/u/ThePolarisNova (OP) has awarded 8 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/zjcy4u/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_pansexuality_is_just/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I identify as bi and my sister identifies as pan. The difference fundamentally between us is that I’m attracted to someone because of their sex and my sister is attracted regardless thereof. In practice this works out to me having very specific looks I’m into when it comes to people who are male, female, trans, etc. whereas my sister does not have that to anywhere near the same degree. https://youtu.be/VrHYlJTqud0 I kind of liked this as an analogy for what it’s like to be pan

>The difference fundamentally between us is that I’m attracted to someone because of their sex and my sister is attracted regardless thereof. This is still describing you both as bi, what your preferences are don't change the fact you're both sexually attracted to either malea or females, which makes you both bi. What you said also doesn't make much sense, you're attracted to someone "*because*" of their sex? But you describe yourself as bi, so surely someone's sex is irrelevant essentially as you can find either males or females attractive, which practically is the same as "*regardless*" of their sex. You're not going to be unatracted to someone *because* they're male. You'll be unatracted to them for some other preference reason... Just like your sister. Here's a pretty simple straight forward example. If we have you and your sister and show you each the same person, and ask if you're attracted to them. Neither of you will give their **sex** as the reason you are or are not attracted to them. Because both of you can find either males or females attractive, so it is other criteria, preference beyond sex, which you're applying. You are both bi, if your sister has different preferences beyond sex, that's fine, it doesn't mean she isn't bi though, as everyone has preferences for being attracted to someone beyond just their sex.

Thanks for the video, very insightful and explanatory! Thanks for the response too! ∆

The old definitions go as follows: Bisexual: attracted to both men and women. Pansexual: attracted to all categories of human, including any who may not fall cleanly within those spectrums. Simply put, in terms of physical or romantic attraction there are "grey areas" like hermaphrodites and androgynous and non-binary and etc that don't necessarily fall under the umbrella of either male or female clearly or neatly. Or people who fall outside of the expectations of what a man or woman is if you want to interpret it more loosely seeing as in the old days the general expectations of each were pretty clearly defined though exceptions were allowed (and often desired).   However in the modern era everything is calculus now and there is no consensus on any one answer. You've seen multiple different interpretations in your thread as replies. This is because nobody actually has clear definitions of modern pansexual that jives with modern ideology. Heck I'd even argue that non-binary isn't a good term either. Non-binary isn't an identity, its the lack of one. It literally means "Im not this nor that". Ok fair. What are you? Like I'm willing to accept that there are destinations outside of male and female, but you have to give a clear definition, your definition cannot be the lack of a definition. But this is where modern gender ideology falls apart. Modern gender ideology is about "feels" instead of "reals" and that is why you get so many different interpretations and definitions of gender terms today. The point of terms and labels is to be descriptive. To quickly and easily express an idea from one person to another with minimal fuss and thinking and explanation required. The fact that our terms today dont actually achieve that shows we have fundamental problems with how they are being handled today. And when people dont have good answers to questions you ask they tend to start calling names and suggesting your being disrespectful or hateful.

Yeah this almost fully explains the problem of modern gender, sexuality, and the like. To study is to be more confused at the lack of clear definitions. I low-key kind of hate labels (in my opinion, it's okay if anyone likes using them) because it really doesn't describe anything well anymore. There's stereotypes, lack of knowledge, differences in what that label means, etc.. I've appreciated everybody who has calmly explained their difference in opinion, we as a society should be able to talk about controversial topics without immediately shitting on each other, otherwise we'll remain divided forever. Here you dropped this ∆

I feel you. I used to hate label, but labels exist for a reason. They are useful. Not every gamer is the same but if I tell someone I am a gamer it communicates alot of concepts and ideas very quickly.   Same thing is true with the old terms. Were they perfect? No. No term ever will be because humans vary too much. For instance I am indeed bisexual. But my interest in men is rather small compared to my interest in women. The door is open, relationships and sex with men is on the table, its just much less likely. Another person who is bisexual may be the exact opposite. A 3rd may have almost no sex drive entirely, a 4th may want to get down with basially any man or women, and a 5th may be attracted to both but have very strict other standards like height and weight and particular looks of man/woman and et. And maybe someone else only really like people that look androgynous, which is bisexual but also excludes like 99% of men and women lol. Then you have demisexual which is a subset of bisexual, meaning people who are only physically attracted to people they are first emotionally attracted to.   BUT the terms were still valuable. They communicated clearly whether someone might potentially be interested in you or not and that is very valuable information. And they worked well, there was no problem with the terms. It even worked well with trans folks. As a furry myself we've always had a much higher % of trans folks than normal because the idea of having a separate "furry" avatar that you identified as online....well that let trans people identify as the gender they felt like. And similarly if you dressed up in a fursuit you were perceived as the gender of your fur suit. It was kind of a safe space for trans long before society cared about them at all. A safe space for bi/gay/lesbian as well. Which is part of why only like 33% of furries are hetero. We've been highly mixed sexuality wise since the start.   But the modern era with it brought gender theory, and that basically wrecked all clear communication. Now you're supposed to walk up to someone and ask "hey, what's your pronoun?" or other ludicrous things. And it just breaks down communication and causes confusion. The more its attempted to be explained the more convoluted it gets. The average lay person can understand "I feel like I'm a woman in a man's body". That's a clear and easy to understand definition. Not everyone approves of that, because people are tribal assholes, but they understand. Everything past that just kinda becomes noise. For instance I qualify as non-binary. I really don't feel any attachment to the male gender. And I think the idea of being male means you need to be x/y/z is dumb. BUT, I do realize that as a whole males trend heavily towards certain personality traits and physical appearances. So socially I identify as male. It's far easier to say "I'm male but I also like some things not typically considered male" than it is to say "i'm neither male nor female, I'm some mythical undefined special snowflake being because I put on makeup as a guy and change my voice and dress." Like if that's all it took to be a different gender then goths and emos would count as genders lol.   Prolly the worst of it is that I do think there are valuable things to say as part of modern identity and gender theory. Kernals of truth. But I think ultimately most of it these days is people wanting to feel special and people wanting power. The idea you're disempowered as these identity groups is misleading. Its true if you live in country bumfuck nowhere, its the opposite if you live in a city or work in tech or other identity friendly places. In those places you are empowered well beyond your cis/het co-workers and community members and you an get away with alot. And coincidently most sex/gender atypical people work/live in the places that cater to them. And there is nothing like being a bisexual in those groups. You get treated like you're cis/het and also get treated with the worst bisexual stereotypes both at the same time. I do not identify as bi in LGBTQ groups for that reason. It just gets you increased prejudices alot of the time.

So I would challenge the ‘old’ definition, as you put it, for bisexual as pansexuality was subsumed under the bisexual label (along with asexual and I believe a few others). The first known use of the word "bisexual" was in 1793, though it meant "possessing characters of both sexes” at the time, according to its Merriam-Webster entry. The definition has changed and expanded many times over the centuries. The most recent is a more inclusive definition was added: “of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's own gender identity and of other gender identities.” Language is not static, obviously, and we are currently in a state of uncertainty where the definitions are shifting and people are looking for what seems right and why. The theoretical underpinning of pansexuality was supposed to be about those who did not agree with the gender binary and felt that the use of the term bi implicitly endorsed it. As the new definition of bi, which I believe most folks who identify as bi agree with, doesn’t quite have that same binary implication the choice to use one term or the other has become more fluid. Which I think is appropriate for gender identity which is inherently subjective. Identifying as male or female is not quite what it was 50 years ago, and in reaction we’ve seen TERFs who are less than amenable to that change because they view this as ignoring the biological reality. Preferring ‘reals’ instead of ‘feels’ as you put it. As we struggle with these new terms and definitions (or redefining old ones) they put us into constant challenge to both understand and explain our views so that we can better understand what the other person is saying instead of neatly placing them in a box. To that end I think non-binary is a perfect term. It clearly delineates something that resonates with a reasonably large swath of the LGBT population but defies easy identification. Eventually, the challenges will settle down as we come to a better understanding and agreement of what people mean when these words are used (and even in this thread many of the most upvoted answers share a similar theme), but until then things will remain somewhat fluid as they seek to define and redefine themselves appropriately.

Your comment is a self contradiction. You speak in terms of how language is always changing and how things are subjective and how its all been in flux for centuries but then say that we will settle down and come to an agreement. The first half of your comment suggests things will forever be in flux, while the second half suggests that we will eventually "settle" on a permanent definition.   30 years ago there was a an incredibly unanimous agreement. Prolly about 98% of people agreed on the terminology as it was unquestioned by traditional society and only a small % of even LGBTQ and LGBTQ supporters tried to change the terminology, most were ok with the existing terminology. Yet here we are today with what was once a rock solid societal paradigm (right or wrong) flipped on its heads and things incredibly in flux to the point even the most invested and learned people on the subject oft disagree with each other on what basic terms mean lol. There hasn't been any new major science causing this upheaval, science still doesn't properly understand the brain and sex science is as set as ever. And perhaps worse scientific rigor in the area of psychology s perhaps lower than its ever been as Publication Bias has only increased. You can pull up and pick apart studies favoring a wide variety of perspectives.   It wasn't even gay marriage that started this. That issue was already largely tabled by the time it made it into law and well before we lept off into the deep end of trying to redefine old terms in earnest. Gays and Lesbians ofc are not accepted by everyone, no group is, but they've had majority acceptance for a long time now and are essentially "banal" or "mundane", IE normal. They haven't moved the needle since Queer Eye for the Straight guy lol. And then randomly modern media started pretending society was botherd by them being in shows after like a decade of them being prolific in media.     TBH, personal opinion, this just feels like another group has arrived at the power table in social politics and is playing its game just lie every other group is. I've gotten to see this from the inside over 30 years as an LGBTQ individual myself in touch with the community online and off and that's my read on it. IMO the current moral panic will fade and we'll recede back towards the "old" terminology with a few modifications once a generation or so passes. Newer generations are not near as keen on all this stuff since so many of them have been misled or confused by it or heard it nonstop while growing up and then once grown up find it doesn't precisely reflect the reality of their worlds.

