DiscussionShould bisexuality get a distinction and coexist with pansexuality? (as in a image below) or should bisexuality also include men and women who are attracted to transmen/transwomen? pansexuality be reclaimed? What is your opinion about this?

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Smolders1Cock is god's greatest gift. 36 insightful - 1 fun36 insightful - 0 fun37 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Pansexuality is bisexuality but trying to be woke.

[–]ElectricSheepSuperBi 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

And I've come to appreciate the distinction the longer time goes on.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 18 insightful - 8 fun18 insightful - 7 fun19 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

If someone just loves femininity in either men or women, or masculinity in either men or women - they are bisexual. So someone who loves both men and transmen - is bisexual. However, being bisexual does not make someone automatically like transgender people.

Pansexual can only really work only if transgenders would still be attacking bisexual people and bisexual people will want to distance from them. So pansexuality is more like "can you finally stop harassing bisexuals?" than actualy sexuality.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If we ignore the trans issue, does being a gay man indicate attraction to twinks and bears? They are two opposite ends of the masculinity spectrum for cis men, and yet any man who is attracted to either one and not women is a gay man. Does that warrant a distinction? Should "bearsexual" and "twinksexual" be used to show the difference between a man attracted to masculine men vs feminine men?

There is already such a MASSIVE range in non trans people of the same sex that there's bound to be ambiguity with the labels of sexuality. Personally, I am not at all attracted to twinks, but I don't see a need for a special label to indicate that in addition to being gay. Sure, on dating apps I specify more than just "I am a gay man" but those preferences are not as inherent or easy to mention in everyday life as the most basic part of my sexuality.

Bisexuality should be the same way, where there is a ton of variance between what some bisexuals find attractive, and some may or may not find personality disorders and cross dressing hot.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's exactly how I feel about pansexuality---similar to your analogy of "bearsexual" and "twinksexual". The term pansexuality is completely useless. That term is basically saying "I ALSO like non-binary and trans people" as though they are a 3rd and 4th "sex". It's just a preferential statement.

Bisexuality should be the same way, where there is a ton of variance between what some bisexuals find attractive, and some may or may not find personality disorders and cross dressing hot.

Haha yeeep! It's basically a preference by the (small) minority of bisexuals to be attracted to those who are delusional and believe they're the opposite sex trans people.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are impossibly many variables that impact someone's sexuality, kinks, fetishes, physical preferences, psychological preferences, etc. when it comes to who they do or don't find attractive in what situations. If we make a label for every single combination, we'd end up with as many unique labels as humans to ever live. At that point, we need to sacrifice how narrow we make the labels so we can make it possible to use it meaningfully.

Since biological sex is the most common greatest common denominator, it makes sense to have 4 main sexualities (or lack thereof) of homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, and asexual. Within that will inevitably be more ways to divide people into subsets of attraction all the way until you have a single person in an almost impossibly narrow description. The only possible deviation of this rule that I see is in the case of bisexuals that are attracted to masculinity or femininity, someone attracted to both biological sexes but only when their outward expression more aligns with one gender, i.e. being attracted to cis men and trans men/masculine women or cis women and transwomen/feminine men, but that's a minority within bisexuals, let alone humans

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we make a label for every single combination, we'd end up with as many unique labels as humans to ever live. At that point, we need to sacrifice how narrow we make the labels so we can make it possible to use it meaningfully.

But no, we can't do anything sensible like that, because that's how people make themselves special.

The granularity of all of this is just navel-gazing. We are not species of beetles.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and some may or may not find personality disorders ... hot.

Can I just say...no. (Cross-dressing omitted from quote with ellipsis for clarity.)

[–]diapason 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nah. It falls under bisexuality even if most of us aren't like that. I think the TRA types are making the pan label less popular since they insist that bisexuals have to be open to dating trans people, so there's less of a point in IDing as pan for those who are. I wish they would just leave us alone tbh, most of us are not into trans people and no amount of bullying is ever going to make that the case

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you! Yes, there's no point of the term pansexuality.

Pretty much there's only a small percentage of bisexuals who would date trans people, and the TRAs keep trying to get us to date them.

I wouldn't want to date someone not interested in me.

Like I mentioned in the s/bisexuals sub, I'd propose using the terms "TIBs" for Trans Inclusive Bisexuals or the extreme version(the trans-chasers) "TEBs" for Trans Exclusive Bisexuals. This is to mirror already existing terms "FEBs" for Female Exclusive Bisexuals and "MEBs" for Male Exclusive Bisexuals.

