Bisexuals are salt water and pansecuals are freshwater. But fr from my understanding bisexual started as an exonym (originaly it meant something like hermafroditism but later it became about orientation), and since bisexual people have always been subject to erasure they latched onto it. Of course this term came to existence when the academic view of gender was binary so way later people wanted to update the label to reflect the change in paradigm but a lot of older people had become very attached to the laber and refused to change it and then people tried to rationalize differences but they are so subtle that imo is an exercise in futility.
I use both , but use pan online where people are more likely to understand me and bi irl cause for a lot of people the label pan feels completely alien.
You can only be bisexual if you are from the bisexual region of France, else you are sparkling pansexual
There are some transphobes and/or enbyphobes who will insist that bisexual means attraction to only two genders, and we all know why they’re doing that.
Others will say that bisexual means they based on the meaning of the prefix “bi-”. But that is the etymological fallacy. The current meaning of a word is not necessarily related to its etymological origin. Words change meaning literally all the time, and we should all be nonplussed about it by now [1].
In reality, words only mean what people generally understand them to mean [2]. Most dictionaries still retain, at least implicitly, a two definition, but most LGBT+ orgs and psychological associations and whatnot tend to define it as “more than one” gender, or similar.
Similarly, pansexual is generally defined as attraction to all genders or attraction being irrelevant of gender in the vast majority of places that care to declare a definition. But there are those who use it to mean the same thing as the latter definition of bisexual because they believe bisexual to mean the former definition of bisexual.
So what is the actual difference? It probably depends where you are and who you’re talking to. Womp womp.
There’s a joke/stereotype that many people who describe themselves as bi are attracted to one specific type of guy, and literally all women.
In my practical experience, people are more likely to identify as bisexual if they tend have a preference for certain gender presentations over others, and more likely to identify as pansexual if they are (closer to being) equally horny for all. Or if they have a preference for more pastel colours.
🤷♀️
[1] Even I believe, in my heart, that using the word nonplussed this way is wrong.
[2] Ha! I got the linguistic prescriptivists and the logicians with that one!
I always viewed it like bi- as in, one’s own gender + another (whatever group it may be).
Then there are pan- and omni-, and I thought pan- = one’s own + multiple but not all
while omni- = all of them
is that not the case then? til
Like the poster said that depends heavily on your communication circles.
I thought pansexuals needed to be seasoned first and washed immediately after each use then thoroughly patted dry?
This feels like a corner of the community trying to make rules for everyone. I think the intent is good, but I don’t think the definitions are as you say at this point in history because I don’t think they are any particular way. The people with the identities should decide on labels and meanings, and after several discussions with bi and pan people (specifically about this) or seems clear to me that there is not a strong consensus about what the terms “truly” mean. It is all over the place (at least in the sample of people whose discussions I witnessed).
One common thread is that almost none of them want to use the labels to exclude others.
I know a few who would probably love this.
Bisexuals have a tomato base while pansexuals are more teriyaki.
Just a heads up to everyone that has a Bisexuality definition that isn’t Bisexual, I’d really recommend not putting anti-trans labels and bullshit on Bi people, it’s never failed too piss off every Bi person I’ve ever been or known.
…Im sorry what?
There’s a ton of non-bisexual people in this thread (and elsewhere) that present a false definition of bisexual that excludes trans/nb/agender/gf/generally gender non-conforming people. Or otherwise may assume that bisexual people are necessarily either monogamous or polyamorous, neither of which is universally true of all bi people. Actual bisexual people (like myself) are understandably upset by these incorrect assumptions. It’s especially harmful to have people assume that a bisexual person wouldn’t be attracted to a trans person because of the implied transphobia it puts on bisexual people.
