Bi-sexulaity currently taking a kicking over at the Guardigan

Break not brake!

Bebstar fuck knows mate 🤷🏻‍♀️ like Calvinsmam said, we have our own definitions under the same bi umbrella. Maybe I need to slacken my definition a bit. I brake my own 'rules' anyway - if Shane from the L word counts

Tall boys and short girls? Doesn't know his/her/they're/we're/ vous/wibble arse from their elbow

It's feeding in to a lot of weirdness around bisexuality, tbh. There's a very clear implication that bisexuality is just about sex, whereas the pansexual is more open minded and appreciates the whole personality of whoever the person is.

It frames bisexuality as a fetish, much as the cotton ceiling bollocks attempts to do with Lesbians as 'vagina fetishists'. The actual sexual attraction definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality are relegated, while 'pansexuality' is for the special people who are attracted to the deepest souls of others, rather than being bothered about the specifics of their bodies.

It's like they've taken the worst tropes against bisexual people, that we're up for sex with anyone and everyone, and put a veneer of 'actually, we're very deep' over the top to claim superiority.

Pansexual on the face of it looks lovely. Nice to everyone, all inclusive, the kind of things thoughtful and sensitive teenagers lap up.

But it also has a Trojan Horse aspect of being used to apply the label non-pansexual, expressed as monosexual, ie "bigot", on people who are attracted to one sex. And more often than not, that's women. Which is why this thread is attracting comments, it's unusual for this kind of judgement to be publicly expressed towards men.

I'm not convinced a bi- sexual man is going to be interested in a trans woman with breasts and a penis.

This is where pansexual comes in useful. Mix and match, no problem. Different to bi

I'm not convinced a bi- sexual man is going to be interested in a trans woman with breasts and a penis.

You don’t have to be convinced.
But lots are.

If they fancied people of both sexes they’d be bisexual

I'm not convinced a bi- sexual man is going to be interested in a trans woman with breasts and a penis.

nauticant I try not to overuse this word but that is disgusting. What on earth is wrong with people

Most lesbians and most straight men are probably not keen on trans women with penises.

No, because they are of the opposite sex to the one they find attractive.

If they fancied people of both sexes they’d be bisexual.

What fresh hell is the cotton ceiling?

It's comes from the fact that lesbians, being homosexual people, don't tend to want to have sex with transwomen, being male people. This reluctance needs to be overcome by nagging or coercion. Nag/coerce enough and eventually some lesbians will have heterosexual sex. At this point the cotton ceiling has been breached. (The term is taken from the "glass ceiling" relating to women not being able to break through into senior positions at work.)

The term and its meaning is so appalling that it's currently being redefined by trans activists to refer to it all being about trans people and how their sex lives are inhibited.

So does that mean if you are bi, or gay or define in any other way, you must automatically exclude trans people? So a lesbian who is willing to sleep with a transwoman must actually be pansexual? And a lesbian wouldn't sleep with a transwoman, because she's not pansexual. Is that right?

I'm heterosexual but I would have no interest in a trans man. A trans man who still has a vulva and a vagina would be as repellent as a natal woman. A trans man with a prosthetic penis would be of no interest either.

I think pansexual might be useful to describe an individual who is happy to have sex with trans and non trans people of either sex. Most lesbians and most straight men are probably not keen on trans women with penises.

It’s perfectly reasonable to have preferences within that but it doesn’t change the definition of bisexual.

That makes perfect sense, it didn't even cross my mind! Might be something to do with this which also makes perfect sense:

The problem comes when they stick the label on a person and then say to that person "because you have this label you have to think/behave like/do X, Y, Z

I'm going to have to make up a new one then. My definition of bisexual doesn't fit

But you CAN be bisexual and not fancy trans people. Being bisexual doesn’t mean you have to fancy everyone.

It just means you sometimes fancy male bodied people and sometimes fancy female bodied people, it doesn’t specify anything else about those people.

It’s perfectly reasonable to have preferences within that but it doesn’t change the definition of bisexual.

Isn't it all just personal preference anyway? Just that a lot of people happen to have the same one so they stick a label on it.

This highlights a key point. Someone is welcome to label the world however they like. The problem comes when they stick the label on a person and then say to that person "because you have this label you have to think/behave like/do X, Y, Z, This is at the heart of why gender identity ideology is heading in insane authoritarian directions.

What fresh hell is the cotton ceiling?

Calvinsmam I'm going to have to make up a new one then. My definition of bisexual doesn't fit and if I say 'I don't like labels I'm just me' then I'd be a proper wanker 😂

I'm sure there are people who are perhaps attracted to feminine societal expressions of gender, and they would be attracted to that regardless of genitals

There are. It's people with a fetish.

Yes AbsintheFriends in some contexts pansexual is another manifestation of the cotton ceiling, just sprinkled with gender identity glitter.

Isn't it all just personal preference anyway? Just that a lot of people happen to have the same one so they stick a label on it.

Well yes. And no.
We stuck a label on it so we could communicate with other humans about our personal preferences. If we just change the definitions willy billy to suit ourselves then language doesn’t work and we can’t communicate as a society any more.

OldCrone nope, anyone can include whatever they want under whatever label they want, I'm only giving my personal opinion of it. Honestly I'm getting confused at this point anyway so I will only end up tying myself in knots if I carry on

Isn't it all just personal preference anyway? Just that a lot of people happen to have the same one so they stick a label on it. My definition of bi means attraction to two = male men and female women, no attraction to non-conforming or androgynous folk, that's included in pan

Alan Cummings describes himself as pan sexual. I took it to mean a tongue in cheek way of saying he'll shag anything that stays still long enough. It's fine as a self descriptor but ludicrous to expect others to take seriously or respect.

After men and women, there are no living things it's legal to have sex with. Bisexuality covers the lot.

Pansexual means you like all fenders

Most people have a preference for Telecasters over Stratocasters or the other way around, but they're wrong.

Yes I agree there are only two sexes but to me being pan includes trans people

So does that mean if you are bi, or gay or define in any other way, you must automatically exclude trans people? So a lesbian who is willing to sleep with a transwoman must actually be pansexual? And a lesbian wouldn't sleep with a transwoman, because she's not pansexual. Is that right?

Men not boys obviously
That’s just what we’ve always called them in our circle of friends.