Every definition I have heard for pansexuality or similar that defines the term in contrast to bisexuality reads like slander to my ears.
Bisexuality is a broad category, and it was never exclusionary. Bisexuals can be attracted to trans people, and enbies, and those with or without gendered presentations, but critically they don't have to be. Its a category not a checklist.
Bisexuality is broad. Other terms are more specific, and there is some amount of overlap.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
This. Trans women are women. As a bisexual woman, I am attracted to women.
Trans people are also included in the bisexual manifesto, written in 1990
In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders.
The way I always understood it was bisexual = attraction to your gender and other genders
and pansexual = attraction regardless of gender
now, functionally speaking, there is no distinction, but in terms of experience, I always identified more with pansexual than bisexual, as someone's gender was just never something I took into account when determining my attraction.
I often to use both, as I consider pansexual to be a sub-distinction of bisexual.
That being said I recognize there is no consensus on the distinction in the community so I usually go with bi for ease.
Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It's just more bi erasure.
Not gay enough for the gays
Not straight enough for the straights
Not bi enough for the pans
Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
"Pan" because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn't matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
"Bi" in the sense of being "bi-directional" in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I'm finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
Ok yeah that makes sense. The way I’ve conceptualized it is that pan is attracted to all genders or to people regardless of gender and bi is attracted to two or more genders. I think the way that commenter phrased it is a great way to think about it
As a trans person and a pansexual, I would describe it like this:
I don't have a type. I don't even necessarily tend to find people attractive until I get to know them a bit. The people I find "hot" aren't tall people or feminine people or strong people or anything like that, instead I think clothing choices that tell me something about you and give me a feel for who you are as a person are hot.
If i'm attracted to you, I will find myself attracted to your body, rgardlesss of what your body happens to be like. You could literally be a glob of goo or an alien or a talking rock, if I like you I'll start thinking you're hot.
If you're thinking "isn't that demisexual"? then you're halfway there - i'm not ace. I do think people are hot when I pass them on the street, except what i'm attracted to is their "vibe" rather than anything about their physical form.
Naturally, pansexual is a subset of bisexual - i'm also proud to be bi and I use that label frequently. And yes both bi and pan are trans-inclusive.
You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying "Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that". Because there's a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.
If I can get enough of a read on someone's personality, then yes I can be aroused, lip bite, let's fuck, etc. more or less right away. I do need to get to know someone to be into them but that process can happen extremely quickly, including at a glance if I can get enough of a sense of someone's personality from what they're wearing/other context clues.
Yeah, the only way pansexual makes sense, to me at least, is if bisexual excludes feminine presenting men and masculine presenting women, but I don't see why it should. I feel like pan was just created either to make certain people feel like they're being more inclusive than just normal bi people, or to make bi people feel like they're being exclusive.
A lot of the gender and sexual orientation language of recent times is good and removes ambiguity. Some of it though, like pan, feels like people just treating it as a contest.
hildegarde already said the reason why Pansexual exists. Bisexual is a broad category, a REALLY broad category to the extent if someone tells you bisexual you've really learned nothing about their attractions unless they tell you.
Ehich flows off the tongue better, all inclusive bisexual or pansexual?
I always took the difference as pan means you're sexually aroused and attracted to people's personalities, regardless of their body, and bi means you like dicks and vaginas. It's probably not very useful but out of the people I know that go both ways, the ones that are ok with casual sex call themselves bi and the ones that aren't use pan.
No? That's demisexual. Pansexual is you're attracted to all (pan- means all) types of people, which is effectively equivalent to bi. Note attraction does not mean you like that person. You don't even need to know someone to be attracted to them.
Sure. Sexual orientation is defined as the innate attraction though. It's the attraction you have to someone you see walking down the street. Obviously the right kind of interactions can overcome this and make someone attracted to someone they weren't originally attracted to though, or vice versa.
The way I frame it is: Bisexuals are attracted to you because of gender, pansexuals not. The ven diagram of attraction is mostly the same. It's more about the why. Like I find masculine and feminine traits individually hot no matter who presents them, makes me bi.
I learned what bi/pan was from a random discord user back in 2016 and I still think its the best description
Bi: Sexually attracted to looks, personality can obv play a big part/be a deciding factor but your main attraction comes from how physically attractive you think they are
Pan: Sexually attracted to personality, looks can obv play a big part/be the deciding factor but your main attraction is how much you like their personality
Again... Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there's no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although... Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction
No no no. Hi it's me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don't put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn't a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that's fine. The real world doesn't fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.
We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn't need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn't commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I'm being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc...).
But we don't unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The death murder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.
All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don't think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don't really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It's why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In "losing" ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn't mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.
Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of "oh there's x person. He's gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he's problematic because x thing vs y thing..." And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they "know" immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc...
Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society's addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn't boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn't really communicate anything, because there's not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who's using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It's a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn't.
I actually yearn for a world where labels don't really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there's no immediate categorization of this person's identity. It's probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).
And it's not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don't know exactly how it would look, and that's the cool part: I don't have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our "normal".
But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I'm leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.
I mean, practically, if someone tells me they're bi or pan, it doesn't really change my view of them. Like there's not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I'm trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn't. But if they're bi or if they're pan, it doesn't change that.
There is a difference, I'm not saying there isn't, and I'm not saying we should only use one if the two. I'm just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I'm curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it's not super critical for anything.
But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
"Pan" because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn't matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
"Bi" in the sense of being "bi-directional" in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I'm finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
For instance, I'm finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
I don't know why but this is making me feel my age. I feel like I mentally just patted down different pockets across my mind like an old man, looking for a pamphlet or flow chart that I know I don't have but desperately need.
The autism is compelling me to make a laminated pocket sized booklet with an updated chart of all gender, sexual orientation, and flag colors. But I also feel being spotted in public using the LGBTQ Pokedex might be faux pas?
You dont have to know them all. Its just a comfort to people to have a label when you can't otherwise communicate your experience :) (and in some cases it makes you feel less alone and weird for relating to people in a way you dont see anyone else experiencing)
And there are a lot of ways to experience sexuality and attraction (or to not experience it), so there are a lot of labels! But you dont need to know all of them
You can always ask if someone uses a label you dont know and you'd like to know (eg "oh, ive not heard that label before. What does it mean to you?") and as long as you're being friendly people usually take comfort in seeing someone interested in understanding them. But unless you're in community with someone and want to understand their identity, its not neccesary to really know the various labels, nevermind have a complete list and know all of them by heart
Sending love from my corner of the world to yours ☺️ (signed, a person who's maybe gray-ace :)
It's tough because the language has evolved relatively rapidly over the past few decades, and is still evolving quite rapidly. Definitions emerge and compete for relevancy (like the atrocious "Bi means you aren't attracted to trans people" strain that has popped up in this thread) and they can contradict or confuse with each other. It has been my experience that it's harder to absorb vocabulary as I get older, so I think I know what you mean. I've stopped trying to reach a comprehensive understanding, I just try to use the language that helps and respects people and not the language that harms and demeans people as best I can.
Yeah, I feel like past 35 it's harder to keep up with trending vernacular. I just try my best to be respectful. I think the autism has kinda trained me to use gender neutral pronouns and to avoid assuming sexual orientation anyways. I've always had a hard time distinguishing gender unless it's blatantly obvious someone is presenting as masculine or feminine.
Nah, I looked it up because its my specific type of attraction and its easier to tell someone I'm finsexual and assume they'll look it up or ask me to explain what that is. Rather than up front explaining in detail what my specific sexual interests are which might be a tad forward...
Please explain your sexual interests entirely through allegory without using explicit vocabulary generally accepted to be sexual in connotation. Thank you.
Tbh I’ve always considered myself pansexual just because I am attracted to what I’m attracted to, no guardrails or borders. I usually view these terms as more like shackles than support. I suppose 99% of the time I could be considered finsexual aside from the stray guy. Usually I just explain pansexuality to my boomer family as my sexuality is whatever gets me horny and can give moral enthusiastic consent. Thats what it means to me at least. I don’t overthink it beyond that.
I like these definitions. But i feel like if i call myself bi, it misleads people who dont know this definition.
This is why I prefer "queer" personally, because why should I have to explain my sexuality to anyone. I'll know what I like when the time comes and that has expanded and contracted over the years. There is no specific line I feel like I need to use as a definition. To me drawing a line just limits things and misleads others. Language is imperfect and sexuality is complex.
I also most often use queer to define my sexuality to others (as in my Lemmy bio), but consider myself bisexual and refer to myself as such when asked directly or in conversation with queer friends.
I know I'm probably getting downvoted to hell for this. I think calling yourself "finsexual" does nothing to help you find a partner. Why do you even need that label? The obsession with applying increasingly specific labels to people doesn't feel healthy. In reality, you meet people, and you like someone you meet, romantically and/or sexually and/or socially, or you don't. These specific types of labels are only for people's imaginary future partners and seem to be an attempt at having a modicum of control in a world that's entirely uncertain and ambiguous
I don't think they would use the term in a dating scene when interacting with people unless is on topic.
Why do you even need that label?
Why not?
The obsession with applying increasingly specific labels to people doesn't feel healthy.
It would seem unhealthy to do so to others, but they are defining themselves in a space where specifically that is being discussed. That's not obsession.
These specific types of labels are only for people's imaginary future partners
Hard disagree. I agree with you in that when you find a partner you either like them or you don't, and they don't need to know much more that you like them.
These terms are for the person to understand themselves better so they can interact more efficiently with others, not a template that others need to know to interact with you.
I like women, but I don't care much about what they have between their legs. That's technically straight, but I'd say that a lot of straight people wouldn't accept that, so I like to think I'm flex straight. I wouldn't point it out to my partner unless we were talking about sexuality to begin with, but this is a post about sexuality, it's very on topic to think more deeply about this stuff.
These terms are for the person to understand themselves better so they can interact more efficiently with others, not a template that others need to know to interact with you.
Sure, but why create new words that 99.3% of people would have to look up rather than just say, "I'm attracted to feminine people." The constant drumbeat of new terms to describe sexualities and genders is utterly exhausting. We already have the language to describe all these things effectively without creating new words
My brother in Christ, have you know language? It evolves constantly. New words are created and old ones stop being used all the time.
Sure, but why create new words that 99.3% of people would have to look up rather than just say, "I'm attracted to feminine people."
You are getting annoyed in a comment chain about sexuality where the first use of the term was in a comment where the meaning was explained. You don't need to look it up because they explained it right there, and if that's exhausting maybe don't engage in the discussion? Their comment is way more on topic than yours, just saying.
Exhausting? Really? It doesn't affect your life in any way, you can choose not to engage with the topic. I recommend you to try relaxing your views on this topic and removing it importance given the context in which it was used. It feels like you are linking other instances where you saw or you were told that people used terms in a way where it disrupted conversation with this one, but again, in this instance it was very on topic and definitely not disruptive, this was not the best comment chain where to express your frustrations.
You did the equivalent of going to a video gaming convention and complaining why everyone is talking about computer games instead of just playing sports. If someone was playing videogames in an outing and killing the vibe maybe you could tell on him, but the convention definitely wasn't the forum, and this isn't.
Edit to actually answer your question lmao: because labels are fun, everyone likes labels. Humans tend to label everything from time immemorial. People enjoy creating labels for themselves. If going to a post about sexuality and reading comments about people discussing labels is exhausting, please leave :)
Its just a communication tool. Saying I'm a finsexual instead of bi tends to ease issues for me because sometimes people misinterpret just saying I'm bi to suggest "oh they might be attracted to me." Which has directly lead to problems for me. Being a little more specific seems like a reasonable means to avoid those problems.
I've heard a ton of different definitions, but honestly I think people just pick the label they like better and there isn't a functional difference. I identify as bisexual because the flag is better haha.
