LGBTAitp - Part Thirteen

[Castaras]

so whats "pansexual"? ive heard it used, and im pretty sure its not an attraction to cookware.

Pansexual, as I understand it, is "Attracted to people" rather than "Attracted to men and women". Something like that.

[golentan]

Go back to earlier in this thread. We had a long discussion about that.

Alternatively, ask Wikipedia.

Eh, we have the same discussions over and over again so often that we might as well have this one again.

Pansexuals as I understand it are kind of like bisexuals but don't distinguish mates based on gender. Implying to mild irritation by some that bisexuals do distinguish based on gender. Which is then claimed not to be the desired intent. Then we get into a cyclical discussion about the validity of varying amounts of nuance and the importance of a common lexicon vs. the ease of adding to the collective terminology which is resolved when both sides agree to politely disagree and allow self-identification with varying amounts of irritation (which seems to grow on each subsequent iteration unless I'm projecting). Somewhere around the middle someone causes a spinoff discussion by accidentally misreading or conflating gender and sex.

There, I believe I have just spared you the necessity of reading the next 1-4 pages of discussion.

[Coidzor]

^: Needs a bit stronger language and glosses over the way things get a bit too heated just before the climax of the arc but yeah.

so whats "pansexual"? ive heard it used, and im pretty sure its not an attraction to cookware.

Or bread for that matter.

[Asta Kask]

The word should be used with caution around Primatologists.

[Serpentine]

so whats "pansexual"? ive heard it used, and im pretty sure its not an attraction to cookware.

It's a possibly more accurate term that means the same as bisexual.

maybe a better explanation would be that "im attracted to people im attracted to" is neither explicitly inclusive or exclusive of anything, making any assumption far wackier. it also does not acknowledge or validate any social/human construct other than the concept of sexual attraction, discrete entities, some definition of "person", and a self; all things assumed in most human interaction except with philosophy students, physicists, and trolls. thats the big reason i want a good single word for it.

Sexuality categories are by definition about sexuality. If you want a term that involves non-sexual attraction, then you are not looking for an alternative to hetero/homo/bi/pansexual, but a term for an entirely separate category. If you want a sexuality category that does not mean that you are attracted only to men or only to women, then I suggest pansexuality. If you want some sort of metacategory that relates to transcendental concepts of "self" and "being", then I suggest you do a philosophy class.
Sexualities are defined by the sexes a person is attracted to. If you are primarily attracted to people of the opposite sex to you (or, if the people you are attracted to are usually of the opposite sex), you are heterosexual. If you are primarily attracted to people of the same sex as you (or, the people you are attracted to are usually of the same sex), you are homosexual. If you are attracted to people of both/all/any sexes (or, the people you are attracted to are of both/all/any sex), you are bisexual or, if you prefer, pansexual.
Anything else is outside the purview of sexuality terminology, other than things like objectophillia and fetishes.

If you really want something that means "I can be attracted to absolutely anything", then try omnisexual.

[Asta Kask]

If you're an Organic Chemistry nerd... it's the equivalent of calling people (E)-sexual and (Z)-sexual, rather than cis- and trans-sexual.

[Caustic Soda]

It's a possibly more accurate term that means the same as bisexual.

How so? As I understand it, pan- means "everything" or "any/all members of a population". Being sexually attracted to everything/everyone isn't the same as bisexuality, and being potentially attracted to any member of a population isn't any more precise than saying bisexual, since it requires elaboration to exclude zoophilia and paedophilia, which I would assume aren't meant to be included.

While I can certainly understand being annoyed at the the explicitly binary definition of sex, "pan-" seems like a spectacularly unsuited prefix to use.

[Lissou]

If I may chip in...
A lot of people have defined it as "another word for bisexual".

But the people I know who identify as pansexual make a big distinction. They mean they're attracted to people regardless of sex and gender. And according to what they've told me, they would also date someone who is intersex, genderqueer or transgender, while a bisexual person would not. According to their definition, bisexual people like manly males and feminine females, and wouldn't be interested in someone if they don't know their gender, while a pansexual person wouldn't care if they even have a gender at all.

How spread is this understanding of the word? Is it just my friends' definition? What people say here seems to basically say "It's the same as bisexual but it's not a word with a binary-gender connotation" while my friends believe that a pansexual person will be attracted to a whole bunch of people a bisexual person wouldn't.

[Savannah]

As far as I can tell, there's two primary groups talking about the word. The ones who think like your friends, and the ones who don't see that the distinction as that big (ie don't say that bisexuals are always attracted to only the extremes of the gender scale).