Ah I think I understand. Thanks.
bi means two so it assumes two genders
I don’t experience my sexual orientation through the strict dictionary defintions of root words in the English language. I don’t know why you think I would. I don’t. I’m not anti Trans. I’m attracted to plenty of Trans people, fem men, masc women, and plenty of gender non confotming or queer people, being attracted to people who are 1. same as me and 2. not same as me is also a binary. but bi generally meaning experiencing both same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction doesn’t mean I can’t be attracted to a man that expresses generally female traits or sexual characteristics intentionally, I don’t even know how it’s hard to figure out that gender non conforming people would be as or more attractive to someone attracted to sexual characteristics of all permutations. Please. don’t tell Bi people how they must experience their own sexuality based on the dictionary. It’s very belittling and can only lead to misunderstandings and harm. if you want to be a real technical asshole about it, I’m attracted to the sexual characteristics of male and female bodies and I’m not concerned about those characteristics matching any ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ standard created by society or anyone other than the person who is expressing and existing in their desired state. You don’t need to put anti Trans or anti gender queer sentiment on my sexual orientation, that makes no sense. I deeply love and respect and care for my Trans family members, friends, and fellow human beings.
I’ll apparently be quoting myself again in this thread.
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody’s left out. I guess an argument could be made that an agender person might not fit under either umbrella, but i would still consider agender to be either same gender (if the bisexual person is also agender) or different gender (if the bisexual person is not agender).
Surely you can understand that it’s insensitive to tell a bisexual person what their own sexuality means. I recommend reading more and chiming in less on matters that you know little about, especially when replying to someone (me) who explicitly said that they don’t appreciate the transphobic implications of an incorrect and ignorant interpretation of the term.
Im bi and my partner is NB and bi. No part of that is confusing or contradictory.
Attracted to the same gender and other genders. Two.
edit: I’m sure you didn’t mean it the way I took it, and I’m sorry if that’s frustrating, I didn’t mean my response personally more than just trying to give people information.
original comment:
attracted to the sexual characteristics of men and women, why would that stop me from being attracted to someone that has any permutation of either sex characteristics in expression or configuration? and gender doesn’t even enter into it of you want to be that technical, but again, gender being a construct, why would it bother me, a person attracted to many characteristics of gender expression be not attracted to someone who expresses a configuration of gender characteristics that mix and match or invent their own? that makes no sense. don’t tell me how I experience my sexuality.
but that’s pan
No.
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender).
Let me repeat @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone for you.
where’s the P in LGBTQ?
isn’t there a + at the end?
You’re missing the +
- L - Lesbian
- G - Gay
- B - Bisexual
- T - Transgender
- Q - Queer
- Q - Questioning
- I - Intersex
- P - Pansexual
- 2S - Two-Spirit
- A - Asexual
- A - Allies
I dont really think thats true.
I think that bisexual is just a term that has stuck since its been in use for so many many years
Its like feminism. Indeed the term feminism has the term ‘fem’ iin it so many people may assume that it has to do with equal rights of females ONLY . And indeed when liberal feminism started to be talked of more during the 1910s and 1940s when women and non-males starting taking up the jobs of dead males from the world wars it was indeed about more rights and suffrage for ONLY women… but I think that most modern feminists that are worrh their mettle would agree with me that femism has evolved to mean many things about ALL genders and has a lot to do with equality, independence, and equity amongst ALL genders.
Im a proletarian feminist and proletarian feminism has absolutely nothing to do with radical feminism or liberal feminism. So even though these terms are similar they are nothing a like in practice.
And feminism has nothing to do with those people in the past who ONLY resisted the current system for ONLY more women’s rights - feminism has nothing to do with those who push for ‘female supremacy’ despite the term’s ‘fem’ in it.
Being bisexual means many things nowadays to all people of ALL genders (I dont know and dont care how many genders there are. People should be able tk be who they want to be.) and there are many categories of bisexual peoples . But bisexual people have simply stuck with this term of ‘bisexual’ becauee the term simply stuck during the 1970s.
the focus these days in very much on gender identity and that’s not where bisexual identity stemmed from, it was about being attracted to both sexual body characteristics, and that’s outside gender, and people who have multiple sexual characteristics aren’t excluded from bisexuality in terms of being bisexual or being attractive to bisexual people, people now here bisexual and think it’s related to binary gender constructs. it’s not. it was never about that. and a lot of older bisexual people have also been against binary gender constructs and certainly conformity and insistence on conformity to binary gender constructs for a long long time.
deleted by creator
For practical purposes, it’s a judgement call:
-If they’re under 30, I say I’m pansexual.
