![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...because my love is pure?
You are pansexual.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Hmm. I was kinda wavering between bi and pan, I think, just 'cause I really do prefer that I have a fairly clear idea of what a person wants to be called, genderwise, regardless of how they look or present themselves in demeanour. I don't care about whether they're in the middle or shifting over or switching with the situation, but I need to know what they want me to call them, and I have a hard time remembering the declensions of current/preferred gender-neutral pronouns....personally, I think English suffers a lot subculturally by not having a personal+neutral case already, but I really don't feel like wrapping myself around everyone's pet alternativity without having a decent linguistic model for it.....
But bodywise?--not a problem. The most important thing, afterall, is neither sex, gender, or eschewment thereof, but whether a person's actually personally appealing.
NOTE TO WHOMEVER WROTE THIS QUIZ, AND ALL OTHERS AS WELL:
Sex is the biological/physical category, gender is the psychological/socially-enacted category. They are NOT the exact same thing. They should not be restricted as the exact same thing when they are not. Biological sex (and the changing thereof) is not as important as gender, and yet the law still rules distinctions of "gender" on the basis of physical-sexual determinants, instead of by psychological and socially-enacted identity. This is stupid, particularly at a time when all the reason to segregate people by "sex" are really falling apart -- they aren't even necessary for procreation and parenting anymore, much less as reliable class-standards for labour and occupational skills.
So, to people who write quizzes and questionaires, if you are examining social behaviours of any type and wish to establish some kind of M-F comparison (M-F-A, really), that really ought to be termed "gender" ONLY and understood as such by those responding. And I believe it really ought to be the prime distinction in all social and sociolegal situations (social address, employment, marriage, active passports and identification papers), rather than requiring the physicalities of nakedly-apparent "sex" to be satisfied.
The only reason to use biological sex as a prime determinant is if you're assembling medical and/or actuarial evidence, and eventually I foresee that those will have to be supplemented with "gender" as well in order to maintain any relevant accuracy to the total population, which has notably more persons that are transgendered than are full-operatively transsexual. It's a hazy world that we are granted to dwell in, and clinging to the confusions of terminology does no good in clarifying what needs the clarification.
What is your sexual orientation?
You are pansexual.
Take this quiz!
Quizilla |
Join
| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code
Hmm. I was kinda wavering between bi and pan, I think, just 'cause I really do prefer that I have a fairly clear idea of what a person wants to be called, genderwise, regardless of how they look or present themselves in demeanour. I don't care about whether they're in the middle or shifting over or switching with the situation, but I need to know what they want me to call them, and I have a hard time remembering the declensions of current/preferred gender-neutral pronouns....personally, I think English suffers a lot subculturally by not having a personal+neutral case already, but I really don't feel like wrapping myself around everyone's pet alternativity without having a decent linguistic model for it.....
But bodywise?--not a problem. The most important thing, afterall, is neither sex, gender, or eschewment thereof, but whether a person's actually personally appealing.
NOTE TO WHOMEVER WROTE THIS QUIZ, AND ALL OTHERS AS WELL:
Sex is the biological/physical category, gender is the psychological/socially-enacted category. They are NOT the exact same thing. They should not be restricted as the exact same thing when they are not. Biological sex (and the changing thereof) is not as important as gender, and yet the law still rules distinctions of "gender" on the basis of physical-sexual determinants, instead of by psychological and socially-enacted identity. This is stupid, particularly at a time when all the reason to segregate people by "sex" are really falling apart -- they aren't even necessary for procreation and parenting anymore, much less as reliable class-standards for labour and occupational skills.
So, to people who write quizzes and questionaires, if you are examining social behaviours of any type and wish to establish some kind of M-F comparison (M-F-A, really), that really ought to be termed "gender" ONLY and understood as such by those responding. And I believe it really ought to be the prime distinction in all social and sociolegal situations (social address, employment, marriage, active passports and identification papers), rather than requiring the physicalities of nakedly-apparent "sex" to be satisfied.
The only reason to use biological sex as a prime determinant is if you're assembling medical and/or actuarial evidence, and eventually I foresee that those will have to be supplemented with "gender" as well in order to maintain any relevant accuracy to the total population, which has notably more persons that are transgendered than are full-operatively transsexual. It's a hazy world that we are granted to dwell in, and clinging to the confusions of terminology does no good in clarifying what needs the clarification.