Is "pan" a real sexuality?

intersex erasure.

but really, bisexual is [from my experience] attraction to both men and women [usually with a prefrence] , and pansexual is attraction to any sex or gender identity. of course, this is not to say that bisexuals can't be attracted to nb people, and I'm sure there are nb bisexuals. in the end, I believe it comes down to the individual. hopefully some pan / bi people will clear the air.

 

Biologically, it's hard to deny the presence of certain organs. Gender, though, has a vast spectrum. Pansexuality accounts for sex and gender identity.

 

Pansexuality is not caring about sex at all and gender is secondary to the person. Its more of a "I like you and i don't care" here is a great video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv5k9w6Hpi4

 

I think pansexual sexuality is more fluid than bisexual sexuality. Like posthuman said... it don't matter.

 

As far as I know it's you're attracted to anyone you find... Well... Attractive.

Cis or trans or male or female, bigender, agender, whatever. Irrelevant. Yes, it's closest to bisexual but even more inclusive.

 

The tempation of posting the picture of a literal pan is so strong. Must. Resist.

 

Well, what you just said kind of erased all the pansexuals on the board and all the nonbinary people on the board, so it's quite likely to have hurt somebody's feelings. I honestly think that if you googled around to see what pansexuals are saying about themselves, you might learn more.

 

Glad you're asking questions like this! It's a lot of things that you have to piece apart and try to understand if your not familiar with it. Hell, it was a bitch trying to figure everything out and get to where I am. If you do a little more to research gender and what it constitutes it might give you a bit of a better understanding of what's up but feel free to ask more questions or post on my wall!

 

Being pan means I can get a sexual/romantic attraction to anyone.

My friend described it as being the polar opposite of asexual...which isn't right OR wrong.

Being pan means we dont give a damn who we are with or what they have down there as long as we love them.... if that makes any sense

 

Why is it that the word "erasure" almost always pops up in discussions about sexuality? It's so overused and nearly meaningless at this point.

If a person calls himself bisexual, that's one less pansexual. Pansexual erasure.
If a person calls himself pansexual instead, that's one less bisexual. Bisexual erasure.
If a person calls himself bisexual instead of gay. Gay erasure.
If a person calls himself gay instead of bisexual. Bisexual erasure.
And so on...

You can't call yourself anything without erasing something else.

 

I only used erasure because of the "In reality there are two sexes" . Because in reality, there are not only two sexes. So, erasure was proper here. Your argument is... strange to say the least.

 

Who makes this argument?

Who makes this argument?

Who makes this argument?

Who makes this argument?
And so on...

Actually, you can, and people do it all the time.

 

I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of a concept, but erasure is real and effectual when it involves negating the idea that something exists. If you call yourself anything, that's what you call yourself. I'm male; it doesn't mean I don't believe in females. If I also chose to say "there are only males and females; everyone who says otherwise is being a special snowflake" that's erasure and is a generally bad practice unless you have some pretty darn good proof.

I say I'm bi and not pan because I don't consider myself gender-blind. I usually like different traits of different gender identities, so while it does play a role, I don't consider it a barrier to attraction to anyone.

 

I doubt there's any scientific basis behind it (unlike asexual, bisexual, gay, and straight). I see pansexuality as a "subtype" of bisexuality, and to me it's more of a useful word than a completely distinct sexuality. I see it more as a way of identifying myself that clearly expresses to others that I would date anyone across the gender (and sex) spectrum. It does have its uses.
As for "gender-blind," meh. I see gender. I don't care much, but I see it, so I don't use the term for myself.

 

It's just a more inclusive term than bisexual.

 

Is this a rhetorical question? This is essentially the bi vs pan debate

Bi vs Pan: at some point a word needs definite definition (Posted in both /pansexual and /bisexual) : pansexual
Difference Between Bi-sexual and Pan sexual | Difference Between | Bi-sexual vs Pan sexual
And so on ...

Bisexuals on one side of the argument claim that the adoption of the pansexual label is an expression of biphobia and promotes bi-erasure. On the other side of the argument are pansexuals who feel that their label is being erased and invalidated by bisexuals who see no difference between the two terms.

Anyone who accuses people of 'erasure', in discussions of where to draw the line between bi and gay, is making this argument.

You really can't. Everyone has their own ways of defining and interpreting what the different sexuality terms mean and how sexuality works. There are no agreed upon divisions that separate the different sexuality labels.

For example, maybe, by my definition, 40% of people have Sexuality X and 60% of people have Sexuality Y. And maybe, by your definition, half of those people with Sexuality Y are actually of Sexuality Z. I accuse you of erasing half of the members of Sexuality Y and you accuse me of erasing all of the members of Sexuality Z.

With a little thought, it becomes clear that any conflict in the way sexualities are labeled and defined will give rise to erasure of some sort. When a person labels his own sexuality, this will necessarily happen as well, since other people will invariably have differing definitions for that label.

 

No, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm open to the idea that somebody makes these arguments, but they are spectacularly poor and unprincipled ones. As someone familiar with the pansexual-bisexual "debate" (scare quotes explained momentarily), these claims are ones I'm unfamiliar with. I'm therefore much more likely to attribute them to a caricature of someone else's position.

The only seriously claim in this debate that I'm aware of is that bisexuals (and myself very included) object to having pansexuals define who we are and are not attracted to for us. As part of this claim, they sometimes strongly imply or in some cases outright state that bisexuality is trans denialist.

I'll have to read your articles later, because it's too late in my local timezone. However, I can already tell you that you've brought to the table claims I'm very skeptical of.

Maybe some people do make that argument, but it's a very poor argument. I'm not even aware of that particular claim. A claim that I'm actually aware of is that bisexuals don't like to be told we're transphobic. Especially when some of us are trans.

Then I hope they will take comfort in the fact that I am not a pansexual, so I'm not here to define their sexuality for them, precisely as I request they not do for me.

Yes, you really can, and it's extremely obvious that you can. Remember, your original claim is that "You can't call yourself anything without erasing something else." I understand your supporting argument offered here very well, but I don't see how it relates to your claim even on the most charitable interpretation. In your example, you're essentially saying that mere disagreement on labels or on the distribution of sexuality means that erasure must occur. Why? I don't even have to accept the possibility that one or both of us are wrong if I participate in your hypothetical conversation. The way out of your dilemma is simply not to participate in the conversation. When I describe my sexuality to people in extended terms, I'm saying who I'm attracted to, why I'm attracted to them, and what that means to me, and to them if we're going to have safe, fun, and ethical sex. I do not have to define myself in contrast to someone else and thereby put them in a box in order to have security in my own categorization.

If, discursively I choose not to define someone else, I'm not erasing anyone else by defining myself.

My use of the scare quotes in talking about this as a debate is I think it's more about abusiveness between activists than it is a real question. There may well be real differences between pansexuals and bisexuals. But I'm not qualified to talk about them, because I'm not a pansexual. I'm a bisexual with a certain kind of experience, and I don't have any epistemic interest in this part of the LGBT community at all, other than how we got to the bizarre place where I'm transphobic apparently.

 

Just wanted to say that I date who I like and I don't worry about terms and don't let others define who I am.

 

We're attracted to all genders both binary and non-binary. Intersex people are considered non-binary, even though it is a "sex". Other then Intersex, there are a number of other genetic gender minorities, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_disorders , that I don't think would be considered binary. Panssexuality would include them as well.