-If they’re over 40, I say I’m bisexual.
-In between, I pick one based on vibes.
For theory purposes:
Studies on sexual attraction predate studies on gender identity. “Bisexual” hails from a day that we just considered the physical presentation of the people a study participant is attracted to, with the options of 1: Same, 2: Different. The studies allowed for people to be homosexual, heterosexual, or both-sexual.
“Pansexual” has had different definitions in the 1920s, 1970s, 2020s, and presumably the years in between. The current popular definition of “attraction to all genders” or “attraction regardless of gender” is basically a subset of “bisexual”, since this includes both people of the same sex, and people of different sex.
It’s more inclusive in the aspect of rejecting the gender binary at the start. But also, I believe that words are for communication, so at the end of the day, I’m using the most useful word based on the information I’m trying to communicate.
F all this. I’m omni
Every definition I have heard for pansexuality or similar that defines the term in contrast to bisexuality reads like slander to my ears.
Bisexuality is a broad category, and it was never exclusionary. Bisexuals can be attracted to trans people, and enbies, and those with or without gendered presentations, but critically they don’t have to be. Its a category not a checklist.
Bisexuality is broad. Other terms are more specific, and there is some amount of overlap.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
As a trans woman, I am deeply opposed to the idea, implied by many definitions, that the only people who can find me attractive are those with a specific trans inclusive sexual orientation. Its both invalidating, and completely untrue in reality.
This. Trans women are women. As a bisexual woman, I am attracted to women.
Trans people are also included in the bisexual manifesto, written in 1990
In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.
The way I always understood it was bisexual = attraction to your gender and other genders
and pansexual = attraction regardless of gender
now, functionally speaking, there is no distinction, but in terms of experience, I always identified more with pansexual than bisexual, as someone’s gender was just never something I took into account when determining my attraction.
I often to use both, as I consider pansexual to be a sub-distinction of bisexual.
That being said I recognize there is no consensus on the distinction in the community so I usually go with bi for ease.
I’ve always understood it as pansexual being attracted to personalities and bisexual being attracted to physical attributes
Statements like this are exactly why i STOPPED identifying as pan and stick to bi/queer now. How pretentious and judgmental to say pansexuals care abt personality while bisexuals only care about looks. It’s just more bi erasure.
Not gay enough for the gays Not straight enough for the straights Not bi enough for the pans
Bisexuals can like trans and NB people, I promise ;)
bisexuals only care about looks
You’re reading more into it than you need to.
All homo- and hetero-sexuals care about physical attributes too.
All pans I’ve met, doesn’t care about any physical traits.
I guess that does kind of align with my understanding, just in slightly more simplified terms!
I knew that was from Anything That Moves before I got past the first sentence lol
absolutely, and therefore i like the def of HalfSalesman. It nicely distinguishes between pan and bi, whilst avoiding any dated anti-trans ideas.
I would like to hear that definition if you have it on hand
it’s in this comment section: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/25858715
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
“Pan” because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn’t matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
“Bi” in the sense of being “bi-directional” in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I’m finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
Ok yeah that makes sense. The way I’ve conceptualized it is that pan is attracted to all genders or to people regardless of gender and bi is attracted to two or more genders. I think the way that commenter phrased it is a great way to think about it
Yeah, the only way pansexual makes sense, to me at least, is if bisexual excludes feminine presenting men and masculine presenting women, but I don’t see why it should. I feel like pan was just created either to make certain people feel like they’re being more inclusive than just normal bi people, or to make bi people feel like they’re being exclusive.
