Is "pan" a real sexuality?

^^^This.

Also, their are intersex people who are biologically neither male or female, therefore there are not just two genders.

The difference between Pan and Bi is very simple.
Bi is like saying you sell mint ice cream. Does this mint ice cream include choc chips? Maybe.
Pan is like saying you sell mint choc chip ice cream. Does it include choc chips? Yes, definitely.

It's more easy to tell if a person is attracted to non binary genders if they call themselves Pan.

That being said, I don't mind being called Bisexual, because I technically fit the description, I just prefer the more specific term.

---------- Post added 16th Jun 2015 at 08:48 AM ----------

I'm sorry to say this, but that's not how it works. Erasure is pretending one group doesn't exist, not making the group smaller.
Eating an apple isn't erasure, because you aren't denying the existence of apples, you are just making it so there's one less apple.

It isn't fair to force an entire group of people to identify as Bisexual if they are not comfortable with doing so.

 

Yeah, and I have known bisexual men who get aggravated with male-to-female crossdressers and genderfluids. They have a concept, "I didn't sign up for two different people. Pick a sex." I have known others who are delighted by it and attracted to a person by it, and they think it's really cute. That's what I try for, "playful," not trying to "pass." I don't care who "knows." Those who lean over to point that out tell me more about themselves than they'll ever know about me. Also, some bisexual individuals would be averse to dating someone who is trans*. It's excusable, but there are others who might find a person being trans* to be particularly interesting, even, far from being repulsed by the idea. There are people who are "genderfluid" or "bigendered." Again, some bisexual individuals might be annoyed by it, whereas others might find it interesting. Some people are simply not bothered by their partners showing characteristics of both genders at once, whereas others feel like they're having to deal with two people at once, which they find overwhelming.

The pansexual is simply not bothered by two different genders in the same person. Now, I'm not sure whether or not it's something that's fixed at birth, and it might be something that is an epiphenomenon of unrelated, non-sexual traits. Whatever the reason, though, it is something that people identify as. We figure out the reasons why later. The fact is, some people, for one reason or another, choose the identity, which is an empirical fact. Judging why without other empirical facts--as in carefully collected and sorted data that you can run multivariate analysis on--is merely speculation.

 

I personally don't recognize pansexuality as different than bisexuality. I feel like "pansexual" is a term people use when they want to feel superior to bisexuals. It's a useless term.

 

I feel that way sometimes as well. Some people use "pansexual" to mean "attraction to personalities" as in "I'm not shallow; I don't like people for their bodies, I like them for their personalities!". But really, anyone of any sexuality could feel that way. So I don't think that's an accurate definition of "pansexual".

But considering there doesn't seem to be much consensus on what the term means, I guess it depends on who you ask. To me, it means that you have attraction to non-binary people, i.e. that gender isn't a factor in your attraction--you're just attracted to people in general, not specifically men and women (keep in mind this is still talking about sexual attraction. This is not "attraction to personalities"). But I know not everyone accepts that definition.

 

A lot of people use bisexual and pansexual interchangeably. Although I identify as pansexual (because I feel more comfortable as I'm trans and don't like the binary label of bisexual) I still often tell people I'm bisexual because it means pretty much the same thing to them and a lot of people don't know what pansexuality means or think it's not real. Also, sexuality isn't about others' sex. Gay men date trans men. Lesbian women date trans women. Etc. Saying people are attracted to "A" or "B" is dismissing peoples' gender identities as well as intersex people completely. And, of course, all labels are made up. They exist to help define ourselves.

 

FYI there are Bisexual people who have no attraction to transgender people besides the majority of trans being binary... let alone agender.

So pansexual is more inclusive.

Saying pansexuals are trying to be better is like saying bisexuals love both men and women thus they are superior to both gay and straight people.

You realize statements like that are hypocritical... right?

---------- Post added 16th Jun 2015 at 12:30 PM ----------

Says the satirical identification profile person...

 

I see a lot of intersex talk here, but technically speaking when people talk about "sexuality being about biological sex" and "there are only two sexes", they are talking about genitals and phenotypes since that's what most people are sexually attracted to. If you keep that statement in mind, (most) intersex people still fit within the binary male/female sex.

We shouldn't use intersex people to prove pansexuality exists (because sexuality =/= chromosomes) rather pansexuality should just be about non-binary gender identities.