[Dogmantra]

The confusion comes from the fact that the term "bisexual" was coined to mean "totally into everyone regardless of sex" when it was more accepted that there were only two sexes, now that it's more common to accept there are more than two sexes people are taking "bi" to mean "just two" rather than "both (i.e. all of them)". I think there's some merit to that and that we could do with an updated word, but I also think that the word "bisexual" is still big in the cultural consciousness as meaning "totally into everyone regardless of sex" and while it's bothersome, using it as anything other than that kind of defeats the whole point of language. Basically this is why I use the word pansexual for myself and why I also see bisexual as the same but different... if you get my meaning.

I also think this argument will get us nowhere, not even if we have it like four more times.

[Peanut Gallery]

How spread is this understanding of the word? Is it just my friends' definition? What people say here seems to basically say "It's the same as bisexual but it's not a word with a binary-gender connotation" while my friends believe that a pansexual person will be attracted to a whole bunch of people a bisexual person wouldn't.

Well speaking as a bisexual, I definitely do not like only manly men nor feminine women. I have before, but by no means exclusively. In fact I'm rather fond of androgyny if sex/gender plays a factor at all. And most of the bisexuals I also know have preferences that generally include things like nice eyes, or great hair, or a sense of humor. Pretty much exactly the same as my heterosexual friends, except without the extra criteria.

Maybe according to your friends that would make me pansexual by their definition, but I prefer to identify as bi.

[Coidzor]

It's a possibly more accurate term that means the same as bisexual.

...It can't mean the same thing and be more accurate at the same time, since the latter would mean that it didn't have the same meaning.

But the people I know who identify as pansexual make a big distinction. They mean they're attracted to people regardless of sex and gender. And according to what they've told me, they would also date someone who is intersex, genderqueer or transgender, while a bisexual person would not. According to their definition, bisexual people like manly males and feminine females, and wouldn't be interested in someone if they don't know their gender, while a pansexual person wouldn't care if they even have a gender at all.

When they do that, however, it transmits a message that either A. they're prejudiced against intersex and trans and genderqueer individuals and projecting it onto bisexuals, the label people conflate them with in order to differentiate themselves as "better" in some moral way or B. they simply believe that all bisexuals must be prejudiced against intersex and trans and genderqueer individuals.

So they're not really reflecting reality but just perpetuating the illusion of the reality and legitimacy of prejudices that transmen and transwomen aren't real men or women and that intersexed individuals are strange or freaky when they're just people like anyone else.

Might just be me, but I find that position to be rather problematic on various levels.

[Lissou]

Yeah, I can get that. Beyond that, it also insinuates that gay or straight people won't have a relationship with someone who is transgender, genderqueer or intersex, and I personally don't think that's true.

Although from one person to the next it might work differently. For instance, assuming two women who identify as straight, one might date a trans man and one might date a trans woman, by which I mean one might date someone due to their gender being male, the other due to their sex being male, and they might not be willing to do it the other way around.

I personally think I wouldn't have a problem dating a woman with male parts, but I would dating a male with female parts, which I guess I mean my sexual attraction is sex-based and not gender-based?

But at some point, labels become too bothersome. You can't expect people to know what all of them mean, and you can't expect some to fit every situation, either. I think that's why we have them as broad categories, but then you can clarify on a case-by-case basis.

[Coidzor]

At the end of the day, it's only really relevant to one's self and whatever individuals one attempts to bed, after all.

[Lissou]

At the end of the day, it's only really relevant to one's self and whatever individuals one attempts to bed, after all.

I would add that it's also relevant to people who might be interested in you, so they know if they stand a chance or not. It can be embarrassing to hit on someone only to be told you're the wrong gender, so knowing it beforehand can't hurt.

[ZombyWoof]

If I may chip in...
A lot of people have defined it as "another word for bisexual".

But the people I know who identify as pansexual make a big distinction. They mean they're attracted to people regardless of sex and gender. And according to what they've told me, they would also date someone who is intersex, genderqueer or transgender, while a bisexual person would not.

Except for transgender I can agree with this. But I identify as straight and have absolutely no issues dating or having sex with a transgender who identifies as female.

It certainly doesn't make me "pansexual" and I don't feel the need to invent the term "heterotransheteroconcarnesexual" to explain that I want to date and be with a woman and if you identify as a woman that's enough for me. Also that I enjoy chili con carne, possibly even while having sex.

[Anethiel]

I have a solution. We should attach a print of this handy reference to every wall of every building of the world. Problem solved.

That graph has been most likely already posted, but I thought it was relevant to the topic at hand.

[blackfox]

I'm pretty sure Serpy's issue with 'pansexual' and the like is that we don't need to invent more words with only minor semantic differences from the ones we already have.

I'm pretty sure the most common/coherent counter-argument to that is that having one word that means the thing with the minor semantic differences is a lot less words than saying 'I'm attracted to members of the female gender regardless of whether or not they're members of the female sex' or 'I'm attracted to members of the human race no matter their gender or sex.'

Now if everyone could agree to not rip each other's throats out over minor semantic differences, maybe we could have world peace.