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

Like I mentioned in the s/bisexuals sub, I'd propose using the terms "TIBs" for Trans Inclusive Bisexuals or the extreme version(the trans-chasers) "TEBs" for Trans Exclusive Bisexuals. This is to mirror already existing terms "FEBs" for Female Exclusive Bisexuals and "MEBs" for Male Exclusive Bisexuals.

Ohhh that's nice, this is the first time I've read that and I already like it.

And with the same format the versions for those straights and gays who like trans people too can be made: TIH, TIG and TIL.

[–]Lavyebel 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By definition, bisexuality means attraction to both sex, trans people aren't a third sex, they still are male or female. So they already are included in the term.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I would assume most trans(-gender) (-sexual) people would find this problematic as they are trying to live as the sex they are not, and this usage proposes seeing them as the sex they are. So pansexual has a purpose when it comes to including people who are not okay with the sex they actually are. This is fine with me since I don't want to date conflicted people or people who have altered their perfectly-good standard-issue bits to reinforce that internal conflict. Intact people who accept the sex they are are already plenty capable of being broken in other ways, so I'm not going to add disappointing-by-definition edge cases to the potential headaches.

[–]Lesbianese⚢ 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think "pansexual" would be a good word for it. It's not really a different sexuality because TW are male and TM are female, you just have a fetish for estrogenic men (potentially) with neovaginas and/or testosterone-filled women (maybe) with phalloplasty or metoidioplasty.

Ray Blanchard has a term for men attracted to TW but it's a mouthful, gynandromorphophiles. I've also seen transamorous but I'm not a fan of that either due to the trans- prefix since no one is actually able to transition to a different sex and ideally in the future we will recognize them as their state before medical intervention. I'd like to see a term that make it clear that it's a type of fetishism without being overly clinical.

[–]LasagnaRossa 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think "pansexual" would be a good word for it. It's not really a different sexuality because TW are male and TM are female

I have a different opinion on this matter.

Me and other bisexuals know we can't get attracted to transmen and transwomen and see how different we are from those who can. Having a clear label for this distinction is useful, and there should be for those who are "straight" and "gay" too.

Just because we like both sexes it doesn't mean we like mixed sexual characteristics. If someone is able to do that, they should signal their availability with a different label.

I'm saddened that recently this lack of attraction is seen as transphobic, like if we had any decision in the matter. The two labels had a purpose and were useful, back in the days.

[–]Lesbianese⚢ 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just because we like both sexes it doesn't mean we like mixed sexual characteristics. If someone is able to do that, they should signal their availability with a different label.

That does sound reasonable, even if it makes things less scientifically accurate. My initial instinct was to argue that we don't say bisexuals who have a fetish for people in wheelchairs are a different sexuality but when it comes to this issue, it feels more complicated due to genital modifications. I do worry that by basing a sexuality off of something that isn't sex, we open the door for a lot of tomfoolery. Regardless, I both hear and respect your opinion.

I'm saddened that recently this lack of attraction is seen as transphobic, like if we had any decision in the matter.

It's such a shame. I'm sorry that so much pressure is put on bisexuals to be attracted to modified bodies.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The lack of attraction being seen as transphobic is exactly why I feel like having a separate label is pointless, though. At the end of the day they'll always just claim that excluding trans people from your dating pool is transphobic. You're still expected to be sexually available to trans people no matter what you call yourself.

Also, it's kind of like you said, we don't have two separate labels for straight and gay people who are attracted to transgenders. Lesbians who date transmen are just called lesbians. Gay men who date transwomen are just called gay men. Same for straight people. So why do we need two different labels for bisexuals who are into transgenders and not? It just seems silly. I also really don't like having "sexual orientations" that aren't based on sex. That's how we ended up with this mess we're currently in of the TQ+ having a "sexual orientation" for every possible combo of gender expression, sex, and promiscuity level.

[–]LasagnaRossa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're still expected to be sexually available to trans people no matter what you call yourself.

I think labels should describe behaviours, not the other way around.

Afterall if getting attracted to people with mixed sexual characteristics isn't instinctive to everybody, that must mean something.

I understand your logic and you are kinda right, but my experience tells me something is still off. There are many men who are attracted to women and transwomen but can't get aroused to "complete" men. In the same way there are many men who are attracted to women only, so it's not that obvious to overlook a dick like you would do with a birthmark.

I myself, when I see a trans person I instinctively like one half or the other half but can't like them both at the same time in the same person. It's odd, it's like there's a switch in me: I like chips and chocolate cake but don't like chips in my cake, whereas others can.

And in those days where these thoughts weren't removed, many other bisexuals used to describe the same feelings.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

male of female

Grammar-policing aside, pansexuality is just plain irrelevant. At least it should be. This is all so tiresome.

