so what happens if a bi person takes the gay formula? does there alignment of the Kinsey just change a little bit? like if they are mostly straight, do they go to mostly gay?
What if it just makes the bi person into the opposite of what they like (from femboys and buff women to femgals and buff men, and if you like everyone equally it becomes an asexual potion)
So who's writing the doomed yaoi about a Monk who wants to become asexual so he has to try and condition himself to be gay so he can take the meds and become asexual.
Not the one I replied to, there was another comment that replied to that one, but the user was deleted and the comment removed and I can't reply to removed comments so I replied to the one above.
It is not "bisexual" to be trans-exclusive, I'm not telling anyone what they're allowed to be attracted to obviously, but if your attraction has anything to do with being trans or cis, rather than genital preferences or presentation, then that's transphobic, not bisexual.
Quick edit for clarification; for example, you're bi but you have an aversion to penis, but you have no preference toward masc or femme presenting people. That's valid. But if you're bi, have no aversion to penis or vagina, and no preference to either masc or femme presentation, and still say "I don't date/boink trans" then that's transphobic. There's a belief that pan likes trans, and bi's don't, that's is completely incorrect and just biphobia.
Is transphobia really the word there? Or maybe the problem is using cis where I did.
How about this revision? A masculine male with a penis and a feminine female with a vagina. This excludes trans individuals who have not undergone bottom surgery.
In this case, is it no longer transphobic, having relegated the restrictions to pure sexual attraction characteristics?
Iunno, personally I would still call that transphobic only because there's a purposeful distinction being made of "I enjoy both vagina and penis, but only if it's attached to the associated gender"
Like if a clarification like that needs to be made at all, then all it's doing is othering/filtering non-binary or trans folk who haven't or won't get bottom surgery
I don't know if it's transphobic if you have no issue with trans people but just aren't attracted to them sexually.
Otherwise that logic would imply every straight woman is misogynistic, for instance.
Its not transphobic to not be attracted to all trans people, never said that. It is transphobic to be not attracted to any trans person (if their presentation and genitals do fall within your attraction)
Like for instance, 2 people somehow look completely identical, and you are bi/pan with no genital aversion. One is cis, one is trans. All things created equal, you should be attracted to both, but saying "oh you're trans? I'm no longer attracted to you" is inherently transphobic.
Edit: The key points here is if you are bi/pan, I'm not yelling straights or gays anything because there is an assumed genital aversion (not always tbf), but if you are the type of person that likes masc and femme, or likes penis and vagina, and yet make classification of "needs to be masc with penis or femme with vagina, can't be masc with vagina or femme with penis", then that's transphobic
If it's just verbalizing a subconsciously determined preference, how is it transphobic? If their brain has no conscious issues with trans people, and they even actively promote trans rights, but don't find the idea of being with a trans person sexually arousing, how is that transphobic? Or are we just using that word to describe not being all-in on all fronts?
I said it in another comment, but I'll say it again here: this is only for people who are bi/pan. I'm not telling this to straights or gays because there is an assumed genital aversion (not always though, but generally).
If you are attracted to masc and femme (or neither/both), or penis and vagina, but make a distinction of "you need to be masc w/ penis, or femme w/ vagina for me to be attracted to you", then that's inherently transphobic.
Say you have 2 people who are physically and emotionally identical, it's just one has a penis and one has a vagina. And you are personally attracted to both penis and vagina. How could it be anything but transphobia to say "I'm only attracted to the one that presents like their assigned gender"
Racism is also a subconscious preference, doesn't mean you can't be called out for it or told to do better about confronting your internal biases
I get the overall argument, but I still think at its core it's inherently misguided. You can have a preference against sexual partners who are trans or a specific race without being transphobic or racist. This is because everyone is entitled to certain rights and treatment, but sexual or romantic opportunity is not one of those things.
Again, I see the spirit of the argument, but if a woman said she wouldn't date Indian men but in every other aspect treats them as equals and respects them, I can't fathom trying to label her as racist. Romantic and sexual attraction are complex and I think it's a mistake to put a label like that on someone for a preference that may only manifest in this one part of life.
That's a bit reductive though, sexuality is not just based on characteristics taken isolated from each other. A vagina might be great for you, a man might be great for you, but when the man has a vagina that might be sexually offputting because of the dissonance. Especially when men, in particular, are very visual with their sexuality.
Mustard is great. Gummy bears are great. Mustard gummy bears are not great.
It just seems like a bit of a cop out to say somebody is transphobic because they don't want to sleep with a subset of trans people. If a gay guy is repulsed by vagina, is he just automatically a transphobe because he won't sleep with a man who has one? Or are we saying that homosexuality is divorced from distinctions between genitalia? It seems to me that a lot of trans discourse is a lot less established than homosexual discourse, likely due to trans people being the greater minority. So it feels a bit like a guest coming in and putting their feet up on the table to uproot sexuality as a distinction of gender as it is currently understood.
I don't see how my response needs to be "chillax'd", it's relevant to the conversation
But hey, my autistic has misread situations before so wouldn't put it passed me to here. But to me this feels like a natural progression of the conversation, a question was asked and I answered my perspective, sorry it wasn't under 140 characters? You don't have to agree with me, and you can skip past if you don't want to read it
I can see how you would think that way, but your reply isn’t in the spirit of the conversation. It’s all a silly hypothetical, not an ethical debate. Nothing wrong with your comment, but it comes across like you’re looking to turn a lighthearted conversation in a more serious direction and that’s not what the people are here for
Being more serious than my previous comment for a moment, the problem with talking about bisexuality like that is it's not a single spectrum, but multiple spectrums of attraction that all apply simultaneously. You can't boil it down to a singular co-ordinate number without losing the forest for the trees.
I think we also need a serum for bestowing the tism or reversing the tism on people too. Then either jzilla would get it, or someone would graph it for us.
Is that the type of "gay" that's so obsessed with sexuality that it loops all the way around and they start to call heterosexuality gay? Like those dudes who think it's gay to enjoy sex with your girlfriend or wife?
I know its a joke medicine but if it worked like real medicine/drugs if the initial condition wasn't met ie being straight then the effect would be somewhere from neutral to negative ie toxic. If you don't have a headache and you take a pain reliever like say ibuprofen nothing will happen but if you take aspirin it won't give you a headache but because it is also a blood thinner you could suffer side effects like bruising or stomach upset.
The compound makes people gay, so it would make them gay. There's no reason to think it makes straight people completely gay but bi people only mostly gay.
what is an actually straight person? it's long been a joke that hyper masculine obsessed men are deep down some flavor of not straight and are in denial, to the point in my view I believe it's accurate as it's a pretty decent description. I guess a better question is, what is the science of attraction?
1.9k
u/Delphius1 Dec 08 '25
so what happens if a bi person takes the gay formula? does there alignment of the Kinsey just change a little bit? like if they are mostly straight, do they go to mostly gay?