Bi-sexulaity currently taking a kicking over at the Guardigan

And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

It's about signalling. Rather than what a bisexual person would do in practice, beyond following their sexuality.

And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

I think th is is probably key. The definition doesn’t exclude it, but some bisexuals would in terms of their own orientation. Do we have separate umbrellas for people on that basis, or do we have one umbrella that encompasses groups of people who don’t actually have the same sexual orientation?

I don’t know the answer, or what’s best. I’m generally in favour of letting people self-ID and it makes me very uncomfortable to suggest that we should be saying to people who identify as pansexual ‘stop doing that, we think you actually belong in this label over here’. I know how it feels to be told the label you’ve chosen isn’t yours (because people insinuate or even outright say that since I’m now married to a man I’m straight rather than bi, and because I’ve been accused in the past of being a straight girl looking for attention) and it’s not nice.

Have you been on Twitter??

No, thank god!

But that is literally what happened.

I completely accept that this is what you believe, but just asserting it doesn’t make it true. I would need to see evidence of this because it doesn’t chime with my experience and I think it’s a cynical retrospective analysis of something that I believe has evolved organically and without coherent malicious intent.

But I think it’s speculative, simplistic, and a form of erasure to insist that pansexuals are just bisexuals who want to push trans ideology.

Ok then, what is the difference between a pansexual and a bisexual.
Except the fact that pansexuals are explicit in the fact they would include trans people in their dating pool? And bisexuals aren’t explicit about it but also the definition doesn’t exclude it?

I think we probably have to agree to disagree on whether pansexuality is just a vehicle for pushing trans ideology, rather than a valid sexual identity.

Of course it’s a valid sexual identity. But it’s a sexual identity that ready has a name,

assert as fact that pansexuality only exists because a cabal of former bisexuals are seeking to further trans inclusivity isn’t fair, and isn’t supported by any kind of evidence.

But that is literally what happened.

Bisexual meant fancying people of both sexes aka everyone, then someone decided that this didn’t include trans people so coined pansexual, to include trans people insinuating that bisexual excluded them because trans people where apparently not covered by the two sexes in bi sexual.

Of course meanings of words evolve, but words also have power hence why people reclaim slurs. Evolution of language especially ones used by and about marginalised groups is rarely NOT political.

And of course language around queer theory is being used in a cynical way to confuse the trans debate.

‘Trans women are women’

Can mean everything from you believe that anybody who identifies as a woman even for a second is literally a woman, of the female sex and always has been. To I don’t think that people can change sex but men who’ve had the surgery probably are very vulnerable so we should treat them like women as much as possible.

Have you been on Twitter??
It’s full of people having conversations at cross purposes because the language is changing so fast and is so individual.

I agree bi erasure is a problem, and redefining bisexuality to mean something else is a prime example of it.

I think we probably have to agree to disagree on whether pansexuality is just a vehicle for pushing trans ideology, rather than a valid sexual identity. I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you’re making out, and I think if pushed you would struggle to evidence that claim.

I’m sure some people are bashing bisexuality on the basis that they see it as being overly concerned with sex rather than gender, and I am sure that there are bisexuals who see the label as totally inclusive of trans / non-binary / intersex people (that’s more or less where I am). But I think it’s speculative, simplistic, and a form of erasure to insist that pansexuals are just bisexuals who want to push trans ideology.

The meanings of words aren’t immutable. Language evolves.

There's a difference between natural evolution and top down compulsion, such as the 'cis' word, which not only doesn't catch on but becomes actively rejected by the people it's intended to compel, and between evolving language and fashion fads.
Most people know what 'groovy' means, or 'wicked' means, but it belonged to a small group reflecting a passing social fashion among that group. It's not 'evolved' the language: if you go around saying 'groovy' you look a bit daft and very dated.

In this sense we have people not only inventing fun new fashionable words and terms but trying to force other people to change their language and meaning and to supercede the original meaning for a political purpose. Since the primary purpose of language is shared meaning, this is doomed to failure. For example anyone is welcome to call themselves a vegan, it's a free term. However if you go around shouting about how vegan you are while knocking back beef steaks (and insisting that all the politically purest vegans love beef steaks) and that you actually re define yourself and all other vegans as vejaks as vejaks are more inclusive and better vegans, at best people are going to think you're a bit odd.

They have decided that the word bisexual means something other than its meaning

I think this is pretty cynical, and I also think you’re throwing a lot of people under the bus if you believe anyone identifying as pansexual is only doing so to score ideological points in the transgender debate. Maybe the biggest thing pansexuals ans bisexuals have in common is facing erasure.

