Pansexuality and Bisexuality?

Hey sweetie. :3

I think you got the most important bits: that trans men are men and trans women are women.

I think that pansexuals and bisexuals think of their sexuality slightly differently. This can be good and worth enjoying and celebrating, but it can become caustic when one or the other group starts to position politically. I have always been of the view that sexualities should not be politicized.

There's been a debate, although not a very robust one, over whether or not bisexuality is inherently transphobic. This is really hurtful to those of us who are bisexual. First, many of us are trans ourselves! Second, many cisgender bisexual folks still maintain healthy, respectful romantic relationships with trans people. Finally, some bisexual folks choose to identify as such for simple linguistic reasons--that is, the general public know what I am as a bisexual, and I have the option of also explaining that I'm very attracted to non-binary people--where if I identify as pansexual to the public, it is not clear what exactly that means.

I'm being visible, but not visible in a way that offers any clarity to anyone. They just know I'm not straight, but that's about as far as it goes.

I think pansexuals think of their sexuality in similar terms--that is, of trans inclusivity, and radical encompassing of love for many genders--although they might theorize or characterize it differently. For example, they might say "I'm gender-blind." As a bisexual, I'm gender-conscious, but it's not because I'm looking to otherize or objectify anybody. Rather I want to see a person in their totality, and honor them. I consider their gender a part of their person (unless they have an agender experience, in which case it's not, and I'm sensitive to that.)

But not all bisexuals or pansexuals feel the way I described.

I think these sexualities are unfortunately under-theorized, and I think that politics (especially who is the "savior" of or "best ally" of transgender and genderqueer people) explains a lot of that under-theorizing.

Adrienne

 

I don't think the distinction actually has much to do with transmen and transwomen. Rather, I think it deals (more) with non-binary genders/sexes.

I (well...naturally) see nothing inherently transphobic about bisexuality...I agree that transmen are men and transwomen are women...and I've found that I can be attracted to either. But I do have some issues where certain kinds of nonbinary identities come into play. It's not transphobic (again, naturally I don't think it is)...I don't dislike those people. I mean...I don't consider gay men to be inherently misogynist, because they rule out attraction to women. And frankly, I don't even rule out attraction to nonbinary persons...I do my best to never rule out anything...*sigh* I should just shut up, because I'm kind of on the line about whether I qualify as pansexual.

But my point was really that pansexuality isn't about being open to transpeople who fit the gender/sex binaries.

 

Why? Part of my point was that I'm not sure that pansexuality is particularly well-defined or well theorized. In the theoretical engagements I've been between pansexual and bisexual activists, bisexuals spend most of their time asking pansexuals to stop defining them (or rather, defining their *own* sexuality in opposition to or negation of bisexuality).

As long as people have a way of defining their sexuality in a way that doesn't make negative ethical claims about my sexuality, I'm more than happy to hear what it is. So if you feel like a pansexual, I'm more than happy to inquire.

I agree. I'm not sure that it is either. But, it has been a feature of some of the theoretical engagements between people of the two sexualities--or sexuality groups, I should say. To the extent that openness to trans people has been an important political dimension in those engagements, it was so much the worse for the compassion towards and protection of transgender people.

 

I never saw pansexuality, which I do identify with, as being about attraction to trans men and women, too. They're men and women, so covered just fine by the "bi" label. Pan is more about non-binary gender identities.

Yes, bisexual people can be attracted to non-binary people. Not disputing that at all. It's just that the word "pansexual" does so explicitly, which is really my only reason for liking the word. I have nothing against the word bisexual and I often call myself bi for convenience's sake. I basically consider pansexuality a subcategory of bisexuality.

In the end, it's really just a word.

 

I suspect the word pansexual was coined to counter the idea of bisexual meaning attracted to only two genders. People who wanted to show that they were attracted to nonbinary people as well used pansexual because bisexual was likely used in a very binary way or assumed to be used that way. Regardless, at this point they have come to be very similar terms. Pansexual means attracted to all genders, bisexual means attracted to two or more. Sometimes pansexual is used to refer to a more "gender blind" approach towards attraction, sometimes it's not.

Yes, trans men are men and trans women are women, so even a bisexual person who uses the label to mean only attracted to two genders (presumably men and women) can/should be attracted to trans men and women. Seeing as bisexual means two or more genders, bisexual people can certainly also be attracted to nonbinary people.