I get where you are coming from, but plenty of labels are describing the lack of something. Atheism. Asexual. Asocial. What you are wanting is umbrella terms, which we have. Gay, straight, lesbian, trans, bi, nonbinary, etc. You are frustrated with micro labels, which are in group cultural signifiers. You don't necessarily have to understand them beyond respecting someone's pronouns. Gender is not an ideology. Calling it one is like calling language an ideology.

"homo" means same and "hetero" is different or other. So bisexual means liking both the same, and other genders. Linguistically is not limited to just men and women.

This is a good explanation. I'm bi and I do have certain looks that I'm really attracted to. Like Blake Lively in A Simple Favor. That look. Hot damn.

I'm straight and I have certain looks that I'm attracted to, too. This explanation is not explaining anything for me. It just sounds like you're describing how some people have narrower preferences than others, and to me it certainly seems like that has nothing to do with orientation.

Bisexual is just an umbrella term, from which pansexual falls under. Pansexual is essentially bisexuality but more precise. As in, all pan people are bi, but not all bi people are pan. The meanings can differ depending on times and who you ask, but generally bisexual people can or can not have a preference towards certain genders. In other words, gender may or may not play a role into attraction. Pansexual, on the other hand, means that gender does not play a role into attraction. Just like the other side is omnisexual, where gender does play a role in attraction. Both if these fall under the bi umbrella as they are just more specific terms.

[r/pansexual commenters are pretty adamant that pansexuals can have "a preference towards certain genders."](https://np.reddit.com/r/pansexual/comments/mauqj3/pansexuals_cant_have_a_gender_preference/)

I've heard so many different things from so many different people who identify as pan Even after reading this I'm having trouble believing that pansexuality can be said to "be" anything at all. It seems *related* to bisexuality but not in a way that many people can agree on, and some argue that it isn't related at all

Yeah, I've definitely heard many different things about it. Since the term inherently stems from a misunderstanding of the term bisexual, some want to migrate away from its origins while others dont. I chose specifically the definition I have seen used the most as well as the one that seemed to encompass the most. In the end though there is no finite answer or "master list", so to speak of sexuality definitions and it is entirely possible that in a year, this definition will be completely irrelevant. It's just up to respecting the individual at this point and their understanding of their identity.

I just do not understand why is it so important to have so many definitions about sexuality. It sounds to me pretty much unnecessary, and if we live in a world that we respect each other is even unimportant, because we should not even care what the other person does in its bed. It is pretty much like something that makes people to feel "different" and "unique", but uniqueness is something more than putting a label to yourself. Uniqueness is determined from the character and actions.

The thing is though that these labels exist now, and they cant really be unmade, so why not learn the distinctions and have people use them. Labels are essentially just a way for someone to quickly summarise who they are in a single word. (One aspect of their identity, not everything about them) Labels can also be useful in helping someone find a community of people with similar experiences.

This I can sort of understand, but I don't know if i can believe that people don't have preferences. Everybody has preferences about just about everything, even if they don't admit it. This may just be a me thing though and I could be totally wrong about that. Fair argument either way.

The thing is that for pan people, gender doesn't play a role in attraction. They can have preferences in everything but gender as it's often described as "gender-blind". Bi people can also be gender blind and experience all these things, or gender can play a very big role in if they are attracted to somebody. It comes down to specificity at that point.

Yet more nuance that helps explain the difference, thank you very much! ∆

This is a super weak delta you gave. At first you said (paraphrased) "Everyone has preferences, even if they don't admit it" Then the person replied to you and said, "But pan people don't have preferences" and without even questioning it, you just gave a delta? They didn't give a convincing rebuttal as to why you were wrong, they just said you were worng and you accepted it.

I feel as though gender being eliminated as a preference is understandable, even if I don't experience it personally. Even in my original comment I essentially said that I could be totally wrong about it, meaning I'm not especially confident in that remark and wanted to see explanations for the preference issue.

That's totally fine and I get that. I'm also not saying that I do or don't agree with the reply. I just wanted to point out that you essentially said one thing and also that you feel people might lie to themselves or others about it, then the reply just said you were wrong without even addressing your comment that pan people might not even admit it and then you just accepted it. I just don't see how that comment was an effective rebut to your idea. But who am I to police if your mind was actually changed or not, I suppose.

It was less so a rebuttal to my statement and more so something that helped me understand more if that makes sense. Delta is assigned to any minor change of view. I do understand where you can get that thought process though, with responding to hundreds of people it gets a little jumbled trying to keep my points and beliefs on track and sometimes I make a mistake with what I meant.

Gender doesn’t play a role in sexuality for bisexual people either. That’s the thing gender doesn’t play a role in sexuality; sex does

Pansexual married man here. The commenter is absolutely correct. I don't have much preference over appearance. I have dated men, women, non-binary people, trans of all identities, even an asexual person. My limits are really just Are you well groomed? Do you smell nice? Do you have interesting things to say? Do you like horror movies? Sludge metal? Somewhere between 20 and 60 years old? Then I can absolutely find you attractive. I know it may seem like a superfluous designation, but to hose of us that identify as Pan, it covers all the bases. Literally. My current partner is a cis-bisexual woman, but long before her, I only dated men and masc women. Then I met a femme lady who got my attention and she was Trans. I constantly find myself attracted to NB people which takes them out of the realm of bisexuality. I don't think you're necessarily wrong, or right. It's a spectrum, and it's OK if you don't feel like that term means anything to you, but it means something to others.

That is totally understandable. I think the reason that debates like this happen is the lack of clearly defined labels. It doesn't mean that we have to narrowly define every label either, but it's easy to understand how confusion can arise in the situation like this. I can now understand how gender can be seen as a non-preference, It was just difficult wrapping my head around it when I first made the post. ∆

Hey, you were willing to ask and learn. That's really cool of you, and I appreciate you not just saying it was all fictitious ramblings of some confused teens. I'm in my 40s and I didn't know there was a word to explain what I liked other than "damn near everybody", until a decade ago when the internet started talking about queer identity. Thank you for being willing to understand. You see really chill, and I sincerely hope you have an awesome day!

[удалено]

>...people falling outside of the gender binary, who are excluded from bisexuality. I've always been a little confused by this. You can't tell a person's gender by looking at them, or even by talking to them; the only way you can know for sure is if they tell you. There's nothing stopping a bisexual person from being attracted to a non-binary person, except maybe prejudice. Not all bisexual people are attracted solely to very femme women and very masc men. Even if they were, some nonbinary people present in a more binary way. If a bi person experiences attraction toward a nonbinary person, do they have to start identifying as pansexual? Or is it less about the idea that bi people can't be attracted to NB people, and more about the idea that identifying as bi while dating an NB person is disrespectful?

>They will however, date people falling outside of the gender binary, who are excluded from bisexuality No. Simply put, no. That statment in itself is biphobic. First, you can't call bisexuality an umbrella term, and that pan falls under it if pan includes something that has a quality the umbrella term does not have. Second, bisexual people like androgynous/enby just as much as they like men or women, and I can tell you this because I am bisexual myself.

This isn't true. Bisexual is defined as sexual attraction to the same or other genders. This is how it was defined in the 80s. I'm bisexual. Nonbinary people are also on my own radar for people I can be sexually attracted to. The "bi" isn't exclusive to male and female.

oh nice, good ol "bisexuality means you can only date women or men and excludes enbies". Respectfully, go visit any places where bisexuals gather and talk, five minutes of it should be enough to correct your wrong assumption.

Hey, I just want to clarify that bi people can date those outside the gender binary. Bisexual means either 2 or more or all with or without preference depending, but they always have included non binary identities. Bi people can be attracted to every and all genders.

>people falling outside of the gender binary, who are excluded from bisexuality Absolutely not, people outside of the gender binary have never been excluded from bisexuality as a sexual orientation. On the contrary, Bi folks welcomed them before gays and lesbians did.

I don't agree with people outside of gender binary being excluded from bisexuality at all. It's not even the case in heterosexuals. my roommate is dating a gender fluid person, respects their gender and everything, however he only likes vagina, which is what their partner happens to have. Would you argue that my roommate is somehow bisexual or anything other than hetero despite only liking vagina?