A lot of the gender and sexual orientation language of recent times is good and removes ambiguity. Some of it though, like pan, feels like people just treating it as a contest.
hildegarde already said the reason why Pansexual exists. Bisexual is a broad category, a REALLY broad category to the extent if someone tells you bisexual you’ve really learned nothing about their attractions unless they tell you.
Ehich flows off the tongue better, all inclusive bisexual or pansexual?
I always took the difference as pan means you’re sexually aroused and attracted to people’s personalities, regardless of their body, and bi means you like dicks and vaginas. It’s probably not very useful but out of the people I know that go both ways, the ones that are ok with casual sex call themselves bi and the ones that aren’t use pan.
No? That’s demisexual. Pansexual is you’re attracted to all (pan- means all) types of people, which is effectively equivalent to bi. Note attraction does not mean you like that person. You don’t even need to know someone to be attracted to them.
But liking a person can cause attraction, right?
Sure. Sexual orientation is defined as the innate attraction though. It’s the attraction you have to someone you see walking down the street. Obviously the right kind of interactions can overcome this and make someone attracted to someone they weren’t originally attracted to though, or vice versa.
Isn’t that basically just Demisexual
The way I frame it is: Bisexuals are attracted to you because of gender, pansexuals not. The ven diagram of attraction is mostly the same. It’s more about the why. Like I find masculine and feminine traits individually hot no matter who presents them, makes me bi.
I tell straight people I’m bi, i tell queer people I’m pan.
That way, you see, ha ha, I get the best of both worlds
But then you’re missing out on all that bottom fun!
God. Always that one guy….
As a trans person and a pansexual, I would describe it like this:
I don’t have a type. I don’t even necessarily tend to find people attractive until I get to know them a bit. The people I find “hot” aren’t tall people or feminine people or strong people or anything like that, instead I think clothing choices that tell me something about you and give me a feel for who you are as a person are hot.
If i’m attracted to you, I will find myself attracted to your body, rgardlesss of what your body happens to be like. You could literally be a glob of goo or an alien or a talking rock, if I like you I’ll start thinking you’re hot.
If you’re thinking “isn’t that demisexual”? then you’re halfway there - i’m not ace. I do think people are hot when I pass them on the street, except what i’m attracted to is their “vibe” rather than anything about their physical form.
Naturally, pansexual is a subset of bisexual - i’m also proud to be bi and I use that label frequently. And yes both bi and pan are trans-inclusive.
You wrote off demi too fast. When you say you find people passing with a good vibe hot, are we saying aroused, or are we saying “Ah, yes, quite the fuckable one, that”. Because there’s a third option and bi or pan only cover one while demi covers two.
If I can get enough of a read on someone’s personality, then yes I can be aroused, lip bite, let’s fuck, etc. more or less right away. I do need to get to know someone to be into them but that process can happen extremely quickly, including at a glance if I can get enough of a sense of someone’s personality from what they’re wearing/other context clues.
The definitions I’ve known are that bisexuality is that you are attracted to all body types and pansexuality is that you are attracted to people.
So, one is more physical and the other is more social, but there’s no slander to either, no?
I for example wouldn’t say ace biromantic, I’d define it as ace panromantic since bi has more of a physical vibe. Idk, it’s not so deep.
I learned what bi/pan was from a random discord user back in 2016 and I still think its the best description
Bi: Sexually attracted to looks, personality can obv play a big part/be a deciding factor but your main attraction comes from how physically attractive you think they are
Pan: Sexually attracted to personality, looks can obv play a big part/be the deciding factor but your main attraction is how much you like their personality
Again… Not dogging on you, because you nuanced it, but 99% of times, that definition is used to make bisexuals look shallow. The parent comment was right, there’s no good reason to have two, except that the creator wanted to feel special and unique.
All heterosexuals and homosexuals care about physical traits, often regarding a genitalia.
It’s not about being shallow, when 90%+(?) of the population shares that commonality.
I consider myself a panromantic, heterosexual non-binary person.