 

If I'm not mistaken, bi is being attracted to all sexes (male and female), while pan is being attracted to all genders (whether male, female, non-binary, androgynous, etc.).

I think. So I guess it's more of Gender-uality, not sexuality.

 

This thread was seriously disappointing. I feel inclined to once and for all coin the term panphobia.

It's just a word. Stop being xenophobic and generally nasty.

 

Erasure happens when you tell someone that the way they are, or identify, is NOT what they actually are. Your non-acceptance of their own personal inventory, even if it does not match what you think it should be or appears, is erasure. Case in point......I had a woman who identified as lesbian tell me that Femme did not exist and it was just a fancy way of saying lesbian. I'm a Femme, she was attempting to erase my identity by 'mansplaining' or this case 'lesbisplaining' to me how it REALLY is how I should identify.

I hope this helps. :icon_bigg

---------- Post added 16th Jun 2015 at 05:30 PM ----------

I have one Pan girl and one Bi girl. There is a difference. My oldest who is pan is attracted to people appearing outside what would be considered the gender binary. Trans, any stage, androgenous people who do not appear either, and males or females. My youngest is Bi, she is only attracted to those that are either male or female appearing. A pretty cut and dried difference to me. I guess it is easier for me because I see the variance they are attracted to, so I can see it in action.

 

Dude, you put your orientation as "crockpotsexual", and you have the balls to dismiss my sexuality?

 

^Hah, this
Love it Jakob!

 

I don't see how that can genuinely be mistaken for a caricature of someone else's position if I'm providing direct links. I can quote directly from one of the articles if you wish (I can't make you read it if you're unwilling). It's almost the same as what I summarized:

"There is some controversy over the two labels, as some in the bisexual community feel as though the pansexual label is a form of bisexual erasure and that the bisexual identity is already inclusive of those who have an attraction to those who fall anywhere along the gender continuum and outside of it. There is a feeling that pansexual people are simply avoiding the bisexual label due to the stigmas associated with it (that bisexual people are simply greedy and promiscuous, and spread disease among both the heterosexual and homosexual communities). Conversely, many in the pansexual community feel as though these beliefs are forms of prejudice and pansexual erasure."

If you are unfamiliar with it, then I invite you to read them first when you have the time rather than dismiss it out of hand.

If you ask "why", it means you really didn't understand my argument after all. In fact, the prime example that illustrates my argument already exists in this thread. The OP posited that the definition of pansexual is indistinct from the term bisexual. You responded to that by suggesting the OP google pansexual to learn what they say about themselves. In other words, the OP's definition of the label of pansexual conflicted with how a self-described pansexual would define himself and that disagreement over the label led to a charge of pansexual erasure.

This thread is the conversation. And you're already participating in it.

This analogy (like all analogies) is flawed. For starters, eating an apple physically removes it from this world. No one is physically removing apples here. The argument is over the label assigned to the item - whether the thing should be called a pan-apple or just an apple.

Neither is it fair to enforce the label of Pansexual by silencing others with the claim of erasure.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of it all. Pansexuality distinguishes itself from bisexuality due to the acknowledgement that sex and gender should be considered separately and independently. If the motivation for this label is truly to recognize the validity of gender-based attraction, then where are the sexuality labels that describe a gender-blind homosexual or a gender-blind heterosexual? And why, in a forum so quick to cry 'erasure', has no one even mentioned that these labels seem to be missing?

My feeling is that people aren't concerned with the validity of gender-based attraction at all. It's about an obsession over the label.

 

I think before anybody can really answer this, one has to establish what pansexual means. Most seem to have a general agreement, but when it comes to the fine tuning, well, people begin splitting hairs.

Personally, I like pansexual. As a transwoman, it is a green light of sorts. There are people out there who claim the bisexual identity, and they believe themselves attracted to individuals who present male or female. There may be some wiggle room with expressions, but nothing too far out there. Most pansexuals will say, they can like a mixed package.

But then you have bisexuals who say, well, I'm like that too! I like who I like, no matter their sex or how they present themselves. That's great, you do you. But I believe pansexual is a useful label, perhaps not so much for cisgender individuals, but for transfolk, especially those who have not transitioned or are still progressing in that regard.

My sexuality falls more in line with pansexual, but I use bisexual for two reasons. One, it's more universally known. And two, if you know I'm bisexual and I express an interest in you, it is safe to assume I am attracted to you. No matter how you present. But that's on my end, it's a lot harder to really know when someone else says bisexual. You'd like to think they might be okay with transmen/women, but there is a little room for doubt, which pansexual seems to eliminate.