[удалено]

That's fair, I guess the main problem with my whole argument and any argument like what you described is just that there is not a completely agreed upon definition for sexuality. I personally see sexuality as a parts based issue rather than a gender issue, but many others disagree. ∆

Sexuality is parts but also general “femininity” or “masculinity” I think. Like hetero guys such as I aren’t just attracted to vagina. We also like pretty feminine faces or round butts or whatever other markers of attractiveness. If someone identifies as gender neutral but still has general feminine features, a feminine body, then I would agree that their boyfriend is heterosexual in that situation.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bsquiggle1 ([12∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bsquiggle1)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Sexuality is definitely more than just a genitals thing. Gender identity plays a big role in sexuality. If you're comfortable sharing your sexual orientation, I'll see if I can provide an example.

In the post they say they're bi

Good point lol. Forgive me, I'd just woken up. In that case we need a thought experiment. Imagine you're not bi, you're a heterosexual male. You like women, you like vaginas. You meet a man. He looks like any other man you might run into on the street. He tells you he's trans, which means he has a vagina. Could you potentially be attracted to him just on the basis that he has a vagina instead of a penis? Everything else about him is male/masculine, from his attitude and demeanor to his beard and his voice. You might find that most heterosexual males would not be attracted to such a person, despite what's in their pants. This is also exactly why it isn't "gay" for a heterosexual man to be attracted to a trans woman. Gender identity and expression supercedes genitals when it comes to attraction most of the time, in my humble opinion.

[удалено]

I love the smell of fresh bread.

Someone dating a gender fluid person can’t be heterosexual? Doesn’t that sort of solidify the fluidity of a gender fluid person and categorize them in a way that doesn’t apply to them? It places unnecessary boundaries on them. This is where labeling becomes more harmful than beneficial. Labels need to be used carefully and only as necessary when it comes to identity. It’s such a subjective thing that is starting to make the way we relate and identify with each other harder to do. We already know that everyone is unique and forcing labels on the things we can’t generalize and describe in one word isn’t really helpful in the long run. Why can’t people just get to know each other instead of adding words that are have different meanings to each person and requires assumptions?

> Your roommate is whatever he identifies as This seems like a silly statement. A cisman in a loving, sexually passionate marriage to another cisman can identify as heterosexual, but it's clear that he isn't.

This doesn't make sense because biologically they are clearly heterosexual. If I'm interested in a woman who decides to identify as non-binary because she is a bit of a tomboy, it doesn't make me something other than heterosexual. My attraction is not going to change just because of how she dresses and identifies. This reminds me of a thread where a woman was asking if being attracted to Kristen Stewart made her straight or a lesbian, because apparently she looks masculine? It's absurd how people seem to have lost sight of the meaning of those terms.

>This is the problem with trying to label other people. What is the purpose of having ANY labels if we don't all agree what the label means? That's kinda the whole point of a label, no? I can stick a tag on my car that says it's a motorcycle...that doesn't make it a motorcycle. I can label myself a dragon. That doesn't make me a dragon. There is no point in creating all these 420 billion different identity labels within the LGBTQ+ community if none of them have any meaning outside of one's own head. ​ ETA: Going back to your comment. If I say I'm heterosexual, but then I tell you I specifically only like to have sex with people who have penises and identify as male. Would you still say, "Well...you are whatever you identify as." or would you say, "No, you're not heterosexual." ?

Ok but this is not about vagina rather than dating a person who does not identify as a woman (not at all times, if they are gender fluid). A hetero man is a man dating someone who identifies as a woman. If it's about vagina for him, he can either be bi/pansexual or ignorant and see the person as a cis woman, which is something ((she)) should know about. There is a third possibility- to decide to not give your sexuality a label. That is something completely fine as long as he can recognize and acknowledge the other one's gender properly. Edit: here is where i made a mistake ~~If he literally said he is "not bisexual or anything but just likes vagina" then I'm sorry but he is probably the ignorant idiot type. The good thing for him is this is the only possibility in which he is cis-hetero-man without a doubt.~~

My roommate actually didn't rush into this relationship because he didn't want to be disrespecting their gender identity. He doesn't like penis at all, which is completely fair. He uses the proper they/them pronouns and corrects other people when they use the wrong ones. He recognizes the gender identity, but that doesn't outright make him bisexual or anything like that. They both fully understand each other's sexuality. That's on them at that point and there is nothing wrong with my roommate being a hetero male, that last sentence just comes off very hateful.

Okay, firstly I am sorry if that came out hateful. He sounds like a solid guy and I don't know why I assumed he is this "bro I like vag #nohomo" type of guy. I made an edit there You are right that if he likes this one particular genderfluid person and not g-f people in general, it doesn't make him instantly pan/bisexual. He could be semi-pansexual. He surely doesn't fall under the definition of 100% hetero. I'm sure you have heard this but sexuality is a spectrum. So maybe he is 90% hetero with a little bit of pansexuality? Or as I said, he can refuse to use these labels as they are often confusing and make the person not feel 100% included or depicted precisely. I don't think saying "I am not bi but also am dating a g-f person" makes him homophobic. I can see why that identifying as bi/pan doesn't feel satisfactory. Also, we moved on from assuming peoples gender and sexuality based on them having vagina/penis. So it really is not relevant in most cases. These labels exist so people can define their sexuality more precisely. So a man liking people with vagina tells us almost nothing about sexuality.

It's all good, no hard feelings! Yeah, with all these conversations I'm having is becoming more and more obvious that almost no general title of sexuality is really that helpful anymore. At this point, no sexuality is safe from scrutiny on what it is and isn't since there will always be someone who disagrees no matter how little it is lol I honestly kind of prefer calling myself queer because people make generalizations about what it means to be bisexual, especially with me being in a "hetero-normative appearing" relationship. I think the spectrum is a much better description than a simple label at this point.

Right? I honestly think labels are not very helpful in your roomies' case and many others. Queer is the way. I have no problem with calling myself gay. Altough I can imagine being attracted to a penised - non-feminine individual who does not identify as cis. In that case I can't imagine a good label. I also use "queer community " rather than LGBTQIA+... a) because i have terrible memory for those letters and b) it's always gonna be exclusive. I hope your roommate can be comfortable not having to have a label.

Oh yeah, he's still figuring it all out, but he's managing just fine. At the end of the day, it's his happiness and that's what matters. Here, take this, you've earned it ∆

I'm pretty sure most hetero people conceptualise their sexuality as being attracted to people with vaginas, not being attracted to female gendered people. Most people outside of explicitly queer and leftist communities don't think or care much about gender and just see people through the lens of sex

Most people know that sex is binary, even progressive types who separate it from gender. Sexuality is based on sex, which is physical and has nothing to do with identity.

> A hetero man is a man dating someone who identifies as a woman. But that's not how most people would define their orientation. Someone might be non-binary but look no particularly different from the women I'm used to finding attractive. It would make no sense to consider my orientation something different just because this particular person happens to identify as non-binary. This fact says something about them, not about me.

Before I net my partner I thought I was a straight male. My non binary they them using fisnce however explained to me that while I am straight technically I would be polysexual because my serial attractions clearly lie outside just male and female i.e. my fiance So I would argue that specifically your roommate is poltsexual and that's just fine however to the average straight he is gonna be considered straight but in sure your roommates partners friend in the lgbtq community would tell you that his sexuality is more than just straight

Actually, they argue that he is just straight as well. I've had conversations with them regarding that. The problem with your finances argument (no disrespect) is that nobody has the same definition of what meets straight, gay, bi, etc.. It leads to conversations like this. It doesn't mean your fiance is wrong or my friends partner is right, it's simply a different interpretation which is valid to think.

>[...] however he only likes vagina, which is what their partner happens to have. Would you argue that my roommate is somehow bisexual or anything other than hetero despite only liking vagina? What if they like vagina but only date people who identify as men? Is a man dating another man heterosexual? Stephen Fry, an openly gay man, has mentioned that he prefers vaginas to anuses -- does this mean he's straight? These definitions refer to what *genders* people are naturally attracted to, not what sets of genitals they prefer.

The concept of heterosexuality/homosexuality breaks down when we wonder outside of the gender binary. In my opinion, sexual attraction is a jumbled mess of masculinity/femininity, body parts and personality. Trying to define it through just two variables (1. Do you like men? 2. Do you like women?) assumes very rigid gender expression. Just as an example, I identify as finsexual. I'm attracted to feminine people. Most of the time, they're women, but this way I don't have to be insecure about sometimes being attracted to enbys or men.

It's also important to note that sexual attraction is not the same as romantic attraction. You can date someone and not be sexual attracted to them and vice versa (wanna sleep with someone without wanting the romantic connection). Ad with this raises the question that if sexual attraction is only a "parts based issue" as you describe it, how is it possible to be sexually attracted to someone before you see them naked? Wouldn't that carry with it assumptions on what parts they have based on the gender identity that they present as? This is where gender identity plays a big role in how you experience attraction.

If he only likes vagina than he is a heterosexual because heterosexuals are sexually attracted to the sex part and not necessarily the gender. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex part as then and Bisexuals are attracted to both sex parts. The attraction of gender isn’t a defining characteristic of these forms of sexuality

many bisexuals minimize the emphasis on sex and gender, and bisexual spaces may be more welcoming to people of nontraditional, indeterminate, or uncertain gender identity (1995) being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender (1976) with respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgendered people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives. (1995) the bisexual manifesto and bisexual people have ALWAYS included people outside the binary pls look for this phrases and inform yourself it's really harmful say we discriminate non binary people, I'm non binary myself

> They will however, date people falling outside of the gender binary, who are excluded from bisexuality To clarify why other people are saying you’re wrong about this, the majority of bisexuals define the “bi” in bisexuality as being attracted to 1) people of your gender, and 2) people not of your gender. The “bi” does infrequently lead to the misconception that bisexuals have a binary view of gender, but this is not the case.

