Bi* vs pan*

[Benjfcarter]

So, I was in an argument recently about the definition of bisexuality (standard disclaimer: Obviously, I’m not talking about who can identify as bisexual, that’s up to them, but about what should be understood by the phrase ‘I’m bisexual’, without any further explanation), and I was wanting to share my thoughts about the issue.

I would argue that bisexuality is attraction to two genders (any two genders!), but there’s an argument people use that ‘bisexual’ is attraction to both the same and other genders. I find that questionable, but if it was just ‘this is an odd thing for ‘bisexual’ to mean’, that would be fine. The major problem I have with this is twofold. Firstly, that it’s not how the word ‘bisexual’ is really used. It’s used as attraction to both genders. More importantly, using that definition seems to me to screw up a host of other sexualities and gender identities. Anyone pangender is then, by definition, not bisexual. They’re gay, even if they’re attracted to all genders. Anyone without a gender is also not bisexual. Indeed a genderless sexual can only ever be heterosexual which just seems very wrong. Or they need to have a new orientation just for what would otherwise be genderless ‘bisexuals’, which seems worse (if you’re trying to find someone wearing different shoes from someone who is currently barefoot, it’s either everyone or noone). Skoliosexuals are excluded by default – if one says ‘same and other genders’, it’s implied that these are the only two options. Cisgendered skoliosexuals are therefore also classified as straight (being attracted only to other genders), which removes them not only from LGBT, but from GSRM entirely. Meanwhile, someone who was attracted specifically to those without a gender, would presumably be classified as asexual, not being attracted to any gender. Meanwhile, people who are only attracted to two genders are unable to distinguish themselves from those attracted to more than two, and those who identify as pan- or polysexual are effectively dismissed.

Obviously, I’m not questioning people who are attracted to more than two genders calling themselves bisexual. The term is more widely recognised, and people can identify however feels right for them. But I think I have a problem with people saying that ‘attracted to the same and other genders’ is the correct definition of bisexuality, which other people should use. Or with people assuming when someone else tells them that they’re bisexual, that they mean the same as if they say they’re pansexual.

Everything above applies to biromanticism, etc., obviously, I've just heard bisexual insisted on as non-binary a lot more.

I’m sure there are people here more familiar with the argument than me, though. So what do other people think about this?

[Exanimis]

Well, by the definition, I understood that bisexualism is when you are attracted to your own gender and the opposite, eg, a man who is attracted to males and females.

Pansexualism would be when somebody is attracted to not only the binary standard, ie, man and woman, but also androgynous people, agendered, and others.

Am I wrong? :?

[Cimmerian]

I'm ambivalent about it really. I know the literal definitions of both but when talking to the general population you tend to get weird looks if you say "pansexual" instead of "bisexual". I've used both to describe myself but use "bi" more often when outside of this site or LGBTQ groups. I think it simply comes down to preference, audience, and convenience (or a willingness to constantly be explaining oneself). For simplicity's sake I stick with "bi".

[Blinkin]

I think the main problem is that the current definitions are excluding people and are invalid when taken literally. This is however not entirely caused by the definition of the sexual orientations themself but by how we define them in our current system (including gender). Or ast least how we used to do it when we all thought that the binary model was the only one (man and woman). I've read a very interesting article about it not so long ago. I'll see if I can find it again.

Edit: Found it. It was an article about intersex. You can read about it here: http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/intersex-what-is-it-and-what-it-means-for-sexuality-1572116706

And here's a qoute of the authors conclusion:

Its clear that the system that we have doesn't work. We can't decide how to determine sex, let alone tell how many there are. The current binary places people into tiny boxes and clearly others many. It has been used to justify altering infants bodies unnecessarily, not only dangerous for the child then but then altering their entire life (forcing them to take hormones and still have the risk of medical complications later). As for sexual orientations - as a classification system we need to make a judgment call as to what it is that is important. Is the defining characteristic the number of sexes your attracted to? Or is the sex of the person important? If all we want is simplicity then clearly numbers is the way to go but I would question the value of a classification system that doesn't accurately reflect the diversity that exists.