I used to feel the same about the flag, but at some point it grew on me
...along with 2014 techno music, osu, sparkledogs and shiny glass like UIs. Dunno if it's connected
That makes me hesitant to ever identify as bisexual though and honestly that makes me really sad. I've become quite attached to bisexuality as a part of my identity and adhere to the definition @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone used here:
the bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody’s left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I'm rejecting them based on my own identity.
Edit: Ugh you? Yeah I'm not going to go with your definition of anything with comments like these in your history
I like interacting with butch (not sure if that term is still in vogue, havent had the courage to ask) lesbians, they're never as bitter as the fems.
All of this is just retroactive attempts to delineate the two labels after the concept of being transgender started to become understood by a wider portion of the public (and the queer community, for that matter). Don't let faux-academic definitions define your identity. If "bisexual" feels like it fits but gender-nonconforming, agender, androgynous-presenting, and/or genderfluid people are also your thing, that's entirely fine.
(Edit: and it doesn't in any way invalidate other people's self-labeling when they categorize it differently to you. Labels are only there to simplify communication of ideas. They're not a sports team.)
I think that distinction just grew up with the current trend of trans-exclusion. I identify as bi and my bi club is explicitly inclusive of trans and NB folk. The transphobes will have to pry the ol' pink and blue from my cold dead sexy bisexual hands.
I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I’m rejecting them based on my own identity.
That would imply being anything other than pansexual is wrong and discriminatory, period.
It's worth stressing that it's perfectly fine to reject someone as a potential partner for any reason or even for no reason at all. For example if you find white women more attractive than black women, I don't think it makes you racist if that's just about attraction, not respect.
You mean like how you have no idea if I'm a man or a woman? Funny how it's one set of rules for you and another for me.
Edit: To clarify, this isn't a "You can't define what a woman is" thing, it's a "this user loves to make assumptions about me and is mad when I do the same" thing.
This is transphobic because it insinuates that trans people are some third gender rather than their actual gender. There is nothing about bisexuality or the "bi" prefix that would imply that bi people are only attracted to cis people unless you believe that trans and cis people are separate genders.
Nonbinary people, on the other hand, I can see how "bi means two" can be conflated to mean bisexuals can't be attracted to nonbinary people although I think that ignores the history of the term bisexual, as well as ignores the reality of nonbinary genders, i.e. you can't necessarily tell someone is nonbinary by looking at them. I think when people say they're "not attracted to nonbinary people" if they're not bigoted they likely mean something like not being attracted to androgyny, but not all nonbinary people present androgynously.
Not all trans people pass, and some trans people don’t exhibit their gender in a way someone else would like.
Some do pass. How would those people who think they aren't attracted to trans people even know until clothes come off? And even then, they might not be able to tell if a person is trans, cis, or intersex.
It's like when people say they aren't attracted to bisexual men. It's personal preference rooted in bigotry, even if they're not conscious of it.
Because the only trans people they personally know are ones they aren’t attracted to?
That doesn't mean they won't be attracted to any and all trans people.
There's nothing different about a bisexual man and a straight man when it comes to dating. If someone doesn't like bisexual men because bisexual men are also attracted to men, that is a preference rooted in homophobia.
That has nothing to do with being bisexual or not though. I might not be into bodybuilders "exhibiting their masculinity" by being absurdly jacked, but that doesn't make me not bisexual. I'm just not attracted to that particular gender presentation.
I think when people say "I'm not attracted to trans people" they have a particular idea of a trans person in their head, but plenty of trans people pass and some go "stealth". "We can always tell" is patently false. I suppose I can imagine a person who is so caught up in gender who would be turned off if they found out someone is trans, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone not asexual who wouldn't find some trans person initially attractive, at least post-op.
I agree with your last point though. At this point I've mostly given up on pansexual/bisexual and just call myself queer.
I am convinced that they are the same thing and the only difference is the label itself. Any definitions I've seen are either equivalent, or denigrating to one of the labels and unrepresentative of how many people use them. Regardless of the history, trying to hammer down that one must be used over the other is a waste of time.
I'm gen z and consider myself pan because the flag colors look like an ocean sunset and yummy ice cream. And also because gender is irrelevant to me in regards to attraction.
I think the most reasonable definition is that bi means you are into either and pan means you don't care. So bi means you have two "prototypes" you're into, one male and one female, and pan means your "prototype" is not gendered. Having a gendered prototype doesn't mean it excludes trans people. A trans person can be close enough to either or both, depending on their state of transition and your focus. I hope I'm making sense.
Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels.
I think this is it. At one point, when I was hanging around queer spaces on the internets, it was inclusive and preferred to use "pan" instead of "bi", but then few years later it flipped around. Same with writing LGBTQA*, which was then preferred as inclusive, but few years later apparently the asterisk made it non-inclusive instead.
Personally, I treat the labels more like a fashion thing now, since they come and go, and the "polite" ones change. So if I want to hang around queer spaces, I will just read up what is okay at the moment. Usually I do not anymore, though, since I absorbed into my spine, from the earlier internet days, that asexuals are not welcome ("A is for Ally"). I know that changed later as well, but at that point I had grown too tired, to talk about queer stuff.
Without doing much research at all, I would say the big issue is that 'bisexual' was coined during a time were e.g. ace and enby people were given much less thought than they are today, leading to this weird situation where 'bi' originally meant 'both', but there is no 'both' when there are 3+ answeres to the question of gender (and sexuality)
as an old bisexual, it ment attracted to male and female sex characteristics and people who have both or invent their own gender expressions besides that were never ment to be excluded in anyway. this was never about deciding who can't be attractive or desirable, it was that my sexuality includes attraction to the sex characteristics of both sexes. people who have any combination of characteristics or gender expressions or invent their own expressions aren't excluded and were never excluded in the past by people who called themselves bisexual. that's all people deciding now, looking back, that it must be related to binary gender constructs, which us really harmful to older bisexuals, we also spent a long time typically being demonized for not fitting cishet normative behavior or expression, I'm VERY MUCH not anti Trans and gender non comforting people are the people I'm mainly attracted to, and expressing and identifying with gender other than male is part of who I am also. it's really annoying to have spent so much time being told what I can't be or what I must be because how I experience my sexuality includes all the sex characteristics vs one group or another. it's never been about binary gender construct endorsement or agreement I hate binary gender constraints being put on anyone my sexuality doesn't do this.
Bisexuals have a cooler flag, pretty sure that's the only difference. Otherwise they're both labels that fail to adequately describe the infinitely personal and variable elements of human attraction and sexuality. Use whichever one feels right. I flip between bi and pan when labeling myself but omnisexual probably "fits" the best
Omnisexuality is differentiated from bi/pan in recognizing the role of gender in attraction, and expresses a.preference for certain genders over others. For example, I'm mostly attracted to fem, queer, or androgynous presenting people, and not particularly drawn to masc people. I am attracted to some men (amab or.afab), but not to the same degree as I am with other gender expressions
I'd say the only meaningful distinction is that some people make up a definition "bi" could have had but never did, and then use "pan" in opposition to that 😛
But more honestly I asked my sister why she identifies as pan rather than bi, and her answer was that bi attracted the wrong people and pan attracted the right people 😉
People who say they are not attracted to trans women are absurd. It is like saying "I am not attracted to sisters of friends." Being unattracted is different than consciously deciding you shouldn't be.
Just a heads up to everyone that has a Bisexuality definition that isn't Bisexual, I'd really recommend not putting anti-trans labels and bullshit on Bi people, it's never failed too piss off every Bi person I've ever been or known.
There's a ton of non-bisexual people in this thread (and elsewhere) that present a false definition of bisexual that excludes trans/nb/agender/gf/generally gender non-conforming people. Or otherwise may assume that bisexual people are necessarily either monogamous or polyamorous, neither of which is universally true of all bi people. Actual bisexual people (like myself) are understandably upset by these incorrect assumptions. It's especially harmful to have people assume that a bisexual person wouldn't be attracted to a trans person because of the implied transphobia it puts on bisexual people.
I'll apparently be quoting myself again in this thread.
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody's left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
Surely you can understand that it's insensitive to tell a bisexual person what their own sexuality means. I recommend reading more and chiming in less on matters that you know little about, especially when replying to someone (me) who explicitly said that they don't appreciate the transphobic implications of an incorrect and ignorant interpretation of the term.
Im bi and my partner is NB and bi. No part of that is confusing or contradictory.
I don't experience my sexual orientation through the strict dictionary defintions of root words in the English language. I don't know why you think I would. I don't. I'm not anti Trans. I'm attracted to plenty of Trans people, fem men, masc women, and plenty of gender non confotming or queer people, being attracted to people who are 1. same as me and 2. not same as me is also a binary. but bi generally meaning experiencing both same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction doesn't mean I can't be attracted to a man that expresses generally female traits or sexual characteristics intentionally, I don't even know how it's hard to figure out that gender non conforming people would be as or more attractive to someone attracted to sexual characteristics of all permutations. Please. don't tell Bi people how they must experience their own sexuality based on the dictionary. It's very belittling and can only lead to misunderstandings and harm. if you want to be a real technical asshole about it, I'm attracted to the sexual characteristics of male and female bodies and I'm not concerned about those characteristics matching any 'right' or 'wrong' standard created by society or anyone other than the person who is expressing and existing in their desired state. You don't need to put anti Trans or anti gender queer sentiment on my sexual orientation, that makes no sense. I deeply love and respect and care for my Trans family members, friends, and fellow human beings.
attracted to the sexual characteristics of men and women, why would that stop me from being attracted to someone that has any permutation of either sex characteristics in expression or configuration? and gender doesn't even enter into it of you want to be that technical, but again, gender being a construct, why would it bother me, a person attracted to many characteristics of gender expression be not attracted to someone who expresses a configuration of gender characteristics that mix and match or invent their own? that makes no sense. don't tell me how I experience my sexuality.
I think that bisexual is just a term that has stuck since its been in use for so many many years
Its like feminism. Indeed the term feminism has the term 'fem' iin it so many people may assume that it has to do with equal rights of females ONLY . And indeed when liberal feminism started to be talked of more during the 1910s and 1940s when women and non-males starting taking up the jobs of dead males from the world wars it was indeed about more rights and suffrage for ONLY women... but I think that most modern feminists that are worrh their mettle would agree with me that femism has evolved to mean many things about ALL genders and has a lot to do with equality, independence, and equity amongst ALL genders.
Im a proletarian feminist and proletarian feminism has absolutely nothing to do with radical feminism or liberal feminism. So even though these terms are similar they are nothing a like in practice.
And feminism has nothing to do with those people in the past who ONLY resisted the current system for ONLY more women's rights - feminism has nothing to do with those who push for 'female supremacy' despite the term's 'fem' in it.
Being bisexual means many things nowadays to all people of ALL genders (I dont know and dont care how many genders there are. People should be able tk be who they want to be.) and there are many categories of bisexual peoples . But bisexual people have simply stuck with this term of 'bisexual' becauee the term simply stuck during the 1970s.
Studies on sexual attraction predate studies on gender identity. "Bisexual" hails from a day that we just considered the physical presentation of the people a study participant is attracted to, with the options of 1: Same, 2: Different. The studies allowed for people to be homosexual, heterosexual, or both-sexual.
"Pansexual" has had different definitions in the 1920s, 1970s, 2020s, and presumably the years in between. The current popular definition of "attraction to all genders" or "attraction regardless of gender" is basically a subset of "bisexual", since this includes both people of the same sex, and people of different sex.
It's more inclusive in the aspect of rejecting the gender binary at the start. But also, I believe that words are for communication, so at the end of the day, I'm using the most useful word based on the information I'm trying to communicate.
There are some transphobes and/or enbyphobes who will insist that bisexual means attraction to only two genders, and we all know why they're doing that.
