Anonymous asked: Saying that pansexuality is different from bisexuality because it means you are attracted to trans* individuals is very hurtful, as it implies that trans* men and women are not men and women, but something else entirely.


Answer:

thesmashingofpumpkins:

garbanzoflour:

thesmashingofpumpkins:

garbanzoflour:

first-i-put-in-earplugs:

didgeridooing:

first-i-put-in-earplugs:

didgeridooing:

first-i-put-in-earplugs:

didgeridooing:

first-i-put-in-earplugs:

didgeridooing:

greekgodsforsocialjustice:

I agree anon. That being said, I think there is actually a better distinction between bi and pan people. Its confusing and I used to think it was silly but now I think it makes some sense.

- Panacea

I don’t think it has to do with teams people??? Like, we’re attracted to boys and girls (hence the word “bi”) but not non-binarys.

Uh, no, many of us are attracted to non binary genders as well. Many.

Then you’re not bisexual???? You’re pansexual?????????????????!!!!!!!!!

Sorry friend, I’m still bisexual. The bisexual community uses the definitions “attraction to genders similar to your own and different from your own” or “attraction to 2 or more genders.” And as a non binary person myself, attraction to other non binary folks certainly fits either of those definitions just fine.
As a parting thought, don’t attempt to tell ppl how they should “actually” identify, it’s rude, arrogant, and often (as in this case) ignorant

Okay, thanks for completely ignoring what I said. I’m not going to argue with you, because you’re obviously missing everything I’m saying.

Nope, definitely responded to exactly what you said. You declared that bisexual ppl weren’t attracted to nonbinary ppl. I pointed out that many were. You said that meant I was pansexual. I told you you were wrong and that it was rude to attempt to declare that I didn’t know my own sexuality. You got mad. There’s your instant replay, goodnight

BI. BI=2. 2 GENDERS. BINARY GENDERS. I, A BISEXUAL AND EVERY PERSON I KNOW WHO IDENTIFIES AS BISEXUAL, SAYS THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO THE TWO BINARY GENDERS. “Pansexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by a potential aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for anybody, including people who do not fit into the gender binary of male/female implied by bisexual attraction.”-queerdictionary.tumblr.com

PLEASE. EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE CHOOSING TO DISPLAY YOURSELF UNDER A CERTAIN TITLE. DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Ok, I’m on mobile, so I can’t link things properly right now, but when I get home I’ll link you everything you need to read, ok sugar? Because unlike you, i’ve been researching this crap for almost 2 decades, and by research I do mean more than “I asked a few friends and totally found a tumblr post about it.” So just you wait till I get home, but until then I recommend taking a few calming breathes because now your not just wrong you’re acting like an asshole

my bisexuality cannot be limited to the two binary genders because i cannot know, from looking at a person, what their gender is. if they are binary or non binary. my bisexuality includes non binary and a gender people. 

Pansexuality can be described as gender blindness. Pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gender.
Bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders. Including nonbinary.
These are descriptions can be altered to fit someone’s sexuality if they want it to be can we use labels to fit us not the other way around.

doesn’t it sound a bit weird to describe pansexuality as gender blindness? like i am not objecting to what you said but more that general terminology of “gender blindness”. it sounds a bit like “i don’t see gender” which is a rather absurd notion. 

Gender blindness isn’t the most correct phrasing, it was just a way of describing something more ambiguous

Notes
21
Posted
1 day ago

dracosferret:

Harry Potter + times hogwarts students actually recieved an education

Bonus gif;

(via acreatureofhope)

Notes
8320
Posted
1 day ago
mamalovebone:

"its a metaphor, you see—you put the killing thing right between your teeth, but you dont give it the power to do its killing"

mamalovebone:

"its a metaphor, you see—you put the killing thing right between your teeth, but you dont give it the power to do its killing"

(via thesmashingofpumpkins)

Notes
53297
Posted
1 day ago

leonfucker98:

why do people avoid happy backstories like theyre the fuckin plague jesus christ stop listening to linkin park for a moment and realize you dont need to be miserable to have character development

(Source: bitloins, via thesmashingofpumpkins)

Notes
27346
Posted
1 day ago

frejskamavor:

on a scale of fake pockets to nachos how good is your idea

(Source: sanastark, via pizza)

Notes
446545
Posted
1 day ago

Explaining a Musical Work to Muggles

discorockopera:

image

I can’t explain neoclassicism because you think that all music is classical. Gah.