[Ricki]

Except Bisexual means attracted to two or more genders regardless of ones own gender >.>

[The Wreyck]

I dislike using pansexual as a replacement for bisexuality for a couple reasons. First, I see nothing with bisexuality as the title because it's biSEXUAL. You are attracted to both sexes. There is a multitude of genders but only two sexes widely known of, thought technically there is also intersex that people tend to forget about. And some people don't like my interpretation of it referring to the biological sex because technically then you argue about being attracted to non-transitioned transgenders. A heterosexual female being attracted to a non-transitioned transman might fight my argument. Fine fine, but then I still say it is not the same as pansexual, because the official definition of pansexual is NOT that you are attracted to all sexes (or genders). It means that you DON'T CARE. As in you are blind to the physical sex of the person. You simply are attracted to people, personalities, souls, minds, ect without preference for one sex or the other. Bisexual distinctly says, "I like boobs and vaginas, and I also like flat chests and penises." Pansexual is more, "Boobs are cool, penises are cool, vaginas are cool, flat chests are cool. They're all cool. But what I really like is people and their personalities. That's what attracts me to them."

I get that a lot of people treat pansexual as basically bisexual only saying that you like ALL the genders, not just boys and girls, but that's not what the actual definition of pansexual is.

[aka]

I'm ambivalent about it really. I know the literal definitions of both but when talking to the general population you tend to get weird looks if you say "pansexual" instead of "bisexual". I've used both to describe myself but use "bi" more often when outside of this site or LGBTQ groups. I think it simply comes down to preference, audience, and convenience (or a willingness to constantly be explaining oneself). For simplicity's sake I stick with "bi".

same as me I used pansexual before and decided to use bisexual instead as it seems simpler to tell people and I don't need to be so specific going into further detail about what genders I would and wouldn't be attracted to (people ask silly questions)... the actual labels don't mean much to me other than the fact I'm saying "I don't want to be labeled as straight... I'll be attracted to whoever I'm attracted to and I won't ignore those attractions because of what gender someone is"

[yomo]

What makes sense to me is that bisexual is the attraction to two genders, and pansexual is the attraction to all genders. Polysexual is the attraction to two or more genders. All can include the attraction to those that are agender, gender neutral, etc.

[qwair]

In my view, this goes back to how words work. Words do not mean what "makes sense to me", neither do they usually mean what they are etymologically made of (ever heard of someone who is gruntled?). The meaning of words is arbitrary and trying to find any sense or logic in it is futile. Furthermore, there is no one to one correlation between a word and a meaning, a word can have several meanings and a meaning can have several words. The -sexual suffix alone means gender identity (as in transsexual), attraction to specific genders (homosexual), biological characteristics (as in sexual reproduction), things pretaining to specific acts/situations (as in sexual thoughts). It's just not supposed to make sense in a logical way.

Who gets to define a word? The people who use it. If bisexual people and organisations define it as being attracted to your own gender and to others, then that is what it means. If they define it as liking the colour purple, then that is what it means. Being the word police and forcing your definition or "what makes sense to you" on anybody else is not very nice, and I think OP ackgnoledges that.

I don't think that having a word to describe being attracted just to cis individuals is necessary. After all, we don't have a separate word for straight people who like androgynous or transsexual individuals and those who don't, just like we don't have a word to describe those who are attracted to redheads and those who aren't. For better or for worse, in our society, gender is the sole differentiating category in which the kinds of relationship you have is measured. What biological organs people have, their hair colour, or whether they have androgynous charachteristics is't relevant for the 'gay', 'straight', or 'lesbian' labels, so why should it be different for bisexuals?

That said, if people want to use 'bisexual' in order to mean that they're not attracted to trans* people, that's okay I guess, but I've never met anyone like that. Besides, how can you tell if an individual is trans* without being pretty invasive? I don't think you need a DNA test to know if you're attracted to someone -- how would that even work?

