#obligatory disclaimer: i naturally speak in a direct sort of deadpan ? manner that tends to be read as aggressive or mad | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

posi-pan · 2 years

Note

i doooooont get how hearts not parts is problematic, i just explained it in my post not in the ask because it's lengthy, please if you could explain it to me, i want to understand. ill tag you so it's easier to find

okay so i've explained this a bunch of times and i'm not sure how else i could explain it if the post of mine that you linked in your post didn't help, but i guess i'll try.

"its not dismissive toward gender? it says nothing about gender at all"

the dismissive attitude about gender referred to "genderblind", not "hearts not parts", as my post was about both terms.

"conflating gender and sex? again it says nothing about gender. maybe because its about sexualities it does imply something about gender, but it's dismissing the physical parts not your gender?"

the phrase is saying those who use it care about a person's heart, not their genitals, the implication being the typical type of attraction is based on genitals. attraction has come to be defined in terms of gender, not sex. hence this phrase conflating the two. (again, dismissing gender was not about this phrase.)

"'an implication that non-pan people only care about genitals' emmm, does "love between men is pure" imply that all other love is impure?"

as i explained, the implication is there in the phrase setting itself apart from everyone else through the idea that the standard type of attraction is caring only or mostly about "parts". because if that wasn't the idea the phrase is built on, there wouldn't be a need to declare that your attraction isn't like that.

"'an erasure/invalidation of aromantic people' same as the previous point, the fact that we are talking about romantic love atm, don't mean we invalidate aromantic people."

a phrase that prioritizes hearts (or romantic attraction/love) over parts (or sexual attraction/sex) can be alienating to aromantic folks who are already vilified and alienated because of how they experience attraction.

"'misrepresentation of what it means to be pan in general' what does it mean? pan x-attraction to any of the genders. what is it misrepresenting? all (ignoring the people who don't consider trans or intersex people people) sexualities are attracted to the heart (soul, being, person including their gender/lack there of) not their private parts, so if anything it could be any orientations slogan, but doesn't really sound right for one gender attracted people, that i admit. idk why. prolly bc it's been associated with bi pan omni ppl. idk."

my post specifically said what the phrase means to convey isn't the issue, and what it means to convey is attraction that isn't about gender (gender is how attraction is defined, not sex, even if the phrase uses the word "parts"). and while that intended meaning is fine for some people, not all pan folks relate to or use that definition. which is why pan is also defined simply as attraction to all genders.

and if what the phrase means to convey was the common understanding or experience of sexuality in general for everyone, it likely wouldn't exist or become the "slogan" of a specific type of attraction.

"'and an idea of superiority over other identities' not sure at all about this one. as I established no sexualities are actually attracted exclusively to parts. Hearts not parts is not implying anything about superiority or other orientations at all."

there are people whose attraction is specific to certain genders (or sexes, for those who don't believe attraction is based on gender). and there are plenty of people who feel that they are more enlightened or openminded than those people because their attraction isn't limited to any specific gender (or sex), and sometimes this phrase is how they express that.

i don't know if any of that helped you understand why people take issue with the phrase. i tend to ramble and become longwinded which doesn't always help clarity. if there's something i can explain more or better, let me know and i'll try.

but i do want to say again that what the phrase is meant to convey isn't the issue and not everyone who uses the phrase has bad intentions or is a bad person who should be yelled at or accused of being queerphobic or anything.

the point is to just spread awareness as to why pan and non-pan people alike don't particularly like the phrase or appreciate it being used as "the" understanding of pansexual and why it has seen a bit of a decline in use over the years.

#asks #awkward freaks soul #hearts not parts #pan antagonism #aro antagonism #queer antagonism #long post #obligatory disclaimer: i speak in a direct manner and it tends to come off aggressive or combative so pls know i am not mad or anything #obligatory disclaimer: i naturally speak in a direct sort of deadpan ? manner that tends to be read as aggressive or mad #so please know that i'm not mad or being aggressive this is just how i talk even through text lmao

17 notes · View notes