Others will say that bisexual means they based on the meaning of the prefix "bi-". But that is the etymological fallacy. The current meaning of a word is not necessarily related to its etymological origin. Words change meaning literally all the time, and we should all be nonplussed about it by now [1].
In reality, words only mean what people generally understand them to mean [2]. Most dictionaries still retain, at least implicitly, a two definition, but most LGBT+ orgs and psychological associations and whatnot tend to define it as "more than one" gender, or similar.
Similarly, pansexual is generally defined as attraction to all genders or attraction being irrelevant of gender in the vast majority of places that care to declare a definition. But there are those who use it to mean the same thing as the latter definition of bisexual because they believe bisexual to mean the former definition of bisexual.
So what is the actual difference? It probably depends where you are and who you're talking to. Womp womp.
There's a joke/stereotype that many people who describe themselves as bi are attracted to one specific type of guy, and literally all women.
In my practical experience, people are more likely to identify as bisexual if they tend have a preference for certain gender presentations over others, and more likely to identify as pansexual if they are (closer to being) equally horny for all. Or if they have a preference for more pastel colours.
🤷♀️
[1] Even I believe, in my heart, that using the word nonplussed this way is wrong.
[2] Ha! I got the linguistic prescriptivists and the logicians with that one!
This feels like a corner of the community trying to make rules for everyone. I think the intent is good, but I don't think the definitions are as you say at this point in history because I don't think they are any particular way. The people with the identities should decide on labels and meanings, and after several discussions with bi and pan people (specifically about this) or seems clear to me that there is not a strong consensus about what the terms "truly" mean. It is all over the place (at least in the sample of people whose discussions I witnessed).
One common thread is that almost none of them want to use the labels to exclude others.
Read any of the many definitions of bisexual from actual bisexual people in this thread, and you'll learn that bisexual absolutely does not assume two genders or reinforce a gender binary in any way.
By most definitions I’d consider myself pansexual, but boy do I like the bi flag more, so that is what I typically use. And it’s easier for a layman to understand.
Bisexuals are only attracted to cis people, pansexuals are attracted to cis, trans, and nonbinary people
Bisexuals are only attracted to binary genders, while pansexuals are attracted to all genders
Bisexuals are attracted based on looks, pansexuals are attracted based on personality (possibly means they're demi too)
Bisexuals are attracted to people because of gendered characteristics, pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gendered characteristics (not really sure what this one means, different wording of the previous one?)
Bisexuals aren't attracted to GNC people or androgyny, pansexuals are attracted to all gender presentations
"Bisexual" is transphobic, pansexual is the more inclusive one
Bisexual has always been inclusive, pansexual was unnecessary and is transphobic and/or biphobic
Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders
Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous
Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag
Plus various other joke definitions
Did I miss any? A couple of these were new to me. Innovations in the discourse?
In regards to the 4th one, that's how I've always kinda described it. I consider myself bi because I am attracted to men, women, and NBs differently. My sister considers herself pan because there is no difference in the way she feels attracted to someone based on their gender.
Bisexuals are attracted to people because of gendered characteristics, pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gendered characteristics (not really sure what this one means, different wording of the previous one?)
As an example of this, a bisexual might find muscular women attractive, but not muscular men, but pansexuals find muscles attractive or not on all people. This is the definition I use.
Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders
The thing I find troublesome about this is that it can overly lump people into bisexuality. A common definition for lesbian today is someone who is not a man who is attracted to people who aren't men. If that's your definition of lesbian and bisexual than you're saying lesbians are bisexual. I prefer to say bisexual is attracted to all genders.
Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous
Weird seeing this because traditionally the harmful stereotype is that bisexuals need two lovers. Either way, this is not a good definition.
Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag
This is one that's silly, but kind ends up being true sometimes. Bi and pan are incredibly overlapped. Not all bi people are pan and not all pan people are bi, yes, but there's a lot of overlap. So a lot people in the middle just pick the flag they prefer.
Also I will die on the hill that pansexuality is not a subset of bisexuality. Not all pansexuals are bisexual.
Bisexuals think transfolks are their gender and know what pan means, pansexuals don't exist because they're fucking LYING if they say they find the Xcgutrian gender sexy.
Bisexuals are salt water and pansecuals are freshwater. But fr from my understanding bisexual started as an exonym (originaly it meant something like hermafroditism but later it became about orientation), and since bisexual people have always been subject to erasure they latched onto it. Of course this term came to existence when the academic view of gender was binary so way later people wanted to update the label to reflect the change in paradigm but a lot of older people had become very attached to the laber and refused to change it and then people tried to rationalize differences but they are so subtle that imo is an exercise in futility.
I use both , but use pan online where people are more likely to understand me and bi irl cause for a lot of people the label pan feels completely alien.
You can only be bisexual if you are from the bisexual region of France, else you are sparkling pansexual
I thought bi was preferring both cis and/or trans males and females, while pan was cis or trans male/female as well as anyone presenting non binary. Like a true bisexual would not be into someone non-binary, while a pansexual would consider a non binary person as a partner.
You can be monogamous and also be pansexual. You can be bi, but also be polyamorous.
And here I've always heard that bisexual means the attraction to your own/same gender and attraction to opposite/different genders, so that would include non-binary folk.
I love how both of us go down voted, but there is no discourse telling us how we are wrong, how we misinterpreted things. I spent some more time researching and the other thing that comes up is pansexual people are gender blind in terms of attraction, so it's a person by person basis when determining attraction. Any pansexual and or bisexual people want to weigh in and share their experiences.
I am a woman that is attracted to cis females, on two occasions trans men, and on one occasion a non-binary person genetically containing 2 x chromosomes. I have yet to experience attraction to a trans-woman or cis-man. What does that make me? I still consider myself a lesbian, and not a pansexual or bisexual.
This is the definition I go by and why I swapped to Pansexual.
Bisexual is attracted to more than one gender and CAN include all the same attractions as a Pansexual.
Pansexual IS attraction to all genders.
So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.
If you're a trans person on say a dating app that makes all the difference in considering whether or not someone is safe.
So if you think there's no difference that's wrong. Could be that a bisexual is attracted to specifically women and nonbinary people, could be men and women, could be any other genders and it's not limited to two. Pansexuals skips that and says literally every gender.
If you’re a trans person on say a dating app that makes all the difference in considering whether or not someone is safe.
I still wouldn't assume anyone labelling themselves as bisexual is an unsafe person for trans people. I think people use bi and pan interchangeably too much to assume anything without talking to the individual.
You're twisting my words, I said whether or not someone is safe, not that they're unsafe.
If you can't confirm that at first look then your only option is better safe than sorry and move on or get into what can very quickly turn into an unpleasant conversation.
There is nuance and what you assume people do is just your own personal experience.
My own experience is I've met many a cool bisexual in the right forums. I've also seen plenty a bisexual who hate the term pansexual and thinks it's redundant because they don't acknowledge the nuance.
That isn't the kind of person I want to be around.
Sure talking helps but when you're a pretty hated minority it's not exactly an attractive proposition to get to know every bisexual.
To relate this back dating apps, if you're bisexual and down with trans people, let us know on your bio! And if you're someone who is attracted to all just take the dive and go pansexual! It's more specific and let's others know exactly who your interested in.
You're twisting my words, I said whether or not someone is safe, not that they're unsafe.
To be pedantic... "Whether or not someone is safe" introduces two options: Safe or not safe. Unsafe and "not safe" are more interchangeable than pansexual and bisexual.
I understand it's not what you meant... but I dont think they're twisting your words. I think it's an honest attempt at faithfully interpreting your words. It's just that the language isn't really built for the kind of distinction you're trying to make.
I'd have to agree with you there, I apologize, it's English specific but god does English have some issues like that.
To clarify I meant you have no idea of their intentions, so you can't tell if they have ill or well intentioned thoughts towards you, so for your own sake it's easier to assume they are not safe. That doesn't mean they are dangerous but you can't know for certain.
Edit:
To be clear since it doesn't seem like I'm getting my intentions across. Bisexual is a really fucking wide category full of people from different walks of life.
This means it pulls in a lot of right leaning people because there's no word specific to being attracted to cis men and women.
There is nothing wrong with being bisexual but the issue is it has similar baggage as being straight which is that there are people within it thay do not believe transgender people are the gender they say they are.
I thought it really important to cover this with the rise of conservativism in the queer community. The reason why I say bisexuality isn't a safe marker is you don't need to understand there's a spectrum or even that there's more than two gender. Being pansexual does and that's part of my own reason for identifying as such after stating myself to be bisexual for years.
In a world that wasn't so transphobic I wouldn't bring it up but that's not the world we live in.
Except nowhere did I say either are inherently transphobic. I was pointing out that you're more likely to run into a transphobic person of either of those groups because it's such a wide encompassing umbrella.
To me it's no different from saying you're more likely to run into someone who is homophobic who is straight than someone who is homophobic and bisexual.
As for the racist thing I would say it's a nonsense thing to say because it's totally different. I'd say it's fair that people of color should be wary of white people because because of systemic racism at large has stemmed from white supremacy. Are there people of color who are racist, absolutely, are people of color with internalized racism, absolutely. Should I be the one who should be talking about this, absolutely not nor am I comfortar with it but you brought us to race.
More than anything I'm sick of having to explain and re-explain that some communities and sexualities are more risky for trans people than others.
If they weren't it wouldn't be fucking normalized that trans people need to disclaim themselves being transgender with their partners for their own safety.
I’m refuting that bisexual people are inherently more risky to trans people by virtue of being bisexual.
There is nothing wrong with being bisexual but the issue is it has similar baggage as being straight which is that there are people within it thay do not believe transgender people are the gender they say they are.
Why does being bisexual have similar baggage as straight people that make them more transphobic than pansexual people?
How do you not see that you’re stereotyping groups of people based on their sexual orientation?
I didn't say that was the difference though? I specifically stated that bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender and pansexuals are attracted to all.
All pansexuals are bisexuals not all bisexuals are pan.
So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.
So, I'll start by saying that it's pretty on brand for this meme post lol, but there are multiple definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality I find acceptable. There are some that are bullshit. I don't really subscribe to one true definition of it. I have one I use the most that I'll talk about later in this post. This is what I take issue with, see emphasis.
Bisexual is attracted to more than one gender and CAN include all the same attractions as a Pansexual.
Pansexual IS attraction to all genders.
So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.
This is either biphobic by assuming bisexuals are not accepting of trans people or transphobic by viewing trans men as a different gender than cis men (same for trans women and cis women). That's why I have a problem with it. Bisexuality has never meant that.
Someone else in this thread has already mentioned the bisexual manifesto from 1990. Now, to be clear, this isn't me saying "hey, it's called the bisexual manifesto, it's the one true definition of bisexuality." (It itself even says its not.) But I find this part relevant when discussing multiple definitions.
Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual' to be inadequate and too limiting. Do not assume that the opinions expressed are shared by all bisexuals, [...]
So even in 1990 it was understood by bisexuals that bisexuals did not have a single "one true definition" of bisexuality. Not to even mention pansexuality and what shape the venn diagram of the two might make.
Me, personally, the definition I use, that I feel I see many people use and also I have some bias towards because I feel it's the most satisfying is that pansexuals are attracted to traits of people without regards to gender. While bisexuals are attracted to any gender of people and may have traits they find attractive in some genders but not others. And the example I always give of this is, someone who is bi, but not pan, might find muscular women attractive, but dislike muscles on men. Meanwhile, someone who is pan would just like muscles regardless.
Another definition I use, but perhaps less useful to answer you, is that bisexuals are people who identify as bisexual. Pansexuals are people who identify as pansexual. And yes, people can identify as both or only one. I think self identification in the queer community is massively important. I have a friend who's wife came out as nonbinary. He calls himself straight. So when people ask me what his sexuality is, I say he's straight. Is there a part of me that believes in some technical, theoretical sense that he should consider labeling himself as something else? Sure, yeah, because his wife is nonbinary now, but that's not really my business unless he asked me about it.