There isn't a cut and dry difference between the 'bi', 'pan', or 'queer' labels, they just come from different historical backgrounds and have slightly different emphases and meanings in different communities.

[yomo]

^ If you're referencing what I said, I'm not trying to force my opinion on anybody. That's why I said what makes sense to ME. Sorry if you took it the wrong way, I don't mean to offend.

[qwair]

^ I was referencing generally the people in this thread who, instead of actually asking the people who use that word what it means and accepting their usage, or referencing bisexual organisations, have decided to deduce the meaning of the word using etymology or "common sense". It is the same behaviour, in my opinion, as me (an allosexual), defining what an asexual is through etymology or my personal understanding, and insisting, for example, it means a person without gender, without bothering to ask aces or looking up AVEN.

Had you identified personally as bisexual (or as anything else, for that matter), your feelings and opinions about what that label means to you would have been relevant. Since as far as I understand, you choose not to use the label bisexual, defining it at all is an act of defining it for others. I don't mean to offend, but if you want people to respect you, your labels and your right to use them and define them, I think you need to extend that right to other people as well. This means letting them define what their label means on their own, and accepting their definition as valid even if it doens't make sense to you.

[Ricki]

"Who gets to define a word? The people who use it. If bisexual people and organisations define it as being attracted to your own gender and to others, then that is what it means. If they define it as liking the colour purple, then that is what it means. Being the word police and forcing your definition or "what makes sense to you" on anybody else is not very nice, and I think OP ackgnoledges that."

That's not how word definitions work.

'I define myself as asexual because I love having loads of sex' holds as much truth as your example with Bisexual because purple. The idea of a definition is to be able to relate things into categories.

Words are assigned definition by the original user and then, rarely, altered if the common use starts to be used in a different way.

[qwair]

What I'm saying is that you have every right to define yourself in whatever way you want. In fact, there are still several competing definitions of asexuality on AVEN. That may not be how definitions work in maths, but it is how they work in everyday language. Words are arbitrary. People use the same word to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing.

I don't think your example is a good one. There are in fact many asexuals who like having a lot of sex. But let's assume for the sake of argument it was in your opinion contradictory: do you think you have the right to come to that specific asexual and force them to use a different word? Do you think you have a right to come to everyone who conforms to your definition of 'asexual' and force them to use that word and your definitions? If not, then we're basically in agreement.

[yomo]

^ I was referencing generally the people in this thread who, instead of actually asking the people who use that word what it means and accepting their usage, or referencing bisexual organisations, have decided to deduce the meaning of the word using etymology or "common sense". It is the same behaviour, in my opinion, as me (an allosexual), defining what an asexual is through etymology or my personal understanding, and insisting, for example, it means a person without gender, without bothering to ask aces or looking up AVEN.

Had you identified personally as bisexual (or as anything else, for that matter), your feelings and opinions about what that label means to you would have been relevant. Since as far as I understand, you choose not to use the label bisexual, defining it at all is an act of defining it for others. I don't mean to offend, but if you want people to respect you, your labels and your right to use them and define them, I think you need to extend that right to other people as well. This means letting them define what their label means on their own, and accepting their definition as valid even if it doens't make sense to you.

Ah, I understand ^_^ I mean of course people can define their own labels...I was just throwing out how I understand it so that it might help others find their own understanding of it I guess. That's kind of the point of this thread as far as I can tell.

I used to identify as bisexual until I heard of pansexual and felt that my understanding of that fit me better. So I feel like my opinion about it does count, but I don't think that's anywhere near an absolute. If I met someone that thought pansexual meant the literal attraction to pans, I would mention that the actual term means the attraction to all genders in general, but it's their right to think what they want and I wouldn't try to push it on them. If that's what it means to them that's perfectly fine as long as they understand that it means something completely different to me lol. So when you say "if you want people to respect you, your labels and your right to use them and define them, I think you need to extend that right to other people as well" it confuses me because I feel like I haven't constricted that right to other people at all.

