Many misconceptions exist about bisexuality, pansexuality*, trans/nonbinary people regarding sexual orientation, and labels in general, so I’ve written some essays about it. This carrd is an attempt to make the information more accessible and interactive. Since I have to simplify pretty much everything here for space conservation, I have a FAQ and link the full essays (among some others not directly used here but still relevant to this topic) at the end.As reassurance, virtually everything I claim, both in the essays and thus this carrd, is sourced. Sources behind paywalls can be accessed via Sci-Hub, 12ft Ladder, web extensions like Reader View, or these other methods.I understand my writing style as direct. It’s impossible for wording to be well-received by everyone, but hopefully you can judge text more on its content rather than its tone. Then again, this is the internet, so my hopes are abysmal.Just in case it matters, I am bisexual, nonbinary (he/him), and I used to identify as pansexual.P.S. Anyone who wishes to translate any original (i.e., written by me) content in this carrd (including full essays) for further distribution has my full permission, so long as you link back to the English version.*Much of what I cover here applies to identities like “omnisexual” and “polysexual” as well, but I will be focusing on pansexuality as it’s the most popular of the three.
Many people believe that we can fully separate bisexuality and pansexuality, but this is actually a misconception. In reality, there is no clear distinction—the only concrete differences are their prefixes, histories, and connotations. Attempting to posit pansexuality as a separate orientation requires redefining bisexuality (and sometimes trans and nonbinary identity) in bigoted, ahistorical, and illogical ways and even invalidating some people who identify as pansexual.This may be startling if you’re hearing this for the first time, so to clear things up, click on what you believe to be true or have otherwise heard about bisexuality or pansexuality.
The idea that any sexual orientation inherently excludes trans people is transphobic in itself. “Trans” is not a gender; trans men are men, just like tall men and fat men are men. If a lesbian who dates a trans woman is still a lesbian (she is), a bisexual who dates a trans person is still bisexual.Hardly anyone says that being gay or straight is transphobic, so why would bisexuality be? Why should we let transphobes define what it means to be gay, straight, or bisexual?Saying that any sexuality is inherently trans-exclusive— let alone that you need a special sexuality to be attracted to trans people— excuses transphobia and ignores the fact that trans people come in all sexualities. Claiming to be unique for being attracted to us reinforces dehumanizing assumptions about us. We shouldn’t validate people who refuse to date trans folks because this refusal almost always stems from dehumanizing assumptions about our bodies.Even if claiming to not be attracted to trans people wasn’t transphobic, it is still problematic to act like “people not attracted to trans people” and “people attracted to trans people” are two distinct sexualities. It enforces seeing us as separate genders from cis people, and makes just as much sense as having sexual orientations for “attraction to short people” and “attraction to tall people.”
While there are certainly trans-exclusive bisexuals and issues with transphobia in bisexual communities, that can be said for straightness and gayness as well. We don’t need to reinvent lesbianism just because transmisogynistic lesbians refuse to date trans women. The right reaction to transphobia in LGBQ communities is to call it out, educate, and let transphobes know their bigotry will not be welcome.Furthermore, “attraction to cis/‘biological’ men and women only” has essentially never been a definition put out by a bisexual organization or activist. Saying that bisexuality as a whole “has a(n explicitly) trans-exclusive history” is a rather vague and questionable assessment with very limited (if any) documented evidence.Historically, bisexual communities were often refuges for trans people. Many bi activists have fought for trans rights for decades. There’s even an entire book dedicated exclusively to the intersections between trans and bi communities and identity! The insistence that our demographics are enemies arguably comes from efforts to divide our communities and paint both of our identities as regressive.Click the button on the bottom right for a few quotes showing the relationship between some trans and bi communities.
