[Tom4784]

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality,[1] is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.[2][3] Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.[4][5]

Pansexuality may be considered a sexual orientation in its own right or a branch of bisexuality, to indicate an alternative sexual identity.[3][6][7] Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary,[3][7] it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.[8][9] To what extent the term bisexual is inclusive when compared with the term pansexual is debated within the LGBT community, especially the bisexual community

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.

[RileyH]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[MB.]

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by MB.

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.

[Twosugars]

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.

[Denver]

Well I'm pansexual

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Well I'm pansexual

In which case I've changed my mind

[Shaun]

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 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.

[montblanc]

i think it is tbh

but i agree that the extraneous amount of terms is unnecessary

[bots]

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.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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 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.

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?

[Shaun]

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

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

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

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

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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

Of course

[Amy Jade]

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.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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.

[TomC]

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

[TomC]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Withano]

(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!)

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Well I'm pansexual

Originally Posted by Shaun

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?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

Can a childs persona attract them?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can a childs persona attract them?

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