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.
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.
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.