Click the years for sources.1980: “On Saturday, February 9, San Francisco’s Bisexual Center will conduct a Gender/Sexuality Workshop. ‘We will explore the interrelationships of gender feelings and sexual preference… and whether we choose to play out the gender role assigned to us by society or whether we can shift to attitudes supposedly held by the opposite gender, if those feel good to us. We will deal with the issue of the [transsexual] in transition and how sexuality evolves as gender role changes.’”1995: “With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgendered people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives.”1995: “[T]he bisexual community still seems a logical place for transsexuals to find a home and a voice. Bisexuals need to educate themselves on transgender issues. At the same time, bisexuals should be doing education and outreach to the transsexual community, offering transsexuals an arena to further explore their sexualities and choices. […] If the bisexual community turns its back on transsexuals, it is essentially turning its back on itself.”1995: “In the bisexual movement as a whole, transgendered individuals are celebrated not only as an aspect of the diversity of the bisexual community, but because, like bisexuals, they do not fit neatly into dichotomous categories. Jim Frazin wrote that ‘the construction and destruction of gender’ is a subject of mutual interest to bisexuals and transsexuals who are, therefore, natural allies.”1995: “The first wave of people who started the Bi Center [in the 1970s] were political radicals and highly motivated people. The group was based on inclusivity… for example, in the women’s groups, anybody who identified as a woman had the right to be there, so a lot of transgender people started coming to the Bi Center.”1998: “BiCon should accept transgender people as being of their chosen gender, this includes any single[-]gender events.”2009: “Opción Bi [a bisexual organization in Mexico City] allies itself with transsexuals, transgender people and transvestites, and works together with them whenever possible.”
Despite what many people seem to believe, “nonbinary” is not just one gender—it’s an umbrella term for numerous experiences with gender. It’s not actually possible to deny attraction to the entire “nonbinary” category, or even necessarily “discover” attraction to individual nonbinary identities as they are largely individualistic. The only thing that all genderfluid people have in common is that they use the word “genderfluid” to describe themselves.Being nonbinary does not determine how we dress, how we act, what we look like, what pronouns we use, or whether we undergo hormone replacement therapy or reassignment surgery. The word doesn’t even tell necessarily you what our gender is, only what it isn’t: 100% fe/male and nothing else. Even then, there are people who would fall into the “nonbinary” category but do not identify as such; many trans people don’t see themselves as “binary” or nonbinary.Men and women come in all body types and gender expressions. There is no appearance, behavior, or presentation that a nonbinary person can have that a man or woman can’t, even if we view men and women through a cisnormative lens. There’s no way to tell us apart from other men and women because society does not teach us nonbinarity. Nonbinary people look just like men, just like women, just like you.People of all sexualities can be attracted to unaligned nonbinary (e.g., “agender,” “neutrois”) individuals. Claiming otherwise condescends and invalidates gay/straight/bi nonbinary people and their gay/straight/bi partners. If we can acknowledge that gay and straight people can and do date unaligned nonbinary people—even if others only want to date wo/men—and that we don’t need separate terms to distinguish these two groups in the same sexuality, then people should grant bisexuality the same nuance.Even if bisexuality was “attraction exclusively to men and women” (which it has never been defined as; “attraction to men and women” is not inherently exclusionary of other genders, just like saying “I like men” doesn’t automatically mean “I’m gay/straight”), nonbinary wo/men exist, too. To act like people attracted to wo/men would naturally not be attracted to nonbinary wo/men is just as transphobic and silly as saying they wouldn’t be attracted to other trans wo/men.
Keep in mind that until the nineties or so, words explicitly describing Western nonbinary gender experiences (e.g., “genderqueer”) didn’t really appear in the public lexicon. Most people at this time either didn’t know about them or used other words to describe people beyond the binary (e.g., “third sex,” sometimes “drag queen”). Many are still completely unaware of the concept today. To act like bisexuals without knowledge of nonbinary people explicitly leave them out of their dating pool would be like saying someone who’s never heard of a certain actor denies their existence entirely.Acting like only people of specific sexual identities can find us attractive is condescending and invalidates us and our partners (who may also be nonbinary!). Insisting that nonbinary people can be neatly sorted in a separate gender box misgenders some of us, generalizes all of us, and works to create a gender trinary that does almost nothing to eradicate the oppressive aspects of the gender binary. If anything, it strengthens them by making gender categories even more rigid and specific than before.This topic is complex, so if you are still a bit lost, you can click here for a more in-depth explanatory essay, or here and here for videos from nonbinary activist Verity Ritchie, who also pointed this out:I have seen a few bisexuals online say ‘I’m not attracted to nonbinary people’, but when pushed on it they a) got that definition from pansexuals, not bisexuals, and b) actually mean they don’t fancy androgyny, which isn’t at all synonymous with nonbinarism, and just serves to perpetuate the idea that nonbinary people, women, and men should be conforming to their three respective gender expressions[.]Click the button on the right for some quotes from bi activists discussing nonbinary identity. Just like a number of bi communities and activists have historically accepted trans people, they embraced nonbinary identity as well. To some theorists, bisexuality and bigenderism (i.e., identifying as both male and female) were inseparable.