First off thanks for writing up such a detailed answer while touching on the history of bisexuality.
is either biphobic by assuming bisexuals are not accepting of trans people or transphobic by viewing trans men as a different gender than cis men
Believe me that is not what meant to say but I have be paying from the nose for wording it like that. It more has to do with how bisexuality is defined differently for different people and how that relates to right leaning groups where bisexuals can pass.
Another definition I use, but perhaps less useful to answer
It's totally useful, a bit frustrating in a way that makes it feel like there's an itch I can't scratch but I agree and also think it's something to be left alone. Let sleeping dogs lie and frankly questioning people on their identity is more likely to cause more problems and strain the relationship more than it will solve.
I really don't know what I'm talking about but I always assumed bisexual was attracted to both traditionally presenting men and women, but maybe not so attracted to others, androgynous presenting or otherwise.
Pansexual is really like they dont even consider a persons gender at all, they can be attracted to anyone binary presenting or non-binary presenting
I'm not interested in binary gender conformity and gender conformity is NOT a part of how I experience my sexuality as a bisexual person, and I've never met a bisexual person who's claimed this is a part of their experience, I'm in my 40s, male, and spent a long time repressing my sexuality for everyone else's supposed comfort or benifit, and of course my supposed safety as growing up we were all told any variety of non cishet behavior would get us all killed and many followed through with that threat. I'm very much against anyone being told they need to fit any kind of construct of sexual or gender expression based on anything other that however they choose. and a lot of Bi people will get really put out of you place anti-trans bullshit on them. I'm PARTICULARLY attracted to people who DON'T confirm to gender demands of society and the binary gender construct is crazy harmful to so many people I deeply love and care about and will fight for and do what I can to protect. I'd really recommend not putting this supposed definition of bisexuality out, it's very contradictory to every bi person I've ever known's stated experience.
I’d really recommend not putting this supposed definition of bisexuality out, it’s very contradictory to every bi person I’ve ever known’s stated experience.
mostly that the kids these days started saying pansexual to talk about how they experience their sexuality, and I didn't hear about that until I was in my 30s, and I've been aware I'm bisexual since the 90s, so I'm bisexual, and I'm here for people who say they're pan and I'm happy to listen to them explain their own experience with their sexuality and talk about it with any terms they want, I'm all for people using their own terms and language however they choose, what pan means I couldn't really say without talking to more people who use the term.
Monosexual (mono = 1) - attracted to people of exactly 1 gender. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and attractions to any other specific gender and nothing else go here.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
Polysexual (poly = several) - attracted to people of several (3 and more) various genders. Pretty self-explanatory at this point.
Pansexual (pan = everything) - attracted to people of all genders. If you're sexy to a given pansexual, they don't care what your gender is - male, female, or any flavor of nonbinary. Just be cool.
The confusion stems from the previous understanding that there are only two genders, and the fact the awareness of different genders came before pansexuality or polysexuality were widely discussed, which made a giant mess with pansexuals categorizing themselves as bisexuals and then claiming being bisexual is not just about two genders. It is, it's in the name, and we have proper terms for other options now.
FYI: Some people also prefer the term "omnisexual", which also means being attracted to people of all genders, but accentuates the gender differences. So, instead of pansexual "I don't care of your gender, just be cool", it's more like "women are cute and nice, men are strong huggers and damn boy be the big spoon, agenders are special and whew I like that" etc. etc. Basically, loving everyone, but each gender is attractive in its own unique way.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
This is absolutely incorrect. I'll copy a portion of my own comment from deeper in this thread to explain.
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody's left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody’s left out.
Exactly, and as I said, this was very true when we considered that there are only two genders. Now if you're attracted to people of more genders, there are terms that would fit you better. Why produce the confusion by dragging the confusing and wrong two-gender era terminology into the modern world?
If you're attracted to men, women and agenders, why take the *bi-*sexual umbrella, especially when we have correct, more apt terms now? Bi is two, and two specifically. Bidirectional. Bipolar. Bicycle. Bipedal. Bisexual. Bi is two. Tri is three. Quadro is four. Why sexuality of all things should make an exception because some people didn't know better decades ago?
Did you read my comment? The bi in bisexual has never referred to two genders; it refers to two sexualities, namely homosexual and heterosexual. Homo meaning same and hetero meaning different. If we consider a set of people with both the same gender as a hypothetical bisexual person (regardless of their gender) and different genders from that same bisexual person, all people are included in that set regardless of their gender.
Importantly, no single word has ever been a full and complete description of any person's sexual preferences. I'm not saying that all bisexual people are attracted to all people of all genders, but that the word bisexual has no implication of anything less.
The term bisexual is not an exception to the bi - 2, tri - 3, quad - 4, etc linguistic rule, it simply doesn't refer to the two that you're assigning it to (genders). Beyond that, I have no idea why you think it's appropriate to apply a linguistic rule proscriptively to other people's sexualities.
This kind of confidently incorrect interpretation not only harkens to bisexual erasure (as in ignoring the words and writings of actual bisexual people), it actively harms bisexual people by assigning them with a reinforcing of gender binary that bisexuality has never implied, even linguistically. Try listening to a bisexual person (me, for starters) rather than blaming us for reinforcing a gender binary based on your own misinterpretation.
Also, bisexual is not an old outdated term from "when we considered that there are only two genders" (bisexual erasure much?), it is an inclusive identifier that covers a broad range of sexual preferences.
TLDR: Fuck you, you don't get to tell me how to refer to my own sexuality.
I was writing a long answer about misinterpretation of heterosexuality and the proven fact 1984-style word play doesn't erase what is there natively, and also fuck you for throwing slurs around and all that, when the root of the conflict occurred to me. And maybe that's something that helps settle it.
I treat sexuality as a descriptor, a label, and you treat it as an identity. To me, words should serve as the best available approximation of the experience, which is fluid and complicated and doesn't fit into narrow boxes anyway; to you, it's a legacy, a group, a part of who you are (correct me if I'm wrong).
I have no problem switching from heterosexual to bicurious/bisexual, and maybe to pansexual should I meet more nonbinary folks in person. To you, being bisexual is a pillar of who you are, and switching it up is as problematic as switching an engine on the go, and maybe that really shouldn't be done. You are, indeed, a sole arbiter.
But all these identities grew around words. And words can either bring clarity, or add to the confusion. You yourself claim not all bisexuals are attracted to people of all genders. Wouldn't it be great if people could properly clarify and make a distinction between being attracted to people of two genders, several of them, and all of them using the terms we already have, and which are widely accepted? This whole "how are bisexuals different from pansexuals" question could be settled overnight! Nothing needs to be invented; all that's left is to make a good use for the existing vocabulary. And maybe, when new people decide to make these words their identity, there would be waaay less confusion about it.
Bisexual refers to being attracted to people of both the same gender as you and different gender as you, so it already covers things outside the binary.
It's a common mistake though, many people think the bi part means attracted to both men and women (excluding anything else).
Edit for clarity: the bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody's left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
229 Comments
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 126 pts · 1d
Every definition I have heard for pansexuality or similar that defines the term in contrast to bisexuality reads like slander to my ears.
Bisexuality is a broad category, and it was never exclusionary. Bisexuals can be attracted to trans people, and enbies, and those with or without gendered presentations, but critically they don't have to be. Its a category not a checklist.
Bisexuality is broad. Other terms are more specific, and there is some amount of overlap.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 64 pts · 1d
This. Trans women are women. As a bisexual woman, I am attracted to women.
Banana@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 1d
Trans people are also included in the bisexual manifesto, written in 1990
The way I always understood it was bisexual = attraction to your gender and other genders
and pansexual = attraction regardless of gender
now, functionally speaking, there is no distinction, but in terms of experience, I always identified more with pansexual than bisexual, as someone's gender was just never something I took into account when determining my attraction.
I often to use both, as I consider pansexual to be a sub-distinction of bisexual.
That being said I recognize there is no consensus on the distinction in the community so I usually go with bi for ease.
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
I knew that was from Anything That Moves before I got past the first sentence lol
BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk · 4 pts · 1d
I've always understood it as pansexual being attracted to personalities and bisexual being attracted to physical attributes
Banana@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
I guess that does kind of align with my understanding, just in slightly more simplified terms!
cokeslutgarbage@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 5h
Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It's just more bi erasure.
Not gay enough for the gays Not straight enough for the straights Not bi enough for the pans
Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)
TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
absolutely, and therefore i like the def of HalfSalesman. It nicely distinguishes between pan and bi, whilst avoiding any dated anti-trans ideas.
thestrike@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
I would like to hear that definition if you have it on hand
TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1d
it’s in this comment section: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/25858715
thestrike@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Ok yeah that makes sense. The way I’ve conceptualized it is that pan is attracted to all genders or to people regardless of gender and bi is attracted to two or more genders. I think the way that commenter phrased it is a great way to think about it
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 1d
I tell straight people I'm bi, i tell queer people I'm pan.
That way, you see, ha ha, I get the best of both worlds
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 1d
thatOneGuy@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 1d
But then you’re missing out on all that bottom fun!
pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
God. Always that one guy….
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 1d
As a trans person and a pansexual, I would describe it like this:
I don't have a type. I don't even necessarily tend to find people attractive until I get to know them a bit. The people I find "hot" aren't tall people or feminine people or strong people or anything like that, instead I think clothing choices that tell me something about you and give me a feel for who you are as a person are hot.
If i'm attracted to you, I will find myself attracted to your body, rgardlesss of what your body happens to be like. You could literally be a glob of goo or an alien or a talking rock, if I like you I'll start thinking you're hot.
If you're thinking "isn't that demisexual"? then you're halfway there - i'm not ace. I do think people are hot when I pass them on the street, except what i'm attracted to is their "vibe" rather than anything about their physical form.
Naturally, pansexual is a subset of bisexual - i'm also proud to be bi and I use that label frequently. And yes both bi and pan are trans-inclusive.
Dingo_Kidneys@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 1d
You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying "Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that". Because there's a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
If I can get enough of a read on someone's personality, then yes I can be aroused, lip bite, let's fuck, etc. more or less right away. I do need to get to know someone to be into them but that process can happen extremely quickly, including at a glance if I can get enough of a sense of someone's personality from what they're wearing/other context clues.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
Yeah, the only way pansexual makes sense, to me at least, is if bisexual excludes feminine presenting men and masculine presenting women, but I don't see why it should. I feel like pan was just created either to make certain people feel like they're being more inclusive than just normal bi people, or to make bi people feel like they're being exclusive.
A lot of the gender and sexual orientation language of recent times is good and removes ambiguity. Some of it though, like pan, feels like people just treating it as a contest.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 19h
hildegarde already said the reason why Pansexual exists. Bisexual is a broad category, a REALLY broad category to the extent if someone tells you bisexual you've really learned nothing about their attractions unless they tell you.
Ehich flows off the tongue better, all inclusive bisexual or pansexual?
edible_funk@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 23h
I always took the difference as pan means you're sexually aroused and attracted to people's personalities, regardless of their body, and bi means you like dicks and vaginas. It's probably not very useful but out of the people I know that go both ways, the ones that are ok with casual sex call themselves bi and the ones that aren't use pan.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 22h
No? That's demisexual. Pansexual is you're attracted to all (pan- means all) types of people, which is effectively equivalent to bi. Note attraction does not mean you like that person. You don't even need to know someone to be attracted to them.
N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 15h
But liking a person can cause attraction, right?
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 13h
Sure. Sexual orientation is defined as the innate attraction though. It's the attraction you have to someone you see walking down the street. Obviously the right kind of interactions can overcome this and make someone attracted to someone they weren't originally attracted to though, or vice versa.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 22h
Isn't that basically just Demisexual
TeaWithDani@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 17h
The way I frame it is: Bisexuals are attracted to you because of gender, pansexuals not. The ven diagram of attraction is mostly the same. It's more about the why. Like I find masculine and feminine traits individually hot no matter who presents them, makes me bi.