[Benjfcarter]

I dislike using pansexual as a replacement for bisexuality for a couple reasons. First, I see nothing with bisexuality as the title because it's biSEXUAL. You are attracted to both sexes. There is a multitude of genders but only two sexes widely known of, thought technically there is also intersex that people tend to forget about. And some people don't like my interpretation of it referring to the biological sex because technically then you argue about being attracted to non-transitioned transgenders. A heterosexual female being attracted to a non-transitioned transman might fight my argument. Fine fine, but then I still say it is not the same as pansexual, because the official definition of pansexual is NOT that you are attracted to all sexes (or genders). It means that you DON'T CARE. As in you are blind to the physical sex of the person. You simply are attracted to people, personalities, souls, minds, ect without preference for one sex or the other. Bisexual distinctly says, "I like boobs and vaginas, and I also like flat chests and penises." Pansexual is more, "Boobs are cool, penises are cool, vaginas are cool, flat chests are cool. They're all cool. But what I really like is people and their personalities. That's what attracts me to them."

I get that a lot of people treat pansexual as basically bisexual only saying that you like ALL the genders, not just boys and girls, but that's not what the actual definition of pansexual is.

I believe 'attracted to all genders in different ways' still comes under 'pansexual' doesn't it? As long as there's no gender you're not attracted to. It's just rarer. Where does the official definition come from?

And yeah, I would say that the trans* people thing is a bit more than a techncality, surely?

In my view, this goes back to how words work. Words do not mean what "makes sense to me", neither do they usually mean what they are etymologically made of (ever heard of someone who is gruntled?). The meaning of words is arbitrary and trying to find any sense or logic in it is futile. Furthermore, there is no one to one correlation between a word and a meaning, a word can have several meanings and a meaning can have several words. The -sexual suffix alone means gender identity (as in transsexual), attraction to specific genders (homosexual), biological characteristics (as in sexual reproduction), things pretaining to specific acts/situations (as in sexual thoughts). It's just not supposed to make sense in a logical way.

Who gets to define a word? The people who use it. If bisexual people and organisations define it as being attracted to your own gender and to others, then that is what it means. If they define it as liking the colour purple, then that is what it means. Being the word police and forcing your definition or "what makes sense to you" on anybody else is not very nice, and I think OP ackgnoledges that.

I don't think that having a word to describe being attracted just to cis individuals is necessary. After all, we don't have a separate word for straight people who like androgynous or transsexual individuals and those who don't, just like we don't have a word to describe those who are attracted to redheads and those who aren't. For better or for worse, in our society, gender is the sole differentiating category in which the kinds of relationship you have is measured. What biological organs people have, their hair colour, or whether they have androgynous charachteristics is't relevant for the 'gay', 'straight', or 'lesbian' labels, so why should it be different for bisexuals?

That said, if people want to use 'bisexual' in order to mean that they're not attracted to trans* people, that's okay I guess, but I've never met anyone like that. Besides, how can you tell if an individual is trans* without being pretty invasive? I don't think you need a DNA test to know if you're attracted to someone -- how would that even work?

There isn't a cut and dry difference between the 'bi', 'pan', or 'queer' labels, they just come from different historical backgrounds and have slightly different emphases and meanings in different communities.

OK, on the side I have to take issue with this, from a purely philosophical perspective. The meaning of words is arbitary, yes, but not illogical. A word must have a clearly defined and meaningful meaning or set of meanings, at least within a particular language game, or it is a useless word, since it doesn't convey any information. If a word-meaning can be shown to cause the exclusion of concepts which may come up in the context in which that language game is used, the word-meaning can quite legitimately be questioned by those playing that partiular language game.

And that meaning cannot purely be defined by those that use the word. Otherwise, it would be legitimate for men to define 'man' as meaning 'male', and thus exclude transwomen from recognition, for example, I think people who are directly affected by a definition have the right to contribute to that definition even if they aren't part of the group (I'd generally say, as an asexual, that being told I'm LGBT now would annoy me, and if you told me I was bisexual because I liked the colour purple, I would probably not agree that that was legit).

