Bisexuality vs Pansexuality

submitted by PeakingPeachEater from self.Bisexuals

What are the differences between bisexuality and pansexuality?

Do you feel pansexuality should exist as a term or not?

What are your overall thoughts on this?

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]clitoriana 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think pansexual is a useless, meaningless identity that shouldn't exist. It's the same thing as bisexuality, but quirky and unique because they claim to like all genders or are attracted to personality before anything else. Pansexuals are just bisexuals who think they're special. And bisexuals are just people who can be attracted to both sexes - gender identities are irrelevant because attraction is based on sex.

[–]PeakingPeachEater[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, before I was on the fence and 'liked' the idea of using 'pansexual' to distinguish between regular bisexuals and trans inclusive ones.

I propose we use these terms instead:

  • trans inclusive bisexuals (TIBs) - for those who like males, females, and trans or whatever other genders.

  • trans exclusive bisexuals (TEBs) - for bisexuals who exclusively like transexuals.

This is to follow the pattern of already established terms such as female exclusive bisexuals (FEB) and male exclusive bisexuals(MEB).

I also mentioned earlier in a different comment that to me, there are only 3 sexualities, which are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. I wish we could do away with terms such as pansexual because the term is useless and redundant.

[–]diapason 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't really see a reason for 'pansexuality' to be considered different from bisexuality. In theory it might be useful to distinguish between people who would be open to dating a trans person and people who wouldn't, but in today's climate it's just another way to virtue signal and claim your "open-minded" sexual preferences make you better than other people, so it's a red flag to me if someone calls themself pansexual (especially since a lot of people who call themselves pansexual aren't even bisexual)

Also, their 'pansexual pride' flag is kinda clever, but not particularly visually appealing IMO

[–]PeakingPeachEater[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm kinda torn about using the word pansexuality based on all the reasons you stated, ultimately, I agree with you.

As you mentioned, it seems the only purpose of the term "pansexuality" is to distinguish that they like trans and non-binary people. I can't remember who I talked to before but originally I was "for" the term pansexuality because it seemed like a way to separate regular bisexuals from those who are drenched in the QT+ theory. But now I don't know.

But now I'm wondering, is pansexuality detrimental to bisexuals? What are your thoughts?

Also, their 'pansexual pride' flag is kinda clever, but not particularly visually appealing IMO

Ohh how so? Do the colours mean something in particular?

My overall thoughts are there are only 3 sexualities, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual...everything else is unnecessary or just end up being a descriptor to the other 3 sexualities.

[–]diapason 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As you mentioned, it seems the only purpose of the term "pansexuality" is to distinguish that they like trans and non-binary people.

Well I can definitely initially find "non-binary" people attractive till they tell me they have a "gender identity" and go by plural pronouns 😄 (all the self-proclaimed "enbys/enbies/NBs" I've ever met are just somewhat androgynous-looking girls lol). But trans? nope.

I can't remember who I talked to before but originally I was "for" the term pansexuality because it seemed like a way to separate regular bisexuals from those who are drenched in the QT+ theory.

Yeah, I used to feel that way too—I think it was more of a thing a few years back. Nowadays though, I'm noticing that they haven't really succeeded in making pansexuality "a thing" so a lot have defaulted back to bi and are dragging the rest of us into it by association.

But now I'm wondering, is pansexuality detrimental to bisexuals? What are your thoughts?

IMO it is, but mainly because the TRAs have really pushed the idea that you have to be open to sleeping with/dating trans people or else you're 'transphobic', so for the ones who label themselves 'pansexual', all is well and good, but it didn't save the rest of us from being targeted by the T because they've decided it's unacceptable for anyone to decline to date trans people/not be attracted to them (see also: transbians harassing lesbians, and increasingly, Gaydens harassing gay men). Also, a lot of bisexuals IRL who are attracted to/date trans people never adopted the "pansexual" label, so it didn't really work as intended when they were still calling themselves 'bisexual' while sleeping with trans people (to be clear, I don't think it's their fault by any means—it's just that for a term to work as intended, it has to be willingly adopted by most of the people it's intended to describe. Top-down efforts to get people to call themselves a term that many think is stupid or redundant don't really tend to work out all that well).

I think a lot of people, even other members of the supposed "LGBTQAP+ community", make erroneous assumptions about our orientation, like how a lot of people assume that we'd all be fine with dating trans people because we're attracted to both sexes and therefore both sets of primary and secondary sex characteristics, even though a person having a mix of those is a turn-off for most of us. I think the stereotype/assumption that we're sexually indiscriminate or lack standards just because we're attracted to both sexes is pretty common, and part of it has to do with that too.