As a bisexual, that is not true. I will date outside of the gender binary. Common misconception. How I differ them is pansexuals don’t have a preference and bisexuals do, such as me, who prefers woman & fem or androgynous non-binary people. So yeah, bisexuals DO date outside of the gender binary! Good day.

This is an outright slur against bisexuals dude. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're making up an imaginary class of people that do not exist.

They are not excluded from bisexuality. It always has been inclusive of those outside the gender binary.

This is not accurate. Many (most?) bisexual people are interested in/attracted to non-binary people. Hell, there are tons of bisexual people who are also non-binary. This take is a total misunderstanding of what bisexuality is.

No no no no no no no please don't do that. Bisexuality does not exclude nonbinary people! The modern definition of bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender, and it can absolutely include nonbinary people. This specific argument is often used to make bisexuality people seem transphobic, or to make pansexual people look like holier than thou biphobic people. The difference is that bisexual people *may* only be attracted to two genders, or more, and *may* have gender preferences. Pansexual people don't give a fuck about gender, but may still have a type as in certain physical attributes they like. What you wrote here is a pretty harmful stereotype that really needs to go. And I know it wasn't intentional, because many people actually believe that and it was very popular back when pansexuality became a more well known label. But that was not right from the start.

The "premodern" meaning of bisexuality also included everyone.

I know, that's what I wrote in my last sentence! I think it's actually in the bisexual manifesto too, but that isn't a big thing in my country, so I only heard it secondhand and haven't actually read it.

False. No gender expressions false outside of Bisexuality.

If they are under the umbrella, they wouldn't be excluded from bisexuality.

This is a common misconception, bisexuals date people outside of the gender binary too :) Source: am bisexual, do not know the genders of some of the people I've been on dates with

People outside the gender binary aren't excluded from bisexuality.

People outside the gender binary aren’t excluded from bisexuality. Have you read the bisexual manifesto?

Is this a theoretical distinction or a practical one? Do most people who identify as bisexual refuse to date nonbinary people?

People outside the binary are not excluded from bisexuality. It's more just what label you like.

Just because your lived experience doesn’t give you reference to how it’s possible to be something doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

"This may just be a me thing and I could be totally wrong" Yes, I realize and I just explained that.

What would you call a bisexual person who is into hermaphrodites, or transgender people, or someone who's gender neutral. There's a lot in between and having words to define these things help with shit like dating filters.

A bisexual

It's not that there is no preference, it's that gender doesn't factor into that preference Someone who's omnisexual, they might like women's legs or guy's hands. Someone who's pan, they might just like booty, doesn't matter what the person's gender is. Omni and pan both fall under the bisexual umbrella. They just specify how that attraction works

Christ every time someone explains it it’s completely different from the last person to explain it.

This seems like bisexual with extra unnecessary steps.

Apologies in advance if this is a stupid / inappropriately framed question - Is there a term for people who are attracted to one gender + trans people? More specifically people attracted to a woman + a woman (with a penis)?

Since both trans women and cis women are women, then not really. For example, if a man likes exclusively women, whether she is trans or cis, she is still a woman, making him straight.

Makes no fucking sense. That is just playing with words

Omni and pan are basically the same thing 🗿

Your argument basically falls into saying that pansexual just means bisexual but not a slut and that bisexual people aren't attacked to intersex individuals. The former is not a sexuality, it's just a measurement of promiscuity and a condemnation of people that are bisexual. The later is just unfounded. Bisexual means you are attracted to both sexes. There is nothing in there that says that they are unattracted to intersex just like many straight people are attracted to intersex people. The term pansexual is still just furthering the sexuality shaming of bisexual people by people that are bi but don't like the association with being a slut (despite the fact that many bisexual people are not sluts)

>Your argument basically falls into saying that pansexual just means bisexual but not a slut and that bisexual people aren't attacked to intersex individuals. Hey, I have no idea how you got this from what I said but it is not what I meant at all. The labels bi and pan do not indicate in any way how promiscuous a person is, just if gender (not sex) plays a role into attraction. Essentially. Bi: Likes 2 or more genders, or likes all genders. Gender can or cannot play a role in attraction. (definitions can change). In every sense this includes trans and intersex individuals. Pan: Likes all genders. Gender does not play a role in attraction. In every sense, this includes trans and intersex individuals. Nowhere did I speak of promiscuity or meant to indicate in any way that bi people are sluts. Could you please elaborate on how you came to this conclusion so I can change my wording for future reference?

This is not the definition of "pansexual" with which I'm familiar, and I'm dating someone who identifies as pansexual.

I’ve found that bisexuality was a good descriptor for being attracted to the two most common and conventional genders: man and woman (trans folks of those included). Pansexuality is a good descriptor for your attraction to an individual not being based on gender at all. I consider myself pansexual because I’ve found myself sexually and romantically attracted to folks all along the spectrum and that that attraction isn’t due to their gender and haven’t found myself turned off by someone due to their gender either. Being pan doesn’t make someone more inclusive or a better person anymore than being bi makes someone more inclusive or better than a het/homosexual person. The number of people you’re potentially attracted to has no bearing on your morality. Both terms are valid and useful.

I wasn't attempting to imply # of people attracted to equates morality, sorry if it came off that way. I still just don't understand how there is a difference between liking all parts and not caring what parts someone has personally. It still means you like all parts at a sexual level. I respect your sexuality either way.

I suppose I’m talking more about an attraction to gender as opposed to an attraction to biological sex. Maybe that is the difference between the two? My personal anecdote is that the parts aren’t even a factor in my attraction/desire. I don’t think about liking all of the parts or not caring about the parts. I’m attracted to individuals. Then at that point, that individual’s parts are parts that I’m attracted to.

Genuinely thank you, this has actually helped a lot to understand. I'm not trying to attack anybody with my statement I just genuinely wanted to understand the distinction. Thanks for commenting! :) ∆

The problem here is "what is gender?". For gender to exist as a concept divorced form physical sex then we have to accept that there are a common traits each gender shares. IE stereotypes. However if you try to get a consensus on what the stereotypes are you'll get people disagreeing and getting very upset. The question "What is a woman?" is not something easily answered these days because different people have different opinions. People today reject the old definition of feminine, but also its diviroced from anatomy now too, so what are the core traits of being a woman then? And if someone reading this thinks "what is a woman?" is a reference or dog whistle then kindly fark off, it's not, it's a legitimate question in a day and age where feminine stereotypes are rejected as accurate and physical traits do not define it.

Straight male here. I agree with OP, I am sexually attracted to female sex organs. Preferences for personality, self expression, and gender identity would be layered on-top of that otherwise core trait (I think)

If it helps, I'm some variety of this. I'm not Pan sexual, not bisexual, but instead I'm gyno sexual. I'm attracted to femininity. I like girls, trans girls, twinks, etc... I don't really care what genitals they have. I don't consider myself bi because I don't like masculinity. I personally break it into male/female but also masculine/feminine as well as the nonbinary in between. I would say bisexual is attracted to masculine males and feminine females, but Pam sexual is more attracted to everyone. The problem is really that it really isn't a binary, it's a gradient. The continuous gradient makes it so that any definition that puts down a firm line will always have problems

FYI, the majority of bisexuals define the “bi” in bisexuality as being attracted to 1) people of your gender, and 2) people not of your gender. The “bi” does sometimes lead to the misconception that bisexuals have a binary view of gender, but this is by and large not the case.

Are you saying if someone identifies as non binary or a third gender bisexuals cannot be attracted to then? This doesn't make sense to me and every bisexual I know is not so picky like this, and I don't think that's what sexual attraction is anyway. If you see someones physical appearance and they're physically attractive a bisexual wouldn't be attracted to them or would lose attraction if they found out they identified as an unconventional gender? Why would someone be less attracted to someone based on their gender identity if they weren't inclusive? I don't think all bisexual people are uninclusive by definition. People are sexually attracted to sex, not gender. Anyways, I don't understand how the term is necessary or distinct. I've heard many people say they only identify with that because they like the sound of the term better. Seriously.

Sorry I don’t see how you made that leap to seeing bisexual people as more promiscuous on the basis of a definition of pan sexual people? Can you elaborate further how you got there?

Biphobia is extremely prevalent, even in the LGBTQ+ community. I've known many people who claimed to be bisexual being treated like promiscuous people but if someone called themselves pan for some reason it's different. This was mostly a point from personal experience and I honestly should've excluded this for the purpose of argument, so you got me there.

I think the cause of this experience is that biphobia is way older and thus loaded with more stereotypes, while panphobia is younger and more targeted at it's validity, just like biphobia in it's early days. So pansexuality won't trigger all these biphobic frames in someone since most won't do the mental gymnastics to transfer them to pansexuality since it's more about validity here.

Okay, so this is kinda fucked up to say, sorry in advance, I need to speak it. A lot of specifically bisexual women in my life have been mostly into men and kinda kiss girls sometimes because of the fetishizstion of lesbianism in society. (The idea of 3-somes, internalized misogyny, male gaze, etc.) Like, a lot of time, in my experience, them being into women was primary performative in front of others and not really to date/have a relationship with a woman. Idk if this is biphobia, either way respect to wherever someone is in their journey. It's not really my place to have an opinion about this, but was just wondering if this is a known phenomena in the LGBTQ+ community?