It’s an interesting thought experiment but words need definitions or we all end up in hyper individual realities and lose all power to communicate effectively.

It’s more than just a thought experiment, it’s an absolutely routine part of humanity. Of course words have definitions, but you can’t deny that these are open to interpretation. There are plenty of examples of words having definitions and yet being applied to completely contradictory scenarios, scenarios which might even be in direct conflict with one another. And then when you have words which serve as labels defining a large group of people, you will get many people within that label profoundly disagreeing with each other in respect of what is and isn’t an acceptable part of that definition.

If words never changed their meanings, if they were never appropriated and never evolved, we wouldn’t have the word ‘gay’ meaning ‘homosexual’. The word ‘n**r’ would only ever be a slur, and not a term that POC have reclaimed to use of themselves in an empowering way. The word ‘sis’ would only literally be a shortened version of ‘sister’ meaning your female sibling instead of a term of endearment used by women of others unrelated to them. These are all words which had definitions but which have evolved into something new. The result hasn’t been a descent into some kind of Pinter style hell-farce where words are meaningless and none of us can relate to one another. It just means we have a new understanding, and a new layer of meaning. This is what language does!

And I’m not saying there is never an agenda behind the evolution of language, because of course there can be and often is. But in this case, to assert as fact that pansexuality only exists because a cabal of former bisexuals are seeking to further trans inclusivity isn’t fair, and isn’t supported by any kind of evidence.

I think that’s what’s happening here. For whatever reason, there is a group of people who no longer feel that the word ‘bisexual’ applies to them, so new language has been created to reflect that.

Yes exactly. And that’s the problem.

They have decided that the word bisexual means something other than its meaning and therefore inflicted a definition on people that already belonged in that category.
Just like they have the word woman.

In order to believe that the word bisexual does not include trans people you have to concede that there are more than two sexes. Which there isn’t.

This isn’t a banal language evolution it’s a bait and switch to legitimatise trans ideology. That people can transcend sex and it’s gender that’s immutable.

This is a much wider philosophical question! So much art and literature is an exploration of this exact dilemma. Its certainly not novel to this particular debate.

Post modernism has its place as a way to question the world around you but it’s not practical to apply it to every day life.
It’s an interesting thought experiment but words need definitions or we all end up in hyper individual realities and lose all power to communicate effectively.

That's always the case in discussions in this area isn't it?

Exactly.

According to the stonewall umbrella pretty much everyone is trans so not niche at all.

If being trans is just ‘well I feel a bit transy’ then how are people supposed to be able to say whether they might fancy a trans person or not. That’s not how attraction works.

We are talking about definitions of words. Bisexual just means you fancy people of both sexes.

The issue is, I’m not sure everyone agrees with this. The meanings of words aren’t immutable. Language evolves. And, most importantly, it isn’t language which creates identities; rather, people whose identities aren’t represented by language force that language to change or create new language to express their meaning.

I think that’s what’s happening here. For whatever reason, there is a group of people who no longer feel that the word ‘bisexual’ applies to them, so new language has been created to reflect that. Then people like me mosey along and feel like actually, Label B is a better reflection of my understanding of myself than Label A, so I choose to adopt it. Others in my position might do the opposite. It’s messy and irregular, but that’s what language is.

That doesn’t mean everyone immediately knows what the differences between these groups are, or that there is no overlap, because language doesn’t work that way. Categorising people isn’t easy and never has been, not least when discussing sexual identity (which is very personal, and not always predictable, and not static).

What is the point of having words if the words can change their meanings depending on who’s speaking them?

This is a much wider philosophical question! So much art and literature is an exploration of this exact dilemma. Its certainly not novel to this particular debate.

True enough (about the definition of trans). That's always the case in discussions in this area isn't it?

I can only speak to my own experiences, but that’s been my understanding of the distinction - that bisexuality doesn’t include trans / non-binary people whereas pansexuality does.

But that’s not the definition of the word bisexual is it?

We are talking about definitions of words. Bisexual just means you fancy people of both sexes.

You CAN speak for a whole group when you are talking about definitions. Otherwise identities are meaningless.

What is the point of having words if the words can change their meanings depending on who’s speaking them?

I suspect that being attracted to trans people is a minority taste.

I think that probably depends on what definition of trans you’re using.

But where are you getting that from?????

