#i think people are used to the '[prefix]sexual' meaning sexuality but that isn't inherently the case with transsexual

[uncanny-tranny]

Is transsexual like, being trans or only being attracted to trans people. Also if it’s the latter woould it be considered fetishization? I’ve heard so manny things I figured is probably just best to ask the transsexual themselves

I suppose some people might use "transsexual" as a sexuality, though many people would recognize that as t4t, or trans4trans if the person in question is trans themself.

Usually, when people talk about transsexuals, they mean people who are transitioning or have transitioned. Historically, the transition was medical - hormones, surgery, and the like, though in modern times, I've seen transsexual used more and more by a variety of people.

Though it isn't inherently fetishization to be into transsexuals, I think it becomes so when you do not see us as equal beings with intrinsic value. I don't think being "into" us is the bad part, but the way you treat us is often what would indicate if fetishizing is occurring.

[dimonds456]

Aight, what you see above is an article that's getting passed around by proshippers. I'm making my own post separate from theirs to discuss the contents of this article and why I believe everyone *should* read it, while also I don't believe the article is correct.

The article was written by a Japanese artist who had been harassed for "proshipping" online, even though they themself did not partake in anything more than aging up 15-year-old characters to 19. As far as they claim, that was it (though the artwork itself is not provided).

Someone had DMed them, asking if they were a proshipper, or a "problematic shipper", to which they shrugged and went "I guess so?" and then that person-referred to as A- started spreading it to all their friends that A was a proshipper and to avoid them, leading to soft blocks, harassment, ect.

Something I'd like to point out that is correct about this article is the meaning of "proshipper." It doesn't mean "problematic ships." Instead, "pro" is the prefix, not an abbreviation. The meaning is in reference to someone who is unbothered by any specific type of ship, and/or supports the creation of problematic ships. This difference is, I feel, important, not because the definition is changed, but because how people view that definition changes substantially.

Keep that in mind.

Something else of note here is the cultural difference. The artist is from Japan, and according to them, Japan allows ships of any kind. Japan, as a country, is proship, which creates vast and varied artistic expressions. Any and everything is allowed.

And, according to worldpopulationreview.com, the age of consent in Japan is 13 (though articles are saying they're rethinking this law).

Again, I recommend reading the article for yourself to fully understand the artist's point of view, but I'd like to break down where the author was wrong about many things. A lot of them stem from cultural differences and are normalized, so you can't really blame them, but it's good to keep in mind when interacting with proshippers from all over the world.

Something they're right about is harassment. I don't think people should be being harassed for stuff like this. Blocked? Yes.

The first thing they got wrong was the general assumption that fiction doesn't affect reality, or that antis cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality. This (at least for a lot of us) isn't true. Using myself as an example, it's clear to me that fiction and reality are two different worlds.

However, to say that fiction doesn't affect reality is false. Both worlds influence each other. If an adult starts dating a 13-year-old in fiction, younger audience members who watch that will see that relationship play out. Depending on how it's portrayed, this can either help or harm that audience member. If this relationship is deemed bad in that piece of media, then the younger members of that audience will remember that, vs if they say it's okay, THAT'S where you've crossed into proship territory that is actively harmful towards your audience.

I am a firm believer that anything should be allowed in fiction, as long as the author is respectful, responsible, and considers the ramifications of their work towards a real audience. So like, having a relationship between a 19-year-old and a 13-year-old should be allowed to be portrayed, as long as it isn't positive. By not allowing these stories to be told at all, that's leaning into some book burning shit.

What the author did, aging up 15-year-olds to 19, is not inherently bad, especially since they say it wasn't sexual in nature (but again, the art itself is never presented).

The second thing they get wrong is calling us a minority. I don't believe there were any studies done on this, but I don't think the majority of Americans go around talking about shipping children with adults? Again, it's a cultural difference that was influenced on this specific artist BY other proshippers. It's a biased view from both sides. I do not believe any studies have officially been done on this subject, so you cannot call us a minority. But, we can't call you a minority, either. I'm not sure how many there are on either side.

But also, I don't think that really matters. Continuing my topic from before with fiction affecting reality, if someone in that audience can get hurt because of your story, then it doesn't matter if the majority don't. It's still harmful and can affect reality- THIS reality- in negative ways. By drawing proship art and saying it doesn't matter because it's fiction, you're helping to normalize this art for ACTUAL predators. It doesn't matter how many proshippers there are, this is STILL harmful.