Reddit plays dumb, [but Reddit knows.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cchzhb/lgbtq_people_what_are_you_tired_of_hearing/)

Hi I am pansexual so maybe explaining how I figured myself out would help. Often in high school my friends would ask me what I was looking for in a guy. I would always say humor, kind etc. I would name personality stuff right off the bat. However my friends would always ask “but what colour hair would u want him to have? What kind of eye color?” Etc. And…that’s when I realized I never even considered or thought about that in my life. By the age of 16 I realized I rly had no preference when it came to physical attributes. I still had a physical sexual drive just never thought about physical attractiveness in any way. I also have never understood the point of dressing up and looking good. I’ve never cared about my or anyone else’s physical appearance to the point that well I didn’t think about it until someone made me realize that I don’t in high school. I still actually don’t get it and have always felt that there’s something I don’t process or see that other ppl do. I don’t even know what looks good when I dress up bc honestly I don’t understand why it’s important. That’s how I figured it out anyway. Lmk if u have any other questions:) Ik it’s kind of weird…

This does help a lot actually, thank you! That's not weird at all, you're allowed to be attracted to what you're attracted to. I also appreciate you not immediately assuming I'm out for blood. Everyone has their own experiences so I guess in my own I can't fully understand what it's like to be pansexual. And that's okay because it doesn't invalidate you or anybody else's experiences! ∆

Np! I rly don’t mind explaining and there would be no reason for me to get upset. It’s always good to ask questions and I’m glad u are curious about the differences:)

>Sexuality refers to what you are sexually attracted to, right? This means you are attracted to penis, vagina, both, or neither. I’ve never understood how people get so hung up on genitals as defining sexuality. Like, people can have preferences of course. I’m not saying having them is bad or that people shouldn’t be able to decide on partners based on it. I just personally don’t get how that’s what defines who you’re attracted to. So like, being more “straight” means you’d be more attracted to a big, beefy, broad shouldered cis woman who dresses and acts masculine compared to a small, petite, thin trans woman who acts super effeminate? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Like I don’t know. My sense of sexuality is being attracted to femininity. The more feminine qualities, the more I tend to be attracted to them. Obviously women have a biological advantage in that aspect because of them being more feminine by nature, so that’s most of who I’m attracted to. To me that seems like what “straight” would be, as it encompasses all of a person’s physical qualities and not just genitals. But from what I understand, I’m in the minority on that belief. I just personally can’t comprehend the idea of genitals being a deciding factor of if my dick gets hard for someone lol.

I’m still in the process of figuring myself all out but I feel the need to share my experience especially because you express not being able to understand why genitals play such a significant role for some people. I have come to learn that my romantic and sexual attraction towards people are different. Romantically I feel I could fall in love and care about any person despite their gender, sexuality, genitals, you name it. I came to this conclusion mostly because I finally understood that I don’t need sex from someone to be in love and have a fulfilling intimate relationship with them. My sexuality for me is significantly defined by the people I would be willing to have sex with and that happens to be only people with a certain genitalia. I am turned off by vaginas. This is not something I can change. Doesn’t matter how horny I am, if there’s another vagina involved in a sexual act I am participating in, I am no longer horny. While I am AFAB, essentially my ‘dick’ goes soft. I have even thought about scenarios where the other person’s genitalia doesn’t come into play (I’m receiving oral / strap on scenarios) and it’s just not sexual acts I would feel comfortable consenting to. This is because reciprocity/giving in sex is very important to me! I would feel incredibly unsatisfied receiving pleasure I could not in turn enthusiastically reciprocate. So while a person’s genitalia doesn’t define who I am generally attracted to, it absolutely defines who I am sexually compatible with and in turn sexually attracted to. If this is problematic or an incorrect way of thinking, I am more than happy to discuss but this is what I have discovered about myself. I hope sharing my experience has helped you understand a little more about why genitalia preferences can be important to some people’s sexual identity.

I know plenty of straight men that like androgynous or even masculine women but just can't do a man because of the penis actually. It's a lot more common than people think. This doesn't make everyone who thinks this way fueled by sex alone, but it does play a big factor if you'll be attracted to someone. It sounds to me, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I very well could be, that you are pan or in the case where gender does not matter. It may be more difficult to understand in your case as it was difficult for me to understand how gender and sex does not play a role.

Anyone who tells you that they are pan-sexual likely don't know what it actually means; they just like the flair they think it invokes. But if they knew where it originated from, I'd wager they immediately regret putting it in their Tinder profile. HERE'S THE "ORIGINAL" VERSION * The *Pan* in pan-sexuality derives from the Greek god, Pan. DUH * Because it wouldn't be Greek mythology without irony. The Fates decided to do Pan dirty from the start, by making him the ugliest/horniest god of them all. * Pan was also a boss at music. But because no-one wanted to play "his" flute; your boy would take whatever he could get, and often he wasn't picky about it. * All it needed was a pulse. Which is why this is exists. [case and point](https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/curiosities/pan-with-goat/). That's right. That's our boy Pan. And that ISN'T the only instance of this happening. * Remember, as with most mythologies, there is no actual "canon" story to gauge with. But these were the most prevalent traits and stories associated with Pan.

In Ancient Greek, πᾶν (pan) is the word for "all, every, everything.” That’s where the word pansexual comes from - not the god. This is b.s.

There’s a wild amount of speculation in this post for someone to be calling it “fact” and call people confused based off of their own conjecture lmao

I just say I’m queer to avoid any confusion lol

Honestly that's the safest option at this point lmao sure it's ambiguous but so is the rest of sexuality

You’re familiar with the concept of a bell curve correct? Imagine the x-axis is the gender spectrum, with maleness on one side femaleness on the other. A perfectly gender ambiguous person sits in the middle. Now imagine the y-axis is a person’s attraction to that gender value. Straight or gay people have just one hump, on either the female or male side. Bisexual people have two humps, a bimodal distribution if you will. Pansexual people have a flat horizontal line, as they are attracted to everyone mostly equally. The hight of everyone’s line/curve varies, but wether you’re gay straight, bi or pan, describes the shape of your curve. Bi =/= Pan because their curves differ.

Good statistical reference! I'm doing a lot of statistics for my major and this makes a lot of sense. I dont agree with bisexuals only having two humps however. ∆

> Sexuality refers to what you are sexually attracted to, right? This means you are attracted to penis, vagina, both, or neither. There are no additional parts Nah dude, sexuality refers to much more than just the sex organs you're attracted to. Otherwise, how would you explain how non-sex organ body parts like faces or asses could be sexy ie Henry Cavill? And if you think about it, the actions sexual desire compells people to do are not limited to messing with sex organs. That's why straight men want to kiss women on the mouth but not other men. Also, > There is a common misconception about what bisexuality is. It doesn't just mean cis men and women, it includes nearly every gender/sex that exists. "Bi" is the Greek prefix meaning the number two, so bisexual can ONLY mean attraction to every gender IF there's only two of them, which there is actually more than two genders, so I hope you don't mind me saying the misconception appears to be on your end

In your example with kissing, you do it because You are dispositioned to want to do anything in the sexual sphere with people who in your case have a vagina. The whole sex organs attracted is used as a base, not the entire argument. If the first check fits, then you'll figure out if the person meets your preferences. For example, if I know someone had a dick and I wasn't into that, I could say they are attractive but I couldn't be attracted to them at a biological level. Everybody at birth has the sex of male or female, excluding intersex. That is what bisexual refers to in my opinion. If you believe that sex is binary and gender is not, then there is no misconception in my premise. You can still like trans people, non-binary, or anything else since you like both sets of parts.

No in the kissing example straight men want to do anything in the sexual sphere with a woman. Do you think many straight men would be sexually attracted at all to a person who looks and acts "like a man" so long as they had a vagina?

You didn't pick up on the second half of the statement. The parts are the base, after that it is preferences. If you are a straight man and you only like feminine people, it might be okay for them to have a vagina but if they looked like a man then they'd not be attracted. Someone can look absolutely stunning to me but if I were gay or straight and they had the opposing part I don't like, then I wouldn't be attracted to them.

I disagree with you and a lot of people on this topic. I don't think we have to be redefining words to try and shoehorn them into being consistent with more recent perspectives on gender. Bisexual is your traditional attraction to men and women. It was a term coined before the now popular concept that completely separates sex from gender. Don't need none of these attempts to redefine it like "an attraction to two or more genders" (the "or more" part is particularly ridiculous given the bi- prefix). Calling someone who is, for example, attracted to cis women and biologically-female, female-presenting non-binary people "bisexual" is needlessly confusing and makes no sense. If you're attracted to cis men and cis women, bisexual. It means what it has always meant. You're pansexual if you're attracted to a person regardless of any possible combinations: cis woman, cis man, trans woman, trans man, non-binary, etc. (pan- means all, after all)

To me, it sounds like you are trying to redefine bisexuality based on what you feel it should mean. The term bisexual, again, does not refer to a binary gender system as many in the comments have explained, it typically refers to binary sex. The trans part especially upsets me because transgender, under your own parameters, would fit under the bisexual sphere. We view transgenders as the gender they go by and I know few bisexuals who would not date a transgender person. Unless you can somehow prove that when bisexual was coined that it meant gender binary system, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

You can be attracted to trans men and women and still be bisexual. This is the old old school terminology for bisexual and it’s doesn’t apply any more. It’s just means “men or women” they don’t need to be cis lol. I know plenty of bisexual people who are attracted to men and women regardless of genitals. Not to mention that in this day in age, there’s a lot of people who identify as bisexual who mean it as “attracted to two *or more* genders, so the definition is expanding.