So to my way of thinking, "pansexuality" is detrimental to bisexuals because 1) it sets a precendent that we should all be open to dating and having sex with transgender people, even though most (but not all) of us are not attracted to them; 2) a lot of people who call themselves pansexual are holier-than-thou about it ("HeArTs NoT PaRtS, gUys") and shitty to other bis while wanking about their superiority for being so "open-minded"; 3) it's easy for someone who's not even bisexual to claim pansexuality because it's often defined as "attraction regardless of gender identity", so they could be attracted to only members of the opposite sex, but so long as those people had varying gender identities, it counts as long as you use a bit of mental gymnastics; 4) in a way it reduces bi visibility when many of the bisexuals are claiming to be "pan" instead of "bi"; and 5) it's confusing, especially to young people questioning their orientation and to people of all ages who are just out of the loop on what's trendy in "SJW" circles (for lack of a better term) but know what bisexual means.

Ohh how so? Do the colours mean something in particular?

The "Pansexual Pride" flag stripes are magenta/pink, yellow, and cyan, the colors of printer ink (used in varying ratios to print every other color), so the symbolism makes sense considering "pan"=all. IMO using it as a flag just looks garish though, it's way too brightly colored and high-contrast.

My overall thoughts are there are only 3 sexualities, heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual… everything else is unnecessary or just end up being a descriptor to the other 3 sexualities.

Agreed. I think a small number of asexuals do exist who wouldn't really fall into any of those categories, but to my mind asexuality is more a lack of a sexual orientation, not a true sexuality like the others, and it's definitely less common in reality than the number of Twitter and Tumblr users who claim it lol. I don't buy that there's a clear distinction between sexual and romantic attraction, so I don't think any "identities" based on the idea of a difference between the two make any sense either ("_romantic asexual"/"gray-asexual"=low libido, "aromantic _sexual"/"heteroromantic bisexual"=emotional problems, "demisexual"=not into hookups).

IMO it makes the most sense to define sexual orientation solely based on which sexes you're attracted to, not any other preferences surrounding that. So heterosexual=attracted exclusively to opposite sex, homosexual=attracted exclusively to same sex, bisexual=attracted to both sexes, and asexual=attracted to neither

[–]PeakingPeachEater[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've never met a non-binary in real life before lol. Only trans. I wonder if they're just unicorns found only on the internet lol.

Yeah, it probably would be best to get rid of the term "pansexual" all together because bisexual already exist. All pansexuality is, is explaining further preference. For example there are female exclusive bisexuals(FEB) and male exclusive bisexuals (MEB). If anything, there should be terms such as trans inclusive bisexual (TIB) or/and trans exclusive bisexuals (TEB). We don't need the word "pansexual"at all since it's not a new sexuality.

IMO it is, but mainly because the TRAs have really pushed the idea that you have to be open to sleeping with/dating trans people or else you're 'transphobic', so for the ones who label themselves 'pansexual', all is well and good, but it didn't save the rest of us from being targeted by the T because they've decided it's unacceptable for anyone to decline to date trans people/not be attracted to them (see also: transbians harassing lesbians, and increasingly, Gaydens harassing gay men).

The TRAs are trying to make ALL sexualities null---they expect everyone to be TIBs pretty much when that's just a small percentage of people attracted that and most is probably fetish related---based on what I've seen online. It just...sucks all around for the majority of bisexuals (who aren't TIBs or TEBs) as well as the heterosexuals and homosexuals. :(

3) it's easy for someone who's not even bisexual to claim pansexuality because it's often defined as "attraction regardless of gender identity", so they could be attracted to only members of the opposite sex, but so long as those people had varying gender identities, it counts as long as you use a bit of mental gymnastics;

Yep, basically, there could be a female person attracted to 'variants' of male person(ex. Non-binary male, males trans, etc) and claim the pansexual label and vice-versa. So basically a straight person (i.e. liking someone of the opposite sex in varies forms) with preferences haha.

4) in a way it reduces bi visibility when many of the bisexuals are claiming to be "pan" instead of "bi"; and 5) it's confusing, especially to young people questioning their orientation and to people of all ages who are just out of the loop on what's trendy in "SJW" circles (for lack of a better term) but know what bisexual means.

Yes!!! It feels like we're invisible. Once we do get visibility, it seems to be negative. The TRAs obviously don't like bisexuals because we believe in 2 sexes and aren't attracted to trans. Then I noticed on thr Drop the T side, they see as as part of the "queer" culture. So pretty much...ignored or negative attention...

