Bi or pansexual

[dawnfromgavinandstacey]

I've just been blocked by someone that I know via friends and family. They are semi famous.

They are out and gay and happy.

They have just come out on Instagram as pansexual. I have asked how is it different to being bi.

I am bi.

I'm really sorry if I'm offending anyone but to me it's the same.

You like the person. Doesn't matter how they identify you just fancy them. For whatever reason. You just do. You like them.

I've been blocked and asked snottily if I get the difference.

I will be honest. No I don't. You like who you like. Regardless.

What is the difference. You like who you like. Regardless of if they are a a man or or women.

Have I missed something here?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Are you saying trans people are neither men or women? They are human beings just like anyone else.

Some people identify as neither men nor women. Pansexual means attraction regardless of gender identity.

Ducking out of this toxic thread now. Mumsnet at its finest 🙄

Pansexual people can be attracted to literally any other human, where as bi sexual are only attracted to cis men and cis women. The bi part means two, like bilingual or bicycle. This means it’s limited to 2, so pansexual is just a variation that includes trans, androgynous etc

Whilst the above statement is accurate, the below statement is also very true and needs to be acknowledged.

complex labels are just the current fashion in the absence of goth/emo/punk etc. They’ve filled a culture void

'Sexual' in a words like 'pansexual' 'bisexual' 'asexual' 'heterosexual' etc. refers to the subject's 'sexuality'

switching the word sex for sexuality isn't doing the legwork you hope here. All those orientations are based on the SEX of the potential partner.

Ducking out of this toxic thread now. Mumsnet at its finest

Whadda surprise. Stay and argue your point if you believe in it

Some people identify as neither men nor women. Pansexual means attraction regardless of gender identity.

@Crunchymum As I said in the initial post your replied to- the word bisexual predates anyone thinking they can 'identify' as something else. It is about sex not 'Gender' in the sense you mean.

Most people don't have a Gender in the way you are using it and they certainly don't feel sexual attraction absed on Gender identity. You seem to be saying that the invention of the word pansexual changes the meaning of bisexual and bisexuals have to use your word now or be limited to 'cis' people?

Hrtft but just my view - it can be difficult to understand the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality as in outsider looking in. But I've always understood bisexuality to be somebody attracted to more than one gender (yes, Bi people can be attracted to non-binary and trans people). That attraction being similar to straight and gay attraction and may include certain physical characteristics that they are attracted to. There can be a preference with bisexuality.

Pan people sometimes use the phrase "Hearts not parts" which may give a clearer image. Pan people can be sexually attracted to anybody, regardless of their gender but the attraction generally varies from person to person. There is no preference in pansexuality because their attraction is not based on the gender of the person, just the individual themselves.

The person's reaction is strange, pansexuality is not a commonly understood term and you aren't a mind reader so you don't know what their attraction to others is based on. They could've taken the opportunity to explain their experience of pansexuality but for some reason chose not to.

I personally don't think there's any meaningful difference between the two. I'm bisexual and as well as being attracted to cis men and women, I'm also attracted to trans and non-binary people.

With that said, I don't begrudge anyone who prefers to identify as pansexual. I certainly wouldn't be trying to challenge it over a FB post. Let people identify in the way they feel most comfortable. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

This would be a very transphobic view, if a transwoman says they are a woman and they are attracted to women sexually many refer to themselves as lesbian and to say they are not or to describe women open to dating them as pansexual because they are open to dating transwomen is transphobic.

Yes. It is toxic when you are forcibly trying to change other people's sexual orientation because you believe it is just 'morphology'.

No. It is one group of people seeking to destabilise the meanings of words that have well established meanings. If the words do not relate to 'biological sex', they are then meaningless and we are probably all 'pansexual'.

Just like just about every person I know is 'non-binary' because I don't know very many, if any, people who fit neatly into the gender stereotypes that define 'genders'. Those stereotypes that are both insistently denied, yet celebrated at the exact same time.

Pan people sometimes use the phrase "Hearts not parts" which may give a clearer image. Pan people can be sexually attracted to anybody, regardless of their gender but the attraction generally varies from person to person. There is no preference in pansexuality because their attraction is not based on the gender of the person, just the individual themselves.

As opposed to boring, ordinary people who don't care about personality and are entirely attracted based on 'parts'. Anyone who can say this unironically has no clue about how humans behave.

This bollocks is why pansexuals get mocked. It's a term used by self-absorbed twats who think they are super special and attracted to people's 'hearts' in a way everyone else doesn't understand.

Ignore them they think they should be the centre of your world

Totally agree, I don't believe in trans ideology but happy for anyone to label themselves however they want to, same as a religion.

No issue with people identifying however they want, my only issue is with the impact to women's rights and safety and to the safety of children.

but this guy referring to himself as pansexual fine. I don't think the op did anything that warranted his response though.

Hearts not parts means you will have romantic relationships and/or sex with men or women. Which means you are bi. Which is fine. But we already have a prefix for it. And it is insulting to suggest that people who are bi do not have romantic feelings or relationships.