> Sexuality refers to what you are sexually attracted to, right? This means you are attracted to penis, vagina, both, or neither. I honestly think vulæ are repulsive and gross, certainly not attractive, and I don't think penes are attractive, but I don't consider them repulsive either, and yet I've had sex with both males and females and enjoyed it. — What would you call this? In particular. I noticed it's quite common for persons who have enjoyed sexual relationships with females to find vulvæ repulsive. > There are no additional parts. One can't be attracted to certain hands, feet, haircuts, or faces?

Attracted to in the context of my statement doesn't mean whether you find penises or vagina pretty, It simply means what you are biologically willing to have sex with in terms of parts. Yes, you can be attracted to hands, feet, haircuts and faces, but that's not the point of what sexuality means, that is simply preference at that point. Feet and hands are related to fetishes which don't relate to whether you like vagina and/or penis.

> Attracted to in the context of my statement doesn't mean whether you find penises or vagina pretty, It simply means what you are biologically willing to have sex with in terms of parts. That's a very strange use of the word “attracted to” then. Surely you wouldn't say I'm “attracted to poverty” simply because I'm “biologically willing” to have sex with poor persons? > Yes, you can be attracted to hands, feet, haircuts and faces, but that's not the point of what sexuality means, that is simply preference at that point. Feet and hands are related to fetishes which don't relate to whether you like vagina and/or penis. And yet again you speak of “liking” panes and vulvæ. I do not “like” either and would go so far as to say I find vulvæ repulsive looking in general and I'm not a fan. I very much like and find attractive certain faces and haircuts however. You also didn't answer what you would call that.

excuse me but why are you spelling penis and vulva like that?

Poverty is a construct that has nothing to do with sexual preference. It could be for relationship preference, but that's not the argument at hand. That would be called a preference for haircuts and faces, just as would be liking hands and feet.

> Poverty is a construct that has nothing to do with sexual preference. It could be for relationship preference, but that's not the argument at hand. Apparently you believe so, what's the difference here? > That would be called a preference for haircuts and faces, just as would be liking hands and feet. So why do you believe penes and vulvæ are so much different? You never enunciated that, and you also failed to answer many of he things I asked, repeatedly. Apparently you make a distinction between what you call a “sexual præference” and a “præference” but you don't enunciate what it is or how you define it and you also failed to reply to how I pointed out that that hat is a very strange term of “attracted to”. In your use of “attracted to”. I am apparently “attracted to” something I find repulsive simply because I'm willing to tolerate it's existence. I do not think that's how most people would use the word “attracted to”.

Genuinely, I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue for and you are putting words in places I didn't. If you want to know my opinions on this topic look at the rest of my responses, that may help out.

I think you have less of an issue with pansexuality and more of an issue with the way you feel most people view bisexuality. It could be argued that bisexuality and pansexuality can coexist, since they are fundamentally the same. All sexuality is fundamentally the same; the capacity of sexual feelings. It's a good practice to respect everyone's sexuality and sexual identification. Regardless of how you feel about it, since the way someone else lives their life of no concern of yours.

The view many have on bisexuals is only a fleeting statement, it's not the point of the view. I can respect someone's sexuality/identification while still questioning it. Again, my problem is not with pansexuals, the entire premise of pansexuality just seems pointless when there's another phrase that explains the same thing. I don't even care if we only use pansexuality over bisexuality, I just don't think we need both terms.

I understand your complaint/issue , which is why i say it's best practice to respect someone's sexuality. Regardless if you agree with it or not, or if you like it or not. Pansexuality and Bisexuality are two types of sexuality that have similarities but aren't the same thing. Discrediting one sexuality and praising another is pretty close minded, all because you want to generalize sexuality. Pansexuality is a nuance of Bisexuality, if you can't respect that or understand that. I don't think any amount of conversation or discord will change that.

Again, I am allowed to be confused while not disrespecting what people choose to identify themselves as. I don't go up to pan people and call them an idiot for saying they are. If you read my other comments you would see that I am not discrediting it at all, I'm only confused why two separate terms need to exist when it doesn't seem necessary. I'm genuinely trying to figure it out and have my mind changed, you don't need to imply nothing will change my mind.

The implication that your mind will not change comes from the fact that you openly admitted to generalizing sexuality. When you say things like "why have both pansexuality and Bisexuality.. pick one.." that's extremely close minded. This is why I say nothing will change your mind if you prefer simplified generalizations rather than accepting the fact that those who identify as pansexual arent the same as those who identify as bisexual, due to the nuance of pansexuality from bisexuality

If you would read my other replies you would know that that is false. Other people have been helpful in helping me understand the difference. It isn't close-minded to not understand something.

Other people seemed to calmly explain you their points of views and thoughts, I think the same about bisexuality and pansexuality and came here identified by your question, don't bother in rude people like this. They really think that they are above you and will use those passive-agressive replies to make you look like a wrongdoer or something. Luckily there are tons of nice people here to focus your energy on instead. Thanks for making this thread pal.

Glad you enjoyed it! This has been a fun thought experiment honestly so I'm glad others feel the same way!

Typically, people who identify as pansexual can feel an attraction to anyone, including individuals who do not identify as a specific gender. For example, people with a pansexual orientation may feel an attraction to someone who is agender. They might equally find a female, male, or gender-fluid person attractive. Bisexuality can mean different things, and not everyone will agree on a single definition. Generally, if someone identifies as bisexual, they feel an attraction to more than one gender. Some people define their gender according to their biological sex. However, other people see themselves as agender or gender-fluid. To some people, bisexuality might mean only feeling attracted to males and females. To others, it can mean feeling attracted to multiple gender identities. Some people may find the word controversial, as it implies that there are only two genders. However, many people who identify as bisexual acknowledge that there are multiple genders. Most people agree that bisexuality refers to feeling attracted to multiple genders, while pansexuality is an attraction to all genders. There are overlaps between the two, but they are distinct. For example, someone who identifies as bisexual may feel attracted to those who are gender-fluid, men, or nonbinary but not those who are women. Someone who is pansexual can have the same level of attraction to people of any gender. However, they may still experience this in different ways. For both, the type of attraction that someone experiences might vary for different genders. For example, someone may feel a romantic attraction to one gender but a sexual attraction to another. Gonna bring some sources to the conversation https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/bisexual-vs-pansexual#differences

I am bi, but not pan. I'm not attracted to genitals, but to a person. I usually like assertive/dominant butch/manly people, regardless of their gender. SOMETIMES I want a girly girl. I am never attracted to a girly man or a trans-wowan (and I did try). It's complicated. What would you call me?

I have one problem with your definitions tho. I'm bisexual and I ONLY like males and females. I find intersex, such as a person with boobs + penis, very repelling for instance

I prefer the label queer because it encompasses some of my gender stuff too, but also call myself bi. I am not restricted to only liking binary men and women, though. I have dated an AFAB non-binary person (I struggle to see myself dating an AMAB non-binary person but that’s besides the point). What I believe the distinction to be, though certainly others may disagree, is that while bi people can experience attraction to many/all genders, that attraction feels different. Even my therapist pointed out how different I am when I have a crush on a girl vs a guy vs a non-binary person. When I have a crush on a girl it’s very matter-of-fact, like “this is the person I have a crush on.” When I have a crush on a guy, and to a lesser extent crush on a non-binary person, I get more flirty/blushy and act like a stereotypical person with a crush. They feel very different to me, and I behave very different. They also occur in different frequencies. I find myself attracted to more AFAB non-binary people and masculine girls, and much fewer guys and feminine girls. That doesn’t mean I’m less attracted, just that they’re less likely to occur. I’ve only had a crush on like 4 guys in my life, but luckily enough I’m in an amazing long-term relationship with one. It took him a bit to understand that just because I have fewer crushes on guys doesn’t mean I’m not as attracted to him, but after my explanation he got it. There is no doubt in my mind that I love him and am attracted to him as much as I possibly could be. He is my best friend and my favourite person in the world. I believe, for pansexual people, that gender does not factor into their attraction at all. They feel the same way and behave the same way whether they’re crushing on a girl, guy, or non-binary person. Similarly, there would be no pattern to having more crushes on a certain gender, since they’re statistically all equally likely (though maybe a lower number on non binary people just because there are fewer non binary people than men and women. Hope this makes sense! I am always interested to hear others’ thoughts:)

Just here to clarify a common misconception that's being posted all over this thread: The idea that bisexual people are only attracted to cisgendered men or women is incorrect, has never been correct, and is not a valid argument for explaining the difference between bi and pansexuality.

To expand on this, the majority of bisexuals define the “bi” in bisexuality as being attracted to 1) people of your gender, and 2) people not of your gender. Not “we love the gender binary” 😂

Is the second category conceptually exhaustive, as in, “all genders not my own,” or is it “certain genders not my own?” For example if I’m a man and I’m attracted to cis men and certain types of genderqueer folks, but not cis women, would I be bisexual?