1972: “As one who views herself as a feminist bisexual woman… I must challenge yet a third aspect of sexism which has not yet been challenged, at least not on a large scale. I call this aspect two-genderism… [which] can be summed up in the following assumptions: (1) human beings are divided into two distinct and mutually exclusive biological pigeonholes, male and female, (2) human beings are divided into two distinct and mutually exclusive psychological and social pigeonholes, men and women…”1990: “Bisexuality works to subvert the gender system and everything it upholds because it is not based on gender… Bisexuality subverts gender; bisexual liberation also depends on the subversion of gender categories.”1991: “I myself recently received a party invitation that read ‘for men, women, and others.’ What your mother probably never told you is that not everyone is 100% female or 100% male. Many of us may have two or more personas or parts of our personalities that transcend traditional gender constraints and roles — not phony ones to please our parents and bosses — but roles of self-expression, self-exploration, and fun.”1995: “If bisexuality says that gender is not a determining factor of sexual preference… It is a natural progression to then say gender need not be such a rigid social construct. After all, if our sexual identity can be fluid, why not our gender identity? […] We may be freer to experiment with or cross traditional gender lines in fantasy and sex play… We teach genderfuck when we talk about our lives without gendered pronouns, bulldozing people's assumptions about sexuality and gender.”1995: “As bisexuals, we are necessarily prompted to come up with non-binary ways of thinking about sexual orientation. For many of us, this has also prompted a move toward non-binary ways of thinking about sex and gender.”
“Intersex” is not a gender or even necessarily a unified sex category; it describes bodily variations. While certain sex characteristics play a role in who people find physically attractive (since gender is intangible), “attraction to fe/males” definitions routinely devolve into, and come from, cissexist beliefs (e.g., women who claim to be lesbians but date trans men), and even if this was false, plenty of straight, gay, and bisexual people enter relationships with intersex individuals.As with trans and nonbinary people, it’s very often difficult to discern intersex folks from those who aren’t as their variations are plentiful. Some intersex people may not even realize they’re intersex until later in life. Having a label for “attraction to intersex people” is as reasonable as having ones for “attraction to people with ovaries” that you’ll never actually see in the first place.Even if some bisexuals define their sexuality in terms of perceived physical sex instead of gender (which they shouldn’t)— and at that point, they usually equate the two— attraction to “males and females” denotes attraction regardless of sex/gender, and a number of intersex people view themselves as “physically” male or female. You simply don’t need any specific sexuality just to date intersex people.
If you can accept that centipedes never have a hundred legs even though “centi” means “one hundred,” and why we don’t need to rename August to October and October to December just because “oct” means eight and “dec” means “ten,” you can understand why “bi” doesn’t owe allegiance to “two.”People can say our prefix implies “two” all they want, but people also say that “pan” (which, by the way, is a Greek prefix, not a Latin one) implies attraction to animals (which pansexuality has been defined as in the past). Demanding that we tie ourselves to the implications of our prefix or previous descriptions is foolish. The word “bisexual” has also had many different meanings throughout history unrelated to sexuality, such as “androgynous” and “unisex,” but we’ve moved on from those definitions because words change.When the word began being used to describe human attraction, the “bi” in “bisexual” wasn’t actually meant to describe “two genders,” but rather attraction in two directions: towards different genders and similar genders, which was understood as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, thus “two sexualities.”When “bi” did indirectly refer to two genders (back then being defined as “men and women” or “both sexes/genders”), it was simply because orientation terms were coined under the assumption that only two existed (hence “both” rather than “two”). Even then, bisexuals at the time saw themselves as attracted to all the available options and expanded their understandings once more came to light.Even if, theoretically, bisexuality was historically defined as “attraction to two genders,” insisting it must stay that way is like saying that “they” can never be a valid singular pronoun since it didn’t start out as one.
