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.
Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It’s just more bi erasure.
Not gay enough for the gays
Not straight enough for the straights
Not bi enough for the pans
Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)
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
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
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
Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It’s just more bi erasure.
Not gay enough for the gays Not straight enough for the straights Not bi enough for the pans
Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)
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
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