Why "pansexuality" and not "bisexuality"?

My understanding of it is that "pansexual" is simply a more inclusive term than "bisexual" - where the latter implies the potential to be attracted to both men and women, the former implies the potential to be attracted to all genders - which includes trans people, and so forth.

Which is not to imply that bisexual people can't be attracted to trans people, just that those self identifying as "pansexual" are making a statement along those lines.

 

I would not define bisexuals by the notion that they "love the person and not the gender". Technically (I believe), bisexuality means attraction to both sexes...with the emphasis on the word *both*...as opposed to *all*. I think this can (at least for some bisexuals) also apply to gender...but again, both, as opposed to all.

Pansexuals, by contrast, recognize that sex is a continuum, just like sexuality...and they are attracted to *all* variations. Again, I believe this can also extend to gender.

I don't believe that attitudes toward transpersons (I'm curious about your use of the * when referring to them) need to figure much into this distinction. If a transperson identifies as a woman, and you see them that way, and you are attracted to women, then I wouldn't see why either a bisexual or pansexual would have different attitudes toward that person. Same if they identified as a man. But in either case, the person fits the gender binary.

The gender continuum, however, contains more than just male-identified and female-identified people. It also includes, as you point out, the genderqueer, bigendered, third gendered, etc.

But to get the idea of sex as a continuum, think rather of intersexed persons (e.g., people born with ambiguous genitalia, or with genitalia that don't match their secondary sex characteristics).

Personally, I would say that I have some pan-leanings...I do feel more attracted to people than to specific body characteristics...and I can never rule out the possibility of falling in love with anybody...in any body. But at the same time, I have to admit to some preferences and tendencies that fall more along the lines of the binary (though more with respect to sex than gender) than the whole spectrum of possibilities.

Dunno if that helps or is more confusing. I would love if some pansexuals would either confirm or correct my impressions.

---------- Post added 24th Nov 2011 at 09:52 PM ----------

(Sheesh, while I'm writing my novel, Gravity says the same thing perfectly in two short paragraphs. Um, yeah...what he said.)

 

A pansexual person is a person who is attracted to men and women and has strong opinions about the differences between bisexuality and pansexuality.

I jest, of course. Here's my serious answer:

I don't think it's true that "the term 'bisexual' means that you love the person and not the gender". I think I can safely say that most people don't fall in love with a person's gender; they fall in love with the person themselves, whether they are pansexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian, straight, asexual but not aromantic, etc. The thing is, our sexuality (the thing people refer to when they say gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, etc.) don't directly determine whom we fall in love with*; they determine whom we are attracted to sexually, which sex(es) turn on us on and which one(s) we are willing to have sex with. That's a separate thing from whom we fall in love with; most people would probably tell you that their "romantic" orientation and their sexual orientation are the same, so they never have to think about them as two separate dimensions of our attraction, but they really are.

In short, sexuality really has nothing to do with love. With that in mind, I think it's easier to fathom the idea that a bisexual person is someone who is only attracted to cis-gendered men and women, while a pansexual is attracted to cis-gendered people, transsexual people, intersex people, etc. I'm sure a bisexual person could fall in love with a transsexual person if giving the opportunity; they just might not be sexually attracted to that person.

 

Terms are a tricky thing, and they are only as good as they are comprehensive. So far as I know, there isn't an agreed upon convention as far as your question goes. Also so far as I know, there's no term equivalent to pansexual to mean attracted to all male-bodied people regardless of genitalia or all female-bodied people regardless of genetalia. My own opinion, though, is that if you fall into one of those categories, you can still call yourself hetero/homosexual as appropriate. Some may disagree, but until we come up with terms to describe someone who is attracted to all people who are male- or female-bodied regardless of genetalia (mascisexual and femisexual?), I think it's only fair.

 

I've said this elsewhere, but this issue is one that gets under my skin a bit, so I'll reiterate my basic position here.