For the most part, virtually no bisexual organization or activist says bisexuality is just “attraction to two genders.” Hardly any reference that number at all.Bisexuals have been describing ourselves as attracted to people regardless of gender since at least the 1970s, and “all genders” definitions have been recorded since the 90s. Strangely, this was also when a few people began saying “‘bi’ means ‘two genders and no others’”—but virtually none of them were bi-identified.The “two (or more)” definition is internet-based, arguably a result (and sometimes an enforcer) of misunderstandings about trans and nonbinary identity (which I explain later), and virtually nowhere to be found— at least not in any literature archived online — until the 2010s. I’ve seen “two or more” exactly once in print, and it was in a book from 2018 that also defined bisexuality as attraction regardless of gender.Click the button on the bottom right for a brief timeline of bisexual quotes from 1970-2020.(If you’re curious, my personal favorite definition of bisexuality is “attraction where gender/sex is never a dealbreaker.”)
1970s-90s
Click the years for sources.1974: “…the very wealth and humanity of bisexuality itself: for to exclude from one’s love any entire group of human beings because of class, age, or race or religion, or sex, is surely to be poorer— deeply and systematically poorer.”1976: “Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.”1979: “[John] reacted emotionally to both sexes with equal intensity. ‘I love people, regardless of their gender,’ he told me.”1985: “In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”1987: “I am bisexual because I am drawn to particular people regardless of gender. It doesn’t make me wishy-washy, confused, untrustworthy, or more sexually liberated. It makes me a bisexual.”1988: “To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.”1994: “Who is this group for exactly? Anyone who identifies as bisexual or thinks they are attracted to or interested in all genders… This newly formed [support] group is to create a supportive, safe environment for people who are questioning their sexual orientation and think they may be bisexual.”1995: “...being bisexual means I could potentially find myself sexually attracted to anybody.”1999: “Bisexual — being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.”
2000s-10s
2003: “Bisexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender (a person does not have to have a relationship to be bisexual!)”2005: “The bisexual community seems to be disappearing. Not that there won’t always be people around who like to have sex with people of all genders, the community, as I’ve discussed in this book, is a different matter altogether.”2009: “Bisexuality (whatever that means) for me is about the ability to relate to all people at a deep emotional level. It is an openness of the heart. It is the absence of limits, especially those that are defined by the other person’s sex.” (p. 27)2009: “For me bisexuality means I don’t stop attraction, caring or relationship potential based on gender… And we have enough trouble splitting the human race into two halves, assigning mandatory characteristics, and then torturing people to fill arbitrary roles— I consider that a wrong and inaccurate way to understand human potential, and that’s also why I’m bi.” (p. 49)2010: “To me, being bisexual means having a sexuality that isn’t limited by the sex or gender of the people you are attracted to. You just recognize that you can be attracted to a person for very individual reasons.”2010: “Q: Which gender person does a bisexual love? A: Any gender she wants.”2014: “I’d always understood bisexuality to mean what Bobbie Petford reports as the preferred definition from within the UK bi communities: changeable ‘sexual and emotional attraction to people of any sex, where gender may not be a defining factor’.”2016: “It is the job of those of us with links to children to continue to promote the language of bisexuality and validity of attraction to all genders — especially when that attraction changes over time.”2016: “I call myself bisexual because it includes attraction to all genders (same as mine; different from mine).”2018: “In the heat of July [2009], and finally equipped with a word for ‘attracted to people regardless of gender’, I bounded out of Brighton station with that same best friend. At the time, I didn’t know that we bisexuals have our own flag…”2019: “Actually, I’m bisexual. That means that gender doesn’t determine whom I’m attracted to.”
2020 & Unknown Dates
2020: “I could have sex with any person of any gender in my dreams at night.”2020: “I pick my communities, my friends, and my crushes by who they are at the core, not by their sexual orientation, and not by their gender identity.”2020: “Being bisexual — which I define, for myself, as being attracted to people regardless of gender…”2020: “When I say I’m bisexual, I mean I’m someone who is attracted to all genders, inherently, by nature, not as something I can put on or take off.”Unknown: “… bisexual people are those for whom gender is not the first criteria in determining attraction.”Unknown: “Bisexuality is sexual/romantic attraction to people regardless of sex or gender.”Unknown: “A bisexual woman, for example, may have sex with, date or marry another woman, a man or someone who is non-binary. […] If you think you might be bisexual, try asking yourself these questions: …Can I picture myself dating, having sex with, or being married to any gender/sex?”