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 1d
The definitions I've known are that bisexuality is that you are attracted to all body types and pansexuality is that you are attracted to people.
So, one is more physical and the other is more social, but there's no slander to either, no?
I for example wouldn't say ace biromantic, I'd define it as ace panromantic since bi has more of a physical vibe. Idk, it's not so deep.
lilith267@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -2 pts · 1d
I learned what bi/pan was from a random discord user back in 2016 and I still think its the best description
Bi: Sexually attracted to looks, personality can obv play a big part/be a deciding factor but your main attraction comes from how physically attractive you think they are
Pan: Sexually attracted to personality, looks can obv play a big part/be the deciding factor but your main attraction is how much you like their personality
nforminvasion@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
Again... Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there's no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk · 5 pts · 1d
All heterosexuals and homosexuals care about physical traits, often regarding a genitalia.
It's not about being shallow, when 90%+(?) of the population shares that commonality.
I consider myself a panromantic, heterosexual non-binary person.
Sure personality matters a lot to me, but I can't sexually engage with a penis. It's just how it goes.
lilith267@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 1d
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although... Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
No no no. Hi it's me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don't put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn't a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that's fine. The real world doesn't fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
nforminvasion@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23h
The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.
We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn't need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn't commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I'm being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc...).
But we don't unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The
deathmurder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don't think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don't really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It's why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In "losing" ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn't mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.
Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of "oh there's x person. He's gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he's problematic because x thing vs y thing..." And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they "know" immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc...
Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society's addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn't boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn't really communicate anything, because there's not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who's using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
nforminvasion@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It's a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn't.
I actually yearn for a world where labels don't really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there's no immediate categorization of this person's identity. It's probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).
And it's not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don't know exactly how it would look, and that's the cool part: I don't have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our "normal".
But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I'm leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 1 pts · 15h
I mean, practically, if someone tells me they're bi or pan, it doesn't really change my view of them. Like there's not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I'm trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn't. But if they're bi or if they're pan, it doesn't change that.
There is a difference, I'm not saying there isn't, and I'm not saying we should only use one if the two. I'm just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I'm curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it's not super critical for anything.
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 15h
But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1d
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
"Pan" because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn't matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
"Bi" in the sense of being "bi-directional" in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I'm finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 20 pts · 1d
I don't know why but this is making me feel my age. I feel like I mentally just patted down different pockets across my mind like an old man, looking for a pamphlet or flow chart that I know I don't have but desperately need.
The autism is compelling me to make a laminated pocket sized booklet with an updated chart of all gender, sexual orientation, and flag colors. But I also feel being spotted in public using the LGBTQ Pokedex might be faux pas?
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 8 pts · 1d
You dont have to know them all. Its just a comfort to people to have a label when you can't otherwise communicate your experience :) (and in some cases it makes you feel less alone and weird for relating to people in a way you dont see anyone else experiencing)
And there are a lot of ways to experience sexuality and attraction (or to not experience it), so there are a lot of labels! But you dont need to know all of them
You can always ask if someone uses a label you dont know and you'd like to know (eg "oh, ive not heard that label before. What does it mean to you?") and as long as you're being friendly people usually take comfort in seeing someone interested in understanding them. But unless you're in community with someone and want to understand their identity, its not neccesary to really know the various labels, nevermind have a complete list and know all of them by heart
Sending love from my corner of the world to yours ☺️ (signed, a person who's maybe gray-ace :)
velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
This is a really sweet comment <3
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 1d
I'm glad you think so ☺️☺️
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20h
....Wholesomeness? On lemmy? Not on my watch!!1!1
Nonsensically mean comment! Thatll teach you to never be kind to other humans! Hmmmph!
(jk)
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
It's tough because the language has evolved relatively rapidly over the past few decades, and is still evolving quite rapidly. Definitions emerge and compete for relevancy (like the atrocious "Bi means you aren't attracted to trans people" strain that has popped up in this thread) and they can contradict or confuse with each other. It has been my experience that it's harder to absorb vocabulary as I get older, so I think I know what you mean. I've stopped trying to reach a comprehensive understanding, I just try to use the language that helps and respects people and not the language that harms and demeans people as best I can.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah, I feel like past 35 it's harder to keep up with trending vernacular. I just try my best to be respectful. I think the autism has kinda trained me to use gender neutral pronouns and to avoid assuming sexual orientation anyways. I've always had a hard time distinguishing gender unless it's blatantly obvious someone is presenting as masculine or feminine.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Nah, I looked it up because its my specific type of attraction and its easier to tell someone I'm finsexual and assume they'll look it up or ask me to explain what that is. Rather than up front explaining in detail what my specific sexual interests are which might be a tad forward...
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 1d
So ......what you're saying is there will be high demand for my LGBTQ Pokedex? I need to file a copyright real quick.
Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Please explain your sexual interests entirely through allegory without using explicit vocabulary generally accepted to be sexual in connotation. Thank you.
Grizzlybur@piefed.ca · 11 pts · 1d
Pansexuals loving pans 🤝 finsexuals loving fish
Tbh I’ve always considered myself pansexual just because I am attracted to what I’m attracted to, no guardrails or borders. I usually view these terms as more like shackles than support. I suppose 99% of the time I could be considered finsexual aside from the stray guy. Usually I just explain pansexuality to my boomer family as my sexuality is whatever gets me horny and can give moral enthusiastic consent. Thats what it means to me at least. I don’t overthink it beyond that.
DaGeek247@fedia.io · 9 pts · 1d
Honestly, I think I like these definitions best. Just2look is also probably correct about a lot of people too though.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Yeah the Bisexual flag is fucking cool.
MonkRome@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
I like these definitions. But i feel like if i call myself bi, it misleads people who dont know this definition.
This is why I prefer "queer" personally, because why should I have to explain my sexuality to anyone. I'll know what I like when the time comes and that has expanded and contracted over the years. There is no specific line I feel like I need to use as a definition. To me drawing a line just limits things and misleads others. Language is imperfect and sexuality is complex.
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
I also most often use queer to define my sexuality to others (as in my Lemmy bio), but consider myself bisexual and refer to myself as such when asked directly or in conversation with queer friends.
protist@retrofed.com · 6 pts · 1d
I know I'm probably getting downvoted to hell for this. I think calling yourself "finsexual" does nothing to help you find a partner. Why do you even need that label? The obsession with applying increasingly specific labels to people doesn't feel healthy. In reality, you meet people, and you like someone you meet, romantically and/or sexually and/or socially, or you don't. These specific types of labels are only for people's imaginary future partners and seem to be an attempt at having a modicum of control in a world that's entirely uncertain and ambiguous
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 1d
I don't think they would use the term in a dating scene when interacting with people unless is on topic.
Why not?
It would seem unhealthy to do so to others, but they are defining themselves in a space where specifically that is being discussed. That's not obsession.
Hard disagree. I agree with you in that when you find a partner you either like them or you don't, and they don't need to know much more that you like them.
These terms are for the person to understand themselves better so they can interact more efficiently with others, not a template that others need to know to interact with you.
I like women, but I don't care much about what they have between their legs. That's technically straight, but I'd say that a lot of straight people wouldn't accept that, so I like to think I'm flex straight. I wouldn't point it out to my partner unless we were talking about sexuality to begin with, but this is a post about sexuality, it's very on topic to think more deeply about this stuff.
protist@retrofed.com · 2 pts · 23h
Sure, but why create new words that 99.3% of people would have to look up rather than just say, "I'm attracted to feminine people." The constant drumbeat of new terms to describe sexualities and genders is utterly exhausting. We already have the language to describe all these things effectively without creating new words
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 16h
My brother in Christ, have you know language? It evolves constantly. New words are created and old ones stop being used all the time.
You are getting annoyed in a comment chain about sexuality where the first use of the term was in a comment where the meaning was explained. You don't need to look it up because they explained it right there, and if that's exhausting maybe don't engage in the discussion? Their comment is way more on topic than yours, just saying.
Exhausting? Really? It doesn't affect your life in any way, you can choose not to engage with the topic. I recommend you to try relaxing your views on this topic and removing it importance given the context in which it was used. It feels like you are linking other instances where you saw or you were told that people used terms in a way where it disrupted conversation with this one, but again, in this instance it was very on topic and definitely not disruptive, this was not the best comment chain where to express your frustrations.
You did the equivalent of going to a video gaming convention and complaining why everyone is talking about computer games instead of just playing sports. If someone was playing videogames in an outing and killing the vibe maybe you could tell on him, but the convention definitely wasn't the forum, and this isn't.
Edit to actually answer your question lmao: because labels are fun, everyone likes labels. Humans tend to label everything from time immemorial. People enjoy creating labels for themselves. If going to a post about sexuality and reading comments about people discussing labels is exhausting, please leave :)
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
Its just a communication tool. Saying I'm a finsexual instead of bi tends to ease issues for me because sometimes people misinterpret just saying I'm bi to suggest "oh they might be attracted to me." Which has directly lead to problems for me. Being a little more specific seems like a reasonable means to avoid those problems.
Nihilore@quokk.au · 5 pts · 1d
This is why i consider myself Bi, I’m attracted to femininity regardless of gender
velma@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 1d
As a bisexual girlie, would someone let me know what the true difference is when it's figured out??
Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels.
just2look@lemmy.zip · 52 pts · 1d
I've heard a ton of different definitions, but honestly I think people just pick the label they like better and there isn't a functional difference. I identify as bisexual because the flag is better haha.
N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 1d
bi is also one character less to type
0ops@piefed.zip · 19 pts · 1d
Say you're a Linux user without saying you're a Linux user
just2look@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 1d
Efficiency is important
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20h
Wy many leter when fewer leter do the tric?!
velma@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 1d
The bisexual flag is SO much better. You get it haha
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
vexilosexual
VGpunx@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
this.
Inkstainthebat@pawb.social · 4 pts · 1d
I used to feel the same about the flag, but at some point it grew on me
...along with 2014 techno music, osu, sparkledogs and shiny glass like UIs. Dunno if it's connected
athatet@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 11h
Exactly. Just pick whatever flag has colors that you like then go sleep with whoever you are attracted to. It doesn’t have to be complicated.
tacosanonymous@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 1d
Bi here. Generally, attracted to men and women for the characteristics they have.
Pan is more that they’re attracted to people regardless of their sex. Like, it doesn’t really play into it.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 1d
That makes me hesitant to ever identify as bisexual though and honestly that makes me really sad. I've become quite attached to bisexuality as a part of my identity and adhere to the definition @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone used here:
I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I'm rejecting them based on my own identity.
Edit: Ugh you? Yeah I'm not going to go with your definition of anything with comments like these in your history
egrets@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
All of this is just retroactive attempts to delineate the two labels after the concept of being transgender started to become understood by a wider portion of the public (and the queer community, for that matter). Don't let faux-academic definitions define your identity. If "bisexual" feels like it fits but gender-nonconforming, agender, androgynous-presenting, and/or genderfluid people are also your thing, that's entirely fine.
(Edit: and it doesn't in any way invalidate other people's self-labeling when they categorize it differently to you. Labels are only there to simplify communication of ideas. They're not a sports team.)
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
<3
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 1d
I think that distinction just grew up with the current trend of trans-exclusion. I identify as bi and my bi club is explicitly inclusive of trans and NB folk. The transphobes will have to pry the ol' pink and blue from my cold dead sexy bisexual hands.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1d
Hell yeah!
TheEntity@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
That would imply being anything other than pansexual is wrong and discriminatory, period.