Something else I noticed, but I cannot point specifically to this article as evidence for, but it may be influencing the author, is the idea of in-fandom vs outside-fandom. The author mentions this a couple times, though usually in reference to the cultural differences between Japan and America.

The author is outside the US fandom, and so doesn't fully understand its inner workings or why so many of us are anti-proship "purest"s. I don't know how else to explain this besides going up to your grandparents and asking them if they think proshipping is okay.

Upon hearing the actual definition- being unbothered or perpetuating any type of relationship between two or more characters in fiction- they might go "yeah I agree with that," because that does sound nice on paper. Freedom of expression.

But what antis have come to realize is that fiction DOES affect reality, and if you were to ask your grandparents if they thing a child should be in a relationship with an adult, they'd probably go "no."

This is purely because they don't understand the culture of being online, and the several, several subcultures that came to be. We know what proshippers are and what they represent, but someone outside fandom space wouldn't.

And now, to any proshippers reading this: first of all, thank you for hearing me out, lol. But then, I ask you to please re-evaluate why you're a proshipper. Is it for the freedom of expression idea, do you just not give a shit, or do you genuinely enjoy seeing kids and adults together? Maybe something else? I'm not going to tell you how to feel about that- you can come to your own conclusion- but I do ask that you re-examine that idea.

If the author is SOMEHOW reading this, first of all, thank you too. My goal here was not to harass you in any way, but to point out the core of why this article doesn't really work. I'm sure in Japan things are vastly different, and that's not your fault, OP. And although I don't stand by what A did to you, I do ask that you think again. Stuff like this does affect reality, even in small ways (but when it comes to p*dos, it can be FAR more harmful than good).

Proshippers help normalize unhealthy behaviors that can seriously hurt children for the rest of their lives. Do proships exist in reality? ...Yes. Not between fictional characters, but those characters can influence people in real life to go "oh yeah the incest ship was okay in this anime, which means it's fine if I'm like that, too." It's not fine. It's not okay.

Again, I'm not here to harass you, and ultimately it's up to you whether you choose to listen. I'm sorry for the harassment at all, that should not have occurred.

Back to my general audience, though, yeah. Again, read the article for yourself (which I do still highly recommend). It gives a good glimpse into the minds and ideas of some proshippers out there. I don't think OP is a bad person, just misinformed. And I believe the same of a lot of proshippers out there. We can't change their minds, but we can make sure misinfo like what is in the article is debunked, and spread correct information regarding the subject.

Some sources:

Again, read the article, do some thinking (on BOTH sides), and have a good one, guys.

[hobbitsetal]

Hi- so I was wondering... I've usually seen asexuality (and related terms) used in association with LGTBQ+, but I've also seen Christian blogs such as yourself talk about asexuality positively. Should there be a distinction between asexuality and other LGBTQ+ terms- is one Biblically okay and the rest declared sinful in Scripture? I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just a little bit confused and hoping you can shed a little light on the topic for me? Thank you!

Hey love! So let me begin by talking about asexuality itself--both word and concept--and then move to what seems the bigger question you're asking--are LGBTQ+ terms inherently sinful?

I've heard of people who say that calling oneself asexual (ace for short) is wrong because you're labeling yourself. Similarly, people would say that describing oneself as queer is wrong.

Asexuality is lack of sexual attraction. It's derived from the Greek, the prefix a- meaning not. Consider similar terms like apolitical (meaning, having no political affiliation). Is it a sin not to desire sex? No. One could conjecture that the apostle Paul was ace, going by his words in 1 Corinthians 7. The larger context is his instructions regarding sexual relations within marriage, but verses 6-9 read thus:

"I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Are we hypothesizing to call Paul ace? Yes. But it seems a pretty good guess to me.

Let's talk about the word "queer." That one, even more than asexuality, is associated with LGBTQ+, but I have beloved Christian friends who use the word to describe themselves. Why?

Simply put, "queer" means "not straight." If one is not attracted to the opposite sex--i.e., straight attraction--then one is queer. Therefore, to be ace is to be queer. You may or may not be comfortable with that term. That's perfectly fine and entirely up to you. I've read posts written by LGBTQ+ folk debating whether they're comfortable with the word. My larger point is more to say I don't think ace or queer is inherently wrong to say/use to describe oneself.