Pan people sometimes use the phrase "Hearts not parts" which may give a clearer image. Pan people can be sexually attracted to anybody, regardless of their gender but the attraction generally varies from person to person

So, are you saying that pansexual people are never attracted to a person as a complete package, because it doesn't matter what body that person has that person will be aroused by that body because it is attached to the personality?

Or that bisexual people will be attracted to a person's personality but .... what?

Is this a distinction saying that bisexual people are more focused on whether they find a body attractive as well? Is that the distinction you are trying to pull out of the phrase 'hearts not parts'?

There is an important difference though. Between a sexual orientation and a 'sexuality'.

And it is the elephant in the room. It is the laws that are surrounding the two.

A sexual orientation has legal protection. A sexuality does not, unless the wording has changed lately. Because sexuality does include a very wide group of people including those with illegal sex practices.

Clear and well defined language is vital for safeguarding.

It's a bit like people saying they're "demisexual" because they don't like to jump straight into bed with someone on the first date.

Um, yes....and? Lots of other people feel the same way. You don't need a special word for that.

There are only three sexualities because there are only two sexes.

If you are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual.

If you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, you are homosexual. Lesbian if you are female and attracted to other female people, or a gay man if you are male and attracted to other male people.

If you are sexually attracted to people of both the same sex and the opposite sex, you are bisexual.

The three categories above literally cover all the possible options.

Lots of people are attracted to partners for non-physical traits, such as personality. The idea that being attracted to people's personality traits and not just their genitalia, and that this makes you pansexual, or demisexual, or whatever, is pretty narcissistic. It implies that you think the rest of us are just animals and you are one of a small group of super special people who are more sophisticated.

Pretty much like how claiming to be "non binary" implies that you think everyone else conforms to the regressive stereotypes associated with their sex and that only you are special and different.

This.
If you are bi, you are attracted to both sexes, but most likely you see both sexes as different - biologically and possibly in terms of gender identity depending on your ideology.... so you may like them both in different ways.... E.g: you may miss being with a woman if you are in a monogamous relationship with a man. Or appreciate being with a woman sexually in X way, while enjoying the sexual connection with a man in Y way. Of course loads of bi people would define themselves differently, but that's the general idea.

Pan, by my understanding, basically says a person's sexual parts or gender identity - whether male or female or trans post or pre op etc is irrelevant to your sexual attraction to them. You are open to all and don't distinguish. You focus on 'the person'.

Regardless, challenging terminology in response to somebody's coming out message is pretty poor....

The three categories above literally cover all the possible options.

Id say 4 to cover asexual

donquixote, it seems that in the conversation about sexualities the true scope of the word is not welcomed.

Of course it's toxic. This whole incendiary debate is toxic. It's once again legitimized misogyny and homophobia, which have become rife since this navel-gazing ideology imposed itself on others.

And an imposition is exactly what it is. I can call you 'she/her' as a courtesy - doesn't mean what I really see isn't 'he'. And you can bet your boots, so do others. Nobody's fooled, and as yet nobody can control what other people see and think.

Where I really do object is when people determinedly foist their garbled Newspeak and silly terminology on me. 'Woman' is not a dirty word. I am not a dirty little secret, or a walking womb and vagina; I'm certainly not a fucking bleeder and I really object to being called CIS. 'But it just means "not trans"', goes the invariable protestation. No, it doesn't. It means 'on the same side of', i.e. your 'gender' (gah!) is the 'same' as your 'sex assigned at birth', whatever in the hell that means. Gender is the instrument of my oppression: like hell am I ever going to 'identify' with it, or masquerade glittery feminine stereotypes as 'my identity' (heave). The GI assumes far too much. I reject it: stridently. As to lesbians being redefined in accordance with what men (yes, they are) believe they should be, then try to backtrack and claim they hadn't really been kicking up a fuss about the 'cotton ceiling' when people pointed out its rapey propensity, well, this is typical of the gaslighting and bullying of a particularly aggressive, insidious movement.

Constant labelling is really BORING. Do it yourself, if you must, just don't impose it on me. Sick, tired and zoned out of this constant tedious pontificating about 'gender' and awaiting with joyful anticipation the day someone invents a subversive (rather than submissive) new music subculture.

A closing thought. If TWAW, why don't they just fuck each other?

So I have a question. If bisexuals are only interested in 'cis' men and 'cis' women, and pansexuals are interested in people of both sexes and all genders, what is the word for people who are only interested in the opposite sex, but only 'cis' people and not people with different identities? Is that heterosexual? In which case, what sexuality do people have if they're only interested in the opposite sex but all the genders?

You focus on 'the person'.

Everyone focuses on the person though, to suggest otherwise is a bit insulting.

Its just that there are boundaries applied to that.

I don't understand the difference in boundaries between bi sexuality and pan sexuality. Both are open to both sexes. It's not more complicated than that.

Cobblers, innit? This whole shitshow really does love to twist itself up in knots.

I can't answer your question. I don't suppose there is anybody who can.