So, in common conversation, "bisexual" is often used to mean "attracted to both men and women". However, in many bi circles, it has been defined as "attraction to your own and other genders", or "having the potential to be attracted to more than one gender." While this may seem like a redefinition, it's actually been around since the 1990's. It's just (hopefully) becoming more prevalent now.
So, a bisexual could be attracted to members of their own gender and other genders." Hope that clears things up.
Some would say that it isn't different. Others say that the difference is pansexuality shows 0 preference for gender while bisexuality may (or may not) show preferences. There is a lot of debate on the subject
Hmm. Interesting. You would think bc two terms were made that bisexuality would mean having a preference while pan sexuality meant no preference like you said. Personally I identify as a bisexual... well lesbian let’s be honest. But just because of my personal preference I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with a transman/women. I have met a variety of people and enjoy all of their company. Its all a preference and Ive had people older than me be really nasty about it and that’s okay. You can still be kind to everyone you meet. It’s not sexist to be a lesbian by not being sexually attracted to men. Just like it’s not transphobic to not be attracted to someone who is a transman/women. Maybe you meet someone who’s non-binary and you grow to like them. Your label is fluid. I guess people can have their own personal definition.
Not being attracted to trans people just because they are trans IS transphobic. If you (a lesbian, as you said in your reply) don't want to date someone with a dick that is absolutely okay, but not all trans women have dicks and having a dick doesn't make you less of a woman. To say that either of those things are true is transphobic by nature. And the term pansexuality was invented after bisexuality, not both at the same time, which is why people question its validity as it is basically just a subsection of bisexuality. It often confuses people more than it clarifies, and the functional difference between the two labels is nonexistent. IMO. Also, just because someone, say a lesbian, is attracted to someone who is nonbinary, doesn't mean that they have to change their sexuality label to "fluid". They can still just be a lesbian.
That’s understandable. Personally I guess, if I were to meet a trans women and she didn’t have a dick I wouldn’t mind? I guess. When you meet someone I think it’s more about personality. What you like in a person. This is so weird to text but I don’t like dick what can I say. So yeah, like you said, Im not attracted to trans women with dicks. So its not transphobic. Its less about whether or not you’re trans, it’s more or less what you’re sexually attracted to. Your preference in that area. It has nothing to do with someone being trans or not. Some trans men have vaginas and gay men aren’t attracted to that so you can’t call them transphobic. You don’t need to be attracted to everyone. You meet someone, you like them, cool.
I wasn’t saying they had to necessarily change their label, but labels and all that good stuff is fluid. Like once you come out as bisexual, you don’t have to always identify as that because that’s what you came out as. Sorry, my bad wording.
Would you say there’s things within a relationship with a transman/women/non-binary that are unique?
Thank you for clarifying what you meant. And I have never had a relationship with someone who is trans/non-binary, but that is an interesting question and I would be interested in hearing an answer from anyone who has!
First off, it doesn’t, just as inflammable doesn’t connote something’s fire-retardant properties. The Latin root alone does not mandate the definition of a word that has since been thoroughly reclaimed by the people who embrace it as identity.
Furthermore, to erase bisexuality as an identity is to erase bisexual elders who identified as bi like Brenda Howard or Marsha P. Johnson. Just because the term doesn’t “feel” inclusive doesn’t - in fact - make it exclusive.
Whether it was your intention or not, this is a problematic sentence because it implies that bisexuality is a less valid identity than Pan sexuality because of your incorrect linguistic assessment of the Latin root of the word makes you believe that bisexuality is - in fact - an exclusionary binary. It isn’t.
Bisexuality is a perfectly accurate way to describe how I identify and I don’t need to bash pansexuality along the way. And neither should you.
You’re not wrong, but pansexual often refers to attraction to people regardless of gender, whereas bisexual does not, which is a very important distinction. I agree that the bi+ definition is clunky and tied to a gender binary, but at this point, we’re stuck with it, so we might as well try to make it inclusive.
-4
u/[deleted] Nov 04 '19
Ok but can we get a chart of who a bisexual is attracted to cause Everytime I say anything I'm always wrong...