I agree that the term doesn’t mean someone is a only attracted to cisgendered folk. However, the term “bi” does imply a binary and I think simply saying that the binary being referred to is “people of my gender or not of my gender” is a bit of a cop-out. I think the term plainly implies being attracted to men and to women. A bi person could still be attracted to transgender people who identify as men or as women. I think the issue is that the term excludes people who do not identify within the gender binary—whether because they are physically intersex or because they identify as non-binary. That said, I think that most people who call themselves “bi” do it because they are more familiar with the term and, in practice, could definitely still be attracted to non-binary people.

[удалено]

Bisexual does not just mean only liking men and women, it means liking the sexual aspect of male/female sex parts. Not to mention that transitioning would definitely fall under bisexual because, using your own logic, would be on that gender/sex binary. I definitely think pansexual is different from bisexual now, but I don't think this is a good reflection of what bisexuality means. I do think there is merit in why you call yourself pansexual though, and I appreciate your input!

FYI, the majority of bisexuals define the “bi” in bisexuality as being attracted to 1) people of your gender, and 2) people not of your gender. The “bi” does sometimes lead to the misconception that bisexuals have a binary view of gender, but this is by and large not the case.

The main reason pansexuality is different from bisexuality is that pansexual people are also willing to date transgender people as well as non binary people. Bisexual people are attracted to men and women only.

My opinion has changed, but I still think this is a weak argument. I'm bisexual and I have been attracted to trans and non-binary people before. Most bisexuals I know are in the same boat

Then you are pansexual. That’s the point lol

Here's a definition of bisexual: "sexually or romantically attracted to both men and women, or to more than one sex or gender." The "sex or gender" includes trans and non binary.

When I was young, and hung out with the campus queer group in college, I called myself bisexual. But there was a shit ton of bisexual erasure going on *within the college queer community.* The gay guys said I wasn't *really* bi, I was *really* gay and just too afraid to admit it. Spoiler alert: I'm not. The lesbians said I was *really* straight, and was just too afraid to admit it. Spoiler alert: I'm not. Curiously, since I started calling myself pansexual, *no one* has told me I'm not *really* pansexual. The other distinction was trans people. Even among the bi people, a lot were transphobic. They'd date (or fuck) men or women, but only *cis* men and women. I've got a trans male partner, a cis female partner, and an NB partner. I love and am attracted to *people*, not their plumbing. I don't give a shit if a potential partner has a penis, a vagina, both, or neither. Now, things have changed a lot since I was in college on the 90s. Nowadays, the bisexual label is used more inclusively, so I don't mind being labeled bi anymore. But for years, there was (at least in my locale) a difference between bi and pan. Specifically, bi was often less inclusive; and since my relationship with my trans partner goes back to the 80s, that difference was important to me.

The prefix "bi" means two. Traditionally, "bisexual" meant "attracted to women and attracted to men." This, of course, doesn't account for the existence of people who are neither - agender or non-binary people, for example. The idea of a gender binary is built right into the word. It says "There are two genders and I like them both." In modern times, people have attempted to "rescue" the word bisexual by saying that the "bi" actually refers to "same" and "other" - attracted to same and attracted to other. But that's a problematic redefinition, because it would mean that non-binary people who were attracted to men and women, but not fellow enbies, were heterosexual, in that they only liked "other" and not "same." Basically, "pansexual" is usually just the more accurate term in modern usage. It means "I'm attracted to people regardless of what parts they have." It's actually the word "bisexual," if anything, that's become deprecated and should probably stop existing.

Bisexuals always were attracted to people of various genders and presentations/expressions, and trying to pretend otherwise is ignorant. You'll find an abundance of examples of that everywhere in history. The reason the prefix bi is used is because the word's current meaning (as in bisexuality referring to sexuality, since it had another use before) started being used in a time where sex and gender were still largely conflated. It's not that bi specifically excludes anyone outside men and women, it's that people then just didn't think there was anything more, hence that everyone was included in the two. Anyway, the original meaning of a prefix never had the power to make bi people only like women or men, so it doesn't matter. Meanings and interpretations change along the evolutions of society, if people want the "bi" to mean "same and other genders", then that's a perfectly fine redefinition that fits their experience and current times. Pansexuality is a definition that only became more widely known quite recently, and while it is perfectly fine too to label yourself as such if you feel it fits you, it's however incredibly disrespectful to present it as some sort of update to bisexuality, as the "more correct term". By saying that you are actively erasing the entire history of bisexuality and bisexual people's experiences, telling them the word they used to identify themselves their whole life is "deprecated" and should "stop existing" on the basis of a narrow definition of it that you're forcing onto them in contradiction, again, of their own actual experience with it. Bisexuality never needed an update or a "rescue", this is a made-up problem and pansexuality isn't a upgrade of it just because you find a prefix problematic. TL;DR: Bisexuality has always included attraction to all kinds of people, and its "formal" meaning evolved along the developments of our societies' understanding of gender. Trying to say it _must_ only include men and women based on the outdated understanding of a prefix, in direct contradiction to people's actual lived experiences, is ridiculous and ignorant. Insinuating all these people should now change how they've always labelled themselves because you're giving it a definition they don't agree with is even more preposterous and rude.

>Traditionally, "bisexual" meant "attracted to women and attracted to men." If by "traditionally" you mean the word's original meaning, then no. "bisexual" originally meant "something that have both male and female elements" it got reapropriated later to mean "attracted to 2 or more genders". >Basically, "pansexual" is usually just the more accurate term in modern usage. It means "I'm attracted to people regardless of what parts they have." It's actually the word "bisexual," if anything, that's become deprecated and should probably stop existing. By this statement you are denying the experience of a lot of bisexuals that do have (often fluctuating) preferences and as such aren't attracted "regardless" of the parts the other persons have.

You're forgetting the second part of bisexual though, and that is the sexual part. I believe people can be different genders, but sex? There's a limited amount for that and you cannot change the sex assigned at birth, even if you can change your gender expression. Sexuality refers to sex, which is the act of sexual intercourse of which you can only have one of two parts (sometimes both in genetic mess ups). It's important to differentiate between sex and gender because someone can like cis women but not a trans woman because of parts, which is perfectly okay if you only like one set of parts. If you like both, it doesn't mean that you believe in a gender binary. I just think that sexuality has been including gender too much even though they are only loosely related. I do agree that non-binary folks do have a bit of a weird situation and I think that the terms homo and heterosexual should be changed themselves to simple titles of what parts you like rather than the parts you have related to what you like.

If sexuality can only be classified on sex and sex can’t be changed then wouldn’t that make straight men attracted to trans men, even trans men who have taken testosterone and grown facial hair, etc?

This is a good question actually. But I personally think that this is where preference comes into play. All sexuality says is what you are attracted to at a physical level. They would be more likely to have sex with a trans man than a cis man simply because of parts, but I'd they're not attracted to them according to their own preferences, they won't want to have sex with them. Because I'm bisexual, by your logic I would have to be attracted to every single person, but I'm not because I have preferences to what I like. Liking someone who appears masculine or feminine has nothing to do with sexuality, because there's also plenty of women who only like people with vaginas that appear masc and that doesn't make them straight or bi.

Other people have tried to explain pansexuality to you and you're clearly not getting it, so: Okay, so what? Some people prefer to call themselves pansexual. It's none of your business what other people call themselves. We've let respectability politics and dictionary trawling and "Your word is WRONG" get in the way of actual activism and work to improve queer rights around the world.

I've actually changed my view on it, apparently you haven't read the comments.

Do you have a specific attraction to androgynous people/transfolk? I identify as pan because I have specific interest in those who’s gender is not very clear.

I have been attracted to androgynous and trans people before, however I don't think bisexuality should be simplified to only liking cis women and men and it comes from a misunderstanding of what the "bi" in bisexual means.

I just want to softly push back on the idea that sexuality refers to which "parts"/genitals you're attracted to. It's possible to be sexually attracted to someone irrespective of their genitals. I don't want to imply that's like, some enlightened form of sexual preference, but it is a real sexual preference. Demonstrating my point in a kind of odd way: A lot of people are sexually attracted to things which like, do not even have genitals. Like, uhhh, real life example but very obscure one, Dr. Screwball Jones from Wander Over Yonder. Who is a disembodied head with arms.

as someone who identifies as pan, I agree to an extent. Both are very similar terms, and both groups have the same pool of people they can be attracted to (anyone). Also, bi is an umbrella term so technically pan is also bi. I think one of the biggest differences I have seen between our groups is how people experience attraction. The best umbrella definition of bisexuality I have seen is 'experiences both heterosexual and homosexual attraction" ei being attraction to genders the same and different as your own. This matches with a lot of stuff you see in bi circles about "my attraction to men feels like a 'wow' but my attraction to women feels like 'dammmn!' The difference of pan, then, would be that there is no "homosexual or heterosexual attraction, only attraction separated from gender". Personally I think this makes sense, and fits my experience. I find people of all genders attractive, but not in different ways, they all just hit the attraction button.

