niomi

This is a tough subject for me to cover because not only does the discussion contain a lot of conflict, but in my opinion… the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is (drumroll) NOT A LOT. The differences are real but there are more similarities than differences. They are not mutually exclusive so I consider myself to be both.

If you know someone who prefers one and not the other, the difference matters to them. And the ultimate answer is, if you really want to know, you must never stop asking individuals what it means to them. There are caveats to the general imperative that we must trust people are what they say they are, because if (for example) you’re talking to a pan who says bis are trans-phobic or a bi that says pans are biphobic, that’s a real problem.

So let’s get into the root of this conflict where we can try to precisely define these terms while also explaining some misunderstandings. In a climate where activists are fighting the cultural hegemony of male/female gender binary, ignorant people will see “bisexual” and assume that means gender binary. The root of binary employed in both terms makes this misunderstanding inevitable.

What many don’t know is that the oldest and officialist bi-led organizations have been making their best and most sincere push for a gender-inclusive definition of bisexuality since the 90s. According to them, the binary in bisexual is: genders that are the same as yours, but also genders that are different than yours. Therefore, bisexuality has always included all trans and gender non-conforming people.

Because “the same and different, relative to the individual” as buckets for gender does not seem as quite so accessible as the obvious pitfall-buckets of “male and female”, enters the belief that bisexuality is trans-phobic.

But, just inhabit this binary-related misunderstanding of bisexuality for a second, and note that this misunderstanding STILL by definition includes trans people who are men and women. Why do they assume bisexuals do not include transmen and transwomen who are just as much men and women as cismen and ciswomen? There a big chance for a biphobic individual also projecting their own transphobia. We may even find such a person aboard a fucking choo-choo train of infinite phobias. Thus, if you pick a label in reaction to the other being less inclusive, you are ignorant and possibly telling on yourself.

In my humble opinion (and my opinion is the best source, obviously) I really think “attracted to people of genders (plural)” is a simple, good-enough working definition of bisexuality. Although the more technically precise term for what I just described as “good working definition of bisexuality,” probably is polysexual. Are you confused yet?

Pansexual, strictly, means attraction to ALL. I would say, attracted to any gender and/or all. All, (more or less).

There are reactionary pans who prefer to be called pan to express they are attracted regardless of gender. Attraction regardless is valid, but something that can apply to bis, too. So regardless can be real, can be a dog-whistle for phobia, as in “regardless of gender, unlike those other gender-superficial-sexuals!!”

Pans who believe bisexuals are, in contrast to them, attracted to genders first and people second… and pans who believe all bisexuals are trans-phobic… they do exist, and those pans are NOT COOL. Bisexuals who believe that all pans are biphobic reactionaries, those bis are NOT COOL EITHER. If you have believed this stuff, it’s OK! Now you know.

What I think we are moving toward is a convention where we have lots of prefixes-sexualities, some of them are more obscure, others are more popular. This is how language works!! Gatekeepers are intimidated by that. Get over it.