What's the difference between pan and bi

[Goth_Unicorn]

Is it true that bi means attraction to all genders with a preference of one and pan means attraction to all genders without a preference? 

 

I have always been confused about that topic, and I'd like to understand it better. A few friends who identified as bi came out to me as pan and I'd like to know the difference. 

[Homer]

Bi = 2

Pan = all

 

[NickyTannock]

I believe the difference is that Bisexuals can be attracted to either men or women, and Pansexuals can be attracted to Men, Women, Transgender Men, Transgender Women, Gender Neutral people, etc...

[Guest]

Actually, sorry to embarrass... The bi-community defines it as...

 

Bi = Attracted to own gender and some others.

Pan = Attracted to all genders, regardlessly.

 

Taken from:

 

 

 

 

[Philip027]

Honestly, I don't feel there is really much effective difference other than that with pan- you are saying you recognize genders that are not necessarily male or female.

 

I think sexual orientation is primarily based off sex, not gender, though.  So bi- remains the prevailing term, because most people recognize that there are two sexes (regardless of how accurate that actually is in practice).

 

Another thing is that the way some people elect to use bi-, they're basically combining hetero- and homo- together -- they can be attracted to the sex/gender that matches their own, and they can be attracted to a sex/gender that differs from their own.  It's still two separate groups of people (thereby fitting the "bi-" aspect of it), but it effectively means "pan-" anyway.  This is the reasoning behind my partner identifying as biromantic, at least.

 

In summary, I really don't think most people who claim to be bisexual are actually thinking "it's okay if you're X, and it's okay if you're Y, but if you're Z, hell no, that's right out".  I think most of them are just attracted to people based on characteristics that aren't sex/gender, and as far as most of them know, "bisexual" is the best way to describe that.

[mace_]

There are no strict definitions of the two terms as far as I know, but basically bi means attraction to only persons of two different genders and pan means attraction to persons independent of their gender. There is only a real difference between the two terms when you take non-binary genders into account. For most people attraction in not split evenly, but I don't know of any difference whether they identify as bi or pan.

[NickyTannock]

@Phoenix the II I'm not embarrassed, in fact, thank you for posting that!

[Homer]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Honestly, I don't feel there is really much effective difference other than that with pan- you are saying you recognize genders that are not necessarily male or female.

I like that a lot.

[HeteroRomanticAce]

Bi = attracted to gender (both)

 

Pan = attracted to the person.

[no-longer-in-use]

The literal prefixes are pan=all, and bi=two. People will interpret these prefixes in different ways, but the general definitions are:

 

Pan- = attraction to all genders

Bi- = attraction to 2 or more genders

 

Effectively there's not much of a difference between the terms; it usually comes down to personal preference.

[ReverentCreature]

So a bi person listerally wouldn't fall for someone was gender neutral? Or if they did would they have to instantly reclassify themselves as pansexual? I find that hard to believe. 

 

I think in time bisexual term will be phased out. To me they both seem to mean fancying everyone it's just that one term was used when people thought there was only male and female that existed. just my view. I don't wish to offend anyone.

[TrippleL]

3 hours ago, ReverentCreature said:

So a bi person listerally wouldn't fall for someone was gender neutral? Or if they did would they have to instantly reclassify themselves as pansexual? I find that hard to believe. 

 

I think in time bisexual term will be phased out. To me they both seem to mean fancying everyone it's just that one term was used when people thought there was only male and female that existed. just my view. I don't wish to offend anyone.

I identify as “biromantic” as I’ve to date only been attracted to two genders, neither of which are my gender.

 

Some Bi groups now define bisexuality as attraction to “two or more genders”, and some are using the term “Bi+” to be more inclusive.

 

To me the only significant difference is that panromantic people sometimes say they are attracted to the person first, regardless of gender. I personally do not relate to this.

 

Based on all of the above, I’d be happy to stick with Bi if and when I’m attracted to more genders 🙂

[Bloc]

On 1/30/2019 at 11:47 AM, ReverentCreature said:

So a bi person listerally wouldn't fall for someone was gender neutral? Or if they did would they have to instantly reclassify themselves as pansexual? I find that hard to believe. 

 

I think in time bisexual term will be phased out. To me they both seem to mean fancying everyone it's just that one term was used when people thought there was only male and female that existed. just my view. I don't wish to offend anyone.

