The great bisexual/pansexual debate.
 

Answers from actual bisexual/pansexual people really looked for here mainly tbh :p. Obviously anyone can reply. But can this stay...debatey rather than descending into arguments and that? Big ask I know..also massive TLDR coming up really.. :ninja2:

--

OK I know we have had a ****load of threads similar to this, and I was a bit apprehensive of starting another..but here we go. I have just had a huge mouthful over facebook off my best friend..at ****ing 3am (well, best friend from ages back, not seen him in forever now really) because I refuse to redefine myself as pansexual. As for me, its not the label I feel applies to me, at all. Have always been bisexual, since I knew what sexuality was!

He asked if I would in theory sleep with a transperson. I said yes, BUT, I cannot blanket answer that as it depends on a few factors, to do with the actual person. Same as I couldn't just say I would sleep with a woman/man with X characteristics...I guess a way to describe this would be how...you know when you have friends say 'I know someone just your type' and while physically they are correct...you are cold towards them? I could never say I would sleep with someone without actually knowing that person. Theres more than just the physical, maybe is a better way of putting it. Well my refusal to blanket say yes to any and all transpeople, was also proof of my rampant transphobia?!(likely caused by 'outdated notions of bisexuality'...!) But this could 'potentially be fine' if I would be more likely to be attracted, than not. Which again, I cannot blanket answer honestly. But settled for, there are some transpeople I have found attractive in the past yes...which chilled him somewhat.

He now says this means I am pan. Not bi. As bi people only would be happy with masculine men, or feminine women (which also lowkey comes off as...saying only feminine women are women, and only masculine men are men?!). BUT, this is not the case at all for me? OR any other bi people I know either? Masculine/feminine doesn't come into it at all for me? And if it did, it would be..a preference, rather than part of a sexuality? Like how I tend to go for dark haired people in general it seems..preference, not part of sexuality.

I find this a really weird argument. To me, I have always kind of laughed off pan as a 'woke' way of saying bisexual (so in sme ways, might deserve this challenge now!) but thought not much more of it..pan seemed the 'trendy' way of saying bi these days, mainly to younger people who have possibly been convinced that bi is a dirty word. But this seems to be getting more..mainstream, that if I say I am bisexual, that means I am writing off all feminine men, masculine women, androgynous, all in inbetween extreme female barbies, and GI joe males?!

So, IS bisexual a way of saying you are basically unwilling to consider anyone besides barbie dolls and GI joes these days?!

Does anyone else who is bisexual, get pressure to redefine themselves as pan?

Does anyone who defines themselves as pan, think pan is different to bisexuality...and if so, how?

Does anyone actually think that bisexual is a label that automatically discounts all trans people, or people who ignore/defy stereotypes?! Where pan is the 'inclusive' way of saying it?

I actively try to avoid a lot of this kind of thing as have came to see it as fringe arguing..but, given its now seemingy reaching my life, am guessing its not fringe arguing anymore..

Have for now just told him to **** right off with trying to find anything in my sexuality thats..anything but my sexuality tbh. And have also asked him if, given he is homosexual, does this go for him also, meaning, he would only be atracted to masculine men...and if not, why not? Half expecting to be called homophobic at this stage. But I feel I have a point there (also please tell me if I am out of order, as seeing red a little tbf. But I feel the logic is there, if using his own logic towards me? I don't really think he cannot be gay if he likes feminine men of course, thats nonsense!)? If bi means only masculine men/feminine women, and masculine women/androgynous people/feminine men/trans people pf either sex, would mean I have to use pansexual, then surely, a homosexual man..it must be about masculine guys. And if he likes any other guys, that means he is also pan?

Not one to argue sexuality stuff generally. But I feel I should go down with this ship now as...its annoyed the hell out of me.

Addition thats not really ontopic as such


Appreciate answers to random questions I have asked throughout my above waffle, but my main question is...do YOU think bisexual 'signals' transphobia? And basically, if yes, why?

