Bisexuality vs Pansexuality - (Sort of a Debate) ???

I would say the definitions are different.

I define myself as bisexual because I have the ability to be attracted to, have sex with, and feel romantically invested toward both genders. I don't feel like I would be attracted to someone who is transgender, but that doesn't mean it could never happen. I never thought I could be romantically interested in women, but that happened!

I think there's a thin line. It's hard to say that someone who's bi isn't pan, because what if they fell for someone FtM or MtF? At the same time, you'd have to question if people who define themselves as straight weren't pansexual if they fell for someone non-binary or transgender. Someone who comes to mind is GiGi Gorgeous. She's transgender MtF, and insanely beautiful. If a straight man didn't know she was born a male, and even if he did, I feel like they wouldn't care because she's practically the definition of a perfect female - like the prettiest Barbie.

This is where labels start to leak into each other and not make much sense, because who's to say (if you're an open minded person) that you couldn't fall for someone unexpectedly (cue Beauty & the Beast)?

I feel that, for me, bisexuality is about having the ability to like a man or a woman -- and that's it. If I did find out they were transgender, I don't know... if I was in love with them it doesn't seem like it would matter.

This is like trying to analyze a David Lynch film. There's no end. Screw labels!!

 

Here's my problem though. Transgender people (granted, binary transgender people like myself) shouldn't be considered some other gender. Let's take GiGi Gorgeous. She's a woman. She's not some third gender. She may have been assigned male at birth but for all intents and purposes she lives as female, identifies as female, presents as female, etc. So why treat her as less of a woman when defining sexuality? If someone is only attracted to, say, women, the fact that they're attracted to GiGi or another transwoman doesn't mean they're less attracted to women.

That's kind of where I admit I actually do have a problem with the distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality. I'm starting to soften a bit on this but I almost feel like using transgender people as the dividing line between bi and pansexuality scapegoats and delegitimizes transgender people. Because you have people saying that pansexuals are the only ones that date transgender people, with the assumption that bisexuals will only express interest in cisgendered men and women. I'm not less of a man because I'm transgender. And I really don't need someone treating me like I'm a third gender for the purposes of dating (not jumping on your case Yeah but just figured it was a good jumping off point).

 

Then perhaps "pansexual" does cover so-called "third genders"--i.e. not trans people, but people who do not identify with any gender at all, people who are androgynous, or identify as some kind of alternate gender other than male or female.

 

No, I totally agree -- and feel kind of dumb for not adding it into my previous post. However, I was thinking in the sense that a trans female or trans male is a female or male. That's kind of what I was pushing toward with GiGi or saying that I can't say I'd ever NOT fall for someone who's trans. To me, GiGi is a woman. I think if anyone saw her on the street and didn't know she was trans, they'd just think she's a super hot girl without question. And pushing toward it when I say there's no way to say you could NEVER fall for someone who's trans. What if I met some woman who was gorgeous and perfect and I started falling really hard for them? If I found out later on that they were trans, I most likely wouldn't care... so then does that make me pansexual? I'd say no, because I don't define myself as such, which is why I got frustrated in the end and said screw labels, lol. The argument kind of just goes in circles, at least for me.

I'm glad you brought your point up. It's really important.

I think for some, there can be discomfort in being with someone who they later find out is trans. In the end, I feel like love is love -- and people would describe that idea as pansexual, but I still wouldn't define myself as pan.

 

I think they're both just labels for people who are interested in multiple genders. People can choose whatever label they're comfortable with. I also think sexuality labels these days are also cultural labels. I am in a similar position. I could choose to call myself questioning, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, grey asexual, homoromatic asexual, gay, lesbian or queer. I choose queer because it connects me to the queer community without having to define my sexuality. I still like to occasionally identify as other stuff.

 

Although I agree with you, the vast majority of people seem to draw a line between the two. It makes me want to bash their heads in when they say it, but I can't count how many times someone has said, "If you're a guy and into trans women, you're a homosexual".

Some people draw a line on how well a person passes, while others make hormones (or hormones plus surgery) a requirement. I'll admit to being a little weirded out by the thought of being intimate with a trans person, at first, if only due to lack of exposure and transphobia, but now? They're just another shade of color on the rainbow.

The fact that transgenders are such a small percentage of the overall population probably makes this question even more complex, so at the end of the day, most people are probably fine not thinking about it. They wouldn't have to confront their own prejudices and taboos. Much easier to play into stereotypes.

 

This is what I think:

BOLDED WORDS MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE: I define sexual orientation as which sex(es) one has sexual attraction to, in relation to one's gender. It is important to note that the gender one has may not match what society and biology considers the proper body (i.e. sex) for that gender; it may exist in a vacuum between the ears of that person and not be broadcast to the world passively (i.e. you don't "look" like the gender you identify as), until said person comes out and/or transitions. However, the sex a person is attracted does not occur in a vacuum and usually is set by biological and societal standards. Sex is defined in culture and biology by the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of a particular sex, which is of binary nature.

Now, I identify as a gay male. I am not transexual. Let's say that I find a transmale attractive and find a sexual attraction. My initial point of sexual interest will probably be to whatever characteristics they may possess that are associated with the male sex. Now, some people may find an attraction to a person who does not possess physical characteristics of their desired sex, but who identifies with such gender (e.g. pre-op, pre hormone trans male) and may claim that they are attracted to their male mind, or person or whatnot.

