Monday, July 29, 2019

All The Many Ways Ian Miles Cheong Is Wrong About Pansexuality

[TRIGGER WARNING: REFERENCES TO PEDOPHILIA, CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, AND BEASTIALITY]

First of all, I really need to thank Ian Miles Cheong right now, because lately I've been having a bit of trouble finding the motivation to blog, but his load of absolute bullshit about pansexuality has given me such strong inspiration and motivation that I'm writing this up Friday evening even though this won't be posted until Monday because ho-ly shit he is full of it.

Even on Friday the 26th, this Twitter thread is two days old, but I don't care.




Ian, let me introduce you to Jeff Goldblum.


As your resident pansexual, I can tell you that the prefix "pan" does mean "all." However, just like with every other sexual orientation, that prefix applies to gender only. If our prefix applies to everything in the known universe, then so does your's, Ian.

So the prefix "hetero" means "other" or "different." Normal people know that, when added to "sexual," it means liking people of a different gender, typically the "opposite" gender in the male/female gender binary. Buuuuuuut if, as Ian seems to think, this applies to everything, that would mean that heterosexual people are only attracted to different genders, species, ages, races, hair colors, and states of matter. Can Ian explain why he is attracted to young or old female animals who exist in either a liquid or gaseous state? PRETTY FUCKED UP, IAN, YOU LIQUIFIED DONKEY FUCKER.

Next, let's talk about the term "bisexual." Because Ian is wrong about everything, I'm assuming be doesn't know or refuses to accept that the "bi" in "bisexual" means "two or more." In other words that contain the prefix "bi," it might simply mean "two." But in the English language, and many other languages, prefixes can change meaning depending on the rest of the word and what it actually means is generally decided by consensus. The definition of "two or more" for bisexual is decades old and has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the queer community. Therefore, Ian's suggestion that we pansexuals just "go back" to being bi (I was never bi, only pan) is completely useless, because that "more" encompasses everything, or "all." By Ian's definition, bisexuals are also pedos.

Ironically, the only sexualities who are not pedophiles are gay, lesbian, and ace. What a weird update to the bigoted idea that all gay men are pedophiles.

Now, considering the law of large numbers, there probably are child molesters and sexual predators who have claimed pansexuality as some sort of cover or excuse for their crimes. However, I am absolutely 100% sure that straight men make up the majority of both. I'm pretty sure Ian's straight, so why doesn't he just change his sexual orientation so he's not associated with so many pedos?


As for Ian's helpful Wikipedia screenshot, that definition clearly states that the prefix "pan" includes "'including all members' of a group." And all people not being a piece of shit troll fuck pretending to not understand the basics of his first language know that this group, in terms of sexual orientation, is "genders."

I don't know who Bella Thorne is or how she feels about her own, personal sexual identity. But, as a normal person, I would assume that when she said she's attracted to "beings," she meant human beings in an appropriate age range, just as we all assume that when straight dudes say they're attracted to "girls," they actually mean adult human women. Though maybe we shouldn't.

If Ian wants to attack pansexual people for some reason, he should just stick to the old "that's a made up identity that you use for attention" thing. It's still wrong but it takes less time to say and doesn't make you look like the biggest douchebag in the universe. Just a regular-level douchebag.

No comments: