• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    First two are biphobic.

    • 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.

    • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.