Which isn't to say that people who actually are bisexual don't have the right to define 'bisexual', simply that they are constrained in how they do this, and that the impact upon other groups should be considered (also, all this only applies to people defining bisexuality more generally, not to anyone identifying as bisexuals themselves, without trying to insist that others follow their definition - 'I am an asexual because I enjoy sex' is a very different statement to 'Asexuals are those who enjoy sex' - I would accept the former and not the latter, and I'm guessing you would too?).

I'm not sure it the thing about cis individuals was directed at my point, but I do agree with you on the 'cis' thing. A transman is a man. But I definitely do think one needs a word for being attracted specifically to those who are neither men nor women - if sexuality is defined by gender, it should be defined by gender, which means non-binary individuals have to have our own word. That's why I tend to like to include 'skoliosexual' in any list of sexualities. Nothing to do with cis or trans, if you have more than two genders, you need more than two options for sexualites.

Also, my first post was partly in response to people who specifically say 'there is no difference between pan and bi', and the common continuation 'therefore using pan is bad'. Which I would view as a lot closer to "com[ing] to everyone who [doesn't conform] to your definition of '[bi]sexual' and forc[ing] them to use that word and your definitions" than is questioning the definition.

[yomo]

I believe 'attracted to all genders in different ways' still comes under 'pansexual' doesn't it? As long as there's no gender you're not attracted to. It's just rarer. Where does the official definition come from?

And yeah, I would say that the trans* people thing is a bit more than a techncality, surely?

It does I'm pretty sure. I think the official definition comes from the breakdown of the words, pan- (latin) meaning "all" and sexual meaning, well, sexual. So sexually attracted to all?

EDIT: The way I see it (once again, this is just my opinion, I hate stating that because it should be obvious but it seems to be a touchy subject here) you can be more attracted to biological females that identify as female more than anyone else, but still be sexually attracted to any gender and be considered pansexual, since it is true that you are sexually attracted to all genders (no matter the degree).

[qwair]

I used to identify as bisexual until I heard of pansexual and felt that my understanding of that fit me better. So I feel like my opinion about it does count, but I don't think that's anywhere near an absolute. If I met someone that thought pansexual meant the literal attraction to pans, I would mention that the actual term means the attraction to all genders in general, but it's their right to think what they want and I wouldn't try to push it on them. If that's what it means to them that's perfectly fine as long as they understand that it means something completely different to me lol. So when you say "if you want people to respect you, your labels and your right to use them and define them, I think you need to extend that right to other people as well" it confuses me because I feel like I haven't constricted that right to other people at all.

I understand and respect the fact that you went through a process to get to where you are, that you might still feel some kind of connection to the bisexual label, and that you may even prefer the pan label because of problems you feel with the bi label. Still, I don't see that great a difference between "in my understanding, bisexuality is X", and "bisexuality is X". Part of respecting other people's labels and letting them define themselves is, in my view, refraining from expressing an opinion about what those labels mean, not defining their labels for them, and giving them the space to define themselves. At the very minimum it means not relying on personal understanding and quoting people who actively use the label if a definition is needed.

And yeah, I would say that the trans* people thing is a bit more than a techncality, surely?

Actually, from my understanding, it is rather insulting to put binary trans* people in a different category than man or women. Transmen are men, and straight transmen have relationship with straight/bi/pan women. There are, of course, people who are non-binary gendered, but they're not the entirety or even the majority of trans* people.

For more on the subject from a pansexual POV, I'd recommend this blog post (ignore the strong language): Stuff Pansexuals Need to Know

[yomo]

I used to identify as bisexual until I heard of pansexual and felt that my understanding of that fit me better. So I feel like my opinion about it does count, but I don't think that's anywhere near an absolute. If I met someone that thought pansexual meant the literal attraction to pans, I would mention that the actual term means the attraction to all genders in general, but it's their right to think what they want and I wouldn't try to push it on them. If that's what it means to them that's perfectly fine as long as they understand that it means something completely different to me lol. So when you say "if you want people to respect you, your labels and your right to use them and define them, I think you need to extend that right to other people as well" it confuses me because I feel like I haven't constricted that right to other people at all.