It's worth stressing that it's perfectly fine to reject someone as a potential partner for any reason or even for no reason at all. For example if you find white women more attractive than black women, I don't think it makes you racist if that's just about attraction, not respect.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 1d
I would hate to signal it because I am personally attracted to cis and trans people, but still like to identify as bisexual. That's all :)
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 1d
Yeah, you're definitely not proving me wrong on that.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
You have no idea if I'm butch or fem.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -5 pts · 1d
You mean like how you have no idea if I'm a man or a woman? Funny how it's one set of rules for you and another for me.
Edit: To clarify, this isn't a "You can't define what a woman is" thing, it's a "this user loves to make assumptions about me and is mad when I do the same" thing.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
It's bigoted as fuck to assert that all butch lesbians are cool and all fem lesbians are bitter.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 1d
N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1d
who assumed that you are a man?
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 1d
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 1d
This is transphobic because it insinuates that trans people are some third gender rather than their actual gender. There is nothing about bisexuality or the "bi" prefix that would imply that bi people are only attracted to cis people unless you believe that trans and cis people are separate genders.
Nonbinary people, on the other hand, I can see how "bi means two" can be conflated to mean bisexuals can't be attracted to nonbinary people although I think that ignores the history of the term bisexual, as well as ignores the reality of nonbinary genders, i.e. you can't necessarily tell someone is nonbinary by looking at them. I think when people say they're "not attracted to nonbinary people" if they're not bigoted they likely mean something like not being attracted to androgyny, but not all nonbinary people present androgynously.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
Some do pass. How would those people who think they aren't attracted to trans people even know until clothes come off? And even then, they might not be able to tell if a person is trans, cis, or intersex.
It's like when people say they aren't attracted to bisexual men. It's personal preference rooted in bigotry, even if they're not conscious of it.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1d
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
That doesn't mean they won't be attracted to any and all trans people.
There's nothing different about a bisexual man and a straight man when it comes to dating. If someone doesn't like bisexual men because bisexual men are also attracted to men, that is a preference rooted in homophobia.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1d
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
That has nothing to do with being bisexual or not though. I might not be into bodybuilders "exhibiting their masculinity" by being absurdly jacked, but that doesn't make me not bisexual. I'm just not attracted to that particular gender presentation.
I think when people say "I'm not attracted to trans people" they have a particular idea of a trans person in their head, but plenty of trans people pass and some go "stealth". "We can always tell" is patently false. I suppose I can imagine a person who is so caught up in gender who would be turned off if they found out someone is trans, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone not asexual who wouldn't find some trans person initially attractive, at least post-op.
I agree with your last point though. At this point I've mostly given up on pansexual/bisexual and just call myself queer.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
I really like that the LGBT+ community has rallied around reclaiming the word "queer".
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1d
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1d
I am convinced that they are the same thing and the only difference is the label itself. Any definitions I've seen are either equivalent, or denigrating to one of the labels and unrepresentative of how many people use them. Regardless of the history, trying to hammer down that one must be used over the other is a waste of time.
Lumelore@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
I'm gen z and consider myself pan because the flag colors look like an ocean sunset and yummy ice cream. And also because gender is irrelevant to me in regards to attraction.
just2look@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
I respect choosing the label because of the flag haha
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1d
That actually makes me appreciate the pan flag more! It does kinda look like an ocean sunset :)
Maven@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
My personaly definition is:
bi is attracted to people of multiple genders (could be all or could be limited to specific ones)
Pan is attracted to people regardless of gender entirely. Gender simply isnt a factor when it comes to attraction.
I personally am far more in the Pan side of things but I rep the Bi flag because its much much better.
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 1d
I think the most reasonable definition is that bi means you are into either and pan means you don't care. So bi means you have two "prototypes" you're into, one male and one female, and pan means your "prototype" is not gendered. Having a gendered prototype doesn't mean it excludes trans people. A trans person can be close enough to either or both, depending on their state of transition and your focus. I hope I'm making sense.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
I like that a lot :)
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
I think this is it. At one point, when I was hanging around queer spaces on the internets, it was inclusive and preferred to use "pan" instead of "bi", but then few years later it flipped around. Same with writing LGBTQA*, which was then preferred as inclusive, but few years later apparently the asterisk made it non-inclusive instead.
Personally, I treat the labels more like a fashion thing now, since they come and go, and the "polite" ones change. So if I want to hang around queer spaces, I will just read up what is okay at the moment. Usually I do not anymore, though, since I absorbed into my spine, from the earlier internet days, that asexuals are not welcome ("A is for Ally"). I know that changed later as well, but at that point I had grown too tired, to talk about queer stuff.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 19h
"Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels."
Yup pretty much exactly it.
Pansexual means attracted to all genders, bi is more than one. All pansexuals are bisexuals, not all bisexuals are pansexuals.
alapakala@quokk.au · 2 pts · 1d
How willing are you to date an 𒀭𒀀𒉣𒈾?
If you're, welcome panie.
If you'rent, you're still bi.
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Without doing much research at all, I would say the big issue is that 'bisexual' was coined during a time were e.g. ace and enby people were given much less thought than they are today, leading to this weird situation where 'bi' originally meant 'both', but there is no 'both' when there are 3+ answeres to the question of gender (and sexuality)
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1d
Ah I can see that. I've always known the "bi" part of bisexual to be attracted to one's own gender and of differing genders.
I like the bisexual flag better too lol
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
as an old bisexual, it ment attracted to male and female sex characteristics and people who have both or invent their own gender expressions besides that were never ment to be excluded in anyway. this was never about deciding who can't be attractive or desirable, it was that my sexuality includes attraction to the sex characteristics of both sexes. people who have any combination of characteristics or gender expressions or invent their own expressions aren't excluded and were never excluded in the past by people who called themselves bisexual. that's all people deciding now, looking back, that it must be related to binary gender constructs, which us really harmful to older bisexuals, we also spent a long time typically being demonized for not fitting cishet normative behavior or expression, I'm VERY MUCH not anti Trans and gender non comforting people are the people I'm mainly attracted to, and expressing and identifying with gender other than male is part of who I am also. it's really annoying to have spent so much time being told what I can't be or what I must be because how I experience my sexuality includes all the sex characteristics vs one group or another. it's never been about binary gender construct endorsement or agreement I hate binary gender constraints being put on anyone my sexuality doesn't do this.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 1d
🚲-sexual
🍳-sexual
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 1d
personally i'm trainsexual
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
🚂 woo woo 💨
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social · 24 pts · 1d
Bisexuals that grow from the ceiling are called “bicicles”
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
I thought they were bilagmites.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19h
NSFW
"Always remember : bilagmites cum from above you , panlagtites cum from under you"
bss03@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 1d
For some reason this reminded me of U-nicycle.
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 24 pts · 1d
Bisexuals have a cooler flag, pretty sure that's the only difference. Otherwise they're both labels that fail to adequately describe the infinitely personal and variable elements of human attraction and sexuality. Use whichever one feels right. I flip between bi and pan when labeling myself but omnisexual probably "fits" the best
ebc@lemmy.ca · 44 pts · 1d
Madagaskar_sky@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
Oh look what you've done now. You've made it worse. Omnisexual? Now there's three terms confuddling the concept.
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
Behold the magnificence and terror of my eldritch, unknowable sexuality!
IamMoonPie@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Pish pish! The Pan flag is amazing! It’s like a sunset ice cream Sunday!
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Haha, to each their own!
olafurp@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Isn't that just changing it from the Greek pan prefix to Latin omni prefix, both meaning all?
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
Omnisexuality is differentiated from bi/pan in recognizing the role of gender in attraction, and expresses a.preference for certain genders over others. For example, I'm mostly attracted to fem, queer, or androgynous presenting people, and not particularly drawn to masc people. I am attracted to some men (amab or.afab), but not to the same degree as I am with other gender expressions
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1d
You're only pansexual if you're from the Panne region of France, otherwise you're just sparkling bisexual.
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 1d
Panne is in Belgium.
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -8 pts · 1d
Don't do this. That joke is tiresome. Please stop.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1d
Is your boredom from the Tirésomme region? Or you're just sparkling bored?
hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Typical lemmyworld...
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 22h
I'm going to need to see either your Fun Police badge, or a warrant from a federal Fun Judge
psycotica0@lemmy.ca · 22 pts · 1d
I'd say the only meaningful distinction is that some people make up a definition "bi" could have had but never did, and then use "pan" in opposition to that 😛
But more honestly I asked my sister why she identifies as pan rather than bi, and her answer was that bi attracted the wrong people and pan attracted the right people 😉
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
Oooooh, so THAT'S what was growing in my sex cave
DmMacniel@feddit.org · 6 pts · 1d
Oh my...
marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 1d
People who say they are not attracted to trans women are absurd. It is like saying "I am not attracted to sisters of friends." Being unattracted is different than consciously deciding you shouldn't be.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 21h
Just a heads up to everyone that has a Bisexuality definition that isn't Bisexual, I'd really recommend not putting anti-trans labels and bullshit on Bi people, it's never failed too piss off every Bi person I've ever been or known.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20h
...Im sorry what?
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 20h
There's a ton of non-bisexual people in this thread (and elsewhere) that present a false definition of bisexual that excludes trans/nb/agender/gf/generally gender non-conforming people. Or otherwise may assume that bisexual people are necessarily either monogamous or polyamorous, neither of which is universally true of all bi people. Actual bisexual people (like myself) are understandably upset by these incorrect assumptions. It's especially harmful to have people assume that a bisexual person wouldn't be attracted to a trans person because of the implied transphobia it puts on bisexual people.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 18h
Ah I think I understand. Thanks.
Klostein@reddthat.com · -4 pts · 18h
bi means two so it assumes two genders
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 18h
I'll apparently be quoting myself again in this thread.
Surely you can understand that it's insensitive to tell a bisexual person what their own sexuality means. I recommend reading more and chiming in less on matters that you know little about, especially when replying to someone (me) who explicitly said that they don't appreciate the transphobic implications of an incorrect and ignorant interpretation of the term.
Im bi and my partner is NB and bi. No part of that is confusing or contradictory.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 9h
I don't experience my sexual orientation through the strict dictionary defintions of root words in the English language. I don't know why you think I would. I don't. I'm not anti Trans. I'm attracted to plenty of Trans people, fem men, masc women, and plenty of gender non confotming or queer people, being attracted to people who are 1. same as me and 2. not same as me is also a binary. but bi generally meaning experiencing both same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction doesn't mean I can't be attracted to a man that expresses generally female traits or sexual characteristics intentionally, I don't even know how it's hard to figure out that gender non conforming people would be as or more attractive to someone attracted to sexual characteristics of all permutations. Please. don't tell Bi people how they must experience their own sexuality based on the dictionary. It's very belittling and can only lead to misunderstandings and harm. if you want to be a real technical asshole about it, I'm attracted to the sexual characteristics of male and female bodies and I'm not concerned about those characteristics matching any 'right' or 'wrong' standard created by society or anyone other than the person who is expressing and existing in their desired state. You don't need to put anti Trans or anti gender queer sentiment on my sexual orientation, that makes no sense. I deeply love and respect and care for my Trans family members, friends, and fellow human beings.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 18h
Attracted to the same gender and other genders. Two.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
attracted to the sexual characteristics of men and women, why would that stop me from being attracted to someone that has any permutation of either sex characteristics in expression or configuration? and gender doesn't even enter into it of you want to be that technical, but again, gender being a construct, why would it bother me, a person attracted to many characteristics of gender expression be not attracted to someone who expresses a configuration of gender characteristics that mix and match or invent their own? that makes no sense. don't tell me how I experience my sexuality.
Klostein@reddthat.com · -1 pts · 17h
but that's pan
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15h
No.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 17h
Let me repeat @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone for you.
Dearth@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 17h
where's the P in LGBTQ?
Klostein@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 17h
isn't there a + at the end?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 17h
You're missing the +
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 17h
I dont really think thats true.