(via trvlingdreamer)

Notes
149
Posted
1 day ago

tequilatruths:

real talk, young volcanoes is a really nice happy song but “make it easy, say i never mattered” is probably the most heartbreaking lyric from that album and feeling like you identify with it is awful 

(via andrew-scotttt)

Notes
29439
Posted
1 day ago
i-am-yamakyun:

discountbongsanddildos:

girlgrowingsmall:

likeclockworkcircles:

lil-lady-kate:

Amazingly, lots of people still believe that they are ”omnivores”, despite the fact that there are no scientific facts to support these claims, and this wrong classification is based on ”dietary habits” or ”observations” that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, not on anatomical design. Truth is, humans have nothing in common with true meat eaters.”True carnivores (and omnivores) salivate about the idea of eating whole prey animals when they see them. Humans do not. We’re interested in eating the body parts only because they’ve been removed from the original animal and processed, and because we grew up eating them, making it seem perfectly normal. It’s amazing how much of a disconnect we’ve been able to learn about the difference between animals and food. As GoVeg puts it:While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged. Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of raw flesh and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, more proof that we were not designed to eat meat.Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered “no” to all of these questions, congratulations—you’re a normal human herbivore—like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Ok, for one?
Of fucking course we don’t share anything in common with “true meat eaters”. Are you blind? It’s because we’re not meat eaters. We’re fucking OMNIVORES.
Herbivores =/= Omnivores =/= Carnivores.
Each fucking subset has evolved differently from the rest and has evolutionary sets that fit their diet and their diet specifically. So while we don’t resemble “true meat eaters” because we were never Carnivores in the first place, we also don’t resemble “true Herbivores” either because we evolved past that. Want to know what we DO resemble though? OTHER FUCKING OMNIVORES.
Second: Actually, humans never ate raw meat in the first place and anyone who says so is a fucking idiot because archaeology has already disproven this. And if we did, it was for a VERY short period and not long enough to fuck with our evolution.
Fun fucking fact: The introduction of meat to our diet directly corresponds anthropologically with THE INVENTION OF COOKING AND ADDITION OF IT TO OUR LIFESTYLE. Therefore while we evolved to be Omnivores and eat meat as a small part of our diet, we never evolved to eat RAW meat.
Third? Jesus fucking Christ. We are not evolutionarily equipped to go out and catch prey with our bare hands.
Why? Because, again, WE DID NOT EVOLVE TO DO THAT.
So instead of needing to evolve the capability to run at fast speeds, long claws capable of rending flesh, and have a mouth full of 20 something sharp as fuck teeth? We developed tools. We developed cooking. We developed group hunting techniques. And since we’re still. Fucking. Here today instead of dying out like evolutionary failures are prone to doing? I’d say its worked out for us in the end pretty fucking well in the end so far.
We have a much higher brain capacity. We don’t NEED to and never did because we are more intelligent, have opposable thumbs and were capable of developing things to aid us before these things were evolutionarily required of us. We were, literally, never meant to or were in an evolutionary position that required us to catch our living prey like Carnivores did.
HUMANS HAVE BASICALLY BEEN ONE LONG STRAIN OF “FUCK EVOLUTION”.
Lastly I just want to touch on this ridiculous thing someone wrote on this post at some point: “Obv. I never said they didn’t. They even evolved to consume milk, well most have. But that doesn’t mean it was physically intended for our bodies originally. That’s the point of this whole post. Not what we’ve “evolved” to do but what our bodies and minds are hard wired for FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO NOW. And it’s mostly about the mental state it would take that 90% of people don’t have”.
Like… Are you kidding? Please tell me you are fucking kidding. Do you know how evolution works in terms of diet? Food source becomes scarce while another becomes plentiful, species adapts to eat said food source… Or it dies. What we were not originally designer to eat CHANGES as new food sources evolve, and as we are required to adapt and evolve. The more food you adapt and evolve to eat, the more likely your species is to continue surviving as food sources come in and out of availability.
Literally. Diet depends on fucking evolution and evolution is widely dependent on diet in some circumstances. You cannot fucking remove them and separate them and pretend one isn’t necessary to have this fucking discussion. You cannot take a fucking issue about diet, claim we’re something we’re not, and completely erase the evolutionary portion of the fucking argument because IT IS A REQUIRED PORTION.
YOU ARE LITERALLY ATTEMPTING TO ERASE CONTEXT FROM A SITUATION THAT 100% REQUIRES. THE FUCKING. CONTEXT. OF EVOLUTION.
DO YOU FUCKERS EVEN KNOW HOW TO FUCKING SCIENCE?!
Yes, there very much is plenty of scientific evidence that Omnivore is a classification of diet. So is Fruitivore, Insectivore, Carnivore, Herbavore, and several other classifications.
The Omnivore dietary classification is seriously defined as an animal whose diet and lifestyle relies on obtaining protein and energy from both plant and animal sources- which may also include animal byproducts such as eggs and dairy, or things like insects, fungi and algae.
New flash: Humans are not the only fucking Omnivores and the classification is not based solely on the dietary needs of HUMANS, but the observation of SEVERAL OTHER ANIMALS.
Corvids are Omnivores.
Bears (save for a few species) are Omnivores.
Pigs are fucking Omnivores.
Badgers are Omnivores.
Foxes (some species) are Omnivores.
Chickens are fucking Omnivoers.
Here’s a nice fucking worksheet for you, and another one, and oh LOOK ANOTHER ONE.
Your science is fucking bunk.
Get the fuck out.

