• Lando Calrissian is pansexual, Solo: A Star Wars Story writer suggests
    161 replies, posted
Unless sterile people literally lack gonads and a penis/ovaries and a womb, I'm going to say sterile people are still either male or female, thanks. What matters is the existence (or lack thereof) of the tissues/body parts that would normally produce sperm/ova.
Because i am by definition pansexual. You're saying it doesnt exsist, so i cant possibly exisit.
And if they do lack those? Gonad removal for medical reasons isn't at all unusual and puts a pretty big flaw in your definition of sex.
Or they experience the world in a way that doesn't fit existing words
I don't have a problem with this.
Yeah I'm done. It's clear you're arguing in bad faith with this. Just because the gonads were removed does not mean they were at one point still there/intended to be there by the genes of the individual or their species. It's not like I'm slinging some radical new fucking knowledge here, dude. Sex is sex, and in most mammals (inclcuding us!) involves a male and a female, the definitions of which are very rigorously defined. I'm sorry that my two-sentence fragmented definitions from wikipedia do not satisfy your dubious what-ifs.
who says "I am attracted to everything except trans people"? is that like, a thing that happens? cause I've never heard anyone say that
I see you are one of the many people today that have reduced their entire being down to the nuances of their sexuality. Strange fucking times. Identity politics everybody.
ok reminds me of another article https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/229146/caf561a7-0cba-40db-8684-d509eeecd4a5/image.png
this makes sense and is cool but if this is just a retroactive application to the character and isn't part of lando in the movie itself then it seems a bit disingenuous.
Look, I'm only trying to guide you towards understanding that even scientific definitions of sex, which there are several of, are none without exceptions or flaws, and as such cannot be taken as gospel. Even if for the vast majority of people there's nothing unclear about what they are. Why do I think it's important to correct this? Because the misinformed idea of absolute scientific definition that you among others propagate is so damn widespread when being used to enforce traditional gender roles.
I also see you're one of those people that latches on to 3 words of an entire post and ignores so you can discard it and not bother making an actual argument. Same fucking times as always. Shitposters everybody.
Sure, you can make a character and then say they are pansexual. What does that change? The idea is very forward-thinking, but the execution is subpar. What does this change, may I ask?
I'll give an argument then. Pansexuality is an offshoot identity spawned from the trans rights movement, where it was suddenly cool to assign yourself to your own little box and wave your own little flag without even probably remotely thinking about what they are actually talking about. Nobody on this earth has the foresight to say they can potentially be attracted (romantically or otherwise) to ALL genders, it's a paradox as not even all genders are defined, they are being made up on a weekly basis. That's not even to mention this goes completely against how people are attracted to each other. Men are not attracted to women because they are women. They just don't feel romantically inclined to men, and this isn't even always 100% true. You are not attracted to a gender, you are attracted to a person, that person may have a sex, but the gender is universally irrelevant, you may just be attracted to someone who has a particular gender, not because of it.
You're drastically overthinking it. Attraction doesn't fit into neat little boxes. Labeling your own sexuality isn't putting yourself into a box, it's an attempt to find as accurate a descriptor as possible. Pansexuality is just "All types of people have the potential to be hot." That's it. There's no reason to kick up such a fuss about what people want to call themselves in relation to their gender or sexuality. You're not the Morality And Logic Police.
I'm saying there's bisexual people who cannot find trans people attractive (i've known plenty), so the sub sect of pansexual extends to all instead of cis gendered only. Pan is all the colors of the rainbow, while bi is strictly 2. A good way to think it is gender blind, because you like people for being people, whats down below doesn't bother you.
I don't wanna start an argument here but I wanna know things. Science is not gospel, that is a core tenant of science; that scientific understanding can change and evolve with new knowledge and understanding. However, he is stating that the vast majority of people, aside from genetic anamoloies, or mutations (theses are not dirty words these are just terms to describe circumstances that are neither moral or amoral, they just happen), people are born with male (I don't know the correct term here, maybe "body type", as in they have a penis and a prostate and a certain musculoskeletal structure) "body types", or either female "body types". Their genetic code fits them into one of those two categories, regardless of concepts of gender, fertility, or health condition. This is how I understand it based on my current knowledge of the facts. This is allegedly an understanding not founded in reason or logic. That this understanding is fundamentally flawed, and that science needs a drastic revision based on new facts that I have not yet accounted for. I want for you to explain these new discoveries and facts to me so that I might be a more understanding individual.