A consequence of the “bi means two genders” declaration is the recent notion that bisexuality doesn’t require attraction to men or women, just “any two” genders. Some people claim bisexuality for being attracted to “men and trans men” or “(wo)men and nonbinary people.” This shows a misconception about gender and excuses transphobic thinking.Trans wo/men are wo/men, period, and “nonbinary” isn’t a singular gender we can section off. It’s an umbrella term, and many nonbinary folks have identities that we personally don’t consider independent genders, but rather combinations of multiple (e.g., bigender, genderfluid) or partial versions of one (e.g., demigender).Professing attraction to nonbinary men but not “binary” men is a bit nonsensical and possibly fetishizing. The difference between me (a nonbinary man) and someone who fully, exclusively identifies as male is negligible. Saying that “man” and “nonbinary man” are two completely separate genders is generally seen as misgendering. We’re both men, and our experiences and senses of self can be virtually identical.This is why the “multiple genders” and “two (or more) genders” definitions of bisexuality is regarded as too vague, if not practically useless. “Female” and “neutrois” are technically two different genders, but gay and straight people can date both and still be gay/straight.Not to mention, hardly anyone actually names individual nonbinary identities when listing the “two or more” they find attractive; it’s almost as if nonbinary identities can’t be neatly divided into distinct gender categories, especially not when many of us see our identities as combinations or more subtle variations of the binary genders.If you claim bisexuality because you like “women and nonbinary people but not men,” realize that many straight and gay people feel the exact same way about their attraction. You might want to re-examine your sexuality or perception of nonbinary people.
While the language around this sexuality has clearly changed, we must remember how gender and sexuality operate in our society. “Man” and “woman” are not merely individual identities— they’re in a systemic power dynamic. There’s a reason they’re assigned to us at birth, why men establish their masculinity through heterosexuality.Sexuality, like gender, remains political, and whether or not someone is openly attracted to men or women (or, god forbid, both) determines how society treats them. This doesn’t mean nonbinary identities don’t matter, but we must acknowledge this. Sexuality labels extensively predate widely conceived notions of nonbinary identity in the West.The fact that bisexuality has long described attraction to men and women holds extreme political relevance. The doctrine that these genders in particular are are opposites— thus so are gayness and straightness— renders bisexuality “impossible.” This is why society scrambles to erase us every time we pop up.Lifting this rift between the two “acceptable” sexualities and genders gravely endangers the oppressive systems segregating them. This postulation has driven bisexual politics from day one. Biphobia comes from the phenomenon of people liking men and women, specifically.While it’s understandable that some people wish to treat nonbinary identities as equally influential on one’s desire, adding on to the already oppressive system of gender seems like the opposite of what we should be doing. The term “bisexual” stops being useful and erases the reality of biphobia if we say that “male and agender” or any other combination besides “men and women” constitutes bisexuality.
