. cant comminicate without them. simply again.

i know nikki that you dont like the word 'transexualist' but there are others that do. they have accepted it as a definition of MY sexuality and understand my point of view and my definition of my self. since they have this label they can understand 'me'. they know i am not a transexual by label definition but they do know that they can trust me to accept them as they are. simple. i was paid a very high compliment a few weeks ago when having coffee with a certian lady and she could not understand how i could just sit there and be totally at ease with my self. after explaining the journey i had taken, and a lot of that was done with your help, they thought i was very brave. now i will take a step here. my preference, if anyone cares is preop. i understand the necessity for some to go postop. i have taked to a few folks about this and i DO get it.

sometimes we have to accept who we are. i am just a broken down old man that has had a heart attack, knows there is another one coming and would like to have some enjoyment in life before the lights go out. i have a tremendous amount of love to give someone. i always wanted to be an artist of some type and live a creative life. fate and timing had another idea. so here i am i have discovered that i really like 'tgirls'. my cup of tea. my flavor of ice cream. i know someone is pissed off at me. i know i want a certain girl and i know another certian girl wants me. very strange.

but you must all count yourselves lucky because you are now living in an era where you CAN change your physical sexuality to match you emotional side. this simply was not an available choice not many years ago.

be cool. be yourself. accept others as they are. enjoy your life.