Excuse me, but what? Pansexuality was formed around transgenderisim because its a way to label your sexuality to be more defined to what you like. This isn't a large amount of people wanting to be special. Its me telling people on say a dating app that I'm okay with dating whoever gender/sex wise. Why not? Like it isn't anything new, people who are pan still find attraction to others like anyone else, but they don't give a shit about whats in the pants. Genders don't bother them, but I can tell the "they are being made up on a weekly basis" points to ignorance if anything. Or just general homophobia idk. Go outside right now and try to find someone that is total opposite of your sexuality attractive. Like call a spade a spade dude, if you find X attractive, you can call yourself Y sexuality. Like pansexuals don't find people attractive by their gender, its the person its self. Good thing pansexuality is the total opposite right? And people aren't attracted solely by gender you moron, a bunch of stuff factors into it. Gender can be a massive factor, but tons of other factors. It just seems you don't know what pansexuality is, or even general attraction.
Like, it's really easy to know if you like penises or vaginas, and by extension whether or not you'd be attracted to someone with one or the other. How can you know you could never be attracted to someone who identifies as trans? What inherent quality is it that all trans people have that you know would make them unattractive? I was under the interpretation that sexual orientation had to do with sex, IE male and female parts. If instead it's the specific kind of people you're into, we could make an infinite number of sexual orientations because everyone has their own things they're into. If you're a lesbian who's into feminine women does that mean you have a separate sexual orientation from someone who's into butch women? This just doesn't seem like a very useful way of categorizing people's sexuality.
Because some people don't like penises on girls or vags on men. Its really not that hard to understand. That's what i meant by "so the sub sect of pansexual extends to all instead of cis gendered only."
This might be the most fucking spineless attitude towards transgender people I've seen and I see it all the fucking time. "O-oh y-you can be w-what you want, b-but it'll never change!!!".
Because somebody asked Kasdan if Lando was Pansexual and he answered with "I'd say yes." It's not like they called everyone together for a grand press release just to say it.
I don't disagree that most people are either male or female. I just want to point out the flaw in the idea that you can distinguish sex by gonads alone (or genitals for same reasons). Even if it works most of the time. Determining sex by genes also works most of the time but there's still surprisingly many individuals that don't fit the definition of XX = female XY = male, or have variation inside of their genes that makes them different despite it. Furthermore there's hormones that nobody even brought up yet. They can alter a person's sexual characteristics at any point of their lives, because of and regardless of genes. When determining a person's sex scientifically you would look at all of these factors and more, including secondary sex characteristics and psychology (which are far from absolute) and figure that the person probably fits all of a sex's definitions, or maybe doesn't. You might find that the person you're testing doesn't fit the genetic or hormonal definitions of a sex they've lived as, but don't even know it. So what if it's a deviation or mutation? There's nobody who isn't mutated anyway. [My] [sources] [are] mostly these. You may notice the careful use of words like "general" "on average" "associated with" regarding sex characteristics since it ain't right to claim there isn't leeway in almost every direction.
Donald Glover has given his two cents, he agrees with it. Donald Glover on Lando's sexuality in Solo “How can you not be pansexual in space?” responded Glover as Ehrenreich and Clarke expressed surprise at hearing the news for the first time. “There are so many things to have sex with. I didn’t think that was that weird. Yeah, he’s coming on to everybody. I mean, yeah, whatever. It just didn’t seem that weird to me ‘cause I feel like if you’re in space it’s kind of like, the door is open! It’s like, no, only guys or girls. No, it’s anything. This thing is literally a blob. Are you a man or a woman? Like, who cares? Have good time out here.”
I love that, just like us, his first reaction was "well, how could you not be, with all the hot aliens n shit"
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33300000/Commander-Shepard-mass-effect-3-33371947-506-642.jpg An LGBT icon
abjectly relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hez4laAkGw
It's weird how such a reasonable idea got such an immediate backlash on this forum. OP has 85 dumbs, which shows the instant gut reaction most people had to this. Then, once they actually thought about it, they realized how reasonable the idea was.
It feels like pansexuality is just bisexuality for people that want attention Yeah, and that's an abnormality / physical deformity. Not really something to base your system of medical classification off of. Some people are born without eyes, that doesn't mean "No Eyeballs" is suddenly a standard classification
Blind...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.