I understand and respect the fact that you went through a process to get to where you are, that you might still feel some kind of connection to the bisexual label, and that you may even prefer the pan label because of problems you feel with the bi label. Still, I don't see that great a difference between "in my understanding, bisexuality is X", and "bisexuality is X". Part of respecting other people's labels and letting them define themselves is, in my view, refraining from expressing an opinion about what those labels mean, not defining their labels for them, and giving them the space to define themselves. At the very minimum it means not relying on personal understanding and quoting people who actively use the label if a definition is needed.

And yeah, I would say that the trans* people thing is a bit more than a techncality, surely?

Actually, from my understanding, it is rather insulting to put binary trans* people in a different category than man or women. Transmen are men, and straight transmen have relationship with straight/bi/pan women. There are, of course, people who are non-binary gendered, but they're not the entirety or even the majority of trans* people.

For more on the subject from a pansexual POV, I'd recommend this blog post (ignore the strong language): Stuff Pansexuals Need to Know

I don't think that's fair to say that I can't say my own opinion about what something means just because I don't identify with that label. Everyone has an opinion on everything and everyone has the same right to express those opinions as long as they are not attacking other people. I'm not oppressing anyone by saying what I think the definition of bi and pan are, and I'm not defining it for other people. I put my thoughts out there so people can take them or leave them, based on if they agree with them or not.

But anyway, I'm tired of arguing, I'm just going to agree to disagree.

[Ricki]

If someone said they were asexual but felt sexual attraction, wanted sex and basically went against everything that is defined as asexual then yes. I would tell them that they have the wrong word as... well... they have the wrong word.

If someone claims to be something they aren't then it means they've either made a mistake or are false advertising to what that word actually means.

[yomo]

If someone said they were asexual but felt sexual attraction, wanted sex and basically went against everything that is defined as asexual then yes. I would tell them that they have the wrong word as... well... they have the wrong word.

If someone claims to be something they aren't then it means they've either made a mistake or are false advertising to what that word actually means.

I agree, people can think what they want but that doesn't mean it couldn't be illogical based on the actual definition of the word being used. For the example you provided, I would definitely ask them what prompted them to think that's the word that would help define them.

[qwair]

I don't think that's fair to say that I can't say my own opinion about what something means just because I don't identify with that label. Everyone has an opinion on everything and everyone has the same right to express those opinions as long as they are not attacking other people. I'm not oppressing anyone by saying what I think the definition of bi and pan are, and I'm not defining it for other people. I put my thoughts out there so people can take them or leave them, based on if they agree with them or not.

But anyway, I'm tired of arguing, I'm just going to agree to disagree.

Of course you have a right to an opinion, but not all opinions are born equal. The opinions of a quantum physicist about quantum physics are much more important than my own, and when talking about quantum physics their opinions or opinions quoted from them automatically hold more weight. The opinions of an asexual or of an asexual organisation about asexuality are more valid than my own.

Besides, saying "bisexuality is X" or "asexuality is X", if you do not identify as such, is tantamount to defining other people's labels for them. It is taking their place in the discussion, effectively silencing them. I agree, you have a right to do that, but I do not believe it is respectful or nice. You either believe people have a right to define their own labels, in which case you ought to stay silent and give them the place to do just that, or you believe you have the authority to say what labels mean for everybody. I don't think you would want someone who wansn't pan to define what it is for you.

If someone said they were asexual but felt sexual attraction, wanted sex and basically went against everything that is defined as asexual then yes. I would tell them that they have the wrong word as... well... they have the wrong word.

If someone claims to be something they aren't then it means they've either made a mistake or are false advertising to what that word actually means.

Okay, so you define the word asexual one way, and another person defines it another way. Who says you have more authority than they do to define the word? Even if 99.9% of asexuals defined it in a certain way, it is still that person's right to define what words to use and what they mean for themselves. You still have no autority over them, nor they over you, and this enire exchange would be pointless, not to mention incredibly rude.