[Lissou]

I have a solution. We should attach a print of this handy reference to every wall of every building of the world. Problem solved.

Problem not solved :P I've always considered myself androsexual, but I'm not even represented on this chart! I'm attracted to people with male parts, and I couldn't care less what they identify as. What does that make me?

[Coidzor]

Now if everyone could agree to not rip each other's throats out over minor semantic differences, maybe we could have world peace.

Well, it's less the minor semantic differences and more the unfortunate implications we attach to the minor semantic differences as far as I can tell. :/

[rayne_dragon]

Oh... bi vs. pan again...

My quick summary of it is that while bisexual technically refers to just two sexuals, in experiance bisexuals tend to be okay with peole along the gender spectrum (and beyond) far more frequently than straight people. The end result is that pan just lets those who don't fit in the binary gender system know that they have been considered and found desireable while bisexual is a more convienent (accepted/understood) term to use.

I have a solution. We should attach a print of this handy reference to every wall of every building of the world. Problem solved.

That graph has been most likely already posted, but I thought it was relevant to the topic at hand.

Uhm... this is awesome. "Skoliosexual" is such a weird word, but I like it.

When they do that, however, it transmits a message that either A. they're prejudiced against intersex and trans and genderqueer individuals and projecting it onto bisexuals, the label people conflate them with in order to differentiate themselves as "better" in some moral way or B. they simply believe that all bisexuals must be prejudiced against intersex and trans and genderqueer individuals.

I think it is a bit presumptuous to ascribe motives to someone without asking them about it. When somebody uses pansexual it seems to me that it is usually out of a desire to be inclusive of people outside the gender binary and without any kind of malice towards those who do not make such a distinction.

So they're not really reflecting reality but just perpetuating the illusion of the reality and legitimacy of prejudices that transmen and transwomen aren't real men or women and that intersexed individuals are strange or freaky when they're just people like anyone else.

The trans part is complete unintended and, hopefully, most pansexuals feel that transfolk belong to their real gender (the one the trans person perceives themselves as - just in case that needs clarifying). As for intersex... I've never felt that the term pansexual makes anyone out to be strange or freaky (well, except maybe the person using it; and then in a good way). Still, that's personal opinion, so someone else who is genderqueer or intersexed might be more sensitive about it.

Might just be me, but I find that position to be rather problematic on various levels.

I kind of think you're seeing issues where there aren't any. All my experiences with the term and the people who might take umbrance with it suggest that the terminology is acceptable to those who would have reason to object. Still, that's just my experience and those issues exist in potential if not in actuallity, so I think it is good for pansexuals to be aware of such potential problems with the term.

[blackfox]

Well, it's less the minor semantic differences and more the unfortunate implications we attach to the minor semantic differences as far as I can tell. :/

This particular argument is over the minor semantic differences. The politics are over the implications.

[Coidzor]

I think it is a bit presumptuous to ascribe motives to someone without asking them about it.

Funny, that was my problem with someone describing the difference between them as being pan and others who are bi in the way that the person I was responding to put it forward.

This particular argument is over the minor semantic differences. The politics are over the implications.

Huh? My entire dog in this iteration was how that particular explanation of the difference was offensive in its current wording.

The trans part is complete unintended and, hopefully, most pansexuals feel that transfolk belong to their real gender (the one the trans person perceives themselves as - just in case that needs clarifying).

I kind of think you're seeing issues where there aren't any. All my experiences with the term and the people who might take umbrance with it suggest that the terminology is acceptable to those who would have reason to object. Still, that's just my experience and those issues exist in potential if not in actuallity, so I think it is good for pansexuals to be aware of such potential problems with the term.

My issue is not with the term "pansexual." My issue is with the incredibly insensitive and offensive way that people explain the difference between bi and pan, and sometimes what it implies about the people who decide to explain it in that way and how they view the world.

Insensitivity is still insensitivity even if you can't realize how it's insensitive, so I don't see how the fact that it's unintentionally insensitive is all that relevant, especially if the stance is not revised with the relevation that it is insensitive.

[Savannah]

I think it is a bit presumptuous to ascribe motives to someone without asking them about it. When somebody uses pansexual it seems to me that it is usually out of a desire to be inclusive of people outside the gender binary and without any kind of malice towards those who do not make such a distinction.

While I highly doubt all or even many of the people who self-identify as pansexual mean it in this way, virtually every time they try to explain what it means, I walk away feeling insulted. They way they explain it always* implies that I'm only attracted to people for their genitalia and that they are somehow better than I am because they're attracted to a broader range of people than anyone who self-identifies as bisexual -- conveniently ignoring the people who are fine with transsexual/gender queer/etc partners, but prefer the term bisexual. Isn't it a bit presumptuous of them to explain to everyone that I only like manly men and girly girls, even though that is completely untrue, without asking me about it?