Here is where the whole bisexual/pansexual crux lies. What caused the initial attraction? Did you first visually find the person attractive to your taste (e.g a bisexual male found a pre-transition transmale attractive and considered them an attractive woman, and then found out they identify as male and shifted their perception and found a newly formed attraction based on other characteristics. The fact of the matter remains that initial sexual attraction is usually determined by physical (usually, secondary sex characteristics). If you don't believe this, think of when you first discovered physical/sexual attraction and were attracted as a person as an early pubescent child: you were more than likely attracted to a particular characteristic that is usually associated with a particular sex (e.g. muscular body, musky body odor, breasts, jawline, etc.).

 

I don't know what pansexual means and I will never have a direct answer because I always get a thousand different answers. Don't bother quoting me either and telling me what you think it is because I will just never have a direct answer.

 

I always saw bisexual as being attracted to two genders and pansexual as being attracted to all genders.

 

Although I see bi meaning two and pan meaning all, I probably couldn't care less about someone's sex or gender as long as they were a nice person and filled my requirements of beliefs and actions. So maybe I should say pan, but I say bi ... probably should say pan but bi's just easier and to be honest I can't be bothered to change the label again [it took me four years to change from homo to bi]. Sorry if that offends. Note that I've taken out -sexuality for time sakes, not to offend.

 

I kinda feel the difference. I've got two pan friends and two bi friends, and I have to say there is a difference! Bi people often do feel attraction to guys and girls, as being gay and straight. Most Pan people do not care the persons gender, but rather liking them because of their personality (Panromantic ppl) or their bodies that do not need to be defied in male female bodies... Eg: I'm Pansexual (actually Demi but who cares) I like guy's bodies, girl's bodies, and androgynous or mixed bodies. Not because I like both sexes and as these enby has a bit of both, but just because this enby's hot. Yes? In practice it's almost the same, but I guess the ways of experiencing it are different.

Also bi means two and there are a lot of bi ppl that are just attracted to the two traditional genders

 

I sort of prefer the term "bi" more than "pan" even if I do currently use the latter rather the former. That being said, I would date anyone of any gender as well as any sex.

 

I have said this before, and I'll say it again, so I'll apologise now for the repetition.

Bisexual - More than one (Possibly trans/non-binary inclusive)
Pansexual - All. (Definitely attracted to people of all genders)

Before Pansexual, the word for describing multisexuals was simply 'Bisexual'. Therefore, many people use the term and prefer it.
Identifying as Pansexual simply means that it is easier for non-binary people to determine if a person is attracted to their gender.

People tend to try and pit Pansexual people against Bisexual people, but it really shouldn't be that way. We should stand together.

 

For ease of use, bisexual and pansexual are often synonymous. Most people know the definition of bisexual so people that are pan tend to use bi just because it's a more recognised term.

Yes, technically bisexual means only male and female but I'd like to think that that would include transmen and women because they are part of the binary - identifying as solely men and women. To me pan then includes non-binary genders too.

In the end people tend to bend the labels to suit them. One person identifying as bi may only be attracted to cis people whilst another using the same term may be inclusive of all genders. It's personal preference but the two terms could be merged because theres such an overlap now that it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I can understand the use of them both seperately though, bi people may just need to specify preference. We all have our own preferences within our sexuality labels though.

 

I identify as bi when pushed for a label. As far as the trans* thing, how people identify is what they are. I don't see the need for a quadsexual label. I don't identify as pan because I cannot see myself in a lasting long term relationship with an asexual person. I need a physical relationship.

 

Look, if you ask me, as a lesbian who doesn't frequent Tumblr but has read some theory and has some pretty strong opinions...

They're the same thing, bisexuality and "pansexuality." I fear that people's reluctance to identify as bi stems from internalized negative attitudes about bi people. But people love to over-complicate the meanings of these words. If you ask me, they both mean attraction to both males and females. As any queer person knows, that does not necessarily mean EVERY male or female. Obviously.

And to address the trans question: I think some people just are not interested in being with trans people. But that's probably more of a matter of preference rather than an entirely different sexual orientation.

The cool thing is that these labels mean whatever we want them to mean. Whatever we decide they should mean. Words are made to fit us, not us them.

That said, there is a certain amount of unnecessary debate over these words that mean the exact same thing. And, in my opinion, the word "pansexual" is utterly useless. However, people need to feel comfortable and we need the language to accommodate that.

 

I think these two sum it up for me.

If there is one or five or 15 (or millions of) other genders, and 32 (or millions of) other sexes out there, I've not met them; I can't say whether "once I got down to the nitty-gritty" I'd find myself attracted to all of them...and neither can any self-professed pansexual who hasn't met them all. I'm pretty open-minded, but if someone's gender involves, say, compulsive insults and random bitchslaps, I think I can say I'm not gonna find that attractive. If their sex (because *that* to me is the *real* divider between bi and pansexuality) is so out there that their genitals look like a pool of vomit, say...well again...I'm pretty open-minded, but damn, I recognize there are limits.

Can't it simply be enough to say that I'm a very open-minded bisexual?