Pansexuality and Bisexuality?

well [afaik] , bisexuality is limited to liking only cis males and females - and therefore not trans*, genderqueer and so on people - whereas pansexuality is liking all genders

 

While I hate the politics of this distinction, I can't argue they way people think about these words. In general, people who want others to know they are attracted to trans people will call themselves pansexual. However, there are many who will identify themselves as bi* who find trans or agender people attractive, including this guy.

* Only if I think whoever I am talking to won't understand pansexuality or queer as labels.

 

I understand that, I hate that people suggest that you need to be pansexual to be attracted to trans people. Like if trans people were a third gender... pfff:eusa_naug

To me the distinction is more subtle (which is probably why people don't get it..)

A pansexual person: They are attracted to/fall in love with the personality or soul of the person. Gender is very secondary to them.
A bisexual person: They are attracted to/fall in love with men and/or with women; gender is still an important feature to them.

A tip to understand it easier...: bisexual people will usually prefer a gender over the other, like, it's not 50-50. Pansexual people will just NOT care about the gender. If that helps..

 

I'm just gonna repost what I posted in a similar thread earlier (tl;dr summary at the bottom):

This is one of my pet peeves.

In terms of who someone is attracted to there is no, repeat no, difference among bisexuality, pansexuality, and omnisexuality. The term "bisexual" emerged well before the idea of non-binary genders was something most people in the queer community were aware of. As such, people who found themselves attracted to people of more than one gender naturally identified as "bi."

This practice continued as the existence of trans* people, intersex people, and genderqueer people became more prominent. At this time, some people began identifying as pansexual or omnisexual because they wanted to emphasize, as a matter of identity politics, the existence of people outside the gender binary.

Most people, however, continued to identify as bi. Not because they weren't attracted to people outside the gender binary, but because it was the common term, they'd been using it for years, and explaining pan or omni was more trouble than it was worth.

There is nothing wrong with identifying as pansexual or omnisexual. Reminding people of that there are options outside of the gender binary is a worthwhile thing, and the terms are in fact more accurate. However, I get very upset when pan or omni people define themselves in relation to bi people by saying that bi people can't be attracted to people outside of the gender binary. Defining another group's label for them is offensive and entirely unnecessary.

tl;dr: The three identities do not differ with respect to who the person is attracted to (I suppose there's a handful of bi people who are only interested in people within the gender binary, but I doubt they're more than a small minority). The difference is more political than anything.

 

Worth noting that trans people are their desired gender, and not some 'third gender' that requires a special type of sexuality to date. Plenty people who identify as gay or straight are willing to date transfolk, if they are convincing.

And I think intersexuality is the same way. A straight man can be attracted to the feminine qualities on an androgynous person, etc. A straight woman can be attracted to the masculine qualities and so on.

The distinction between bisexual and all the 2+n sexualities (multi, omni, pan) is political, and not biological, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Well if bi and pan are the same thing, then it's no wonder I can't figure out which one I am. Probably just easier to explain bi rather than pan.

 

Basically this.

---------- Post added 21st Oct 2012 at 11:22 AM ----------

I agree this is not necesarrily true, but there are bisexual people who are only attracted to cisgendered people.

 

I would disagree with this statement. I identify as bi and have no preference for men or women. Currently at high school, I'm more involved with girls but that's only because of the ferociously low number of non-heteros my age in my area.

As for the distinction, I think they essentially mean the same thing. Other people have explained it better than I would be able to.

 

Sohodreamer, I said, usually. That implies that there is a small percentage of bisexual people who are attracted to both genders equally.

 

erm, not really.

I am bisexual, not pansexual. I am attracted to cis and trans people. In fact for any given person, i am perhaps more likely to find them attractive if they are trans than if they are cis.

I don't identify as pansexual because gender is still a factor for me though. I tend to find far more women than men attractive, and i think i am heteroromantic. I don't know if that is true, but i am yet to feel romantic feelings for a man. Even if it did happen though, i would still consider myself bisexual, not pansexual.

 

I have to agree with most of what's been said here. I typically use bisexual to identify myself, but it in no way means that I'm only attracted to the binary cis male/female dynamic. I've heard of the term pansexual and I have no issues with it, but to me its more or less the same to me. Many of my friends are outside the LBGT community and while most people understand and are familiar with Bisexual and fewer are familiar with Pansexual. It's easier to use the term that works better in my circles.

I believe we all have the right to choose the labels that we feel best fit us. If some prefer Pan to Bi, power to them, but I've personally never felt a distinction.

 

Yesss somebody got it right. Same for me; I don't consider myself pansexual because gender is still very important for me. My attraction to men is different than my attraction to women; sexy people of either gender will make me react physically but with women I go totally stupid while with men I still have a hold of myself.
Also, as gender is important to me, so is the body/appearance of the person! I will not have any physical/romantic relationship with anybody I am not attracted to. Having a nice personality is a must but that's not enough. That makes me bisexual!

 

I agree with what the majority of people seem to be saying. The label pansexual I feel is a more political thing. I believe it is supposed to mean that the persons body makes no difference to you which I don't feel is true for anyone. Maybe a small percentage, but while a person's inner self may be more important than their outer self to me personally, it's not like someone being physically attractive doesn't play into me crushing on them. I think most people who identify as pansexual are really bisexual and I in no way feel bisexuality can't include transgender people or gender queer people.

 

I agree with this but I'm kinda on the fence with .

 

This thread is from 2012. Please remember to check dates before you post in a thread