And that was your larger question: can Christians use LGBTQ+ terms and remain Biblically faithful? My answer (and I could be wrong on this) is yes. For one thing, the Bible wasn't written in English. The terms we've picked up from the Bible aren't fully accurate to the Bible; our understandings of the Bible are of necessity filtered through our culture and our own language.

Terms like asexual and queer convey a world of meaning very quickly. I see no reason to come up with euphemisms or alternative phrases when the word that describes the topic is right there. Asexual. Not sexually interested. Queer. Not straight. Labeling oneself is how people understand each other. I would label myself Christian, female, heterosexual, writer. My friends might call themselves Christian, asexual, and whatever other terms would best explain them to other people. To describe oneself is not sinful.

Now, you didn't ask about whether asexuality itself is a positive thing, but I'm going to touch on this because I know it's a debated topic within some Christian circles and I want to be very clear. There is no moral weight attached to your attractions. There is considerable moral weight attached to your actions.

Sin is less about how you are as a person and what you are inclined toward, and far more about how you choose to act and what you choose to focus on. Having a desire isn't wrong. Giving in to wrong desires and being dominated by wrong desires is.

[zunnyzee]

Definitely a good point, not only do the micro labels help 'baby gays' and all that, they're often the ones coining new terms so it's typically something introduced by the same people it can potentially do the most damage to. To me, all labels, for anything, is just to give you an idea about something, but if it's a little off, unless it's like a factory label or something, it's to be expected. For this desire, I would think the solution would be to drop labels altogether, personally. Maybe a word separating the sexualities/romanticalities from the trans identities, since gender and sexuality are not inherently connected, we just happened to fuck up and combine them into one issue. There's a big difference from being gay in any capacity to being trans in any capacity, honestly, and while we are discriminated the same, we often do fight different battles, and we should be able to recognize our differences no matter how much they tend to overlap. But that's another story not worth getting into at the moment. The biggest thing is how can we be our own allies, and for me, the answer lies in how we identify ourselves. Now, our community loves a good sexy prefix, saying that they're omni and pan and everything just to represent a sense of "all", but it definitely has had an effect on the bi community, first of all, we influence each other with our words, because since there's more than 2 ways to have a gender, it makes it seem that being bi is an exclusive term, and so we've only created a further divide by creating labels that are so very rooted in their literal meanings. Our terms are very literal, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for people kind of neither here nor there, believe it or not. But again, a lot of these terms are created by the younger generation. We lost so many of our older queers to the AIDS crisis and many other events where the government and society has aided in our suffering, we are trying to get back up, but we are stumbling. We agree over the main idea about this, but how we'd go about bettering our community would probably go in different directions. I think the purpose of a label (I started this line of thought then went somewhere else earlier lol) is to be able to succinctly be able to give an idea of yourself. There's a reason that we don't have labels for every aspect of our lives, what do you call someone who's favorite color is purple? A person. Green? A person. Red? A freak, no a person. My favorite color actually means a lot to me as to how I wish to be perceived, so if I wanted someone to know my favorite color, I would just tell them, I wouldn't make a label out of it. Knowing my favorite color is royal/ deep purple is only something you'd need to know if you knew me well enough, then you'd know something about me enough to think of me when you see it or this and that, but knowing my identity? I want to scream it to the world because I'm so proud of myself and my journey but it's only ever really going to be relevant to my partner(s), friends, and family. If my favorite kind of person was really girly girls, I could just...say that, I don't need a label that isn't common knowledge to be 100% right to tell people that. Being a boy and a girl and straight is a label you're given, and you want to break free, fine. We all do, that's why we're here. You have your community already, and you are excluding yourself if you don't find your super specific flag everywhere, you're going to isolate yourself and others, and you're not going to like it. In my perfect world, there's maybe one or two labels saying queer or trans or something along those lines and every nuance under the sun can actually stand together, but that's hell for some of us too, so I don't know what a middle ground is. My gender fluctuates over time, sometimes a boy, sometimes a girl, sometimes both, sometimes neither, and it's not always 100% in one of these categories (demi-type), but if I want someone to actually understand me, that's what I would say, if I wanted to. Queer works just fine, people don't need to know my business,

my identity is not entertainment, it's just who I am and if all you need to know is I'm queer, that's all you're gonna get. Plus, no one's going to question your looks if everyone is just queer because, you could literally be anything. Literally. Oh your femme/masc/andro presenting? and queer? that checks out, no reason to harass you and try to force you into gender norms. Anyways that concludes my little rant, I suppose. I realized just now I'm a bit of a label abolisher, so that's nice to know. But yeah, micro labels either die out haphazardly with time or become their own macro label, from what I've seen. I think we can fix this and make the community more united, but I also think we need to have certain standards, not to keep the 'basically cis/het' out, but to make sure we are letting ourselves in.