I think that bisexual is just a term that has stuck since its been in use for so many many years
Its like feminism. Indeed the term feminism has the term 'fem' iin it so many people may assume that it has to do with equal rights of females ONLY . And indeed when liberal feminism started to be talked of more during the 1910s and 1940s when women and non-males starting taking up the jobs of dead males from the world wars it was indeed about more rights and suffrage for ONLY women... but I think that most modern feminists that are worrh their mettle would agree with me that femism has evolved to mean many things about ALL genders and has a lot to do with equality, independence, and equity amongst ALL genders.
Im a proletarian feminist and proletarian feminism has absolutely nothing to do with radical feminism or liberal feminism. So even though these terms are similar they are nothing a like in practice.
And feminism has nothing to do with those people in the past who ONLY resisted the current system for ONLY more women's rights - feminism has nothing to do with those who push for 'female supremacy' despite the term's 'fem' in it.
Being bisexual means many things nowadays to all people of ALL genders (I dont know and dont care how many genders there are. People should be able tk be who they want to be.) and there are many categories of bisexual peoples . But bisexual people have simply stuck with this term of 'bisexual' becauee the term simply stuck during the 1970s.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 17h
jambudz@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 1d
Staden_@pawb.social · 12 pts · 1d
At this point I just think they're different names for the same thing.
Setiyeti93@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 1d
Can confirm. Am pan. Am also stuck on the ceiling
5318008@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 23h
For practical purposes, it's a judgement call:
-If they're under 30, I say I'm pansexual.
-If they're over 40, I say I'm bisexual.
-In between, I pick one based on vibes.
For theory purposes:
Studies on sexual attraction predate studies on gender identity. "Bisexual" hails from a day that we just considered the physical presentation of the people a study participant is attracted to, with the options of 1: Same, 2: Different. The studies allowed for people to be homosexual, heterosexual, or both-sexual.
"Pansexual" has had different definitions in the 1920s, 1970s, 2020s, and presumably the years in between. The current popular definition of "attraction to all genders" or "attraction regardless of gender" is basically a subset of "bisexual", since this includes both people of the same sex, and people of different sex.
It's more inclusive in the aspect of rejecting the gender binary at the start. But also, I believe that words are for communication, so at the end of the day, I'm using the most useful word based on the information I'm trying to communicate.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 14h
There are some transphobes and/or enbyphobes who will insist that bisexual means attraction to only two genders, and we all know why they're doing that.
Others will say that bisexual means they based on the meaning of the prefix "bi-". But that is the etymological fallacy. The current meaning of a word is not necessarily related to its etymological origin. Words change meaning literally all the time, and we should all be nonplussed about it by now [1].
In reality, words only mean what people generally understand them to mean [2]. Most dictionaries still retain, at least implicitly, a two definition, but most LGBT+ orgs and psychological associations and whatnot tend to define it as "more than one" gender, or similar.
Similarly, pansexual is generally defined as attraction to all genders or attraction being irrelevant of gender in the vast majority of places that care to declare a definition. But there are those who use it to mean the same thing as the latter definition of bisexual because they believe bisexual to mean the former definition of bisexual.
So what is the actual difference? It probably depends where you are and who you're talking to. Womp womp.
There's a joke/stereotype that many people who describe themselves as bi are attracted to one specific type of guy, and literally all women.
In my practical experience, people are more likely to identify as bisexual if they tend have a preference for certain gender presentations over others, and more likely to identify as pansexual if they are (closer to being) equally horny for all. Or if they have a preference for more pastel colours.
🤷♀️
[1] Even I believe, in my heart, that using the word nonplussed this way is wrong.
[2] Ha! I got the linguistic prescriptivists and the logicians with that one!
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 22h
F all this. I'm omni
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 13h
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 14h
I thought pansexuals needed to be seasoned first and washed immediately after each use then thoroughly patted dry?
bobbyfiend@retrolemmy.com · 2 pts · 12h
This feels like a corner of the community trying to make rules for everyone. I think the intent is good, but I don't think the definitions are as you say at this point in history because I don't think they are any particular way. The people with the identities should decide on labels and meanings, and after several discussions with bi and pan people (specifically about this) or seems clear to me that there is not a strong consensus about what the terms "truly" mean. It is all over the place (at least in the sample of people whose discussions I witnessed).
One common thread is that almost none of them want to use the labels to exclude others.
bobbyfiend@retrolemmy.com · 2 pts · 12h
I know a few who would probably love this.
SystemDisc@feddit.org · 7 pts · 1d
Pansexual because gender and physical looks are mostly irrelevant to what you find sexually attractive
Bisexual because you find both sexes physically attractive making gender mostly irrelevant
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 22h
Bisexual assumes two genders though, not wholly irrelevant.
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 21h
Read any of the many definitions of bisexual from actual bisexual people in this thread, and you'll learn that bisexual absolutely does not assume two genders or reinforce a gender binary in any way.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 15h
No.
N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1d
Adding to the flame war: it’s not even clear if it is about sex or gender for both
BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
By most definitions I’d consider myself pansexual, but boy do I like the bi flag more, so that is what I typically use. And it’s easier for a layman to understand.
Kraiden@piefed.social · 5 pts · 1d
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org · 4 pts · 1d
Easy: are they exceedingly attracted to a loaf of bread?
renormalizer@feddit.org · 3 pts · 1d
Or to cast-iron skillets?
germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
The difference is that they’re both getting fucked over and not in the sexy way…
Wait that’s not a difference
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
So the definitions I've seen here are:
Did I miss any? A couple of these were new to me. Innovations in the discourse?
boringbisexual@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
I'll be honest, I just like the flag.
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
In regards to the 4th one, that's how I've always kinda described it. I consider myself bi because I am attracted to men, women, and NBs differently. My sister considers herself pan because there is no difference in the way she feels attracted to someone based on their gender.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
This description made it really click for me, thank you! That makes so much more sense.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15h
First two are biphobic.
As an example of this, a bisexual might find muscular women attractive, but not muscular men, but pansexuals find muscles attractive or not on all people. This is the definition I use.
The thing I find troublesome about this is that it can overly lump people into bisexuality. A common definition for lesbian today is someone who is not a man who is attracted to people who aren't men. If that's your definition of lesbian and bisexual than you're saying lesbians are bisexual. I prefer to say bisexual is attracted to all genders.
Weird seeing this because traditionally the harmful stereotype is that bisexuals need two lovers. Either way, this is not a good definition.
This is one that's silly, but kind ends up being true sometimes. Bi and pan are incredibly overlapped. Not all bi people are pan and not all pan people are bi, yes, but there's a lot of overlap. So a lot people in the middle just pick the flag they prefer.
Also I will die on the hill that pansexuality is not a subset of bisexuality. Not all pansexuals are bisexual.
melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 14h
Yeah the "bisexuals are monogamous" one was brand new to me, one of the weirder ones. I can't tell if it was meant to be a joke or not.
VAK@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
What's a demi?
Forester@pawb.social · 3 pts · 22h
Demisexual aka. Not sexual until in love.
VAK@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 13h
Wow, TIL
Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Bisexual: attracted to two or more genders and are autumn or winter coloring.
Pansexual: attracted to more than one gender, and are a spring or summer.
alapakala@quokk.au · 3 pts · 1d
Can confirm.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 1d
but what happens when the bisexual reaches the ceiling or the pansexual reaches the ground
bobbyfiend@retrolemmy.com · 3 pts · 12h
Bisexuals have a tomato base while pansexuals are more teriyaki.
CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social · 1 pts · 1d
Bisexuals think transfolks are their gender and know what pan means, pansexuals don't exist because they're fucking LYING if they say they find the Xcgutrian gender sexy.
dewritoninja@pawb.social · 1 pts · 59m
Bisexuals are salt water and pansecuals are freshwater. But fr from my understanding bisexual started as an exonym (originaly it meant something like hermafroditism but later it became about orientation), and since bisexual people have always been subject to erasure they latched onto it. Of course this term came to existence when the academic view of gender was binary so way later people wanted to update the label to reflect the change in paradigm but a lot of older people had become very attached to the laber and refused to change it and then people tried to rationalize differences but they are so subtle that imo is an exercise in futility.
I use both , but use pan online where people are more likely to understand me and bi irl cause for a lot of people the label pan feels completely alien.
You can only be bisexual if you are from the bisexual region of France, else you are sparkling pansexual
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 1d
I thought bi was preferring both cis and/or trans males and females, while pan was cis or trans male/female as well as anyone presenting non binary. Like a true bisexual would not be into someone non-binary, while a pansexual would consider a non binary person as a partner.
You can be monogamous and also be pansexual. You can be bi, but also be polyamorous.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
And here I've always heard that bisexual means the attraction to your own/same gender and attraction to opposite/different genders, so that would include non-binary folk.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 1d
I love how both of us go down voted, but there is no discourse telling us how we are wrong, how we misinterpreted things. I spent some more time researching and the other thing that comes up is pansexual people are gender blind in terms of attraction, so it's a person by person basis when determining attraction. Any pansexual and or bisexual people want to weigh in and share their experiences.
I am a woman that is attracted to cis females, on two occasions trans men, and on one occasion a non-binary person genetically containing 2 x chromosomes. I have yet to experience attraction to a trans-woman or cis-man. What does that make me? I still consider myself a lesbian, and not a pansexual or bisexual.
N0tTr0xy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 1d
In the end you define what label you feel most comfortable with. Do you really know that person’s chromosomes?
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 1d
Yes, it was talked about between us.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
I'm sorry, some of my stalkers are in here downvoting me and got you, too.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
God damn, some people really need to find hobbies other than hating others on the internet. Sorry.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1d
This is the definition I go by and why I swapped to Pansexual.
Bisexual is attracted to more than one gender and CAN include all the same attractions as a Pansexual.
Pansexual IS attraction to all genders.
So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.
If you're a trans person on say a dating app that makes all the difference in considering whether or not someone is safe.
So if you think there's no difference that's wrong. Could be that a bisexual is attracted to specifically women and nonbinary people, could be men and women, could be any other genders and it's not limited to two. Pansexuals skips that and says literally every gender.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
I still wouldn't assume anyone labelling themselves as bisexual is an unsafe person for trans people. I think people use bi and pan interchangeably too much to assume anything without talking to the individual.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 1d
You're twisting my words, I said whether or not someone is safe, not that they're unsafe.
If you can't confirm that at first look then your only option is better safe than sorry and move on or get into what can very quickly turn into an unpleasant conversation.
There is nuance and what you assume people do is just your own personal experience.
My own experience is I've met many a cool bisexual in the right forums. I've also seen plenty a bisexual who hate the term pansexual and thinks it's redundant because they don't acknowledge the nuance. That isn't the kind of person I want to be around. Sure talking helps but when you're a pretty hated minority it's not exactly an attractive proposition to get to know every bisexual.
To relate this back dating apps, if you're bisexual and down with trans people, let us know on your bio! And if you're someone who is attracted to all just take the dive and go pansexual! It's more specific and let's others know exactly who your interested in.
5318008@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 23h
To be pedantic... "Whether or not someone is safe" introduces two options: Safe or not safe. Unsafe and "not safe" are more interchangeable than pansexual and bisexual.
I understand it's not what you meant... but I dont think they're twisting your words. I think it's an honest attempt at faithfully interpreting your words. It's just that the language isn't really built for the kind of distinction you're trying to make.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 23h
I'd have to agree with you there, I apologize, it's English specific but god does English have some issues like that. To clarify I meant you have no idea of their intentions, so you can't tell if they have ill or well intentioned thoughts towards you, so for your own sake it's easier to assume they are not safe. That doesn't mean they are dangerous but you can't know for certain.
Edit: To be clear since it doesn't seem like I'm getting my intentions across. Bisexual is a really fucking wide category full of people from different walks of life.
