It’s ok. I just find it incredibly reductive, and I’ve had pan “friends” before criticize, scrutinize, or outright label me pansexual without my consent because I’m not just into strictly men and women.
It’s ludicrous, imo. This definition necessitates that bisexuality is inherently transphobic, or at the very least demands that self-identified bisexuals show no attraction towards people of non-binary genders. I don’t identify that way and almost every bisexual I know does not identify that way. It is, in my experience, an external definition thrust upon bisexuals by others, and often by pansexuals themselves in order to differentiate themselves from the transphobic, exclusive bisexuals.
It really boils down to semantics, I think, and it’s not really a fight worth having – is pansexuality valid, is it another form of bisexuality, is it completely distinct in some meaningful way – but I take some grievance with the idea that bisexuals writ large harbor no attraction to peoples of nonbinary genders.
If bis were only into binaries and pans are into everything, then there’d be no word to describe what I am. I’m attracted to plenty of nonbinary genders, and there’s also plenty of nonbinary genders I could never see myself being with. I’m never ever in 100 years going to be attracted to an angelgender person. But I really really like fellow drones. I’m ambivalent about catgenders, but would be generally more interested in a cloudgender.
Definitions which exclude the possibility of not being attracted to all nonbinary people equally are erasing and therefore transphobic. So those assholes who think they can define bisexuality for you and accuse you of transphobia on that basis? They’re transphobes. They’ve probably never even met an angel, drone, cat, OR cloud.
It’s ok. I just find it incredibly reductive, and I’ve had pan “friends” before criticize, scrutinize, or outright label me pansexual without my consent because I’m not just into strictly men and women.
It’s ludicrous, imo. This definition necessitates that bisexuality is inherently transphobic, or at the very least demands that self-identified bisexuals show no attraction towards people of non-binary genders. I don’t identify that way and almost every bisexual I know does not identify that way. It is, in my experience, an external definition thrust upon bisexuals by others, and often by pansexuals themselves in order to differentiate themselves from the transphobic, exclusive bisexuals.
It really boils down to semantics, I think, and it’s not really a fight worth having – is pansexuality valid, is it another form of bisexuality, is it completely distinct in some meaningful way – but I take some grievance with the idea that bisexuals writ large harbor no attraction to peoples of nonbinary genders.
It is most certainly not ok for me to be reductive. Especially about identities that are not my own. Seriously, thank you for the insight.
Thank you for listening, comrade.
If bis were only into binaries and pans are into everything, then there’d be no word to describe what I am. I’m attracted to plenty of nonbinary genders, and there’s also plenty of nonbinary genders I could never see myself being with. I’m never ever in 100 years going to be attracted to an angelgender person. But I really really like fellow drones. I’m ambivalent about catgenders, but would be generally more interested in a cloudgender.
Definitions which exclude the possibility of not being attracted to all nonbinary people equally are erasing and therefore transphobic. So those assholes who think they can define bisexuality for you and accuse you of transphobia on that basis? They’re transphobes. They’ve probably never even met an angel, drone, cat, OR cloud.