*or almost always -- I think there was one exception

[Ashen Lilies]

Agree +1.
I don't intend to pitch into the argument over whether we need new words or not either way, but reading Lissou's definition (or rather, reading the definition Lissou's friends/aquaintances use) felt like being slapped in the face.

[Lissou]

They way they explain it always* implies that I'm only attracted to people for their genitalia

You say that like it's a bad thing I mean, obviously, people don't pick their genitalia, they're born with them (with some exceptions of post-op people I guess), but then again people are also born whichever gender they are, aren't they? Even if it doesn't happen to match their sex. So why would liking people for one be better or worse than for the other?

As for the fact that it's not true, then I guess that would annoy me too, and could be enough for you to be annoyed that they explain it that way. But then you add that it implies they're better than you, and it makes me wonder if you think being attracting to sex is less... valuable or something? Or did I misunderstand your post?

Anyways, I was asking about that because I wanted to know if many people used the terms that way, and how accurate they were. I guess it's a good thing I asked, since even though my bisexual friends do agree with that definition, obviously not all bisexual people do.

[Coidzor]

You say that like it's a bad thing

Unfortunately for whatever reason, it does to come off like it's being said like it's a bad thing when being interpreted from what's being said.

So why would liking people for one be better or worse than for the other?

Mostly ties into cultural ideas of transcendence and being beyond physical concerns and builds from there from brain to mouth to ears to brain. As far as I can tell, anyway.

As for the fact that it's not true, then I guess that would annoy me too, and could be enough for you to be annoyed that they explain it that way. But then you add that it implies they're better than you, and it makes me wonder if you think being attracting to sex is less... valuable or something? Or did I misunderstand your post?

Although... Another possibility is that it's basically bringing back the old and very negative stereotype of bisexuals as sex fiends while also differentiating the pansexual from them. The combination would definitely have, um, potential when combined with the way that the message is being conveyed to give a message of superiority.

[Savannah]

You say that like it's a bad thing

Uh, yeah. Sorry, but I like people as people, not as walking holders for sex organs. I'm attracted to person [x] because person [x] is funny and likes what I do. Their definition implies that I like person [x] because person [x] has a penis or has a vagina. Sorry, but no, pansexuals do not have a monopoly on being attracted to "people, not sexes".

As for the fact that it's not true, then I guess that would annoy me too, and could be enough for you to be annoyed that they explain it that way. But then you add that it implies they're better than you, and it makes me wonder if you think being attracting to sex is less... valuable or something? Or did I misunderstand your post?

Hmm...two slightly different issues.

Issue one: your friends are telling everyone who I like without bothering to see if that's true. How would you like it if I said "[sexuality that you identify as] only likes tall people; no short people need apply. I, on the other hand, like everyone."? If I state this as complete fact, without bothering to see if that applies to everyone of [sexuality]? Might you not be a little bit annoyed that I'm telling the short people that you're attracted to not to bother with you because there's no way you'd like them? Might you not be a little bit put out that I'm telling everyone who you like without even knowing you?

Issue two: The implication is always* that "we like everyone, bisexuals only like a few people, therefore we're better and more accepting than bisexuals" (see "I like everyone" above). As someone who self-identifies as bisexual, I'm insulted by that implication. Yes, I realize that's almost certainly not what they mean, but it's what they're implying. And it's insulting.

*again, I think in all the arguments of bi versus pan in this thread there was one exception

[blackfox]

Huh? My entire dog in this iteration was how that particular explanation of the difference was offensive in its current wording.

Well maybe I've been reading things wrong... I thought this was just another 'what the hell does pansexual mean and why do we use it' argument.

[Lissou]

I see. Well, at any rate, I'll make sure to only take these things as meaning "I personally like..." and not give much worth to "while other people like..." as they probably don't actually know. Plus I doubt all bisexuals are exactly the same anyways.

Maybe they mean that they're using this term (pansexual) specifically to differentiate themselves from what they consider to be "bisexual"? I guess in their minds, the bis who disagree with that definition are actually pans.
But yeah, I agree it's condescending to say what other people feel, like or mean. And it's condescending to decide they're actually something other than what they call themselves.

I certainly apologise on their behalf - and on my own, since I might very well had expressed their points wrong, and I'm the one who made the post who ended up as a slap in the face. So, I'm very sorry about that, I could probably have phrased my question in a much less hurtful way.

Regardless, I'm glad I'm set straight on that point (if I dare say).

I have another question, and hopefully I won't put my foot in my mouth this time.

I know from learning about asexuality that there is sexual orientation and romantic orientation. For most sexual (as in, non-asexual) people, these seem to be the same (as in, people you are sexually attracted to and people you fall in love with tend to be the same). But can they be opposite? Can the group of people you are sexually attracted to and the group of people you are romantically attracted to barely overlap, or even be mutually exclusive?

What do you guys think?