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

I already corrected the grammar error in my comment under this post. I just sometimes happen to write too fast lol

What do you mean, exactly?

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, because the term pansexuality is redundant and useless. Even the woke crowd is eating eachother alive and no longer like the term pansexuality because it's "transphobic". Instead of using "pansexuality", they use the term bisexual+.

Bisexuality already includes "male" and "female". Trans people are male or female by birth. If anything, it's just a preference. Some bisexuals are attracted to trans people and most 'some' are plain not interested.

Terms like "pansexual" or "queer" is making bisexuals become MORE invisible than we already are. We don't need 100+ words to describe bisexuality.

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

Bisexuals are people (trans-chasers included) attracted to both sexes. (A man who's attracted to both women and 'roided women with induced beard growth is heterosexual, a man who's attracted to women and men in dresses is bisexual.)

In contrast, pansexuals are solipsistic fetishists who are by their own definition "attracted to the person, not the genitals" -- they'd accept a partner of either sex as long as (s)he plays along with the fetish.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sounds like this might be a good post for s/bisexuals? :)

I feel a little uncomfortable at the idea of possibly speaking for another group, but logically, it does not make sense for there to be separate labels. Bisexuality is just the characteristic of being able to be attracted to both sexes/genders. There are only two, and the three sexualities-- heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual-- exhaustively cover all possible orientations. That would mean that "pansexual" is either the exact same thing as bisexuality, or some subset of it (it certainly can't be something more). And, as others have pointed out, other words besides "pansexual" might be more accurate descriptors of bisexuals who date trans people (e.g. u/PeakingPeachEater's suggestions), as opposed to a word that is otherwise synonymous with bisexual.

edit: There's also asexuality, but I didn't list it because I don't know if it's a sexuality so much as a lack of one. Take that with a grain of salt I guess.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We discussed this topic before in s/bisexuals if others would like to weigh in: Bisexuality vs Pansexuality.

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?

I feel you on the asexual bit, within that thread I linked, both diapasan and I were talking about asexuality and u/diapasan had really good insight in regards to it.

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

Thanks for linking! Looks like you guys and I had the same points basically (but also many more thoughtful ones!).

This observation really jumps out at me.

2) a lot of people who call themselves pansexual are holier-than-thou about it ("HeArTs NoT PaRtS, gUys")

I have always thought of "hearts not parts" as unnecessarily shaming lesbian and gay people, implying that we don't have hearts or don't see others' hearts because of our sexual orientation (homosexual). But it sounds like this is actually also reinforcing the "I don't care who I sleep with, I'll sleep with anybody!" stereotype about bisexuals in a way, and making out to be some sort of superior moral decision that can be judged, as opposed to a legitimate sexuality that is not chosen.

Food for thought. Thanks!

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

God, does this stuff make anyone else's head hurt?

Should bisexuality be distinct from pansexuality? Yes; the distinction is that bisexuality is REAL. It's a sexual orientation. Meaning that it's based on attraction to biological sex (both of them, in this case).

Pansexuality, by contrast, is based on attraction to... gender (all of them, supposedly). Which... isn't a thing. Humans simply aren't wired that way. How would that even work? You're drawn to every single "gender" a bored Tumblrite can possibly dream up, AND also don't take any notice of, or even care about, the person's sex? Really? Sounds like pure fantasy to me. And in any case, demonstrably NOT a sexual orientation. Rather, it's a "genderual" orientation... whatever the hell THAT is.

So I don't see how the two can COexist, since only one of them actually exists in the first place. There's the sexual orientation... and then the "genderual" orientation, AKA trans-types' exercise in wishful thinking.

Should bisexuality include men and women who are attracted to transmen/transwomen? Yes, BUT: 1.] only if this attraction is based on the transman's or transwoman's biological sex; and 2.] with the recognition that, like LGs and hets, most bisexuals are decidedly NOT attracted to trans-people... quite the opposite, in fact. (Repudiating/disfiguring/twisting the very thing that our attraction is based on-- your biological sex-- will tend to have that effect.)

Should pansexuality be reclaimed, or completely tossed away? Well, don't see how it could even be claimed, much less REclaimed, given that the entire idea is alien to human psychology. So what use is it? My verdict is the same as for the rest of genderists' noisome nonsense: dump this crap already! And then sow the ground with salt! Followed by nuking it from orbit, just to be on the safe side!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

*should pansexuality be reclaimed or completely tossed away? and in the picture under the bisexual flag there should be written male OR female, not male of female! Sorry for the errors!