 

As a Pansexual, I prefer to explain how I feel as follows: I like people, not genders. I don't see the people I'm attracted to as "hes" or "shes". To me, they're just themselves. Bisexuals like two genders. Pansexuals don't like gender at all because it doesn't matter to them. Whether you identify with a gender or not, I, as a Pansexual, could care less. I'm attracted to people because of who they are. Not what they are.
Hope this helps.

 

To be very honest, and I really don't aim to offend anyone with this,

there is no difference whatsoever between being pan or bi. IMO pansexuality is just a hype. Like how radical bisexuality once was, it's now mainstream so people try to distinct themselves in other ways.

The philosophy of pansexuality is that you love people, not genders.
But if you think about it, how is that actually different from "normal" bisexuality? For example, how do you know whether you are also attracted to people that are in-between-genders? I have not met anyone so far in my life who openly identified as such, so how can I know whether I'm pan or bi? Rather, how can any 15 years old already know whether they fall under this category? And people that say they are not attracted to these people at all, maybe that is just some internalised transphobia? Just like you once might have told yourself you're not attracted to the same sex, so is there really a difference between being bi or pan?

Furthermore. I tend to fall for feminine girls and guys that are not too feminine. Just like how there is a certain kind of smile that gets me hooked, and how I prefer blonde hair. People that might have characteristics of both genders might be something inbetween feminine and masculine. And maybe that is just a characteristic I don't prefer. So does that mean I cannot be attracted to anyone without a clear gender, or does that simply mean that statistically many such people might simply not have characteristics I prefer. But if such a person has the characteristics I like than maybe I can very well fall in love with them.

So what if a person who is pan simply falls for certain characteristics that happen to occur a lot in some non-standard gender-identities? I mean a girl who likes tall masculine guys and a girl who likes small feminine guys both identify as straight.

Coming back to my first point, 30 years ago I bet most people who identify as pan nowadays would have identified as bisexual. But since that is a fairly normal thing today, I think people (naturally, I too have that tendency. So I just speak from my own experiences) feel the need to differentiate themselves from others.

I don't really see the need to make a distinction between pan and bi... but still, I am only saying this in this thread (and just once, I'm not on a crusade to convince every bisexual of my believe here, but it's just my honest opinion), never would I tell a pansexaul friend he/she is not or cannot be.

 

And yet you manage to. This is pretty much the same as the argument:

 

Alright...I too would say effectively, "I like people, not genders. I see the person and am either attracted or not...I don't care whether they are male or female. To me, they are just a person...a really sexy person."

I actually don't get the notion of "being attracted to a gender"...it seems more like we are attracted to *people* of different *sexes* (who may identify with or express as various genders). I am attracted to males and females in a range of gender expressions. Nonbinary genitalia put me off more than nonbinary gender expression, although I can have issues with both. It is primarily this that leads me to identify as bisexual rather than pansexual.

But from what you wrote, I can't tell if I'm actually pansexual, or if your notion of what distinguishes pansexuality from bisexuality simply misses an important mark. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

So much pointless human moralizing. Lyana had it right. I'm pan. Pan means all. In other words, I like people. *Sigh*

 

Sorry. And that is precisely why I opened it with that. Don't understand me wrong, this is a discussion, not a lecture, I just present my views (and so can you).

Look, you give a bit of a mean argument here. You compare my view that bisexuality and pansexuality both are one and the same (not saying what you feel is wrong!!! Only that that is already a part of being bisexual) to that of denying that you can love a certain gender. That is not a fair comparison, I don't say at all that pansexuality itself does not exist, this discussion is just about terminology.

Maybe I phrased my words a bit wrong and too harsh, I apologize for that if I did. What I just meant is that what I experience as being bisexual is what some people describe as pansexuality. That you love people, not genders for example. And again, whether I can be attracted to people without a clear gender, honestly I don't know, I haven't met enough. And bisexuals who say they don't, well maybe they just never met the right one, or are not open for it, or maybe those people tend to have charactertics (like in terms of masculinity and feminity) that just so happens to not be something they're looking for in a partner (like preferring tall guys, or black hair). So my question is, in that sense can't maybe every bisexual be called pansexual? And so I think the difference is just a matter of mindset, a psychological difference. Both because some bisexuals might just not be open to explore it, and some pansexuals might simply feel the need to call themselves differently to differentiate themselves from others. Both are very human things.