The "Pansexual Pride" flag stripes are magenta/pink, yellow, and cyan, the colors of printer ink (used in varying ratios to print every other color), so the symbolism makes sense considering "pan"=all. IMO using it as a flag just looks garish though, it's way too brightly colored and high-contrast.

Oh lol I see now. Also, have you noticed that these new sexuality flags either look like vomit or have BABY colours?(ex. Trans flag)....it's a little strange.

Agreed. I think a small number of asexuals do exist who wouldn't really fall into any of those categories, but to my mind asexuality is more a lack of a sexual orientation, not a true sexuality like the others, and it's definitely less common in reality than the number of Twitter and Tumblr users who claim it lol. I don't buy that there's a clear distinction between sexual and romantic attraction, so I don't think any "identities" based on the idea of a difference between the two make any sense either

I completely agree with that. I didn't include asexual because...like you said it either typically falls under the big three(hetero,homo,bi) or there's a small percentage that doesn't like ANY and since it's lack of (sexual/romantic) attraction...then it wouldn't be a sexuality...right?

Edit:spelling/grammer

[–]diapason 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I've never met a non-binary in real life before lol. Only trans. I wonder if they're just unicorns found only on the internet lol.

I've met a few (only female ones, of course), they're about as common as FtMs where I'm from. The funny thing is they have to tell you they "identify as non-binary" or else you'd think they're just a girl with short hair lol. (Which, I guess is technically true?) I'm with you on the male NBs though, I've never met a guy IRL who claimed to be non-binary. I think they mostly only exist on Twitter, where they can pride themselves on having eccentric fashion sense haha.

Yeah, it probably would be best to get rid of the term "pansexual" all together because bisexual already exist. All pansexuality is, is explaining further preference.

Yeah absolutely.

Yes!!! It feels like we're invisible. Once we do get visibility, it seems to be negative. The TRAs obviously don't like bisexuals because we believe in 2 sexes and aren't attracted to trans. Then I noticed on the Drop the T side, they see us as part of the "queer" culture. So pretty much…ignored or negative attention…

Totally, I feel like we're brushed over unless it's for negative attention. And I think male bisexuals are a lot more invisible generally. Yeah, the TRAs have never seemed to like us too much—we're not ~validating~ enough for them to date on the one hand, not to mention that most of us do not find them attractive and wouldn't want to date them lol, and obviously that is literal murder /s and on the other hand just the word we choose to use to describe ourselves is 'transphobic' to them, so they've been frosty to us for a while, though they're starting to warm up to us, sort of. In theory, lol.

Yeah, I've noticed that on the Drop the T side too. Most on the sub are perfectly lovely, I don't see the one-off rude/prejudicial comments to be representive of the majority at all, but there does seem to be a lot of "well, but you guys are the good bis" which is a pretty backhanded compliment lol, or singling out bisexual women or just bisexuals in general for supporting TRAs when gay men as a group are at least as supportive if not more so, especially since it's been more recent that the Gaydens are bothering them, even though transbians have been harassing lesbians for years. Plus, a lot of the non-trans LGB TRAs are gay men (like Benjamin Butterworth lol) and most of the existing LGBT lobby groups have a lot of gay men working for them, even though they're mostly advocating for trans issues now. And most of the female TRA supporters are straight, too, so will only stand to lose rights as women (whether they realize it or not), not be harassed or shamed for their sexual orientation.

I think part of the associating bisexuals with "queer" culture is that we don't really have our own culture/communities like gay men and lesbians do, so a lot seem to associate more with the mainstream general "LGBTQ+" rather than anything more specific cause there's not really a more specific community to associate with, or else just don't associate with the community much at all. I think it's been said before that we are pretty much doomed to just float back and forth between the gay/lesbian community and the straight 'mainstream' depending on who we're dating at the time until we develop more of our own communities, which makes sense I think. I do wish we had a stronger bi community in general.

Oh lol I see now. Also, have you noticed that these new sexuality flags either look like vomit or have BABY colors?(ex. Trans flag)....it's a little strange.

Yeah lol. They're more obsessed with flags than the vexillology fanboys, but with much less design sense haha. The one that bothers me the most is the new pride flag with a trans triangle one (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about lol) … looks like absolute garbage. Plus, the best description I've heard of it was the T forcibly penetrating the LGB and hiding behind PoC in order to do it. There are three of those flags hung up on the balconies of three different apartments in a courtyard I walk through a lot (there must be someone handing them out or something?), and it pains me to see them every time. Like, for both symbolic reasons and because I have eyes lol.