Sure personality matters a lot to me, but I can’t sexually engage with a penis. It’s just how it goes.
Is it shallow to want to fuck someone because their hot? Isnt that literally the societal norm? The majority of interaction ive had by far are people with sexual attraction on looks that ive personally just never been able to relate too. Thats why I think there needs to be a distinction for those of us who dont feel that sexual attraction even if their aesthetic appearance is something we would be sexually atteacted too after being attracted to their personality
Although… Thinking about it that might fit under demisexual, but then you cant specify the gender, so demi-bisexual? Honestly maybe pansexual should just be the pretty name for demi-bisexual although I think others using pansexual would say its different from demi, or maybe omni would say their more demi-bisexual. Idk im definitely with you that there are too many labels, but I think sexual atteaction between physical and closeness/personality deserve to have a distinction
No no no. Hi it’s me the parent commenter. I did not say that. There is reason to have both terms. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
That definition does exemplify my point about definitions reading as slander to bisexuals, as that definition does imply bisexuals are shallow, but that does not mean pansexuality isn’t a valid or useful term. The problem is trying to make a definition that is strict and draws a fine line between bisexuals and pansexuals. That cannot be done.
This is a grey area. Bisexuality is a diverse spectrum. The terms need to be a little fuzzy with some overlap. And that’s fine. The real world doesn’t fit neatly into the boxes we try to make for it.
Its good we have both the terms bisexual and pansexual. Its a very good thing we have words to communicate some of the many nuances that exist.
The issue becomes that we now have omnisexual, polysexual, pansexual, and bisexual.
We have labels on top of labels to describe once natural, barely labeled human behavior, millennia ago, even centuries ago in many precolonial parts of the world. In many cultures people just were who they were, they didn’t need to declare themselves as one thing to make sure that people didn’t commit the ultimate scandal: classifying them with another group. And I get that I’m being exaggerative here, and I am not ignorant to the fact that much of this behavior arises against societal violence (not only physical) from the assumed normative identity (whiteness, heterosexual, cis, etc…).
But we don’t unfuck this hegemonic society by further segregations of increasingly niche labels, while placing more weight on such labels. It is no coincidence these arise mainly from online or otherwise reclusive, isolated spaces. The
deathmurder of third spaces, unions, community, and collective action is designed to do exactly such things.All this to say, as I mentioned in another comment that I don’t think labels are inherently destructive, but that we have lost ourselves: as a species, as a society, as individuals. We don’t really know what healthy human behavior outside of a hegemonic, capitalist, imperial world looks like. It’s why things like anthropology are so important, but that also has so many issues that stem from the same hegemonic corruption of academia. In “losing” ourselves, we place such great importance on helpful but limited labels to close that subconscious hole of identity loss. And they start out small, but increase and become gaping. The ironic part is by now, this has so little to do specifically with bisexuality or pansexuality, and my critiques have broadened. I really am not attached to one label over another, but that doesn’t mean that I think we can just keep defining new ones to compensate.
Like someone responding to you said, it simply results in what we were always going to have to do, talk and get to know complex people. Instead of “oh there’s x person. He’s gay, but a twink not a bear, and I heard he’s problematic because x thing vs y thing…” And yes, I have heard people shove entire infinitely diverse human beings so violently into little boxes, so they “know” immediately how to judge them, pity them, hate them, etc…
Sorry this is so long. I have a lot of thoughts on this wider conversation about labels and our modernist society’s addiction to classifying everything and anything. Like you said, and Alan Watts, life isn’t boxes. As he says, there are no straight lines in nature just wibbles.
I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn’t really communicate anything, because there’s not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who’s using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.
I mean, practically, if someone tells me they’re bi or pan, it doesn’t really change my view of them. Like there’s not really any practical difference insofar as something I would need to know to treat them somehow. Like if I’m trying to flirt with someone, and if I was a man, and that person I find out is a a lesbian, then I wouldn’t. But if they’re bi or if they’re pan, it doesn’t change that.
