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 ;)
I knew that was from Anything That Moves before I got past the first sentence lol
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.
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.
Ah gotcha. I cant relate to the feeling but I can conceptualize it I think. I fall under demisexual so while I'm highly sexually charged, arousal by a random person takes a lot of work to get to. To clarify further, I'm male, but I have so many turn-offs that people are essentially classified as unsexy by default until I've done heavy vetting (social and psychological conversational prodding to determine a person's place in the metacontextual zeitgeist). Then on top of that I have physical and presentational preferences so finding partners is practically impossible. I got lucky that a Tinder date turned into the best LTR of my life, and a person I couldnt imagine being without now.
This said, I'm very familiar with attraction after vetting, but social signifiers have rarely in my experience told me who a person was. Perhaps I'm more distrustful than you, but I can't imagine getting past my sensors with only a glance. I've learned too many times that people are seldom what you think they are at first glance.
To this extent, are you saying that a bi/pansexual has more physically charged sensors for attraction, and so that conversation is not necessary? To that end, is additional conversation LESS attractive? I ask because I've run into this feature with cis straight women, where my yapping turns them completely off, even if my body was green for them. Not through offence mind you, I notice they just get bored or overwhelmed with the conversation and wanted a spicier encounter.
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.
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.
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.
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 death murder 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.
It's not shallow to not get horny at everyone, it just is what it is. Either you become physically sexually aroused at the thought/sight/sense of someone or you don't.
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 :)
I'm glad you think so ☺️☺️
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.
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.
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.
Yeah the Bisexual flag is fucking cool.
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.
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.
I've heard a ton of different definitions, but honestly I think people just pick the label they like better and there isn't a functional difference. I identify as bisexual because the flag is better haha.
Wy many leter when fewer leter do the tric?!
I used to feel the same about the flag, but at some point it grew on me
...along with 2014 techno music, osu, sparkledogs and shiny glass like UIs. Dunno if it's connected
Bi here. Generally, attracted to men and women for the characteristics they have.
Pan is more that they’re attracted to people regardless of their sex. Like, it doesn’t really play into it.
That makes me hesitant to ever identify as bisexual though and honestly that makes me really sad. I've become quite attached to bisexuality as a part of my identity and adhere to the definition @TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone used here:
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).
I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I'm rejecting them based on my own identity.
Edit: Ugh you? Yeah I'm not going to go with your definition of anything with comments like these in your history
I like interacting with butch (not sure if that term is still in vogue, havent had the courage to ask) lesbians, they're never as bitter as the fems.
All of this is just retroactive attempts to delineate the two labels after the concept of being transgender started to become understood by a wider portion of the public (and the queer community, for that matter). Don't let faux-academic definitions define your identity. If "bisexual" feels like it fits but gender-nonconforming, agender, androgynous-presenting, and/or genderfluid people are also your thing, that's entirely fine.
(Edit: and it doesn't in any way invalidate other people's self-labeling when they categorize it differently to you. Labels are only there to simplify communication of ideas. They're not a sports team.)
I think that distinction just grew up with the current trend of trans-exclusion. I identify as bi and my bi club is explicitly inclusive of trans and NB folk. The transphobes will have to pry the ol' pink and blue from my cold dead sexy bisexual hands.
I would just hate to signal to anyone not cis that I’m rejecting them based on my own identity.
That would imply being anything other than pansexual is wrong and discriminatory, period.
It's worth stressing that it's perfectly fine to reject someone as a potential partner for any reason or even for no reason at all. For example if you find white women more attractive than black women, I don't think it makes you racist if that's just about attraction, not respect.
Yeah, you're definitely not proving me wrong on that.
This is transphobic because it insinuates that trans people are some third gender rather than their actual gender. There is nothing about bisexuality or the "bi" prefix that would imply that bi people are only attracted to cis people unless you believe that trans and cis people are separate genders.
Nonbinary people, on the other hand, I can see how "bi means two" can be conflated to mean bisexuals can't be attracted to nonbinary people although I think that ignores the history of the term bisexual, as well as ignores the reality of nonbinary genders, i.e. you can't necessarily tell someone is nonbinary by looking at them. I think when people say they're "not attracted to nonbinary people" if they're not bigoted they likely mean something like not being attracted to androgyny, but not all nonbinary people present androgynously.
Not all trans people pass, and some trans people don’t exhibit their gender in a way someone else would like.
Some do pass. How would those people who think they aren't attracted to trans people even know until clothes come off? And even then, they might not be able to tell if a person is trans, cis, or intersex.