The pan label serves three functions. In no particular order they are 1) It serves to dissociate the self-identifier from the bi label, which carries with it strong negative connotations in the gay male, lesbian, and straight communities. These connotations include the beliefs that bi people are slutty, unfaithful, secretly gay, secretly straight, or only in it for the attention. People that feel attraction to more than one sex naturally don't want to be perceived to have these qualities, and so they want a label that doesn't hold those connotations. I have no real objection to this; I simply find it unfortunate that biphobia remains strong enough that this is a legitimate reason not to want to self-identify as bi.

2) To break the gender binary. There are more than two genders, and even more than two sexes (though breaking the gender binary is more common than breaking the sex binary). People who recognize this want to wake people up to this fact, and express that they do not fall in love or want to have sex with only people who fit the gender binary.

My main problem with this is that it implies that self-identified bi people, by definition, only fall in love or want to have sex with people who fit the gender binary. The bi label is both older and better-known than the pan label, and many people who self-identify as bi do not fit this. I am deeply uncomfortable with telling these people that they must change their identity.

I believe it is possible to reach a solution to this problem by saying that bisexual does not mean attracted to male and female people, but rather that the person has both a homosexual and a heterosexual orientation; that is, the person is attracted to the same (homo) sex and to other (hetero) sexes.

3) While this does not apply to everyone who uses the pan label, the label is often used to implicitly denigrate bi people. This can take the form of saying that bi people actually fit the stereotypes I discussed above, saying that bi people are only attracted to people who fit the gender binary, or (and this is imo the most offensive) saying that pan people are attracted to people regardless of gender whereas bi people are attracted to people in a way that gender still matters (this is commonly expressed as "As a pan person, unlike a bi person, I don't care what someone's junk is.").

I don't object to the pan label per se, but I'm not a big fan of it. If I were strongly attracted to people of other sexes as well as my own, I would probably identify as bisexual not pansexual. But I understand why people choose to ID as pan, and I have no problem with them as long as they don't explicitly or implicitly denigrate bi people in the process.

---------- Post added 24th Nov 2011 at 09:49 PM ----------

Try "androsexual" and "gynosexual." I actually think things would make a lot more sense if we went by those terms instead of homosexual and heterosexual.

 

Technically, bisexuals only go for men and women. The definition is to have an attraction to the two sexes (men and women). While pansexual means that the person's attracted to all (men, women, trans, etc). Technically. Of course, some bi people might like trans.

I just like identifying myself as pan better than if I said I was bi because...Well, prolly for a couple reasons. A lot of bi people usually have a preference to which sex they like. They'll say something like "I'm bi, but I prefer guys." or visa versa. I just don't like that because I don't really have a preference. Also, I don't think trans and others are really included in the bisexual identity. And I have absolutely no problem with them. One of my best friends is trans, actually. So I kinda wanna show that I have no problem with them. And some pans consider themselves pan because to them, being pan is like being gender-blind. More so than being bi is.

So yeah, that's what the difference is. I know it might be kind of confusing. Whenever I tell someone that I'm pan, I have to explain it to them. And even then half the time, they're just like "So you're bi?" No, I'm not. I just don't really like the word bisexual. I have nothing against bi people. I have a friend that's bi. I just like pansexual a little better because I think it fits me better, personally. Pans and bis are similar, but not exactly the same thing. I think part of identifying yourself as pan or bi is simply personal feelings. Liam might be right in why some people choose to identify as pan. Maybe that's why some people do. Not me, though. I just don't think "bi" is enough for me.

 

Pan and bi are different, but it is a blurred line. For me, I think I have the potential to be attracted to anyone, be they male, female, transsexual, genderqueer, etc.. However, in some way that I cannot figure out, gender still matters. I think that this is because although I currently have no preference, I have over the past months had small swings of being more attracted to girls or guys, and knowing that that probably will happen again, I do not identify as pan. I am not genderblind, though I am attracted to all genders or lack thereof. I haven't had a problem with the negative connotations of bisexuality, and I think that if I was pan and told people that, they would still think of me as bi. Meh, I'm confusing myself.

 

Interesting... this was a question I actually had as well after joining the site. Very good information and answered my question. So, thanks!

 

As my info under my avatar states, I think the two really mean the same thing. Or at least should mean the same thing.