Yes, I fully agree. To me, a label is just something for the outside world. All that matters is that you are happy, don't lie to yourself who you're attracted to and just go with the flow. I can give a very detailed discription of my sexuality to my friends, but they won't understand, so I just call myself bisexual. It encompasses everything you need to know about me, and it is a term everyone knows. No one knows the term pansexual, and so if I would use this term to describe myself to everyone around me, they would just be confused. So I don't understand the need to do that..

And really, I only say this because this is an open discussion, and because I think it is an interesting topic that should not be taboo. But don't take it too personally, I am not denying anyone's sexuality, and outside of this discussion where I gave my (honest) opinion, I never would (and never did) make any problem of this.

 

This explanation gives the impression that pansexuals are a step above bisexuals - as if only pansexuals are capable of looking past gender and seeing a person for who they are whereas bisexuals are limited to seeing people as binary-gendered objects. If that's what this label is about, then I don't like it and I don't support its use. And where are the corresponding labels for heterosexuals and homosexuals? Aren't they capable of loving trans people and genderqueer people as well? Why are those labels deemed unnecessary?

 

Something I learned last weekend, some view the term "bisexual" as more of a clinical thing than an accurate description of their sexuality. The term itself aparently originates from researchers who were using it to describe those individuals who engaged in sexual activity with both males and females. The term "pansexual" has been created within the community, so some see it as more of giving themselves a label, instead of having a label cast at them.

I personally can see both options, and will use both depending on who I am communicating with. In some ways, I see it as an umbrella term and a more specific term. Certainly there are some people that are only attracted to those that fit the gender binary, and thus use the label bisexual. By the same token, if someone from across the world randomly asked me where I'm from, I may say Detroit, even though it's technically an hour's drive from where I live, but it gets the idea across much quicker.

 

I believe it's like this - bisexual means liking genders like your own as well as those unlike your own (for example, a bisexual person could date a genderqueer person but their gender would still play a role on if they are attracted to them.) Pansexual means that you like people regardless of their gender or where their gender doesn't play a role in if you are attracted to them. (for example, a pansexual person could date anybody without being affected by their gender).

 

I don't think you're a bad person or anything. But it's a common trick these days to avoid the hassle of actually being thoughtful and sensitive to make statements of the form "No offense, but <insert offensive statement>". And bigots use it just as readily as anyone else ("I don't mean to offend anyone, but gay sex is just sick"..."hey! it's just my opinion!"). (And NO, I am not claiming or implying that you are a bigot...I am only saying that such pre-apologies do not and should not excuse offensive statements.)

There is quite a difference between "I don't see/understand the difference, so I'm not sure whether I fit 'bisexual', 'pansexual', or both" and "No offense, but there is no difference whatsoever between them, and I think pansexuality is just hype."

But moving along...

I think you've missed the point of my argument. I do not compare your assertion to saying you can't love people of a certain gender (I'm not at all sure where you got that).

I'm saying that your argument that the concept of pansexuality adds nothing to the discussion of sexuality (because it is already subsumed under the notion of bisexuality) is analogous to an argument that the concept of bisexuality adds nothing to the discussion of sexuality (because it's already subsumed under the notion of homosexuality). In both cases, a sexuality is being invalidated because the person making the statement doesn't get the distinction, and/or assumes that everyone feels as he does.

 

To copy & paste something, from a whiiiiiile back:

To sum it up:
Pansexual is more of a green light than bisexual, especially for transfolk who are still transitioning or defying their born sex.

This isn't absolute, but being trans, it helps as a label.

 

Please define yourself, not me. What you're saying does not describe my attraction or my experience.

 

I've always thought bisexual was attractions to both men and women, and generally speaking, that would sound very binary. As for pansexual, it's less about what's in their pants and more about the person (which sounds like personality is the deal breaker).

In all honesty, bisexual and pansexual sound almost like twin terms to me. Visually, they look near identical, but when you dig deeper into the terms themselves, there has to be a fine line to be drawn which is why the two are never used interchangeably.

Just my opinion, I do not mean to offend anyone.