Why does that need its own label though? Sexual attraction has little to do with gender identity, any more than it does religion. Both things are in a person's head, and it's a person's body which triggers a sexual response.

Despite identifying as transwomen, it'd be pretty gay for a man to be attracted to Jessica Yaniv, as you can tell Yaniv is male. Just like it wouldn't be gay at all for a man to be attracted to Elliot Page, as you can tell he's female.

Why does being straight or gay need a label? People are free to identify as how every they feel they are and its nobodies business but their own

Because homosexual and heterosexual (and bisexual) are descriptors for things which ha e a basis in biological reality. I agree that people can identify as they like, I can call myself King of Oliverland :dance:

Its just stuck up people feeling they have the right to bully and belittle people based on there sexuality

...just going with the thread title question and in my own humble opinion...I would say that it would definitely be felt as being tangible to someone who didn’t feel that bisexual completely described who they were...but it would also surely be part of and within the descriptive of bisexual as well so (not fad exactly)...but maybe felt less tangible to have as a separate to bisexual...I mean, sexuality in terms of ‘labels’ or descriptives is surely finding something that we all feel more exactly or perfectly describes us as individuals and it really is a personal thing and I don’t really ever understand why some don’t accept or like a particular sexuality someone feels they are...red is red, why can’t we just have red...why do we have to have cerise, or scarlet or burgundy..they’re all red, why can’t they just BE red....because it’s not felt that red is an accurate enough description when there are differences in reds...?...why can’t a lettuce just be a lettuce, I mean it’s a lettuce so why does it have to be a Little Gem or a Rocket or whatever...why, why, why, why, why...with sexuality so little is accepted but rather it’s questioned when really there is tangibility if that person feels a sexuality describes who they are...

Love that we live in a society where people are literally sexually attracted to cars or animals or inanimate objects

But pansexuality is incomprehensible to some - lol get over it

Who cares? We have enough labels.

To be fair, such people are also crazy.

But you still acknowledge that sexual attraction to those things are plausible...

Just odd that you can’t fathom pansexuality after comprehending far more unusual things

It all comes under the bisexual umbrella, really.

I can fathom it, and it's just another way to say "bisexual"

Maybe... for someone that sucks at accurate adjectives. Otherwise no.

It is accurate, because it's an attraction to members of either sex. Adding caveats regarding gender identity is no different to giving a label to someone who's attracted to Christians of both sexes.

Not necessarily, but not necessarily not either. It’s largely here nor there

My point is more that there are a multitude of different sexual interests that separate humans. What you and I are interested in sexually will probably be different, as will what Cal and Withano and Kim Woodburn and Bernie Sanders, and literally most humans on the planet...with the obvious exception of asexuals.

But we don’t base our identities around a preference for certain sexual acts, certain locations, even ethnicities or body shapes or age, despite the fact that such differences occur. So why do we do the same for gender? It only appears to be “natural” and “obvious” because that’s how we’ve shaped our social world, but as I alluded to, and there’s further reading to be done on this in the books I mentioned, the idea of having a “sexual orientation” is a largely “modern” (at least post-Victorians) construction. That’s not to say being attracted to one gender over another (or more) isn’t “natural” - it’s important not to confuse that - but more that having an “orientation”, it becoming an identity if you like, is not at all natural. It isn’t tangible, it hasn’t always been that way, and it’s something that modern, often western, human societies have created. People can debate the merits of it (and there are definitely positives, especially where LGB rights have been concerned), but that’s my point. And thus, if these categories of gender-orientation have been “invented”, it really doesn’t matter that much if other ones are invented too. Because they’re all invented. So who cares?

It’s significantly less accurate.

becaaauuuse... ?

Religion is in someone's head, gender identity is in someone's head. Neither should affect how attractive someone appears to be.

I literally don’t care, call yourself what you want it doesn’t effect me in the slightest if someone feels more comfortable using one term more than another then fair enough

This is my thoughts on it too.

Refuse to believe that’s a real question

You just asked why a word that nearly describes something is less accurate than a word that precisely describes something

How big is the umbrella?

:clap1:

They both perfectly describe an attraction toward both sexes, therefore they are the same.

I still don't get why people care? If someone wants to say they are bisexual, pansexual or demisexual....why does anyone else care? Why can't they have that label? Why should they conform to something they don't believe they are?

If you think the sexualities are the same then you don’t know enough about the topic to comment on it at all

Wish you said that earlier so I didn’t need to waste my time lol.

Not sure. It really depends how specific you want to be.