Asking them why they define themselves like that, making sure they know most aces define it differently, and taking an interest, is an entirely different matter.

Now, I agree that since AVEN represents a majority of asexuals, and using AVEN definitions for asexuality when talking about asexuality in general has its merits, but I've met some asexuals, even on AVEN, who do not share those definitions and who define asexuality for themselves differently. They are not less asexual for it. Nobody "owns" a word, and language is free for all to use. Even in an idiosyncratic way.

On this thread, not only has the definitions of "bisexual" used by bisexuals ignored, also the definitions of bisexual organisations who represent bisexuals were disregarded, in order to promote a "straw man" view of bisexuality which might make more etymological sense, but isn't how the word is used by bisexuals or their organisations. I have my suspicions as to why.

[qwair]

And that meaning cannot purely be defined by those that use the word. Otherwise, it would be legitimate for men to define 'man' as meaning 'male', and thus exclude transwomen from recognition, for example, I think people who are directly affected by a definition have the right to contribute to that definition even if they aren't part of the group (I'd generally say, as an asexual, that being told I'm LGBT now would annoy me, and if you told me I was bisexual because I liked the colour purple, I would probably not agree that that was legit).

Which isn't to say that people who actually are bisexual don't have the right to define 'bisexual', simply that they are constrained in how they do this, and that the impact upon other groups should be considered (also, all this only applies to people defining bisexuality more generally, not to anyone identifying as bisexuals themselves, without trying to insist that others follow their definition - 'I am an asexual because I enjoy sex' is a very different statement to 'Asexuals are those who enjoy sex' - I would accept the former and not the latter, and I'm guessing you would too?).

I'm not sure it the thing about cis individuals was directed at my point, but I do agree with you on the 'cis' thing. A transman is a man. But I definitely do think one needs a word for being attracted specifically to those who are neither men nor women - if sexuality is defined by gender, it should be defined by gender, which means non-binary individuals have to have our own word. That's why I tend to like to include 'skoliosexual' in any list of sexualities. Nothing to do with cis or trans, if you have more than two genders, you need more than two options for sexualites.

Also, my first post was partly in response to people who specifically say 'there is no difference between pan and bi', and the common continuation 'therefore using pan is bad'. Which I would view as a lot closer to "com[ing] to everyone who [doesn't conform] to your definition of '[bi]sexual' and forc[ing] them to use that word and your definitions" than is questioning the definition.

Letting cismen define "men" as only cismen is exactly letting them define the identity of and for other people, and silencing them, which I think is wrong. They are still free in my view to say that they personally feel they're a man because they were born with certain organs, and that's their definition of what 'man' means for themselves. They're still free to confess they do not understand or identify with transmen, as long as they recognise that the way they feel isn't universal, and accept the personal experience and definitions of those transmen as valid, I don't think that's a problem.

That's also the reason why in my view it is wrong to say that IDing as pan, or bi, or as anything really, is "wrong". You have authority overy yourself and yourself alone. Telling other people how they "should" identify is coercive and completely rude, just as telling other people "your identity means X" is also rude.

Other than that, and a some philosophical disagreements, I completely agree with what you wrote.

[Guest]

I always thought that at the most basic level, bisexual means sexually attracted to both men and women (or sexually attracted to one's own gender and one other gender). Pansexual means sexually attracted to all genders including agender, transgender, genderfluid etc etc.

Bi literally means both, or two. Pan literally means 'all' and A literally means none or no. Sexuality is who one has sexual attraction towards,the gender(s) a person innately desires partnered sexual activity with.

I personally think that more complicated variations of the definitions should fall to those who actually identify as such. I'm not going to get into an argument with a bisexual over the definition(s) of bisexuality, as I am not bisexual (although I am aesthetically and sensually attracted to both men and women). However if a bisexual started trying to tell me what asexuality is and how it works, I would have a thing or two to say. As an asexual, I feel like I know more about asexuality than a bisexual or anyone else who feels sexual attraction and/or has an innate desire for partnered sexual activity. (depending on the definition of sexual attraction you go by. AVEN defines sexual attraction AS the desire for partnered sexual activity. I do understand though that *many* AVENites disagree with AVENs definition)

EDIT: the horrendous auto corrects are now fixed, my phone enjoys humiliating me heh.