Will also delete this if it turns into...sniping and that. Meant as an actual discussion, as it seems a topic that gets alluded to a lot, but not actually...done. And I don't realy see it as 'another trans/gender thread' given the focus is..well bisexuality? Can remove if it offends many though I guess, its just...my thought process throughout this whole thing with my mate really. Wanna know if I am actually being crappy, before I tell him to go **** himself with his biphobia...really!

This isn’t a ‘debate’ because most normal people don’t try and invalidate each others sexuality/identity

Thank you.

If that is the case why is Vicky's friend trying to invalidate her identity and trying to push a label she doesn't need or want on to her

Tolerance should be a two way street

They're obviously not a real friend if they are telling her she's wrong about how she identifies, it doesn't matter what the sexuality is, you identify as what you feel describes you best. I don't think it needs to come down to bi Vs pan again.

Your friend saying that a possibility of sleeping with a transperson makes you pan rather than bi is a bit transphobic tbh. Transpeople are still male or female, they're not a whole other thing just because they identify as the sex they aren't.

But yeah, I've still yet to hear a good reason why pansexual should be treated as a separate thing to bisexual. A man's preferences might possibly include transwomen, but that would either make them gay or bisexual, as transwomen's biological sex is male.

Its not transphobix as bi people are only into 2 genders and they wouldn't see trans as make or female it would be trans.

You can't be transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans person like you can't be racist for not wanting to sleep with a person of colour its a sexual preference

Gender is a social construct, your penis doesn't care if a man identifies as a woman. It's sexuality, not genderuality.

...I know it’s looking for thoughts mainly from the LGBTQ+ members ...so I won’t add much, but just to say that I tend to agree with Elliot and Jess...pan and bi are both surely not exclusive and within that, it would be an individual and very personal thing as to a chosen partner ...as it is for everyone...neither seems to exclude within that and within how they personally identify...I don’t understand any of the feminine female or masculine male stuff because that’s never been any of my own understanding in any way...whether self defined as pan or bi, either would be open to an attraction for lots of reasons and that then would come under personal preferences...I have read and do read often that there is ‘a great debate’ as Vicky has said...(...I don’t know if it’s generally more a social media focus and thing...)...but I always feel sad that there is that debate because it just feels very divisive in a community that doesn’t need that...

I agree with that and this is where the whole thing falls apart really; if a heterosexual man is attracted to a fully transitioned transwoman (and to perhaps offensively cut to the chase here; someone who convincingly looks physically female) then they don't become bi/pan/whatever, they are still a heterosexual male. Isn't that... the whole point?

My honest opinion is that the term pansexual is somewhat moot since its about attraction and not personal identification. No matter how someone identifies, physically they are going to have male physical characteristics/female physical characteristics/a mix of the two and people are going to be physically attracted to one set of characteristics or the other, or both/don't care (bisexual). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the term pansexual, but I've never seen a convincing argument that bi/pan aren't simply synonymous and interchangeable... They just mean the same thing... That someone has no personal preference for male/female traits.

As a personal aside though, I honestly don't have huge amounts of time for people who make their sexy time preferences the cornerstone of their identity and personality. I mean... Each to their own but... I just don't care where you plonk your genitals or on whom... and surely most people have a lot more to them. An awful lot of time and energy goes into these definitions. Honestly I think maybe humanity is just existentially bored.

Someone's sexual desires and preferences should be entirely irrelevant to literally everyone but themself :shrug:

Exactly

Yip. The kind of person where being Gay or ("Queer" lol) is their only personality trait needs to be drowned in a toilet.

Agree pretty much with what TS said. Especially if Pansexual includes male/female/trans then is there a separate name for straight and gay people who would date a trans person?

...gosh, it’s gone to ‘being their only personality trait’ quite quickly...that escalated, as they say...it isn’t the only personality trait, it was never suggested that it was ....this is not about ‘sexy time’...i would say that it is about a ‘a time’, though...that time being now and about now being able to openly discuss sexuality in a way that’s been suppressed and even illegal for so long...we celebrate laws and progression, we should celebrate discussions also...it’s sad that bi and pan seems to divide some but if people want to discuss in a way that some sexualities have felt freedom to be able to from way back in the day, then talk, talk, talk....there is some catching up to do for sure...

