Pansexual because gender and physical looks are mostly irrelevant to what you find sexually attractive
Bisexual because you find both sexes physically attractive making gender mostly irrelevant
This is the definition I go by and why I swapped to Pansexual.
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.
If you’re a trans person on say a dating app that makes all the difference in considering whether or not someone is safe.
So if you think there’s no difference that’s wrong. Could be that a bisexual is attracted to specifically women and nonbinary people, could be men and women, could be any other genders and it’s not limited to two. Pansexuals skips that and says literally every gender.
By most definitions I’d consider myself pansexual, but boy do I like the bi flag more, so that is what I typically use. And it’s easier for a layman to understand.
So the definitions I’ve seen here are:
- Bisexuals are only attracted to cis people, pansexuals are attracted to cis, trans, and nonbinary people
- Bisexuals are only attracted to binary genders, while pansexuals are attracted to all genders
- Bisexuals are attracted based on looks, pansexuals are attracted based on personality (possibly means they’re demi too)
- 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?)
- Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders
- Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous
- Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag
- Plus various other joke definitions
Did I miss any? A couple of these were new to me. Innovations in the discourse?
In regards to the 4th one, that’s how I’ve always kinda described it. I consider myself bi because I am attracted to men, women, and NBs differently. My sister considers herself pan because there is no difference in the way she feels attracted to someone based on their gender.
This description made it really click for me, thank you! That makes so much more sense.
I’ll be honest, I just like the flag.
Bisexual: attracted to two or more genders and are autumn or winter coloring.
Pansexual: attracted to more than one gender, and are a spring or summer.
You’re only pansexual if you’re from the Panne region of France, otherwise you’re just sparkling bisexual.
Panne is in Belgium.
Don’t do this. That joke is tiresome. Please stop.
Is your boredom from the Tirésomme region? Or you’re just sparkling bored?
Typical lemmyworld…
The difference is that they’re both getting fucked over and not in the sexy way…
Wait that’s not a difference
Bisexuals think transfolks are their gender and know what pan means, pansexuals don’t exist because they’re fucking LYING if they say they find the Xcgutrian gender sexy.
I’d say the only meaningful distinction is that some people make up a definition “bi” could have had but never did, and then use “pan” in opposition to that 😛
But more honestly I asked my sister why she identifies as pan rather than bi, and her answer was that bi attracted the wrong people and pan attracted the right people 😉
For anyone genuinely confused:
Monosexual (mono = 1) - attracted to people of exactly 1 gender. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and attractions to any other specific gender and nothing else go here.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
Polysexual (poly = several) - attracted to people of several (3 and more) various genders. Pretty self-explanatory at this point.
Pansexual (pan = everything) - attracted to people of all genders. If you’re sexy to a given pansexual, they don’t care what your gender is - male, female, or any flavor of nonbinary. Just be cool.
The confusion stems from the previous understanding that there are only two genders, and the fact the awareness of different genders came before pansexuality or polysexuality were widely discussed, which made a giant mess with pansexuals categorizing themselves as bisexuals and then claiming being bisexual is not just about two genders. It is, it’s in the name, and we have proper terms for other options now.
FYI: Some people also prefer the term “omnisexual”, which also means being attracted to people of all genders, but accentuates the gender differences. So, instead of pansexual “I don’t care of your gender, just be cool”, it’s more like “women are cute and nice, men are strong huggers and damn boy be the big spoon, agenders are special and whew I like that” etc. etc. Basically, loving everyone, but each gender is attractive in its own unique way.
Every definition I have heard for pansexuality or similar that defines the term in contrast to bisexuality reads like slander to my ears.
Bisexuality is a broad category, and it was never exclusionary. Bisexuals can be attracted to trans people, and enbies, and those with or without gendered presentations, but critically they don’t have to be. Its a category not a checklist.
Bisexuality is broad. Other terms are more specific, and there is some amount of overlap.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
Yeah, the only way pansexual makes sense, to me at least, is if bisexual excludes feminine presenting men and masculine presenting women, but I don’t see why it should. I feel like pan was just created either to make certain people feel like they’re being more inclusive than just normal bi people, or to make bi people feel like they’re being exclusive.
A lot of the gender and sexual orientation language of recent times is good and removes ambiguity. Some of it though, like pan, feels like people just treating it as a contest.
The definitions I’ve known are that bisexuality is that you are attracted to all body types and pansexuality is that you are attracted to people.
So, one is more physical and the other is more social, but there’s no slander to either, no?
I for example wouldn’t say ace biromantic, I’d define it as ace panromantic since bi has more of a physical vibe. Idk, it’s not so deep.