The bi people I know don't confine bi to being attracted to the two binary genders. They are mostly also attracted to non-binary or gender neutral people. Pan is often used to say that gender is not important for how they experience he attraction. Many pan people also identify as bi and use the bi label when talking with people not familiar with LGBT issues, myself included.

[Zefron]

I feel that pan and bi are kind of arbitrary 

 

The way I have come to understand it for myself is that it is easier for me to say who I'm not attracted to (gay men and straight woman), than who I am attracted to (preferences for randomly specific genders/sexuallities that aren't on the bianary) and since pan is more broad than bi it feels more comfy.  (Sorry it's anecdotal, but maybe it helps?)

[Guest]

Imo they're basically the same thing, but I don't take on the pan label cuz, idk.... Even though I could conceivably fall for a trans person, I haven't yet?

[chairdesklamp]

I just wanna put here that the invalid but commonly mistaken definition of bi=cis men and women and pan=includes trans men and women is both transphobic on all levels, also delegitimises the existence of NB people and says that you just believe trans men and women aren't "real" men and women. 

 

I've been in the community since the '90s, as bi before all else. The valid definitions are bi=2 or more but not all, and pan=gender is not a factor in my attraction.

 

There's a big problem and always has been with exclusionist cisgays. So you may still hear this definition, but it's wrong. So's the "hearts, not parts" for pan because of the same reason. However, saying something like "I'm only attracted to cis (gender)" is like saying "I'm only attracted to white people," or "I'm not Asian and I only like Asians because I can subjugate them" (usually the because part is not spoken, but if the part before the because is there, this is what they mean) It may be how the speaker feels, but it's based on a bigotry they have. 

[Bloc]

4 hours ago, chairdesklamp said:

 

I've been in the community since the '90s, as bi before all else. The valid definitions are bi=2 or more but not all, and pan=gender is not a factor in my attraction. 

This is how I see it. Just a question: Would you call it still pan, when you are into people regardless their gender, but not into extremely femme or masc people?

[chairdesklamp]

Hmm, I think at that point, as long as it's not "Black women are just less feminine" (totally untrue, actually you're most likely to see Black women done up at the laundry mat, perhaps because the brand of racism against them is a hypermasculine boogeyman) or "trans women are all masculine" (again, untrue, so, so unntrue) and it's more like "this person is constantly covered in nothing but pink lace" "this person thinks vegetables are girly" (i.e. individual behaviour) that would be just a type. Types are based on traits a person has, not stereotypes of their race. An example is that being obsessed with celebrity gossip and astrology is really friggin common in my area. Not even my type of friend. I attract a lot of people really into hard sciences, even though I flunked those as a schoolboy. That's a type that gravitates toward me. My ex wife and multiple friends of any orientation. The type I'm hoping for in a partner is masculine but not macho. Macho is a type of behaviour. He would also stand up for people who can't stand up for themselves. This is also the type I am.

 

As long as you actually mean individual behaviour, yeah, that's fine. That's normal and okay. It crosses the line when it's a bigotry. When it's (oppressed category) is not my type, yeah, that's not a great way to think. But individual behaviour and actions, heck, if that wasn't a common and okay way to sort, well, the whole point of interpersonal interactions on a voluntary basis is that you like who the person is. Okay, sexuals also have the looks=want thing, but that aside... I mean, I base all my voluntary relationships on whether or not I like who the other person is. I can't see your sidebar on mobile, but being most into a less gendered behaviour pattern in a potential partner, whatever gender you like, because I can't see that, so I'll say it that way, yeah, that doesn't sound bad. 

 

(Honestly, my best female friends are tomboys and machoism is just an alien value to me, particularly the American kind. Don't like it in anyone. And tomboy female friends you can hug, but still talk about spiders with  )

 

And it's still not the base gender. A tomboy is still a girl. A non-macho man is still a man. A feminine man is also a man, sure, if he identifies as such, but so is a man obsessed with star charts. So is a man really into star gazing. Two of those men I could still really be into. Two I can't. Does not being into men who like astrology make me less into men? No. Again, also my best female friends are always the tomboys, so I just like a more similar to me type of person. I don't get close to feminine female friends, either because we have less in common. My best friend is a tomboy, but she's still a woman. So yeah, that's more like behaviour than gender itself, what you're talking about.

 

Long answer, and I went spinning off a bit, but basically the point is is that behaviour of an individual is the basis of most voluntary relationships and really, is a normal metric. And is apart from any kind of demograph. So would not affect base orientation.