Not only do many bisexuals not have a gender preference, but a number of self-identified pansexuals do. (When I identified as pansexuals, I preferred men.) Some even describe their sexuality as “attraction to everyone except cis men” (for some reason). Does that make them not pansexual anymore?We’ve been saying that bisexuality doesn’t require a preference for decades, and a 2017 Pew Research Center study found that 43% of surveyed bisexuals said they were attracted to men and women equally.Plus, favoring one gender over another doesn’t change the fact that you like them all. Straight men who like tall girls are just as straight as those who don’t. Having two versions of lesbianism where one is “attraction primarily to blond girls” while the other doesn’t care about hair color makes little sense.Saying that “attraction to all genders with a preference” and “attraction to genders without a preference” should be entirely distinct identities is like saying masculine women and feminine women are different genders. Scrutinizing such a minute nuance could be compared to making separate identity terms for the amount of attraction one feels, the relevancy of which is similarly debatable. A bisexual with little interest in intimate relationships with any gender is just as bisexual as one overwhelmed with how much they adore people.Some people who want to maintain the supposed contrast of preference between bisexuality and pansexuality claim that bisexuals don’t lack a preference, but just have “a preference for all genders,” but this makes no sense. A preference requires you like one thing more than the other options. To “prefer everything” would mean that you somehow like all options more than you like... all options. (To illustrate, this would be like saying cheesecake is sweeter than vanilla ice cream but also that vanilla ice cream is sweeter than cheesecake.) Thus there is no actual preference.Not to mention, a major bisexual stereotype is that we don’t have a preference, that we’d sleep with “anything that moves,” that we’re 50% gay and 50% straight, thus unable to be monogamous or faithful. Those of us with gender preferences are actively punished and erased for it, treated as though we “really” gay or straight.Finally, preferences don’t exist in a vacuum. Our society antagonizes same-gender relationships and reinforces gender roles—which enable abuse—in man/woman relationships. When this is the case, gender preferences are rarely just that. Many are shaped by internalized bigotry, experiences with oppression, dysphoria, or trauma.Presenting two labels with the difference between them being a “preference” neglects these realities and enforces the idea that bisexuals “pick a side,” another pervasive myth. We are simultaneously expected to have a preference (“more gay or straight”) and lack one (“50/50”). Damned if we do, damned if we don’t!In any case, I find it fascinating that, for decades, people have avoided saying “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation” because they reject the idea that sexuality is a choice—this has been a major talking point for LGBTQ activism—but people are now creating and distinguishing orientation labels based on whether someone has gender preferences or not.
Just like we don’t need to have a preference, we also don’t need to find gender a significant element of our attraction. This has even been scientifically explored.In any case, gender “being a factor” or not in terms of one’s attraction is irrelevant when you already like all of them. How we would even measure this factor is debatable (and few people seem to be able to explain what they mean by having gender factor in without talking about outright preferences); we all inevitably treat “different genders in different ways” because our society constructed genders as polarized categories.Plus, individuals are unique, and there will be different things we enjoy about each one. The way I like tall guys contrasts with the way I like short guys; my attraction to shy people will differ from my attraction to outgoing people, regardless of gender. There’s a decent chance that some may mistake differences between people as differences between genders.Like preferences, these different feelings can come from experiences of misogyny, homo/bi/transphobia, abuse, or gender dysphoria. My attraction to men “feels different” from my attraction to women because I don’t have to pretend to be straight. I had trouble realizing my bisexuality when I first questioned my gayness because thinking about being intimate with women made me dysphoric. My attraction to women also makes me feel predatory because I’m a man.Other than that, I couldn’t tell you how my attraction to women “differs” from my attraction to men, nor could I explain the supposedly measurably “different” ways to be romantically attracted to people. Many bisexuals are confused by this supposed contrast between bisexuality and pansexuality. Defining identities around experiencing attraction differently depending on the gender is not only hard to do but arguably unhealthy when we live in a (hetero/cis)sexist society.P.S. “Attraction to all genders” and “attraction regardless of gender” are the same thing, even if you have a gender preference. “Regardless” does not necessarily mean not caring about gender; some people who use the “all” definition don’t care about gender, and some who use “regardless” for themselves have a gender preference.If someone likes all flavors of cake, then they’d be happy to eat a slice regardless of its flavor, even if red velvet is their favorite. If you’re attracted to all genders, then you can be attracted to people no matter what their gender is; if you would date someone no matter what their gender is, you’re open to dating all genders.
1984: “I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.”1988: “We made signs and slashes. My favorite read, ‘When it’s love in all its splendor, it doesn’t matter what the gender.’”1995: “Is bisexuality even about gender at all? ‘I don’t desire a gender,’ 25[-]year-old Matthew Ehrlich says.”1996: “I’m bi. That simply means I can be attracted to a person without consideration of their gender.”2000: “Respondent #658 said that both are irrelevant; ‘who I am sexually attracted to has nothing to do with their sex/gender’ ... […] Respondent #495 recalled that ‘the best definition I’ve ever heard is someone who is attracted to people & gender/sex is not an issue or factor in that attraction.’”2002: “But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person... ‘Male’ or ‘female’ are not anywhere to be found in the list of qualities I find attractive.”2012: “I’m into all sorts of things, but a person being a man or a woman isn’t a turn-on. Certainly not in the same way it’s a turn off to a gay or straight person. I’m never going to think ‘Wow, Zie is really sexy, shame they’re a ____’ because what turns me off isn’t gender.”2013: “I am bisexual... All it describes is how gender affects attraction for me: it doesn’t. I am attracted to people regardless of gender, and I am bisexual.”2014: “Kim said: I don’t think actually gender is that relevant… gender is like eye colour, and I notice it sometimes, and sometimes it can be a bit of a feature it’s like ‘oo, that’s nice’ and I have some sorts of gender types, but it’s about as important as something like eye colour.”