It's like when people say they aren't attracted to bisexual men. It's personal preference rooted in bigotry, even if they're not conscious of it.
That has nothing to do with being bisexual or not though. I might not be into bodybuilders "exhibiting their masculinity" by being absurdly jacked, but that doesn't make me not bisexual. I'm just not attracted to that particular gender presentation.
I think when people say "I'm not attracted to trans people" they have a particular idea of a trans person in their head, but plenty of trans people pass and some go "stealth". "We can always tell" is patently false. I suppose I can imagine a person who is so caught up in gender who would be turned off if they found out someone is trans, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone not asexual who wouldn't find some trans person initially attractive, at least post-op.
I agree with your last point though. At this point I've mostly given up on pansexual/bisexual and just call myself queer.
I am convinced that they are the same thing and the only difference is the label itself. Any definitions I've seen are either equivalent, or denigrating to one of the labels and unrepresentative of how many people use them. Regardless of the history, trying to hammer down that one must be used over the other is a waste of time.
My personaly definition is:
bi is attracted to people of multiple genders (could be all or could be limited to specific ones)
Pan is attracted to people regardless of gender entirely. Gender simply isnt a factor when it comes to attraction.
I personally am far more in the Pan side of things but I rep the Bi flag because its much much better.
I think the most reasonable definition is that bi means you are into either and pan means you don't care. So bi means you have two "prototypes" you're into, one male and one female, and pan means your "prototype" is not gendered. Having a gendered prototype doesn't mean it excludes trans people. A trans person can be close enough to either or both, depending on their state of transition and your focus. I hope I'm making sense.
Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels.
I think this is it. At one point, when I was hanging around queer spaces on the internets, it was inclusive and preferred to use "pan" instead of "bi", but then few years later it flipped around. Same with writing LGBTQA*, which was then preferred as inclusive, but few years later apparently the asterisk made it non-inclusive instead.
Personally, I treat the labels more like a fashion thing now, since they come and go, and the "polite" ones change. So if I want to hang around queer spaces, I will just read up what is okay at the moment. Usually I do not anymore, though, since I absorbed into my spine, from the earlier internet days, that asexuals are not welcome ("A is for Ally"). I know that changed later as well, but at that point I had grown too tired, to talk about queer stuff.
Without doing much research at all, I would say the big issue is that 'bisexual' was coined during a time were e.g. ace and enby people were given much less thought than they are today, leading to this weird situation where 'bi' originally meant 'both', but there is no 'both' when there are 3+ answeres to the question of gender (and sexuality)
as an old bisexual, it ment attracted to male and female sex characteristics and people who have both or invent their own gender expressions besides that were never ment to be excluded in anyway. this was never about deciding who can't be attractive or desirable, it was that my sexuality includes attraction to the sex characteristics of both sexes. people who have any combination of characteristics or gender expressions or invent their own expressions aren't excluded and were never excluded in the past by people who called themselves bisexual. that's all people deciding now, looking back, that it must be related to binary gender constructs, which us really harmful to older bisexuals, we also spent a long time typically being demonized for not fitting cishet normative behavior or expression, I'm VERY MUCH not anti Trans and gender non comforting people are the people I'm mainly attracted to, and expressing and identifying with gender other than male is part of who I am also. it's really annoying to have spent so much time being told what I can't be or what I must be because how I experience my sexuality includes all the sex characteristics vs one group or another. it's never been about binary gender construct endorsement or agreement I hate binary gender constraints being put on anyone my sexuality doesn't do this.
Bisexuals that grow from the ceiling are called “bicicles”
I thought they were bilagmites.
NSFW
"Always remember : bilagmites cum from above you , panlagtites cum from under you"
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
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!
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!
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'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 😉
Oooooh, so THAT'S what was growing in my sex cave
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.
Both pan- and omni- mean all, but pan- is Greek and omni- is Latin.
Wiktionary's definition of pansexual and omnisexual suggests that when people distinguish them, it is that pansexual implies everyone in a gender-blind way, and omnisexual implies everyone but differently for different genders.
pansexual, adjective: someone who is attracted to all types of people regardless of gender or sex
omnisexual, adjective: being attracted to all genders (sometimes distinguished from pansexual by saying omnisexual attraction may still take account of gender or prefer particular genders)
If we were going strictly by prefixes, then it would be:
So they're synonymous?
Per my comment, it depends who you ask.
