pansexuality?

It's because nobody can really agree with a good definition of "pan" that I tend to go by "bi" more often. Calling myself "pansexual" confuses people and bisexuals have enough confusion surrounding us as-is.

 

All I could think of is, in some parts of the country. We have a driveway out side of the house. But up north in Maine, we have a dooryard, its just word play. Or its what you feel more comfortable with. . Another thing why gay women wants to be called a lesbian.

 

I define myself as partly pansexual (as opposed to bisexual) because I reject the idea that there are only two genders.

 

How can they tell? Seriously. What gets me about this argument especially when applied to trans women is how can they tell? With FtMs it's a tiny bit clearer but depending on the surgery not as much as you think. But with trans women? Surgeries are now at a point, in combination with the wide variety of cis vagina, that you can't really tell unless the lady in question says something or you are a doctor doing an exam.

Nobody has a "chromosome-dar", attraction is based on what you can see, touch, taste, and smell: that which is identifiable outside of a lab or a doctor's office.

Saying that people "simply aren't" attracted to binary post-op, post-ho, trans people (epecially women) when there is no identifiable difference is, quite frankly, ridiculous.


I swear where does this shit get its start? People looking up trans genitals on google and seeing a bunch of recently post-op pics and thinking, "ah, this is what (all) trans genitals look like, not only is it unattractive and un-cis I'll be able to immediately identify it once I get them in bed!"


A lot of the same aruments could be made for certain intersex conditions. Good luck identifying a woman (assuming s/he identifies that way, most do) as having CAIS without extensive lab tests. Something I'm sure you bring on all your dates, "oh baby, oh baby, can I get a blood sample?"

If you want to define "pansexuality" as having an attraction to atypical genitals (something that happens to cis, intersex, and trans people) that's fine; but how about we don't make ignorant assumptions about the genitals of marginalised groups (that is, intersex and trans people)?

 

I'm not making any assumptions. I am going off of the testimonials of a trans friend of mine (FtM) who has had several experiences where he was about to get intimate with another man and his partner was turned off once he saw my friend's surgically altered genitalia. I don't know the specifics of each case, but my friend is vehement that people who identify as bisexual saw his genitalia and were turned off, and I take his word for it. That's why I believe there is a difference between the two; I have heard first-hand accounts of that difference in action.

 

From one person? Whoop-de-fuckin'-doo.

There are two types of bottom surgery available to FtMs. Pretty sure your friend only has one set of genitals. That's ignoring that that is one person's experience and therefore only one person's surgery results...since, y'know, it can vary depending on the person, what material they had for the surgeon to work with, the surgeon, etc. etc.

And that's barring the fact that you're extending this extremely small sample size to trans women as well who generally have far better surgery results so they are indistinguishable from cis genitals by most except doctors (or perhaps, perhaps, a man with a larger-end penis who might notice the vaginal canal is a bit short).

 

You're right, I am basing this off of just one person's experience. But I am also basing it off of the fact that I am a humanist, and as the blog "F Yeah, Menfolk" put it, "Humanism means believing someone when they say: 'This is me. This is who I am.'" If someone who is bi says that they aren't attracted to transsexuals, who am I to say they are wrong? Who are you to say that they are wrong? Who are any of us to say they are wrong? To say they are wrong is to say, "I know the inner workings of your mind better than you do," and that's just ten kinds of insulting.

 

As for the whole bisexual vs. pansexual thing, this is what I consider the difference to be. . . a bisexual is not necessarily attracted to transsexuals or intersexed individuals. A bisexual may only be attracted to cisgender people. Some bisexuals are not attracted to transsexuals. It depends on the individual bisexual. For pansexuals, they can be attracted to cisgender, transsexuals, and intersexed individuals. Also any other type of individuals I may be forgetting.

To some people a FtM is a female and will always be a female. Like you, I consider an FtM a male but that is not true for everyone, including some bisexuals.

In short, a bisexual is attracted to cisgender females and males but not necessarily anyone else. Some are and some aren't. Pansexuals can be attracted to cisgender, transexual, and intersexed individuals. Bi = 2. Pan = All

I identify as pansexual and bisexual. Which ever is easier for the person. Labels aren't a huge deal for me. I love who I love regardless of their sex or gender identity. This is all just my opinion. I hope I didn't offend anyone

 

I'm going to reiterate what I've said before. I think this definition of pansexual is highly insulting to many self-identified bisexuals. I'm not condemning people who want to ID as pan, but I do wish they wouldn't define themselves at the expense of another group. And I think it's possible to do so. Pansexual is about reminding people that the gender binary is flawed, it should be used as a consciousness-raiser, not as a means of implicitly denigrating self-identified bisexuals as trans- and intersex-haters.

 

How is my definition insulting? I used the word may and the phrase "not necessarily" to avoid being insulting.