The idea that bisexuals are somehow obsessed with the gender of our partners is absurd when we literally pioneered the concept of genderblindness in regards to sexuality. We’ve been describing our attraction as being towards “people, not genders” since the 1970s.That said, while this saying in earlier eras marked a new way of thinking about orientation, it’s best if we—bisexual and pansexual alike—ceased describing our sexuality this way.
1974: “It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders…”1992: “[S]ome bisexuals say they are blind to the gender of their potential lovers and that they love people as people… For the first group, a dichotomy of genders between which to choose doesn’t seem to exist[.]”1995: “Ehrlich says some of his partners don’t understand this, which leads to problems of trust or jealousy. ‘[They’ll say], ‘How can you be sure you desire me when I’m only one gender?’’ he says. But this is not the point. ‘I don’t desire a gender, I desire a person.’”1996: “One woman expressed the desire to elide categorical differences by reporting that she finds ‘relationships with men and women to be quite similar — the differences are in the individuals, not in their sex.’”1998: “That’s what we’re taught: man/man, woman/woman, woman/man, top/bottom, butch/femme, man/woman/man, etc. We’re never taught person/person. That’s what the bisexual movement has been trying to teach us.”1998: “A large group of bisexual women reported in a Ms. magazine article that when they fell in love it was with a person rather than a gender…”2000: “Giovanni’s distinction between what he wants and who he wants resonates with the language of many of today’s bisexuals, who insist that they fall in love with a person, not a gender.”2010: “We [bisexuals] like people based on personality[,] not gender.”2017: “Loving a person rather than a man or a woman: this is Runa Wehrli’s philosophy. At 18, she defines herself as bisexual and speaks about it openly. […] She believes that love should not be confined by the barriers put up by society. ‘I fall in love with a person and not a gender,’ she says.”
The idea of “seeing” or “not seeing” gender is odd enough; gender itself— if we view it as identity, not any physical trait — is invisible. You can’t physically view isolated versions of “manhood” or “womanhood because they can look like anything and anyone — and sometimes exactly alike.For the purposes of explanation, “seeing gender” will be defined as as acknowledging gender and seeing individuals, intentionally or not, as a member of a gender (e.g., as a wo/man).If you can understand that it’s impossible to “not see” race, you can also grasp that you can’t just “not see” gender (especially not if you have one) unless you were never taught about it whatsoever. Society has spent millennia constructing and reconstructing gender; it assigns gender to us and punishes people with the wrong ones.Whether we like it or not, we often assume the gender of others based on appearances and sometimes form presumptions about them based on that. It’s unrealistic to declare that we, as a civilization, are divorced from that yet. There is no “pure” form of attraction free from biases, whether they be gender-based, racial, or otherwise.Saying you “like personality instead of gender” implies that other sexualities prioritize the gender of their partners over an emotional connection. Saying you “just see your partner for who they are” also neglects the fact that their partner’s gender is often a very significant part of who they are, especially if they’re trans. Having our genders denied entirely can feel worse than being misgendered.It also brings about the dehumanizing assumption that all other sexualities care about is the abstract concept of gender identity, when in fact, we are all attracted to people and personalities. Just because some people only enjoy dating men doesn’t diminish that fact, just like someone who only wants to date outgoing people isn’t suddenly “not attracted to people.” Arguably, gender is part of one’s personality, depending on how they see themselves.Lacking a gender preference is perfectly fine, but it’s dismissive and foolish to assert that you’ll never perceive a prospective partner’s gender. Many of us, trans or not, want to be loved as— not despite— our gender.A more elaborate explanation can be found here.