Well no, because a transperson still looks like either biological sex. Like how someone who identifies as nonbinary is still clearly actually male or female lol. Someone would be attracted to the person based on their appearance, not what they think they are.

Yeah I get that point which is why Pansexual is a bit contradictory and as someone pointed out already is either transphobic itself or saying Bisexual people are transphobic so they need a new term to differentiate, either way I wonder why if they've come up with a term that includes transpeople plus each sex of non transpeople, then how come there isn't a term for transpeople plus 1 sex of non transpeople (to differentiate between gay and straight people) If you get what I mean?

Food for thought if needed:

https://www.healthline.com/health/bi...key-difference
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...sexual-667087/

I'm not arguing or whatever, just putting this out there because Vicky seems to have some questions about it. Have a good day guys! :love:

Just having a read through the first link Remy and I notice it's totally left out the word Sex when surely sexuality is about sex not gender or it can be about both if you like but why omit sex completely when it's Sexuality we're talking about? Surely the argument here is even if there are 100 genders they still all fall under the 2 sexes

I didn't say it was the "only" personality trait, you've injected that in there yourself Ammi, I said "the cornerstone of their identity and personality" ... if you're going to use quotation marks, you should actually quote what was said, as to not be misrepresentative - I'm sure you know that.

I was basing this comment on the OP where Vicky suggested that it was important to someone else that "she correctly define herself", something which should matter to no one but the individual in any way at all, unless they consider this definition to be a cornerstone of identity and thus important on a broader social scale. Did it go there fast? Yes... because it's what the whole thread is about. Also, the thread is about sexual orientation NOT gender identity and thus it is entirely "about sexy time" ... what else could it possibly be about? I suspect the waters between sexual orientation and gender identity are being muddied here where there is no need for them to be, and again it seems to come down to the confusion in the distinction between sex and gender. Physical sexual attraction, and thus sexual orientation, has nothing to do with gender identity for anyone other than the individual.

Exactly. A straight man who is attracted to a biological female who identifies as male, but still looks female, is not gay. A gay man who is attracted to a transgender woman who still looks biologically male is not suddenly straight, bi or pan... they're still gay.

A straight woman who is still attracted to her transwoman husband after they have declared their gender as female is not suddenly a lesbian. If she then physically transitions and looks convincingly (again, sorry if offensive but it's an important distinction) female and the wife is still sexually attracted, then yes, she probably is to some degree bisexual.

Surely this is how it should work and how we want it to work? Surely transpeople would prefer to be attractive AS their chosen sex to people who are usually attracted to that sex ... and not have the attraction based on their internal thoughts on gender identity? Where is the logic in that? It's just not related :shrug:. If I tomorrow tell my wife that I identify as female, or gender non-binary, or literally anything else, but I still look the same as I do today and she still finds me attractive... that doesn't make her a lesbian, or bi, or pan, or anything other than a straight woman who is physically attracted to hunky men. Because that's what I'd still look like. Regardless of gender identity.

Someone pointed that out? Jogger plz, that was me! :hmph:

sorry :laugh:

...I’ve made a decision to not read the 2nd paragraph of your post, TS...which is a shame really because I’ve always been interested in your thoughts on many subjects...and this is one of the reasons why these debates are how they often are, in my humble opinion...because of ‘misrepresentation’ and that misrepresentation is toward me and my comments and not the other way around....I didn’t quote your post but if you read back through the thread, you will see those words were used, which is why they’re correctly stated as I have quoted them...you’ve attached them to your own post, not I....


...I’ll accept your apology when you’re prepared to give it...

...condescension and patronising never did make for an open or healthy debate, TS...I’m sure you know that...neither does arranging posts to suit and fit...

OK this is no longer an issue. I told him he was being a ridiculous twat and to chill out. He now is in a strop it seems, and has not replied :laugh: Its really weird behaviour for him though..I kind of maybe suspect too much internetting during lockdown really. Hopefully anyway.