I think you misunderstood me. I was not saying that bisexuals are only attracted to cisgender males and females. I was saying that all bisexuals are attracted to cisgender males and females but not all bisexuals are attracted to intersexed or transsexuals. It depends on the individual bisexual. I was not calling any bisexual trans or intersex haters. Some are attracted to transsexuals and intersexed people and some are not.

 

If the reason you're creating the "pan" label is to say that you're attracted to people outside the cis gender binary, the inherent implication is that bi people are only attracted to people within the cis gender binary. It may not be an intended implication; I don't think it is. But that doesn't mean the implication isn't there, intent isn't magic.

 

To my knowledge, when the word bisexual was created transsexuals and intersexed people were ignored for the most part. I believe that the creation of the word pansexual was meant to be more inclusive. I'm not saying intent is magic but it can change some things.

Also, I don't believe that the creation of the word pansexual implies that bisexuals are only attracted to a cisgender individual. I'm under the impression that the word pansexual was created because some bisexuals are only attracted to cisgender individuals. I thought the people that created the word pansexual did so to make it more obvious that they can be attracted to cisgender, transexual, and intersexed people. As far as I know, the word pansexual is around to remove any uncertainty about attraction that the word bisexual may carry to some people.

I realize most of what I said dealt with intent but it all goes back to how every person sees it. I personally don't see any negative implications there but some do. To each their own.

 

I wasn't making that assumption or didn't intend to imply that I do. What I am trying to say is that the thing I find unfortunate is that because there is a label of pansexuality (and I'm not saying there shouldn't be), some people take that as an implication that if you instead identify as bisexual then you must not be attracted to people who are trans* when some self identified bisexuals are/could be.

It sometimes seems like people only talk about whether they are attracted to people who are trans*, genderqueer, intersex etc. when discussing bisexuality. A person who identifies as lesbian or gay doesn't explicitly state whether they are attracted to males or females who are MtF or FtM. If we're following mainstream definitions (and perhaps there is a problem with these) then a lesbian is attracted to other women. I'm sure there are some lesbians though that may be attracted to people who are trans* but they do not explicitly state it in their label.

I see why some people choose to identify as pansexual and why the trans* community may find it helpful. At the end of the day it is semantics though. You could say some self identified pansexuals are not even pansexual, if you're attracted to FtMs but not MtFs then technically you are polysexual.

It's the perhaps the downside of labels, people interpret them in different ways and make assumptions of others by the one they identify with. We're all more complex than a label.

 

If it is bigotry it is wrong.

This (the bolded part, not your pov castle walls) is bigotry and it is wrong.
If they're insulted by that, too bad.

 

Except there's not. There are many people who identify as gender-neutral, non-gendered and as a gender that is a flavor all their own.

I don't know about anyone else here, but if someone actually said that to me, I think my reply would be along the lines of "you're an asshole and will always be an asshole". Because really? Anyone that would go "I don't care what you say you are, you're wrong and I know what you really are" is an asshole.

An FTM is not a female. If they were female, then they wouldn't be FTM. It makes me so sad that some people would deny a person their gender and gender identity like that. It's disturbing.

Anyhow.

I'll be the first to admit... when I define bisexual and pansexual, I define bisexual as someone who works within the gender binary and a pansexual as someone who does not. It confuses me when people turn around and state "no, bisexuals don't stick to the gender binary", because... well, why bother with the term pansexual then? Why have it at all? If a bisexual person can be attracted to anyone, why did pansexual pop up? Why not just consider all pansexuals bisexuals, or vise versa? Maybe I'm just confused by all the labels these days, I don't know. It just seems to me that "bi" means "two", therefor "two sexes" rather than "two sexes, any or no gender and purple aliens if they're cute enough".

I agree mostly with the poster who said all pansexuals are bisexual, but not all bisexuals are pansexual. But apparently that's... insulting to some people? Ergh.

I'll just let people define themselves. Less of a bother that way.

 

The term "bisexual" came way before "pansexual." As such, it was historically used, and continues to be used, by people who were, and are, attracted to people outside the gender binary. They identify as bi because that was the only term that existed at the time when they were first identifying, because they go with its general meaning rather than the precise literal meaning imposed on it by the people who created the term "pansexual," because it's an understood term that doesn't require explanation like "pansexual" does, or for any of a number of other reasons.

Pansexual popped up for two reasons. One was that people began to recognize the existence of people outside the gender binary and wanted a more precise term. The second is that bisexual has all sorts of negative connotations both in the straight and queer communities.

Personally, I prefer the term "bisexual." It has a well-established and -understood meaning, and you have to be pretty hyper-literal to assume it excludes people outside the gender binary. Though, as I said before, I think it's perfectly legitimate to read the bi as meaning homo- and heterosexual, that is, attracted to the same sex and attracted to other sexes.