I can only speak to my own experiences, but that’s been my understanding of the distinction - that bisexuality doesn’t include trans / non-binary people whereas pansexuality does.

I accept that there are people identifying as bisexual who don’t make that distinction though (like me, really), just as there will be people identifying as bisexual who do. Maybe distinguishing between them is meaningless. I think it’s quite hard to say for sure without inadvertently speaking for a whole group, which obviously none of us want to do. I don’t think these are hard and fast labels with agreed definitions, so perhaps it helps to have more options rather than fewer, so people can determine for themselves what feels comfortable for them.

There are only two sexes, you have the potential to fancy someone of either of them.

Quite. It's like having a "type" is now being confused with having a sexuality.

People only think that bisexual people exclude trans people because someone came along and made up pansexual.

It’s not actually what the word means.

You can’t go around changing other peoples identities by proxy.

I couldn’t say I’m not heterosexual I’m ‘blooby’ because straight people only fancy people of the opposite sex who conform strictly to gender stereotypes and I fancy men in eyeliner therefore not heterosexual.

That’s not what heterosexual means, it simply means the people you fancy are of the opposite sex to you.

Bi sexual simply means you have the pontential to fancy people of either sex, it doesn’t state whether that person is trans or not.

I can definitely see why lots of people who, like me, grew up before transgenderism and non-binaryism were widely discussed and understood would have identified as bisexual in the past but as pansexual now.

I suspect that being attracted to trans people is a minority taste. Naturally this should not be discussed, or even contemplated, for fear of transphobia.

but I think pansexual is actually a better label for me because my attraction also encompasses transgender people and non-binary people, whereas I think bisexuality is more about being attracted to cisgender (apologies if anyone hates that word, not sure what else to use in this situation) men and women.

But where are you getting that from??????

There is nowhere in the definition of bisexual that would say you wouldn’t fancy trans people.

There are only two sexes, you have the potential to fancy someone of either of them.

Some bisexual people may only fancy non trans people, but that’s not because they are bisexual.

I generally self-define as bisexual but I think pansexual is actually a better label for me because my attraction also encompasses transgender people and non-binary people, whereas I think bisexuality is more about being attracted to cisgender (apologies if anyone hates that word, not sure what else to use in this situation) men and women.

I don’t think about it much because I’m now married and don’t navel gaze about my own sexuality, but I can definitely see why lots of people who, like me, grew up before transgenderism and non-binaryism were widely discussed and understood would have identified as bisexual in the past but as pansexual now. That’s not to say bisexuality isn’t real or valid, because it is very obviously both. But lots of people’s understanding of their sexuality develops as they grow up, and I think this is just an example of that.

Pansexual is just the trendy new way to say bisexual.

And I thought a couple of years back bisexual was just the trendy new way to say heterosexual when none of the kids wanted to own up to the utter mundanity of just being a boring straight rather than a fabulous gay or an adventurous bi.

I'd be willing to bet that many of the pansexuals are, yet again, just heterosexuals looking to spice up their identity.

Pansexual is just the trendy new way to say bisexual. "Pansexuals" get all bent out of shape if you say that but this is reality. It's a political thing. You can't say you are "bisexual" anymore if you are pretending there are more than 2 sexes so you have to say "pansexual" so you say you want to sleep with "all the sexes", I mean "genders", lol
So saying you are "bisexual" becomes a transphobic hate crime, or something.

So why is there still even a B in LGBT? Don't ask me, I just live here

So basically, I think the change is we considered ourselves to be saying no until we said yes. The youngsters now consider themselves to be saying yes* unless they’ve got cast iron but still acceptably “inclusive” way to say no.

Yes and I think it’s so sad that young people seem to think the only polite way to have a sexual boundary is to give yourself an identity that allows you to bow out.
How many young people are having sex they aren’t into simply because they think it’s ‘what people do’.

I think it’s very dangerous to set the tone that the norm is up for everything with anyone.

We desperately need to teach young people that sex should only happen when both people enthusiastically want it.

Having said that I can totally see why living in this porn culture world having the label there is helpful for people wanting to space from it and a way to step back from it. It’s just really awful that we need it.

(Ah it’s likely Daltry singing it, isn’t it? Soz. Both are old enough to be my dad.)

Ah, but isn’t that why now old-enough-to-be-their-Grandad Pete Townsend famously sang, “Hope I die before I get old”?

Ah, the days when every year seemed so long and 40 so far away you could actually think that dying before then gave you plenty of time do do all the important things —like shag—.