[Goober]

Bi is defined as self + another gender, not always male/female because you can be female and attracted to female/bigender or be agender and attracted primarily to trans* spectrum individuals.

Pan is defined as all, therefore any and all genders are all equally attractive to you. So you can be male and attracted to female/male/trans*/bigender/agenger/etc.

just like gender sexuality is not contained in a box of right and wrong; just like asexuals there are different spectrum of sexuality.

[dunhauren]

i have a question and if i offend someone, that is not my intention. when somebody says they are bi- or poly- something (sexual, romantic, whatever), if they are ok with all the existent genders, why not use pan-? its because bi- is more used?

[Ricki]

i have a question and if i offend someone, that is not my intention. when somebody says they are bi- or poly- something (sexual, romantic, whatever), if they are ok with all the existent genders, why not use pan-? its because bi- is more used?

Well I know that most people know what bi' is, and you also hear of people not knowing what pan is, so it might be them not knowing or maybe they dont know. but it could be personal choice :) There's lots of reasons really.

[interpol]

Bisexual as far as I'm concerned is attracted to males and females. Pansexual means attracted to everyone.

I can feel sexual attraction to both male and female. I cannot find a transgendered person sexually attractive. I might think they're cute. But that's not the same thing. I don't have the same bashful making feels for them that I could with cismen or ciswomen.

And I will not have bashful making feels for anyone with excessive cooties. :)

[Rower90]

I identified for a long time as bisexual, and still do on some levels despite the fact that I only feel aesthetic attraction. For me, and many bisexuals I know, it's the definition of "same and other genders" that we use. The idea of "like self and not like self" might be a better way to put it for what I mean when I say it. I also can say with a moderate level of authority that the argument of "bi means two" is something that really ruffles bisexual feathers the wrong way and would avoid saying it generally. The over all accepted definition written by bisexuals for bisexuality is that of "the same and other genders" and since that seems to be the consensus among bisexuals, that's what I would go with.

As for pansexual, I just don't really feel like it fits myself. I guess for me the difference between pansexual and bisexual would be that, at least personally, I'm not attracted to any of the various permutations of -kin folk. Other bisexuals or pansexuals might weigh in differently, but that's the difference in my books anyway.

[The Wreyck]

i have a question and if i offend someone, that is not my intention. when somebody says they are bi- or poly- something (sexual, romantic, whatever), if they are ok with all the existent genders, why not use pan-? its because bi- is more used?

The reason that I use bi- instead of pan- is that I take the original and accurate definition for pan-, which cannot be substituted for bi. Pan- does not simply mean that you are attracted to all of the sexes. It means that you are blind to the sexes or genders. You do not see them, and they do not play a role in your attraction to someone. You simply do not care what the sex/gender is either way. Bi- is meant to signify that you are actively attracted to both males and females. You definitely like females and definitely like males. There is no lack of caring as with pan-. And it is simpler to say bi- than poly or find another term to "cover" the umbrella of genders because people actually know what bi- means.

[Sage Raven Domino]

It looks as though 'pan*' and 'gender-blind' are synonymous, but I'd rather their meaning were distinct and the former meant just attraction to all genders, without implying total indifference to them. The common explanation of the bi* terms makes me cringe as it leaves out mixed-gender, nonbinary and agender people, while it's hard for me to imagine some who's attracted to two genders but nobody in between - I guess that people's attraction ranges are normally continuous, otherwise there would be no harmony.

So I'd use the bi* terms to describe someone whose attraction range is an interval, but not necessarily the whole space of genders (e.g. one can be attracted females, demiguys and anybody in between, but not pure cis-males), and pan* terms to describe someone who's attracted to people in a certain way regardless of the object's gender, but not necessarily gender-blind, i.e. can like different genders for different reasons.