As a trans person and a pansexual, I would describe it like this:
I don’t have a type. I don’t even necessarily tend to find people attractive until I get to know them a bit. The people I find “hot” aren’t tall people or feminine people or strong people or anything like that, instead I think clothing choices that tell me something about you and give me a feel for who you are as a person are hot.
If i’m attracted to you, I will find myself attracted to your body, rgardlesss of what your body happens to be like. You could literally be a glob of goo or an alien or a talking rock, if I like you I’ll start thinking you’re hot.
If you’re thinking “isn’t that demisexual”? then you’re halfway there - i’m not ace. I do think people are hot when I pass them on the street, except what i’m attracted to is their “vibe” rather than anything about their physical form.
Naturally, pansexual is a subset of bisexual - i’m also proud to be bi and I use that label frequently. And yes both bi and pan are trans-inclusive.
You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying “Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that”. Because there’s a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.
If I can get enough of a read on someone’s personality, then yes I can be aroused, lip bite, let’s fuck, etc. more or less right away. I do need to get to know someone to be into them but that process can happen extremely quickly, including at a glance if I can get enough of a sense of someone’s personality from what they’re wearing/other context clues.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
This. Trans women are women. As a bisexual woman, I am attracted to women.
Trans people are also included in the bisexual manifesto, written in 1990
In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.
The way I always understood it was bisexual = attraction to your gender and other genders
and pansexual = attraction regardless of gender
now, functionally speaking, there is no distinction, but in terms of experience, I always identified more with pansexual than bisexual, as someone’s gender was just never something I took into account when determining my attraction.
I often to use both, as I consider pansexual to be a sub-distinction of bisexual.
That being said I recognize there is no consensus on the distinction in the community so I usually go with bi for ease.
I’ve always understood it as pansexual being attracted to personalities and bisexual being attracted to physical attributes
I guess that does kind of align with my understanding, just in slightly more simplified terms!
I knew that was from Anything That Moves before I got past the first sentence lol
absolutely, and therefore i like the def of HalfSalesman. It nicely distinguishes between pan and bi, whilst avoiding any dated anti-trans ideas.
I would like to hear that definition if you have it on hand
it’s in this comment section: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/25858715
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
“Pan” because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn’t matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
“Bi” in the sense of being “bi-directional” in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I’m finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
Ok yeah that makes sense. The way I’ve conceptualized it is that pan is attracted to all genders or to people regardless of gender and bi is attracted to two or more genders. I think the way that commenter phrased it is a great way to think about it
I tell straight people I’m bi, i tell queer people I’m pan.
That way, you see, ha ha, I get the best of both worlds
But then you’re missing out on all that bottom fun!
God. Always that one guy….
I learned what bi/pan was from a random discord user back in 2016 and I still think its the best description
Bi: Sexually attracted to looks, personality can obv play a big part/be a deciding factor but your main attraction comes from how physically attractive you think they are
Pan: Sexually attracted to personality, looks can obv play a big part/be the deciding factor but your main attraction is how much you like their personality
Again… Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there’s no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
No no no. Hi it’s me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn’t a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that’s fine. The real world doesn’t fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn’t really communicate anything, because there’s not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who’s using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
All heterosexuals and homosexuals care about physical traits, often regarding a genitalia.
It’s not about being shallow, when 90%+(?) of the population shares that commonality.
I consider myself a panromantic, heterosexual non-binary person.
Sure personality matters a lot to me, but I can’t sexually engage with a penis. It’s just how it goes.
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although… Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction
Bisexuals have a cooler flag, pretty sure that’s the only difference. Otherwise they’re both labels that fail to adequately describe the infinitely personal and variable elements of human attraction and sexuality. Use whichever one feels right. I flip between bi and pan when labeling myself but omnisexual probably “fits” the best
Isn’t that just changing it from the Greek pan prefix to Latin omni prefix, both meaning all?
Omnisexuality is differentiated from bi/pan in recognizing the role of gender in attraction, and expresses a.preference for certain genders over others. For example, I’m mostly attracted to fem, queer, or androgynous presenting people, and not particularly drawn to masc people. I am attracted to some men (amab or.afab), but not to the same degree as I am with other gender expressions
Problem: There are 2 competing labels for universal attraction
Solution: “Omnisexual should represent universal attraction”
Problem: there are 3 competing labels for universal attraction
Pish pish! The Pan flag is amazing! It’s like a sunset ice cream Sunday!
Haha, to each their own!
Oh look what you’ve done now. You’ve made it worse. Omnisexual? Now there’s three terms confuddling the concept.
Behold the magnificence and terror of my eldritch, unknowable sexuality!
Oooooh, so THAT’S what was growing in my sex cave
Oh my…
Bisexuals that grow from the ceiling are called “bicicles”
For some reason this reminded me of U-nicycle.
A unicycle for two? What would you even call that?!
I thought they were bilagmites.
