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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
But liking a person can cause attraction, right?
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.
Isn’t that basically just Demisexual
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
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.
I’ve always understood it as pansexual being attracted to personalities and bisexual being attracted to physical attributes
I guess that does kind of align with my understanding, just in slightly more simplified terms!
I knew that was from Anything That Moves before I got past the first sentence lol
absolutely, and therefore i like the def of HalfSalesman. It nicely distinguishes between pan and bi, whilst avoiding any dated anti-trans ideas.
I would like to hear that definition if you have it on hand
it’s in this comment section: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/25858715
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.
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
But then you’re missing out on all that bottom fun!
God. Always that one guy….
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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