This pride, I've been thingking about a few things that, well, are kind of fucked up.

Like, we as a community were so ready to label ourselves we've got hundreds of identities, and it kind of makes the community harder to navigate for those who are questioning imo (in my opinion). There's even a flag for questioning, like, we're all queer, but we've sectioned ourselves off in such a way it makes me feel uneasy. Our labels are so specific, and I feel like it has impacted those who are clearly part of the community, but question it because they need to feel like the label is just right. Then again, I understand the joy of finding the right way to express yourself through your label, it's something we all share as people, but look at what enviornment it's created at the same time. Bisexuals saying pans are inheritably biphobic, pan folk saying to be bi is to be enby, or trans, phobic, you've got people saying that men can't call themselves lesbians and people saying that you can't be both bi and gay, and then you hear how bi people fight to not be seen as 'basically gay or straight' but actually bi' and then you see all the transmascs that still have a sort of connection to their agab, and we've brewed so much hate within ourselves and we're excluding ourselves and we're invalidating ourselves. We are a diverse community, and with that comes many different beliefs about the way our community actually is. I can see how someone can be insulted about how someone else interprets gender and sexuality, I can. We have people in the community who's identity means everything to them because finding out that they were queer changed their life for the better and they felt like a real person for the first time and their eyes were opened and they were free, and then other people use those same labels as if it were a choice, an aesthetic, and it can come off as almost disrespectful in a way. It'd be like if someone were cis amab and they just go 'you know, I feel so much like a boy that I'm going to id as a transman, going from man to even more of a man because I feel so comfortable in my agab and it feels right' like you could see how a trans-trans man (afab) would feel invalidated, right? There's the whole thing about diversity and not everyone is going to be the same, but we made labels mean something, we took the slurs that the cishet used for us and said that we would actually define ourselves, but a label means nothing because we don't really use it like a label anymore. People are getting away with thinking aces/aros aren't part of the community because we've made our labels exclusive somehow. We've got he/him lesbian controversy, which I am shocked to see from the one group that wasn't supposed to discriminate based on gender identity. We're no better than the cishets sometimes, being completely honest. Some gays think dating someone trans automatically makes you bi, gay, or straight, completely ignoring their identity. And to be fair, all these people are vastly small compared to the overall supporting group, but they add up, they really do. Don't even get me started on sexist queers. We made our own definitions, then we made them so specific that we can't even support some of our peers cuz we don't know what the fuck their flag means. And don't say we support everyone, it doesn't matter because you know people are always inventing ways to ruin this shit, like pedos/maps beastiality, and fucking cops (copgender exists). We're not even ready to talk about Mogai, I swear to you we are not the all accepting group you think we should be, and we don't have to be. As a community, we don't agree on what it means to be in the community, some of us don't accept queer as a label despite its current popularity, we are kind of fucked up and we have to admit that. I think that we are creating way more labels than we need, and we are separating ourselves and we are hurting each other. Some people think 'if you identify as y you have to be z' and that gets some people so mad, but at the same time, think about it, without some unity within smaller communities, what does their label even mean? We are not respecting each others