I totally thought this post was about how silly “raw diets” are. Then I was pissed off at the anti-meat bullshit. But then the reply to that crap… the science… the facts… it’s so beautiful.


Also, just because animals are too stupid to cook and season their food does not mean they are better than us. If lions could grill and slather a wildebeest in A1 sauce you know they would fucking do it.

^reblogging for that last comment and bill nye

i-am-yamakyun:

discountbongsanddildos:

girlgrowingsmall:

likeclockworkcircles:

lil-lady-kate:

Amazingly, lots of people still believe that they are ”omnivores”, despite the fact that there are no scientific facts to support these claims, and this wrong classification is based on ”dietary habits” or ”observations” that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, not on anatomical design. Truth is, humans have nothing in common with true meat eaters.

”True carnivores (and omnivores) salivate about the idea of eating whole prey animals when they see them. Humans do not. We’re interested in eating the body parts only because they’ve been removed from the original animal and processed, and because we grew up eating them, making it seem perfectly normal. It’s amazing how much of a disconnect we’ve been able to learn about the difference between animals and food. As GoVeg puts it:

While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged. Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of raw flesh and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, more proof that we were not designed to eat meat.

Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered “no” to all of these questions, congratulations—you’re a normal human herbivore—like it or not. Humans were simply not designed to eat meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Ok, for one?

Of fucking course we don’t share anything in common with “true meat eaters”. Are you blind? It’s because we’re not meat eaters. We’re fucking OMNIVORES.

Herbivores =/= Omnivores =/= Carnivores.

Each fucking subset has evolved differently from the rest and has evolutionary sets that fit their diet and their diet specifically. So while we don’t resemble “true meat eaters” because we were never Carnivores in the first place, we also don’t resemble “true Herbivores” either because we evolved past that. Want to know what we DO resemble though? OTHER FUCKING OMNIVORES.

Second: Actually, humans never ate raw meat in the first place and anyone who says so is a fucking idiot because archaeology has already disproven this. And if we did, it was for a VERY short period and not long enough to fuck with our evolution.

Fun fucking fact: The introduction of meat to our diet directly corresponds anthropologically with THE INVENTION OF COOKING AND ADDITION OF IT TO OUR LIFESTYLE. Therefore while we evolved to be Omnivores and eat meat as a small part of our diet, we never evolved to eat RAW meat.