There is a difference, I’m not saying there isn’t, and I’m not saying we should only use one if the two. I’m just saying the need for clarifying is overblown. If I’m curious why they picked one over the other, I might ask, but again, it’s not super critical for anything.
But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.
What’s the alternative you’re suggesting? That they don’t use the label that best suits them? That they don’t use the definition they prefer when asked why they identify as they do? This feels sort of half baked. I get where you’re going, but to what end? Suggesting they use a different definition or a different label just for convenience is pretty problematic.
This. I feel like the more terms we create to specify the nuances of reality, the more niche labels get created to differentiate from that new word. It’s a recursive tree that betrays reality into increasingly disconnected illusion we tell ourselves is reality but isn’t.
I actually yearn for a world where labels don’t really exist the way they do now. I know that sounds crazy at first, but how beautiful a world where you can meet your friend John, and introduce him to someone, and there’s no immediate categorization of this person’s identity. It’s probably a pipe dream, I recognize that, but so many of our definitions now are defined in opposition to something else. Gay is not straight, trans is not cis, bisexual is not gay or straight, ethnic means not white (in our current context).
And it’s not like I think labels are inherently bad, but one of the sayings I try to live my life by is: methods are meant to serve us, not us serve methods. When we make once helpful tools into a false reality, we end up serving the things meant to simply aid us. I don’t know exactly how it would look, and that’s the cool part: I don’t have to, it would be a societal discourse. But to have all these competing, oppositional, binding terms simply be subsumed under personhood. Which of course demands the ending of normative culture: heteronormativity, whiteness, patriarchy, etc. As currently, those are our “normal”.
But in a just society would it be so bad to simply see a person and just let them be them? Maybe it would be, maybe I’m leaving out crucial aspects in my limited, single outlook. But man, I can dream.
You’re only pansexual if you’re from the Panne region of France, otherwise you’re just sparkling bisexual.
Panne is in Belgium.
Don’t do this. That joke is tiresome. Please stop.
Is your boredom from the Tirésomme region? Or you’re just sparkling bored?
Typical lemmyworld…
I’m going to need to see either your Fun Police badge, or a warrant from a federal Fun Judge
Pansexual because gender and physical looks are mostly irrelevant to what you find sexually attractive
Bisexual because you find both sexes physically attractive making gender mostly irrelevant
Bisexual assumes two genders though, not wholly irrelevant.
Read any of the many definitions of bisexual from actual bisexual people in this thread, and you’ll learn that bisexual absolutely does not assume two genders or reinforce a gender binary in any way.
I mean it has the prefix bi, idk like why are we using the Greek prefix for two if two has nothing to do with it? But it’s fine i dont need to understand it, just genuinely that’s where my mind went.
No.
I’d say the only meaningful distinction is that some people make up a definition “bi” could have had but never did, and then use “pan” in opposition to that 😛
But more honestly I asked my sister why she identifies as pan rather than bi, and her answer was that bi attracted the wrong people and pan attracted the right people 😉
By most definitions I’d consider myself pansexual, but boy do I like the bi flag more, so that is what I typically use. And it’s easier for a layman to understand.
Pansexual: Attracted to people regardless of gender characteristics.
“Pan” because gender is functionally irrelevant. Any and all genders accepted because it doesn’t matter.
Bisexual: Attracted to multiple genders specifically because of their gender characteristics.
“Bi” in the sense of being “bi-directional” in attraction, usually attracted to specific gender traits and as a result not all genders, just more than one.
For instance, I’m finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
For instance, I’m finsexual, which is a subcategory of bisexual because it describes specific gender elements that I am attracted to but is not a sub category of pansexual as a result.
I don’t know why but this is making me feel my age. I feel like I mentally just patted down different pockets across my mind like an old man, looking for a pamphlet or flow chart that I know I don’t have but desperately need.
The autism is compelling me to make a laminated pocket sized booklet with an updated chart of all gender, sexual orientation, and flag colors. But I also feel being spotted in public using the LGBTQ Pokedex might be faux pas?