If you ask the Oxford English Dictionary, pansexuals are a subset of bisexuals.
bisexual, adjective: sexually or romantically attracted to people of more than one sex or gender
pansexual, adjective: sexually or romantically attracted to people without regard to their sex or gender
If you ask Wiktionary, bisexuals and pansexuals are two non overlapping sets of people (though see the usage notes).
bisexual, adjective: sexually attracted to both opposite-sex and same-sex individuals
pansexual, adjective: someone who is attracted to all types of people regardless of gender or sex
Well fair enough I'll leave it at that seems like i get it wrong anytime i try to put it into my own words lol
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.
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.
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 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.
It's not anti anything, people just get horny at whoever gets them horny, and dont get horny at people who dont.
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.
Can confirm. Am pan. Am also stuck on the ceiling
I thought pansexuals needed to be seasoned first and washed immediately after each use then thoroughly patted dry?
I know a few who would probably love this.
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.
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.
Two sexes, all genders
The two that bi refers to is both homosexual and heterosexual. Attracted to those of the same gender and those of different genders. That's two, and it doesn't have anything to do with a gender binary.
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
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.
The difference is that they’re both getting fucked over and not in the sexy way…
Wait that’s not a difference
...
🎼 Bad B$$ches Is The Only Thing That I Like 🎵🎶 (sorry)
So the definitions I've seen here are:
Did I miss any? A couple of these were new to me. Innovations in the discourse?
I'll be honest, I just like the flag.
In regards to the 4th one, that's how I've always kinda described it. I consider myself bi because I am attracted to men, women, and NBs differently. My sister considers herself pan because there is no difference in the way she feels attracted to someone based on their gender.
First two are biphobic.
- Bisexuals are attracted to people because of gendered characteristics, pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gendered characteristics (not really sure what this one means, different wording of the previous one?)
As an example of this, a bisexual might find muscular women attractive, but not muscular men, but pansexuals find muscles attractive or not on all people. This is the definition I use.
- Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders
The thing I find troublesome about this is that it can overly lump people into bisexuality. A common definition for lesbian today is someone who is not a man who is attracted to people who aren't men. If that's your definition of lesbian and bisexual than you're saying lesbians are bisexual. I prefer to say bisexual is attracted to all genders.
- Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous
Weird seeing this because traditionally the harmful stereotype is that bisexuals need two lovers. Either way, this is not a good definition.
- Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag
This is one that's silly, but kind ends up being true sometimes. Bi and pan are incredibly overlapped. Not all bi people are pan and not all pan people are bi, yes, but there's a lot of overlap. So a lot people in the middle just pick the flag they prefer.
Also I will die on the hill that pansexuality is not a subset of bisexuality. Not all pansexuals are bisexual.
Well Ive heard situations like this get resolved by the big Domme Amazon woman doing it with the smol sub man
Bisexuals have a tomato base while pansexuals are more teriyaki.
Easy: are they exceedingly attracted to a loaf of bread?
Or to cast-iron skillets?
Bisexuals think transfolks are their gender and know what pan means, pansexuals don't exist because they're fucking LYING if they say they find the Xcgutrian gender sexy.
I really don't know what I'm talking about but I always assumed bisexual was attracted to both traditionally presenting men and women, but maybe not so attracted to others, androgynous presenting or otherwise.
Pansexual is really like they dont even consider a persons gender at all, they can be attracted to anyone binary presenting or non-binary presenting
I'm not interested in binary gender conformity and gender conformity is NOT a part of how I experience my sexuality as a bisexual person, and I've never met a bisexual person who's claimed this is a part of their experience, I'm in my 40s, male, and spent a long time repressing my sexuality for everyone else's supposed comfort or benifit, and of course my supposed safety as growing up we were all told any variety of non cishet behavior would get us all killed and many followed through with that threat. I'm very much against anyone being told they need to fit any kind of construct of sexual or gender expression based on anything other that however they choose. and a lot of Bi people will get really put out of you place anti-trans bullshit on them. I'm PARTICULARLY attracted to people who DON'T confirm to gender demands of society and the binary gender construct is crazy harmful to so many people I deeply love and care about and will fight for and do what I can to protect. I'd really recommend not putting this supposed definition of bisexuality out, it's very contradictory to every bi person I've ever known's stated experience.
So what makes bisexual label preferred to pansexual label for you?
mostly that the kids these days started saying pansexual to talk about how they experience their sexuality, and I didn't hear about that until I was in my 30s, and I've been aware I'm bisexual since the 90s, so I'm bisexual, and I'm here for people who say they're pan and I'm happy to listen to them explain their own experience with their sexuality and talk about it with any terms they want, I'm all for people using their own terms and language however they choose, what pan means I couldn't really say without talking to more people who use the term.
If you’re a trans person on say a dating app that makes all the difference in considering whether or not someone is safe.
