Anonymous #1 5w

yes the part where she commented “pansexuals are chasers” is a generalization but the post itself is not. expressing an experience and telling people it’s not cool to do that is not a generalization.

9

Anonymous OP 5w

But it’s applying that personal experience to all instances of pan people expressing their sexuality. Which just isn’t true. If you have a lot of experiences with that you may feel positive towards that generalization, if you haven’t or are pan and haven’t engaged in that line of actions then you’ll probably feel negatively. Still generalization

9

Anonymous #2 5w

wtf is bean theory 😭 expound please im out of the loop

4

Anonymous #1 5w

why can’t y’all just listen to us trans people when we tell you to stop doing shit? i do not care if it is not your intention to come off that way it’s still disrespectful and weird

8

Anonymous OP 5w

I mean no one is really arguing against not immediately saying you’re pan to trans people. Just saying that it is a generalization to assume all pan/bi people do this, or it’s in response to you being trans vs safety mechanism due to biphobia in the community

6

Anonymous #1 5w

if you find it personally offensive or think it’s biphobia when trans people say that they don’t like when bi or pan people respond with their sexuality when being told someone they’re attracted to is trans then that is a whole other issue you gotta figure out yourself. yes she made some generalizations in the comments but again the post itself is literally just telling pan people to stop doing that shit cos it’s disrespectful

11

Anonymous OP 5w

I didn’t say that fam. You’re reading between a lot of lines that aren’t there. I agree when people tell trans people something along the lines of “don’t worry I’m pan 😜😜😝😝🫦🫦” or something equally gross is not cool and shouldn’t be common. But bi/pan people identifying themselves early in a conversation doesn’t always mean that’s why they are, and not all ppl do. Making the post a generalization

11

Anonymous OP 5w

You’re fighting a fight that’s not happening. It’s still a generalization. Just because you agree with the generalization doesn’t make it not one

13

Anonymous #1 5w

the original post is not about bi/pan people identifying themselves early on when talking. it’s about identifying themselves as such directly in response to someone saying they are trans

7

Anonymous OP 5w

🎯.

3

Anonymous #1 5w

they’re referring to “whataboutism”, referencing a TikTok where a woman was complaining about people asking for bean-free versions of a bean soup recipe video by replying with “what about people who can’t eat beans” etc (the original video being referred to was posted specifically as a tip for vegan anemics rather than as a general bean soup recipe though… the TikToker was lowkey just being ableist so idk why people still allude to her post)

1

Anonymous #5 5w

i stand by this 100% to be clear

-2

Anonymous #3 5w

I don’t doubt it 🫩

10

Anonymous #5 5w

i addressed this in another comment. i’m not talking about her comments i’m just talking about the post

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Her comments are part of the post. The post was made based on the beliefs she’s expressed in the comments

9

Anonymous #5 5w

but people are saying it’s a generalization based on the post alone

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Because it is. It assumes any time someone identifies their sexuality early within an interaction it is due to transphobic compulsion, and not the hundreds of other possibilities. Not “if you feel a compulsion to do this, it may be transphobic”. Not “in my experience people do this because of transphobia”. It states, as a fact, if people do this, it is because they are transphobic. Not could be. Is. That is what makes it a generalization

2