You dont have to know them all. Its just a comfort to people to have a label when you can’t otherwise communicate your experience :) (and in some cases it makes you feel less alone and weird for relating to people in a way you dont see anyone else experiencing)
And there are a lot of ways to experience sexuality and attraction (or to not experience it), so there are a lot of labels! But you dont need to know all of them
You can always ask if someone uses a label you dont know and you’d like to know (eg “oh, ive not heard that label before. What does it mean to you?”) and as long as you’re being friendly people usually take comfort in seeing someone interested in understanding them. But unless you’re in community with someone and want to understand their identity, its not neccesary to really know the various labels, nevermind have a complete list and know all of them by heart
Sending love from my corner of the world to yours ☺️ (signed, a person who’s maybe gray-ace :)
This is a really sweet comment <3
I’m glad you think so ☺️☺️
…Wholesomeness? On lemmy? Not on my watch!!1!1
Nonsensically mean comment! Thatll teach you to never be kind to other humans! Hmmmph!
(jk)
It’s tough because the language has evolved relatively rapidly over the past few decades, and is still evolving quite rapidly. Definitions emerge and compete for relevancy (like the atrocious “Bi means you aren’t attracted to trans people” strain that has popped up in this thread) and they can contradict or confuse with each other. It has been my experience that it’s harder to absorb vocabulary as I get older, so I think I know what you mean. I’ve stopped trying to reach a comprehensive understanding, I just try to use the language that helps and respects people and not the language that harms and demeans people as best I can.
Yeah, I feel like past 35 it’s harder to keep up with trending vernacular. I just try my best to be respectful. I think the autism has kinda trained me to use gender neutral pronouns and to avoid assuming sexual orientation anyways. I’ve always had a hard time distinguishing gender unless it’s blatantly obvious someone is presenting as masculine or feminine.
Nah, I looked it up because its my specific type of attraction and its easier to tell someone I’m finsexual and assume they’ll look it up or ask me to explain what that is. Rather than up front explaining in detail what my specific sexual interests are which might be a tad forward…
So …what you’re saying is there will be high demand for my LGBTQ Pokedex? I need to file a copyright real quick.
Please explain your sexual interests entirely through allegory without using explicit vocabulary generally accepted to be sexual in connotation. Thank you.
I know I’m probably getting downvoted to hell for this. I think calling yourself “finsexual” does nothing to help you find a partner. Why do you even need that label? The obsession with applying increasingly specific labels to people doesn’t feel healthy. In reality, you meet people, and you like someone you meet, romantically and/or sexually and/or socially, or you don’t. These specific types of labels are only for people’s imaginary future partners and seem to be an attempt at having a modicum of control in a world that’s entirely uncertain and ambiguous
I don’t think they would use the term in a dating scene when interacting with people unless is on topic.
Why do you even need that label?
Why not?
The obsession with applying increasingly specific labels to people doesn’t feel healthy.
It would seem unhealthy to do so to others, but they are defining themselves in a space where specifically that is being discussed. That’s not obsession.
These specific types of labels are only for people’s imaginary future partners
Hard disagree. I agree with you in that when you find a partner you either like them or you don’t, and they don’t need to know much more that you like them.
These terms are for the person to understand themselves better so they can interact more efficiently with others, not a template that others need to know to interact with you.
I like women, but I don’t care much about what they have between their legs. That’s technically straight, but I’d say that a lot of straight people wouldn’t accept that, so I like to think I’m flex straight. I wouldn’t point it out to my partner unless we were talking about sexuality to begin with, but this is a post about sexuality, it’s very on topic to think more deeply about this stuff.
These terms are for the person to understand themselves better so they can interact more efficiently with others, not a template that others need to know to interact with you.
Sure, but why create new words that 99.3% of people would have to look up rather than just say, “I’m attracted to feminine people.” The constant drumbeat of new terms to describe sexualities and genders is utterly exhausting. We already have the language to describe all these things effectively without creating new words
My brother in Christ, have you know language? It evolves constantly. New words are created and old ones stop being used all the time.
