Do you think Pansexuality is a thing?
 

Pansexuality is a bugbear of mine because it's very definition basically makes out that bisexuals are transphobic or lesser in comparison. I don't think there's any differences between bisexuality and pansexuality to warrant two different terms and I generally think that, when it comes to the LGBT, we should be simplifying things and not coming up with new terms that are designed to make every last person feel unique and special.

I think when it comes down to it, there's only four sexual orientations which are straight, gay, bi and Asexual. I think anything else is extraneous tbh and I cringe whenever I see someone say LGBTGSDGARASDASASHRTDFAS because it's just so extra in a bad way since it gives fuel to the fire for the people who want to dismiss the cause as a whole.

:clap1: :clap1:

I don't see why it's any of my business to go around labelling other people's sexual identities as valid or invalid

But by definition, pansexuality does just that to bisexuality.

Imo it's too early to say. Gender fluidity has become a widely publicised thing only recently. Need to wait and see if it catches on as a popular alternative to binary genders. It may or may not be just a fad.

Well I'm pansexual

In which case I've changed my mind

Whilst gender fluidity is entirely valid and 100% something I support, it is still ultimately the fluidity between two set sexes and I would consider anyone who's attracted to someone regardless of their gender as 'bisexual'.

As Dezzy said, its very definition just basically implies that anyone who identifies as a bisexual is inherently transphobic.

I don't really see the need for extra letters to LGBT because the very existence of an "LGBT" community is already fractured and complicated enough within itself - see every single example of gays rubbing trans the wrong way, the past ten years :laugh: Of course if it's just an umbrella term for "let's have a pride event, X Y and Z you're all welcome!" then sure, but I don't see any natural inclination for bisexual people to be associated, by definition, with say, asexuals, or allies. (I personally think including 'allies' at all is a bit laughable but that's neither here nor there).

Asexuality also seems an odd inclusion, since I would have thought having zero sexual interest wouldn't have much of an impact on your day to day life, and see little room for prejudice against you... save for a few awkward "well WHY don't you like sex!!!??" questions.

And once you start attempting to break down the differences between genderfluid, genderqueer, agender, you just generally start losing people and it's a little bit like trying to explain the rules to Quidditch to someone who's never read Harry Potter, nor has to.

i think it is tbh

but i agree that the extraneous amount of terms is unnecessary

I don't know why any labels are needed at all. It's the creation of labels and trying to pigeon hole people that causes the majority of the problems that we have.

Agree with most.
But would have to ask bisexuals if they go for mixed gendered individuals or not. We should not assume they do. If you like chicks and dicks does it mean you automatically like chicks with dicks?

Perhaps not, but it would be wrong to assume they don't, too, as the word 'pan' seems to.

we live in a society where being straight is “normal”

how would people who aren’t straight live in a world without labels?

Of course

Honestly I am quite ignorant about sexuality. I am straight and I have a few gay and bi friends so I get that but anything else I am pretty vague on. I don't tend to care what somebodys sexuality is so I don't understand it well at all.

I think the difference between them is that bisexual people are attracted to two genders (hence the 'bi'), whereas pansexual preferences are indiscriminate: they don't see gender.

I don't think there's an implication of bisexual transphobia.

I also disagree with the four sexualities thing because it contradicts my belief in the scale.

Because in 2018, the default label is straight. We're still living in a heteronormative society.

Your understanding of pan is different to mine.

My understanding of bi, is that gender matters. They are sexually attracted to men because they love cock (etc) and women because they love tits (etc), whereas a pansexual can love both of these genders, but not because of their genitals. Genitals arent a factor that they consider when searching for a companion, which is unlike bi people.

Bi people are sexually aroused by men and women, whereas pansexual people do not care if they are men or women, they are instead aroused by their persona, and gender would therefore not matter.

I dont even know if that makes sense, but I cant make a third paragraph on it, thats so extra.