spaces, and I think it's because we over label. But what can we do now? Take those labels away? Tell them they can't id as queer because they're doing it wrong? We don't have the guts, or the general understanding of definitions to do that. We're just supposed to be 100 percent accepting of everyone, and it just makes me feel weird to think about this because I get that some people have a weird relationship with their queerness, but we also act as if we need to constantly define it. And then we go and define it, and then people redefine it like 4 times over because it's not good enough, which is, there is supposed to be some diversity in every group, every label, for anything involving people, but too much and too little are problems in their own right. Micro micro micro labels make people divided and feel like they are different from the others when they could have been a more united group, and not enough micro labels means that people feel like they are conforming to one group and don't feel the unity because of the overwhelming differences. I don't think we're balanced is all I'm really trying to say out of this, I don't like our community as is, it's confusing, it's harmful, and it's divided, and I don't have a solution, which makes me even sadder. A lot of our issues within the community is thinking we're different from each other, from my experience. I've been nb since I was probably at least 6, and I came out as bi only 4 years ago, I'm only 18 but I've been here a little while, I've gone through many phases and stages, and some things were just so unnecessary. Too many times I doubted myself because I saw someone else expressing my identity in a way I couldn't relate to at all, made myself question if I was just cis and faking, and it really could have been avoided, I could have had more confidence if my community just had my back. But it doesn't. And so I have to be queer on my own, I have to keep myself to myself because I can't exist in my own community without my identity being questioned by others. We are not the all accepting group we want to be, but we could be if we agreed on literally anything. But we can't cuz we're too busy accepting every idea of queerness, regardless of anything. Anyways, this is just what I was thingking, I probably didn't word everything exactly as I worded it but I just had to get it out my mind and I'm too lazy too proofread, and plus proofreading might cause me to sugarcoat this even further so. This is my stop, I guess.

[tyrantosaurus]

Okay here's the thing. As someone who has identified as Pan and as NB I will point out one problem to you. That BI-sexual does not account for people outside of the gender BI-nary. Literally has the same prefix, and it means two. I have seen people in more recent times use it to mean two- other than male and female, and I know people who use it because they think of it as encompassing all which is fine if it works for them.

And let's face it, a lot of biphobic shit gets pushed on pan too. Same "you're just undecided" "you're more likely to cheat" bull.

I can't tell you for certain that there is no biphobia or transphobia amongst the pan identifying individuals. What I can tell you is that your assertion that Its inherently biphobic to use the word Pan when Bi does the same job- is wrong. Bi is two. Speaking personally, I kind of expect that someone who is traditionally bi- attracted to both men and women- would be capable of being attracted to a man or woman who had been born in the wrong body. After all, they've already proved they are attracted to those parts.

But again Bi is two. Generally those two are male and female. So where the hell do I, as someone who identifies as agender, fit into your TWO categories?

It's fine if Bisexual sounds better to you. It's fine if you don't want to explain a word every time someone asks your sexuality. It's totally chill if in your mind, Bisexual is the same as Pansexual.

But just by breaking the word down, I can tell you that the word Bisexual was not devised by someone accommodating for the possibility of a third gender. Let alone more than that.

So basically what this all amounts to?

Ie TLDR

By basic definition, Bisexual does not say that they will be attracted to non-binary too. That is the literal difference between Pan and Bi. The trans thing isn't the difference. But if you take your angry little. "We're more progressive than Bi- yadda yadda" and cut it to "We'll fuck Trans/NB people too" and then cut out the trans part-

To make "We'll fuck NB people too" That is LITERALLY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TERMS. You can't get angry for them saying that. If you want to say you are bisexual but would fuck NB people, you're either diminishing them to their basic parts and saying that you are capable of attraction to them- or you have to add an addendum to say "I am attracted to men and women. And also I would fuck NB people." Because the word does not account for them.

And honestly? It's kind of offensive that you are suggesting that Bisexual automatically includes NB. Because it's a label, so I don't care if you don't use the dictionary definition- but if you are using that, then you are ignoring the fact that Non-binary people LITERALLY ARE NOT PART OF THE BASIC BISEXUAL ATTRACTION.

So people not parts? Not the most inaccurate thing. Bisexual- You are capable of attraction to people who have male or female genitalia. Pansexual, you are capable of attraction to people regardless of how they identify. To make both words cover the same groups, you make it so one definition is based on parts, and one is based on people.

It’s fine to identify as pansexual if that is what you’re most comfortable with, and there’s nothing inherently bad about it, but it’s pretty hard to deny that “pansexual” getting big as a term has a really fucked up biphobic and transphobic background, considering that it basically got popularized on the internet as “we’re more progressive than bi people because we actually loooove people for who they are, not just their genitals, also we’ll fuck trans/NB people too,” and it really, really shows in a lot of discourse and slogans from pan bloggers, and the mogai crowd. I’m not surprised at all people have finally lost patience with this shit