This means it pulls in a lot of right leaning people because there's no word specific to being attracted to cis men and women.
There is nothing wrong with being bisexual but the issue is it has similar baggage as being straight which is that there are people within it thay do not believe transgender people are the gender they say they are.
I thought it really important to cover this with the rise of conservativism in the queer community. The reason why I say bisexuality isn't a safe marker is you don't need to understand there's a spectrum or even that there's more than two gender. Being pansexual does and that's part of my own reason for identifying as such after stating myself to be bisexual for years.
In a world that wasn't so transphobic I wouldn't bring it up but that's not the world we live in.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 14h
There are plenty of straight people that have no problem dating trans people.
Painting bisexual and straight people as inherently transphobic is wild.
Pansexual people can be racist. Is it fair to say that people of color should be wary of pansexuals because that group might contain racists?
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 13h
Except nowhere did I say either are inherently transphobic. I was pointing out that you're more likely to run into a transphobic person of either of those groups because it's such a wide encompassing umbrella.
To me it's no different from saying you're more likely to run into someone who is homophobic who is straight than someone who is homophobic and bisexual.
As for the racist thing I would say it's a nonsense thing to say because it's totally different. I'd say it's fair that people of color should be wary of white people because because of systemic racism at large has stemmed from white supremacy. Are there people of color who are racist, absolutely, are people of color with internalized racism, absolutely. Should I be the one who should be talking about this, absolutely not nor am I comfortar with it but you brought us to race.
More than anything I'm sick of having to explain and re-explain that some communities and sexualities are more risky for trans people than others.
If they weren't it wouldn't be fucking normalized that trans people need to disclaim themselves being transgender with their partners for their own safety.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 13h
I’m refuting that bisexual people are inherently more risky to trans people by virtue of being bisexual.
Why does being bisexual have similar baggage as straight people that make them more transphobic than pansexual people?
How do you not see that you’re stereotyping groups of people based on their sexual orientation?
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15h
Sort of an odd thing to say while also missing the nuance between the two and parroting biphobic points.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15h
That's not the difference.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 13h
Okay I see two comments from you right now saying this, explain the difference to me.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 13h
It’s the asserting that bisexuals are more transphobic than pansexuals that people have a problem with.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 13h
I didn't say that was the difference though? I specifically stated that bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender and pansexuals are attracted to all. All pansexuals are bisexuals not all bisexuals are pan.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 12h
You did.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 12h
So are you disagreeing that a bisexual person could exclude trans people?
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 12h
So could individual pansexual people. No I’m not denying that. I’m denying that bisexual people are inherently more transphobic as a group.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 6h
So, I'll start by saying that it's pretty on brand for this meme post lol, but there are multiple definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality I find acceptable. There are some that are bullshit. I don't really subscribe to one true definition of it. I have one I use the most that I'll talk about later in this post. This is what I take issue with, see emphasis.
This is either biphobic by assuming bisexuals are not accepting of trans people or transphobic by viewing trans men as a different gender than cis men (same for trans women and cis women). That's why I have a problem with it. Bisexuality has never meant that.
Someone else in this thread has already mentioned the bisexual manifesto from 1990. Now, to be clear, this isn't me saying "hey, it's called the bisexual manifesto, it's the one true definition of bisexuality." (It itself even says its not.) But I find this part relevant when discussing multiple definitions.
So even in 1990 it was understood by bisexuals that bisexuals did not have a single "one true definition" of bisexuality. Not to even mention pansexuality and what shape the venn diagram of the two might make.
Me, personally, the definition I use, that I feel I see many people use and also I have some bias towards because I feel it's the most satisfying is that pansexuals are attracted to traits of people without regards to gender. While bisexuals are attracted to any gender of people and may have traits they find attractive in some genders but not others. And the example I always give of this is, someone who is bi, but not pan, might find muscular women attractive, but dislike muscles on men. Meanwhile, someone who is pan would just like muscles regardless.
Another definition I use, but perhaps less useful to answer you, is that bisexuals are people who identify as bisexual. Pansexuals are people who identify as pansexual. And yes, people can identify as both or only one. I think self identification in the queer community is massively important. I have a friend who's wife came out as nonbinary. He calls himself straight. So when people ask me what his sexuality is, I say he's straight. Is there a part of me that believes in some technical, theoretical sense that he should consider labeling himself as something else? Sure, yeah, because his wife is nonbinary now, but that's not really my business unless he asked me about it.
Sordid_Seraphim@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1h
First off thanks for writing up such a detailed answer while touching on the history of bisexuality.
Believe me that is not what meant to say but I have be paying from the nose for wording it like that. It more has to do with how bisexuality is defined differently for different people and how that relates to right leaning groups where bisexuals can pass.
It's totally useful, a bit frustrating in a way that makes it feel like there's an itch I can't scratch but I agree and also think it's something to be left alone. Let sleeping dogs lie and frankly questioning people on their identity is more likely to cause more problems and strain the relationship more than it will solve.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 22h
I really don't know what I'm talking about but I always assumed bisexual was attracted to both traditionally presenting men and women, but maybe not so attracted to others, androgynous presenting or otherwise.
Pansexual is really like they dont even consider a persons gender at all, they can be attracted to anyone binary presenting or non-binary presenting
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 21h
I'm not interested in binary gender conformity and gender conformity is NOT a part of how I experience my sexuality as a bisexual person, and I've never met a bisexual person who's claimed this is a part of their experience, I'm in my 40s, male, and spent a long time repressing my sexuality for everyone else's supposed comfort or benifit, and of course my supposed safety as growing up we were all told any variety of non cishet behavior would get us all killed and many followed through with that threat. I'm very much against anyone being told they need to fit any kind of construct of sexual or gender expression based on anything other that however they choose. and a lot of Bi people will get really put out of you place anti-trans bullshit on them. I'm PARTICULARLY attracted to people who DON'T confirm to gender demands of society and the binary gender construct is crazy harmful to so many people I deeply love and care about and will fight for and do what I can to protect. I'd really recommend not putting this supposed definition of bisexuality out, it's very contradictory to every bi person I've ever known's stated experience.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 20h
Seconded
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4h
So what makes bisexual label preferred to pansexual label for you?
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
mostly that the kids these days started saying pansexual to talk about how they experience their sexuality, and I didn't hear about that until I was in my 30s, and I've been aware I'm bisexual since the 90s, so I'm bisexual, and I'm here for people who say they're pan and I'm happy to listen to them explain their own experience with their sexuality and talk about it with any terms they want, I'm all for people using their own terms and language however they choose, what pan means I couldn't really say without talking to more people who use the term.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 4 pts · 15h
You've (unintentionally) fallen for a biphobic talking point.
Allero@lemmy.today · -7 pts · 1d
For anyone genuinely confused:
Monosexual (mono = 1) - attracted to people of exactly 1 gender. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and attractions to any other specific gender and nothing else go here.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
Polysexual (poly = several) - attracted to people of several (3 and more) various genders. Pretty self-explanatory at this point.
Pansexual (pan = everything) - attracted to people of all genders. If you're sexy to a given pansexual, they don't care what your gender is - male, female, or any flavor of nonbinary. Just be cool.
The confusion stems from the previous understanding that there are only two genders, and the fact the awareness of different genders came before pansexuality or polysexuality were widely discussed, which made a giant mess with pansexuals categorizing themselves as bisexuals and then claiming being bisexual is not just about two genders. It is, it's in the name, and we have proper terms for other options now.
FYI: Some people also prefer the term "omnisexual", which also means being attracted to people of all genders, but accentuates the gender differences. So, instead of pansexual "I don't care of your gender, just be cool", it's more like "women are cute and nice, men are strong huggers and damn boy be the big spoon, agenders are special and whew I like that" etc. etc. Basically, loving everyone, but each gender is attractive in its own unique way.
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 20h
This is absolutely incorrect. I'll copy a portion of my own comment from deeper in this thread to explain.
Allero@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 15h
Exactly, and as I said, this was very true when we considered that there are only two genders. Now if you're attracted to people of more genders, there are terms that would fit you better. Why produce the confusion by dragging the confusing and wrong two-gender era terminology into the modern world?
If you're attracted to men, women and agenders, why take the *bi-*sexual umbrella, especially when we have correct, more apt terms now? Bi is two, and two specifically. Bidirectional. Bipolar. Bicycle. Bipedal. Bisexual. Bi is two. Tri is three. Quadro is four. Why sexuality of all things should make an exception because some people didn't know better decades ago?
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 14h
Did you read my comment? The bi in bisexual has never referred to two genders; it refers to two sexualities, namely homosexual and heterosexual. Homo meaning same and hetero meaning different. If we consider a set of people with both the same gender as a hypothetical bisexual person (regardless of their gender) and different genders from that same bisexual person, all people are included in that set regardless of their gender.
Importantly, no single word has ever been a full and complete description of any person's sexual preferences. I'm not saying that all bisexual people are attracted to all people of all genders, but that the word bisexual has no implication of anything less.
The term bisexual is not an exception to the bi - 2, tri - 3, quad - 4, etc linguistic rule, it simply doesn't refer to the two that you're assigning it to (genders). Beyond that, I have no idea why you think it's appropriate to apply a linguistic rule proscriptively to other people's sexualities.
This kind of confidently incorrect interpretation not only harkens to bisexual erasure (as in ignoring the words and writings of actual bisexual people), it actively harms bisexual people by assigning them with a reinforcing of gender binary that bisexuality has never implied, even linguistically. Try listening to a bisexual person (me, for starters) rather than blaming us for reinforcing a gender binary based on your own misinterpretation.
Also, bisexual is not an old outdated term from "when we considered that there are only two genders" (bisexual erasure much?), it is an inclusive identifier that covers a broad range of sexual preferences.
TLDR: Fuck you, you don't get to tell me how to refer to my own sexuality.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 13h
I really appreciate your eloquent and expressive defense of bisexual people in this thread. You’ve got a way with words :)
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10h
That's very kind, thank you!
Allero@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 5h
I was writing a long answer about misinterpretation of heterosexuality and the proven fact 1984-style word play doesn't erase what is there natively, and also fuck you for throwing slurs around and all that, when the root of the conflict occurred to me. And maybe that's something that helps settle it.
I treat sexuality as a descriptor, a label, and you treat it as an identity. To me, words should serve as the best available approximation of the experience, which is fluid and complicated and doesn't fit into narrow boxes anyway; to you, it's a legacy, a group, a part of who you are (correct me if I'm wrong).
I have no problem switching from heterosexual to bicurious/bisexual, and maybe to pansexual should I meet more nonbinary folks in person. To you, being bisexual is a pillar of who you are, and switching it up is as problematic as switching an engine on the go, and maybe that really shouldn't be done. You are, indeed, a sole arbiter.
But all these identities grew around words. And words can either bring clarity, or add to the confusion. You yourself claim not all bisexuals are attracted to people of all genders. Wouldn't it be great if people could properly clarify and make a distinction between being attracted to people of two genders, several of them, and all of them using the terms we already have, and which are widely accepted? This whole "how are bisexuals different from pansexuals" question could be settled overnight! Nothing needs to be invented; all that's left is to make a good use for the existing vocabulary. And maybe, when new people decide to make these words their identity, there would be waaay less confusion about it.
How would that settle us?
SailorFuzz@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 1d
bi = looking for mr/mrs forever....
pan = wants a harem
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1d
This is poly vs mono.
I am Bi and poly/relationship anarchist.
SailorFuzz@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 1d
that's just pan with extra labels.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I thought pan just added etc. to mr./mrs.
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1d
Bisexual refers to being attracted to people of both the same gender as you and different gender as you, so it already covers things outside the binary. It's a common mistake though, many people think the bi part means attracted to both men and women (excluding anything else).
Edit for clarity: the bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody's left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
What about poly bi