Third? Jesus fucking Christ. We are not evolutionarily equipped to go out and catch prey with our bare hands.

Why? Because, again, WE DID NOT EVOLVE TO DO THAT.

So instead of needing to evolve the capability to run at fast speeds, long claws capable of rending flesh, and have a mouth full of 20 something sharp as fuck teeth? We developed tools. We developed cooking. We developed group hunting techniques. And since we’re still. Fucking. Here today instead of dying out like evolutionary failures are prone to doing? I’d say its worked out for us in the end pretty fucking well in the end so far.

We have a much higher brain capacity. We don’t NEED to and never did because we are more intelligent, have opposable thumbs and were capable of developing things to aid us before these things were evolutionarily required of us. We were, literally, never meant to or were in an evolutionary position that required us to catch our living prey like Carnivores did.

HUMANS HAVE BASICALLY BEEN ONE LONG STRAIN OF “FUCK EVOLUTION”.

Lastly I just want to touch on this ridiculous thing someone wrote on this post at some point: Obv. I never said they didn’t. They even evolved to consume milk, well most have. But that doesn’t mean it was physically intended for our bodies originally. That’s the point of this whole post. Not what we’ve “evolved” to do but what our bodies and minds are hard wired for FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO NOW. And it’s mostly about the mental state it would take that 90% of people don’t have”.

Like… Are you kidding? Please tell me you are fucking kidding. Do you know how evolution works in terms of diet? Food source becomes scarce while another becomes plentiful, species adapts to eat said food source… Or it dies. What we were not originally designer to eat CHANGES as new food sources evolve, and as we are required to adapt and evolve. The more food you adapt and evolve to eat, the more likely your species is to continue surviving as food sources come in and out of availability.

Literally. Diet depends on fucking evolution and evolution is widely dependent on diet in some circumstances. You cannot fucking remove them and separate them and pretend one isn’t necessary to have this fucking discussion. You cannot take a fucking issue about diet, claim we’re something we’re not, and completely erase the evolutionary portion of the fucking argument because IT IS A REQUIRED PORTION.

YOU ARE LITERALLY ATTEMPTING TO ERASE CONTEXT FROM A SITUATION THAT 100% REQUIRES. THE FUCKING. CONTEXT. OF EVOLUTION.

DO YOU FUCKERS EVEN KNOW HOW TO FUCKING SCIENCE?!

Yes, there very much is plenty of scientific evidence that Omnivore is a classification of diet. So is Fruitivore, Insectivore, Carnivore, Herbavore, and several other classifications.

The Omnivore dietary classification is seriously defined as an animal whose diet and lifestyle relies on obtaining protein and energy from both plant and animal sources- which may also include animal byproducts such as eggs and dairy, or things like insects, fungi and algae.

New flash: Humans are not the only fucking Omnivores and the classification is not based solely on the dietary needs of HUMANS, but the observation of SEVERAL OTHER ANIMALS.

  • Corvids are Omnivores.
  • Bears (save for a few species) are Omnivores.
  • Pigs are fucking Omnivores.
  • Badgers are Omnivores.
  • Foxes (some species) are Omnivores.
  • Chickens are fucking Omnivoers.

Here’s a nice fucking worksheet for youand another one, and oh LOOK ANOTHER ONE.

Your science is fucking bunk.

Get the fuck out.

I totally thought this post was about how silly “raw diets” are. Then I was pissed off at the anti-meat bullshit. But then the reply to that crap… the science… the facts… it’s so beautiful.

image

Also, just because animals are too stupid to cook and season their food does not mean they are better than us.

If lions could grill and slather a wildebeest in A1 sauce you know they would fucking do it.

^reblogging for that last comment and bill nye

(via andrew-scotttt)

Notes
35538
Posted
1 day ago
TotallyLayouts has Tumblr Themes, Twitter Backgrounds, Facebook Covers, Tumblr Music Player and Tumblr Follower Counter