I’m laughing because this is still wrong. STILL WRONG.
You can be straight dude and be attracted to trans women. You can be a straight chick and be attracted to trans men.Bringing trans men and trans women up as a ~special inclusion~ of pansexuality is really problematic. This is because men and women, regardless of being trans or cis, are people with binary genders. Pansexuality’s whole thing is that it includes nonbinary genders, not just YEAH I’D GET DOWN WITH BINARY TRANS PEOPLE TOO.
The fact that they even bring up genitals in this powerpoint shows a clear conflation of body states with gender. Sexual orientation isn’t broken up according to matching or non-matiching genital combinations; to think so is transphobic. Yes, transphobic. Sexual orientation is organized by how people identify themselves based on gender. Gender =/= genitalia.
Saying you can like any set of genitals/chest doesn’t actually mean anything in terms of sexual orientation. It isn’t a sexual orientation, it is just a lack of preference for a set of genitals. It just means you’re not gender-essentialist in your attraction. (or trying to be, even when you show an obvious lack of comprehension when you keep bringing up genitals)
Saying you don’t give a fuck about someone’s identified gender is shitty. Gender dismissal stuff like that only works when talking about your own gender. Gender is an important part of many people’s identity and saying you don’t see gender or other stupid shit I’ve heard from other pan-identified people isn’t any more progressive than saying you don’t see race. Cut that shit out.
What pansexuality actually means: the ability to feel attraction to any gender, inclusive of non-binary genders or a lack of gender entirely (see image below*). It is different from bisexuality which is the exclusive attraction to two genders (thus “bi” which means “TWO”) most commonly used for the binary genders male and female.