[–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

So, I'll start by saying that it's pretty on brand for this meme post lol, but there are multiple definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality I find acceptable. There are some that are bullshit. I don't really subscribe to one true definition of it. I have one I use the most that I'll talk about later in this post. This is what I take issue with, see emphasis.

Bisexual is attracted to more than one gender and CAN include all the same attractions as a Pansexual.

Pansexual IS attraction to all genders.

So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.

This is either biphobic by assuming bisexuals are not accepting of trans people or transphobic by viewing trans men as a different gender than cis men (same for trans women and cis women). That's why I have a problem with it. Bisexuality has never meant that.

Someone else in this thread has already mentioned the bisexual manifesto from 1990. Now, to be clear, this isn't me saying "hey, it's called the bisexual manifesto, it's the one true definition of bisexuality." (It itself even says its not.) But I find this part relevant when discussing multiple definitions.

Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual' to be inadequate and too limiting. Do not assume that the opinions expressed are shared by all bisexuals, [...]

So even in 1990 it was understood by bisexuals that bisexuals did not have a single "one true definition" of bisexuality. Not to even mention pansexuality and what shape the venn diagram of the two might make.

Me, personally, the definition I use, that I feel I see many people use and also I have some bias towards because I feel it's the most satisfying is that pansexuals are attracted to traits of people without regards to gender. While bisexuals are attracted to any gender of people and may have traits they find attractive in some genders but not others. And the example I always give of this is, someone who is bi, but not pan, might find muscular women attractive, but dislike muscles on men. Meanwhile, someone who is pan would just like muscles regardless.

Another definition I use, but perhaps less useful to answer you, is that bisexuals are people who identify as bisexual. Pansexuals are people who identify as pansexual. And yes, people can identify as both or only one. I think self identification in the queer community is massively important. I have a friend who's wife came out as nonbinary. He calls himself straight. So when people ask me what his sexuality is, I say he's straight. Is there a part of me that believes in some technical, theoretical sense that he should consider labeling himself as something else? Sure, yeah, because his wife is nonbinary now, but that's not really my business unless he asked me about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    I mean, practically, if someone tells me they're bi or pan, it doesn't really change my view of them. Like there's not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I'm trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn't. But if they're bi or if they're pan, it doesn't change that.

    There is a difference, I'm not saying there isn't, and I'm not saying we should only use one if the two. I'm just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I'm curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it's not super critical for anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    First two are biphobic.

    • Bisexuals are attracted to people because of gendered characteristics, pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gendered characteristics (not really sure what this one means, different wording of the previous one?)

    As an example of this, a bisexual might find muscular women attractive, but not muscular men, but pansexuals find muscles attractive or not on all people. This is the definition I use.

    • Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders

    The thing I find troublesome about this is that it can overly lump people into bisexuality. A common definition for lesbian today is someone who is not a man who is attracted to people who aren't men. If that's your definition of lesbian and bisexual than you're saying lesbians are bisexual. I prefer to say bisexual is attracted to all genders.

    • Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous

    Weird seeing this because traditionally the harmful stereotype is that bisexuals need two lovers. Either way, this is not a good definition.

    • Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag

    This is one that's silly, but kind ends up being true sometimes. Bi and pan are incredibly overlapped. Not all bi people are pan and not all pan people are bi, yes, but there's a lot of overlap. So a lot people in the middle just pick the flag they prefer.

    Also I will die on the hill that pansexuality is not a subset of bisexuality. Not all pansexuals are bisexual.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I've also seen plenty a bisexual who hate the term pansexual and thinks it's redundant because they don't acknowledge the nuance.

    Sort of an odd thing to say while also missing the nuance between the two and parroting biphobic points.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    10k? Well that's pretty original, because I've never heard of it.

    But on a more serious note, it's just too reductive to say "there is nothing original in StarCraft because it feels like Warhammer 40k." All media is inspired by media that came before it. Lion King is similar to Hamlet, does that mean there's nothing original in it?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›