Again, I look at this differently since, well, how I look now isn't how I intend to remain looking; somebody could be drawn to me now, but will they be drawn to me after transitioning?

 

I guess pansexuality is real; however, with my personal situation, I see no need to label myself as pansexual. Bisexual works perfectly for me, and I know that my version of bisexuality includes trans and non-binary identities.

 

I've changed my thoughts about this recently.

Yes, 2 x pan people might describe their sexuality differently - and - a pan and a bi person might describe their sexuality in pretty similar terms but I think there might be more to choosing a label than just their romantic/sexual attractions or lack thereof.

Out of the labels that are available, I think people often just choose one that "fits" them best.

I've identified as gay for many years, but I've never really felt like it fits me completely. It's just label that feels the least like I'm lying when I tell people about it. Or the one that feels "righter" than bi, queer, pan etc...

Let's stop doubting people's choices of label, but instead rejoice in the fact that they've found something in their life that feels good and right and whole - or at least close to it.

Peace!

 

He's mocking you guys with that ... just fyi.

 

This thread makes me sad... T.T

There is already so much bi-erasure, and people telling them, "pick a side" or "you're on the road to gay-town" or whatever other nonsense... And because pansexuality is getting more coverage these days, people are doing the same thing again and then acting like it's not the same kind of problem...

I like to look at the difference/similarities like this person illustrated...



And, my personal favorite that I post basically every time I see a "pans aren't real!" post...



There are so many label police, and I don't really understand why... no one's sexuality is better than anyone else's, and no one is trying to be "the one true sexuality to rule them all."

Remember, not so long ago it was a common thought, and still is in many parts of the world, that gays and lesbians had some kind of mental problem, didn't really exist, and just needed some medicine to get over their "confusion" about attraction... today people say the same thing about bisexuals, that they are "confused" and can't pick a side... and look in the comments under any article about Caitlyn Jenner and it won't take you long to find someone who says, "that poor man... so confused..." or something much, much, much worse... We're all on the same side, here. We're all trying to live our lives and be ourselves and love who we love <3

 

Well, I still say a scientific standpoint is most proper.

A pansexual is nothing more and nothing less than this: a person who self-identifies as "pansexual." For one reason or another, this is their identity, whether it's for a good reason, a bad reason, or a completely neutral reason. They clearly exist because some people we know self-identify as pansexuals.

Some people may jokingly or ironically self-identify as such, but if we ignore them long enough, they'll go away and troll somewhere else. I'm talking actual self-identification as in identifying as a Democrat or identifying as a Republican. It is really saying, internally and to others, "I am x."

The reasons that some people might self-identify as pansexuals have to be proven. Any of them. You have to prove:

Proposed reason #1: The hypothesis that pansexuality is of biological origin. If it ever could be proved, then above definition of "pansexual" would have to be revised to point out that we imply a known cause when we say that someone is a pansexual.

Proposed reason #2: The hypothesis that pansexuals are trying, out of some childish vanity, "to be different," somehow. No matter how much of a cynic you are about human nature or how dismissive of other people's character you are and no matter how smug you are or how morally superior you go through life stupidly believing you are to the rest of the human race, you still have to prove it.

Proposed reason #3: The hypothesis that I lean the most toward, which is that sometimes people are just too young to really know for sure what they want. Some people haven't had enough experience to be able to say, of a particular gender, "Sorry, honey, but it just ain't gonna work." It took me a long time to realize that it just wasn't going to work with women, even if I tried. I might start a potential flirt, and then I get into conversation and realize, "Ehhh...what was I supposed to be doing, again?" I have never had that problem with men. With reasonably attractive men who are remotely receptive, I am an animal, as in the blood leaves my brain and rushes to my doohickey. I eventually realized that I am, always have been, and always will be as queer as a seven-dollar bill. That took experience to actually realize. I think it's a strong hypothesis as to why some people call themselves "pansexual," but I still have to prove it.

Now, let's acknowledge that pansexuals, by the simplest, least pretentious definition, actually exist. Does anyone have any clear evidence, even anecdotal evidence, on possible reasons why some people self-identify as pansexuals?

 

This thread is another set of proof that there are clear divisions amongst understandings of sexuality, let alone gender in the lgbt community.