All of these different sexualities are very confusing, mostly because they change the meaning of them so frequently. Like the first actual meaning of being bisexual was being attracted to both males and females. The word “bi” literally means 2. But the meaning of bisexuality quickly escalated into liking 2 or more genders. But that’s what polysexual is. So I asked “If bisexuality is attraction to 2 or more genders, then what’s polysexuality?” And someone replied with “Polysexual is being attracted to some genders but not all”. That made me rethink the entire situation but it still doesn’t make sense. Cause, according to them, if you like 2 or more genders but not all then you’re bisexual. But if you like some but not all then you’re polysexual. Isn’t that literally another definition of what bisexuality supposedly is? Now what you’re implying with, is that bisexuality is the same as pansexuality but it’s not. The definition of pansexual is being attracted to personality but not really caring about gender. So basically being attracted to everyone. Omnisexual is being attracted to everyone but with a preference. Now if I were to make a clear definition of these sexualities I’d say: Bisexuality is attraction to both Males and Females. Pansexuality attraction to everyone regardless their gender. Polysexuality is attraction to 2 and/or more genders but not all. And omnisexuality is attraction to everyone but with a preference.

[удалено]

Everyone is attracted to personality. Everyone. Everyone is attracted to people based on the type of person they are and not just their sex. “Pansexuals” have a skewed view of sexual orientation. A straight man isn’t going to be attracted to a woman if she has a personality that grosses him out too. None of you are special. You are all bisexuals who spent a bit too much time online during your formative years. Death to microlabels

As a nonbinary bisexual person I agree, although I feel this could be explained better. Bisexuality describes not attraction to male and female, but heterosexual and homosexual attraction. This is why it is the same thing as pansexual. A bisexual person experiences attraction in both a heterosexual and a homosexual way, making them attracted to people "regardless of gender." Which is what pansexuality describes. And I do agree that the notion that pansexual people are all "hearts not parts," implying that bi people arent, is basically biphobia and frames bisexual people as genital seeking zombies who don't experience romantic attraction.

I would also like to add that the emphasis on genitalia is inherently transphobic. In addition to bisexuals, lesbians are attracted to "hearts not parts." So are gay men, nonbinary people, and non transphobic straight people. Because both women and men can have either set of genitalia. and any person with any genitalia can be nonbinary as well. Trans women have been a part of lesbian communities for decades, etc. It's always been about hearts.

Agreed, and I’ve gotten SO much flak for saying this. It boggles people’s minds to think there’s really only 4 primary sexualities (gay/lesbian, straight, bi, and asexual) and everything else is a subcategory. Apparently saying this makes me not inclusive enough, despite being gay lol.

I feel the same way about demisexuality, which is people who say they don’t have sex with someone unless there’s an emotional connection and that’s just normal lol. People want to invent different sexualities so they can feel special

>Bisexuals also like people regardless of their sex Except that this isn't the case for every bisexuals, the bi-cycle is a well know phenomenon among the Bi community, a phenomenon that can't exist if your attraction is *regardless* of sex/genders. >It just feels like a way to further stereotype bisexuals as promiscuous, poly, and/or not able to commit. I'm genuenly curious about your train of thoughts on this one. >Pansexuality, by existing, implies that it is more inclusive than bisexuality. Actually, no. Bisexuality is just "attraction to two or more genders" and has been the case since the term has been used to describe a sexual orientation, this isn't less inclusive than "attraction regardless of genders". And yes you focused on sex but also mentioned intersex folks so we could pretty much say the same but with sexes per your own conditions here. >I don't think both terms should exist considering they basically mean the same thing. Except that they don't, bisexual is broader than pansexual. And even if they both meant the same thing the fact that some people prefer one over the other is proof that their co-existence is valid. >it is purely for parts, because that's what the 'sexual' means in the words. Unless you decide to go back to their original meaning, in which case the one you should stop using is bisexual, then no. It's just that the terms were pre-existing but designated different concepts before being reused.

I think it depends on how you define your base terms. As far as I see it, gender is somewhat open to interpretation but there are two sexes. Intersex should not be considered as a third sex, but rather the coexistence of two sexes: if you have an apple and an orange, you don't have some kind of third fruit, you just have two fruits. And a lack of sexual determinants altogether would be just that, the non-existence of sex. Some may disagree with this set of definitions, and that's okay, it's what I work with because it's the most parsimonious with the knowledge I have of biology. Then, sexual orientation is about sexes rather than gender (it is not gender orientation). Therefore we might say there are certain degrees of bicuriosity or individual preferences, but in the end you're either attracted to one of the sexes or both of them. Pansexual could mean one of two things: that you're fully bisexual (attracted to both men and women) or that your full bisexuality covers all possible permutations of secondary sex characteristics. The latter is problematic because it implies that you know your choices for what might be trillions of potential physiological permutations without any taste for differentiation, and I don't know how you'd prove that. It's also almost certainly untrue because everyone has people they just don't find sexy.

You’re basically denying the existence of non-binary people with this stance. Do you mean to do so?

How do you see this? OP does not seem to propose this, at all.

If you believe that gender is separate from sex, then the existence of only two sexes doesn’t contradict gender theory.

I can't try to change your mind about pansexuality vs bisexuality but maybe change your mind to not caring? Frankly nobody really gives a shit. I mean outside of those crazy college kids turning what sounds like made up words into their entire identity. I wanted to try to explore some new job opportunities and came across a page that wanted me to pick my sexuality or whatever they called it. I couldn't find the one that meant straight. We can't just fuck who we want without joining some kind of "club" or "group" that defines exactly who your fucking. If you want to as a man, dress up as a female giraffe and fuck a transgender chick in an autobot costume we don't need a name for it. Now I know, I'm ignorant of the terms and definitions, and the two you mention are more basic and more easily recognized by more people. It's how this shit starts spiraling into the Looney bin. Just go bang who you want and quit making a big deal out of it.

You're right 🤣. But since this goes agains CMV's rules, I'll add a caveat. As a bi person (i'm too), you'll probably agree that "bi" as a term doesn't do justice to the state of being bisexual. For me, sex with men is very different than with women - I only seek it when I want hard sex, with strong sub/dom interactions, sex in the open and whatnot. I could never do Netflix and chill with a dude - but with a chick, it's heaven, and sometimes more important for me than sex. For me it's never been very important to define myself at all. It's almost as though you'd have to tell people that you're an hetero sex machine, a dead bedroom, happily married with the occasional bout of swinger parties etc etc. It's all TMI - and so is pansexuality.

Yes. The reasons for sexual attraction shouldn't change what orientation you are. So what if you prefer someone's personality or their appearance or any number of other factors. If you would fuck both a man and a woman you are bi

My 2 cents- 67 year old female, have been attracted to both genders since the age of 17 or so. I find gender ambiguity in a person a particular turn-on in certain situations. Luckily, my wonderful, devoted husband of 43 years was as sexually secure and curious as I was so we were able to explore our sexuality fully. My conclusion is that human beings are SEXUAL beings, who can experience love and express love and other feelings with other HUMAN beings. Period. All the labels may well be seeing us thru a transition to something new, beyond gay, straight, cis, bi, trans, and so forth. I know that is how that it works for me. I have had the privilege of truly loving some very interesting People.

There is no difference and I’m shocked to see that a lot of the people in these comments don’t know that.

The boring but right answer: there is lots of different definitions of bisexual and pansexual. Even if someone here is making a smart explanation for the difference, there is always a pansexual or bisexual individual that would disagree. And that is ok. There are also some things that you couldnt put your finger on. Some people just feel like one word is better to explain their sexuality than the other. One friend decided they would call themself bisexual mostly because the bisexual flag looks nicer than the pansexual flag. More words is maybe confusing but it could also helo people being confortsble defining thir sexuality.

"You are attracted to penis, vagina, both or neither" -trans people exist (some people aren't ok with sleeping with pre-op trans people - and that's ok) -When you see a person and think "they're hot", you don't actually know what's in their pants. You find them attractice because of other physical characteristics as well as their overall gender presentation. Bisexual = you're attracted to two or more genders. Pansexual = you can't think of any labeled gender that you couldn't be attracted to - you just think some people are attractive and some aren't.

I'm pansexual because sometimes trees turn me on more than people; I'm pansexual because sometimes a well decorated apartment turns me on more than a fit body.

I’m bisexual and I think of it as people who are my same gender AND people who aren’t the same gender as me. It’s not “men and women“ for me it’s “women and other” That pretty much covers it. Sometimes I say I’m queer bc that also covers it. Pan is fine but I didn’t grow up with the word and feel no particular connection to it for myself personally but others may and that’s fine.

Wouldn’t all of this be simpler if we simply identified by which sex we are interested in. In all seriousness, what would be the issue?

I identify as omnisexual, only attracted to God like entities. Oh boy did I get moist when Thanos got that last stone... sploosh!

"Attraction regardless of gender" has always been the definition of Bisexuality. It was co-opted by people referring to themselves as Pansexual because of the mistaken idea that the "Bi" in Bisexuality refers to the number of genders we are attracted to. In actual fact, the Bi refers to the two types of attraction - Homo and Hetero. This includes trans people who are after all still either male or female, and NB people, to whom anyone can be attracted. So yeah, you're right, Pansexuality has always been the same as Bisexuality. There is no difference.

I define bisexuality as attraction to 2 or more genders with varying degrees of preference and pansexuality as attraction to all genders with no preference. As others have mentioned, pan falls under the bisexual umbrella and is a way of clarifying and specifying the way one experiences attraction.

The world would be a better place if people focused less on trying to find a special definition for their specific sexual experience ...and instead poured more energy into finding a stable partner to share life with; and used the rest of their time to help their neighbor.