Bi loves men and women because they are men or women, pan love men and women because they are people that they like.

absolute bollocks, just people trying to satiate out basic desire to feel important, same as pretending to see ghosts or talking to spirits. It just makes the person feel important and that people are interested in them

:joker:

(Yes, I think pansexual is a thing. Some people are sexually attracted to cattle or cars or whatever furries are supposed to be, why cant others be sexually attacted to personality!)

See I've heard this line of removing the sex from the whole equation before but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately you are playing with someone's genitals, whatever their gender is, so just resting and saying "I fall in love with a person, not a sex :)" is just incredibly condescending to anyone who identifies as anything other than pansexual. Also implies all homosexual males only like cis men, all heterosexual females only like cis men, etc. etc.

It doesnt really, unless you presume that hetero males always only like cis women (etc). I’m sure there are far beyond millions of self identifying heterosexual men that like transwomen too. You’re reading into the ‘trans’ thing more than I, thats not the key difference from my perspective.

The difference is bi people seeking out both genders because theyre aroused by both genders (may include trans), or pan people seeking out any gender, because they literally can be aroused by any gender depending on their personality (also, may include trans).

@Adam contributing more would be helpful if he really is pan? Am i on the right track or no?

Can a childs persona attract them?

I wouldnt call that pan, I’d call that something else.

:nono: I have often seen pansexual ghosts. :hee:

i think you missed the point

Nah, pansexuality is not a thing.

It doesn't matter if someone thinks they're "nonbinary", they still either look male or female, and people will be attracted to them accordingly. Same with transpeople - some transwomen will unfortunately just look like dudes with long hair, so someone who likes long haired guys might fancy them as that.

Thats why i am asking a question thanks.

oh sorry i thought you were being sarcastic

It's just word vomit. A straight person might love tits, but fall in love with a flat chested woman because he loved her personality. That doesn't mean he needs a new made up label, it just means that looks/biological features aren't all that matters.

A bisexual person can be attracted to both sexes, be it for their personalities or features. There's no need to call it "pansexuality" when it's the former.

I disagree... if theres anything that umpteen years of Big Brother, and Big Brother forums has taught me, its that plenty of people are sexually attracted to those they despise, pan people won’t relate to that.

They're more likely to be bisexuals who won't fancy someone they don't like. Straight people can be un-attracted to people of their preferred sex if they have crappy personalities - they don't suddenly have a whole new sexuality.

Nope.

It's a pointless and pretentious difference, I'm bisexual and as long as I'm attracted to someone, I don't care what gender they consider themselves.

If you aren't exclusively attracted to one gender then you're bisexual in my eyes (or asexual if you have no sexual impulses at all obvi).

But by that definition it does make bisexuals look transphobic or close minded when I think most bisexuals would be DTF with trans as long as there's a sexual attraction there. I just don't think what would be a personal preference should necessitate the need for a sexuality that does have the effect of making bisexual people, regardless of their preferences, seem transphobic and like a lesser form of pansexuality.

I just find it all very pretentious.

But they’d only be heterosexual if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Not really comparable to somebody who isn’t attracted to a person’s sex.

As you'd expect it to be. No matter how open-minded we can be about alternative sexual lifestyles heterosexual's still the bio standardand so it should be.

I agree, bi people, hetero people etc etc, some are very dtf trans. Thats not the key difference between bi and pan imo.

What do you mean? I said "straight person" and "preferred sex" - there are two genders, and both terms I used are gender neutral, so could apply to either. I'll rephrase then:
A straight woman can find an otherwise attractive man repulsive if he had a crappy personality. She doesn't suddenly have a whole new sexuality just because persona overrode genitals.

Likewise, a bisexual person who prioritizes personality doesn't have a whole new sexuality. It's just for them looks/genitals aren't the most important thing. There's absolutely no need to invent a new label for that.

And a pansexual person isn't fundamentally attracted to a persons sex, so these parallels dont really work.