I still wouldn't assume anyone labelling themselves as bisexual is an unsafe person for trans people. I think people use bi and pan interchangeably too much to assume anything without talking to the individual.
I've also seen plenty a bisexual who hate the term pansexual and thinks it's redundant because they don't acknowledge the nuance.
Sort of an odd thing to say while also missing the nuance between the two and parroting biphobic points.
You're twisting my words, I said whether or not someone is safe, not that they're unsafe.
To be pedantic... "Whether or not someone is safe" introduces two options: Safe or not safe. Unsafe and "not safe" are more interchangeable than pansexual and bisexual.
I understand it's not what you meant... but I dont think they're twisting your words. I think it's an honest attempt at faithfully interpreting your words. It's just that the language isn't really built for the kind of distinction you're trying to make.
So, I'll start by saying that it's pretty on brand for this meme post lol, but there are multiple definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality I find acceptable. There are some that are bullshit. I don't really subscribe to one true definition of it. I have one I use the most that I'll talk about later in this post. This is what I take issue with, see emphasis.
Bisexual is attracted to more than one gender and CAN include all the same attractions as a Pansexual.
Pansexual IS attraction to all genders.
So yeah all pansexuals are bisexual but not all bisexuals are pansexuals, they could be trans excluding, that's sufficiently vague enough that Pansexual is its own thing.
This is either biphobic by assuming bisexuals are not accepting of trans people or transphobic by viewing trans men as a different gender than cis men (same for trans women and cis women). That's why I have a problem with it. Bisexuality has never meant that.
Someone else in this thread has already mentioned the bisexual manifesto from 1990. Now, to be clear, this isn't me saying "hey, it's called the bisexual manifesto, it's the one true definition of bisexuality." (It itself even says its not.) But I find this part relevant when discussing multiple definitions.
Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual' to be inadequate and too limiting. Do not assume that the opinions expressed are shared by all bisexuals, [...]
So even in 1990 it was understood by bisexuals that bisexuals did not have a single "one true definition" of bisexuality. Not to even mention pansexuality and what shape the venn diagram of the two might make.
Me, personally, the definition I use, that I feel I see many people use and also I have some bias towards because I feel it's the most satisfying is that pansexuals are attracted to traits of people without regards to gender. While bisexuals are attracted to any gender of people and may have traits they find attractive in some genders but not others. And the example I always give of this is, someone who is bi, but not pan, might find muscular women attractive, but dislike muscles on men. Meanwhile, someone who is pan would just like muscles regardless.
Another definition I use, but perhaps less useful to answer you, is that bisexuals are people who identify as bisexual. Pansexuals are people who identify as pansexual. And yes, people can identify as both or only one. I think self identification in the queer community is massively important. I have a friend who's wife came out as nonbinary. He calls himself straight. So when people ask me what his sexuality is, I say he's straight. Is there a part of me that believes in some technical, theoretical sense that he should consider labeling himself as something else? Sure, yeah, because his wife is nonbinary now, but that's not really my business unless he asked me about it.
I thought bi was preferring both cis and/or trans males and females, while pan was cis or trans male/female as well as anyone presenting non binary. Like a true bisexual would not be into someone non-binary, while a pansexual would consider a non binary person as a partner.
You can be monogamous and also be pansexual. You can be bi, but also be polyamorous.
I love how both of us go down voted, but there is no discourse telling us how we are wrong, how we misinterpreted things. I spent some more time researching and the other thing that comes up is pansexual people are gender blind in terms of attraction, so it's a person by person basis when determining attraction. Any pansexual and or bisexual people want to weigh in and share their experiences.
I am a woman that is attracted to cis females, on two occasions trans men, and on one occasion a non-binary person genetically containing 2 x chromosomes. I have yet to experience attraction to a trans-woman or cis-man. What does that make me? I still consider myself a lesbian, and not a pansexual or bisexual.
Yes, it was talked about between us.
God damn, some people really need to find hobbies other than hating others on the internet. Sorry.
For anyone genuinely confused:
Monosexual (mono = 1) - attracted to people of exactly 1 gender. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and attractions to any other specific gender and nothing else go here.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
Polysexual (poly = several) - attracted to people of several (3 and more) various genders. Pretty self-explanatory at this point.
Pansexual (pan = everything) - attracted to people of all genders. If you're sexy to a given pansexual, they don't care what your gender is - male, female, or any flavor of nonbinary. Just be cool.
The confusion stems from the previous understanding that there are only two genders, and the fact the awareness of different genders came before pansexuality or polysexuality were widely discussed, which made a giant mess with pansexuals categorizing themselves as bisexuals and then claiming being bisexual is not just about two genders. It is, it's in the name, and we have proper terms for other options now.