Sure, but why create new words that 99.3% of people would have to look up rather than just say, “I’m attracted to feminine people.”
You are getting annoyed in a comment chain about sexuality where the first use of the term was in a comment where the meaning was explained. You don’t need to look it up because they explained it right there, and if that’s exhausting maybe don’t engage in the discussion? Their comment is way more on topic than yours, just saying.
Exhausting? Really? It doesn’t affect your life in any way, you can choose not to engage with the topic. I recommend you to try relaxing your views on this topic and removing it importance given the context in which it was used. It feels like you are linking other instances where you saw or you were told that people used terms in a way where it disrupted conversation with this one, but again, in this instance it was very on topic and definitely not disruptive, this was not the best comment chain where to express your frustrations.
You did the equivalent of going to a video gaming convention and complaining why everyone is talking about computer games instead of just playing sports. If someone was playing videogames in an outing and killing the vibe maybe you could tell on him, but the convention definitely wasn’t the forum, and this isn’t.
Edit to actually answer your question lmao: because labels are fun, everyone likes labels. Humans tend to label everything from time immemorial. People enjoy creating labels for themselves. If going to a post about sexuality and reading comments about people discussing labels is exhausting, please leave :)
Its just a communication tool. Saying I’m a finsexual instead of bi tends to ease issues for me because sometimes people misinterpret just saying I’m bi to suggest “oh they might be attracted to me.” Which has directly lead to problems for me. Being a little more specific seems like a reasonable means to avoid those problems.
Pansexuals loving pans 🤝 finsexuals loving fish
Tbh I’ve always considered myself pansexual just because I am attracted to what I’m attracted to, no guardrails or borders. I usually view these terms as more like shackles than support. I suppose 99% of the time I could be considered finsexual aside from the stray guy. Usually I just explain pansexuality to my boomer family as my sexuality is whatever gets me horny and can give moral enthusiastic consent. Thats what it means to me at least. I don’t overthink it beyond that.
I like these definitions. But i feel like if i call myself bi, it misleads people who dont know this definition.
This is why I prefer “queer” personally, because why should I have to explain my sexuality to anyone. I’ll know what I like when the time comes and that has expanded and contracted over the years. There is no specific line I feel like I need to use as a definition. To me drawing a line just limits things and misleads others. Language is imperfect and sexuality is complex.
I also most often use queer to define my sexuality to others (as in my Lemmy bio), but consider myself bisexual and refer to myself as such when asked directly or in conversation with queer friends.
Honestly, I think I like these definitions best. Just2look is also probably correct about a lot of people too though.
Yeah the Bisexual flag is fucking cool.
This is why i consider myself Bi, I’m attracted to femininity regardless of gender
Bisexuals have a cooler flag, pretty sure that’s the only difference. Otherwise they’re both labels that fail to adequately describe the infinitely personal and variable elements of human attraction and sexuality. Use whichever one feels right. I flip between bi and pan when labeling myself but omnisexual probably “fits” the best
Problem: There are 2 competing labels for universal attraction
Solution: “Omnisexual should represent universal attraction”
Problem: there are 3 competing labels for universal attraction
Oh look what you’ve done now. You’ve made it worse. Omnisexual? Now there’s three terms confuddling the concept.
Behold the magnificence and terror of my eldritch, unknowable sexuality!
Isn’t that just changing it from the Greek pan prefix to Latin omni prefix, both meaning all?
Omnisexuality is differentiated from bi/pan in recognizing the role of gender in attraction, and expresses a.preference for certain genders over others. For example, I’m mostly attracted to fem, queer, or androgynous presenting people, and not particularly drawn to masc people. I am attracted to some men (amab or.afab), but not to the same degree as I am with other gender expressions
Pish pish! The Pan flag is amazing! It’s like a sunset ice cream Sunday!
Haha, to each their own!
