hypocriticalhypothetical: themeaningofbisexuality: hypocriticalhypothetical: themeaningofbisexuality

hypocriticalhypothetical:

themeaningofbisexuality:

hypocriticalhypothetical:

themeaningofbisexuality:

hypocriticalhypothetical:

themeaningofbisexuality:

Bisexuality is the attraction to two or more genders

Defining bisexuality as attraction to “both” sexes is intersex erasure and unscientific.

Also this a definition often used by those who wish to misgender trans binary people and non-binary people by coercively defining people by the sex they were assigned at birth, and therefore equating sex to genitals.

Both sex and gender are social constructs, and neither genitals nor chromosomes define someone’s gender identity.

If a bisexual person defines their personal attraction as being to both sexes, they are intersex erasing and misgendering trans people and so should examine their definitions and learn not to erase and misgender people.

If someone who isn’t bisexual uses this definition then, on top of the things I mention above, they are also being biphobic and it isn’t their place to tell the bisexual community how to define their sexuality.

I am so not on top of these terminology things.

So, what’s the difference between Bi and Pan then? I was under the impression bi was for the binaries, and pan was all inclusive?

“bi is for the binaries”?

You don’t have to ID as pansexual or be attracted to more than one gender to be attracted to non binary people, and non binary people can ID as any sexuality they wish.

Pansexual means attraction to all genders and is more specific than bisexuality, but someone attracted to all genders can ID as bisexual, there is an overlap in the definitions which is perfectly fine.

I think I’ve used the wrong phrase here, by the fact you’ve highlighted it. That’s a big neon arrow pointing at my words and reading ‘look at this asshole!’, right?

The statement I meant to convey with those words was - I was under the impression that identifying as bisexual meant: Person A (identifying themselves however they so chose, not necessarily on the traditional gender binary) was attracted to person B (identifying as either male or female) as opposed to Pansexuality, which I believe is: Person A (identifying howsoever they chose, not necessarily on the traditional gender binary) is attracted to Person B (also identifying howsoever they chose, not necessarily on the traditional gender binary)

Have I got that right? That’s my understanding of the differences between the two terms. 

No that’s not right, because that implies that out of all sexualities only pansexual people can be attracted to non binary people and in actuality you can be straight, gay or bi and attracted to non binary people.

But I thought that was entire point of the Pan identifier, to be the label under which people who were attracted to all cis, trans and non-binary people could group themselves - because Bi wasn’t an inclusive label as it referred to being attracted to the binary.

What’s the point of Pan then, if both identifiers mean the same thing?

The point of pansexuality is it makes it clear you are attracted to all genders, labels overlap and that’s ok!

Also trans people are part of the binary and you don’t have to be pan to be attracted to them, it’s actually rather offensive to suggest that only pansexual people can be attracted to trans and non binary people.