FYI: Some people also prefer the term "omnisexual", which also means being attracted to people of all genders, but accentuates the gender differences. So, instead of pansexual "I don't care of your gender, just be cool", it's more like "women are cute and nice, men are strong huggers and damn boy be the big spoon, agenders are special and whew I like that" etc. etc. Basically, loving everyone, but each gender is attractive in its own unique way.
Bisexual (bi = 2) - attracted to people of exactly 2 genders, most typically male and female, but can be anything. This term can be used by pansexuals in the context where people are not properly aware of the existing of other genders.
This is absolutely incorrect. I'll copy a portion of my own comment from deeper in this thread to explain.
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).
The bi part of bisexual refers to both homosexual (same gender) and heterosexual (different gender) so nobody’s left out.
Exactly, and as I said, this was very true when we considered that there are only two genders. Now if you're attracted to people of more genders, there are terms that would fit you better. Why produce the confusion by dragging the confusing and wrong two-gender era terminology into the modern world?
If you're attracted to men, women and agenders, why take the *bi-*sexual umbrella, especially when we have correct, more apt terms now? Bi is two, and two specifically. Bidirectional. Bipolar. Bicycle. Bipedal. Bisexual. Bi is two. Tri is three. Quadro is four. Why sexuality of all things should make an exception because some people didn't know better decades ago?
Did you read my comment? The bi in bisexual has never referred to two genders; it refers to two sexualities, namely homosexual and heterosexual. Homo meaning same and hetero meaning different. If we consider a set of people with both the same gender as a hypothetical bisexual person (regardless of their gender) and different genders from that same bisexual person, all people are included in that set regardless of their gender.
Importantly, no single word has ever been a full and complete description of any person's sexual preferences. I'm not saying that all bisexual people are attracted to all people of all genders, but that the word bisexual has no implication of anything less.
The term bisexual is not an exception to the bi - 2, tri - 3, quad - 4, etc linguistic rule, it simply doesn't refer to the two that you're assigning it to (genders). Beyond that, I have no idea why you think it's appropriate to apply a linguistic rule proscriptively to other people's sexualities.
This kind of confidently incorrect interpretation not only harkens to bisexual erasure (as in ignoring the words and writings of actual bisexual people), it actively harms bisexual people by assigning them with a reinforcing of gender binary that bisexuality has never implied, even linguistically. Try listening to a bisexual person (me, for starters) rather than blaming us for reinforcing a gender binary based on your own misinterpretation.
Also, bisexual is not an old outdated term from "when we considered that there are only two genders" (bisexual erasure much?), it is an inclusive identifier that covers a broad range of sexual preferences.
TLDR: Fuck you, you don't get to tell me how to refer to my own sexuality.
I was writing a long answer about misinterpretation of heterosexuality and the proven fact 1984-style word play doesn't erase what is there natively, and also fuck you for throwing slurs around and all that, when the root of the conflict occurred to me. And maybe that's something that helps settle it.
I treat sexuality as a descriptor, a label, and you treat it as an identity. To me, words should serve as the best available approximation of the experience, which is fluid and complicated and doesn't fit into narrow boxes anyway; to you, it's a legacy, a group, a part of who you are (correct me if I'm wrong).
I have no problem switching from heterosexual to bicurious/bisexual, and maybe to pansexual should I meet more nonbinary folks in person. To you, being bisexual is a pillar of who you are, and switching it up is as problematic as switching an engine on the go, and maybe that really shouldn't be done. You are, indeed, a sole arbiter.
But all these identities grew around words. And words can either bring clarity, or add to the confusion. You yourself claim not all bisexuals are attracted to people of all genders. Wouldn't it be great if people could properly clarify and make a distinction between being attracted to people of two genders, several of them, and all of them using the terms we already have, and which are widely accepted? This whole "how are bisexuals different from pansexuals" question could be settled overnight! Nothing needs to be invented; all that's left is to make a good use for the existing vocabulary. And maybe, when new people decide to make these words their identity, there would be waaay less confusion about it.
How would that settle us?
bi = looking for mr/mrs forever....
pan = wants a harem
This is poly vs mono.
I am Bi and poly/relationship anarchist.
that's just pan with extra labels.
Bisexual refers to being attracted to people of both the same gender as you and different gender as you, so it already covers things outside the binary. It's a common mistake though, many people think the bi part means attracted to both men and women (excluding anything else).
Edit for clarity: 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).
What about poly bi
@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
go to feed...
@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
go to feed...
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.
save