Once again, bisexuals have also utilized this sentiment in describing their sexuality for decades, so this would not constitute a difference. That said, such phrases are deeply problematic and should be discarded.
By saying one doesn’t care about genitals to communicate that they don’t care about gender, they equate gender to genitals, which will always hurt trans and intersex people. Coupled with the assertion that pansexuals are different precisely because of their willingness to date us, the slogan “hearts, not parts” hones in on our genitals rather than dismissing them. It typically assumes we have genitals atypical for our gender and lets transphobes off the hook for being repulsed by us.Considering that many pansexuals who believe that pansexuality is the only trans-inclusive sexuality also use “hearts not parts” to explain their sexuality, this reveals quite a bit about what they think about trans and nonbinary people. They often imply that one must be able to “look past” appearances to be attracted to trans people, reinforcing the idea that our bodies are repulsive. We should work towards normalizing our bodies, not ignoring them altogether.Not to mention, nobody is only attracted to genitals, not even people who claim to have genital preferences. Otherwise, I would’ve never dated anyone in my life. The vast majority of people still go on dates and fall in love before ever having sex. Orientation is not inherently or solely sexual. Contending otherwise not only disregards reality but reflects the pervasive stereotypes that gays and bisexuals are shallow, only care about sex, fetishize their partners, and can’t experience meaningful connections.
Words like “gay,” “straight,” and “bisexual” are descriptive, not prescriptive. They’re simply a way of communicating the broad strokes of your attraction, i.e., which gender(s) you like. Beyond that, everyone’s experience with being gay, straight, or bi is different because we’re all individuals. We can always express those differences alongside our identity, e.g., “I’m a femme open to dating both butches and other femmes,” or “I’m a bisexual who prefers men.”The only way a broad label that describes you (let alone one that often describes attraction without gender limits) would truly be “limiting” or reductive is if you either refuse to see beyond its stereotypes or believe that one word should encapsulate every single part of you, which is unrealistic.Nobody is “just” their labels. We should all try to stop thinking of them as rigid boxes; it not only insults people who value their identities and find them freeing but ignores their importance. They aren’t just words— they’re tools for creating communities and forming alliances in the pursuit of liberation.As Emma Seely explains in “Bi Is Enough,” “bisexual” is a vast category. There is no single experience that we must fit into.There is and always has been variation in our community, variation in levels of attraction, in fluidity of attraction, in dating experiences, and in self-conceptualization, and that is part of what makes the bisexual community so beautiful and so powerful. In the same way that lesbian, gay, and transgender people are not monolithic groups and are comprised of people with vastly different experiences and ways of understanding their experiences, bisexual people are united not due to our uniformity but because of our common position in a patriarchal society and our common struggle against it.The only experience that no bisexual has is attraction to just one gender. Otherwise, there are nearly infinite ways to be bisexual, and we should embrace the variety in our community. We defy definition. Bisexuality is an inclusive term and, at least in my view, a wonderful thing.
As Wendy Curry puts aptly:
The message of bisexuality — that people are more than their gender; that we accept all people, regardless of Kinsey scale rating; that we embrace people regardless of age, weight, clothing, hair style, gender expression, race, religion and actually celebrate our diversity — that message is my gospel. I travel, write, do web sites — all to let people know that the bisexual community will accept you, will let you be who you are, and will not expect you to fit in a neat little gender/sexuality box.Even if the “bisexual” was a restrictive “box,” how would putting yourself in a smaller box be any less limiting? If anything, a label that claims to describe increasingly specific phenomenon would be more restrictive than a broad one, because it requires fewer changes to that person’s experiences for that label to no longer fit. This decreases their mobility within that identity.It can also be confusing or harmful for questioning LGBTQ people if they think they need a label that precisely fits every single aspect of their attraction. People shouldn’t feel like they would need to change their entire identity over minute changes in how they experience their sexuality. It’s typically unhealthy to hyper-analyze yourself to that point.This is not me trying to say that “pansexual” is limiting, because I don’t think it is. However, Alyson Escalante sums up my thoughts well when they say:[T]his demand for recognition via the recognition of each individual’s personal identity as ontologically distinct is a demand for recognition that subtly naturalizes the relationships of power and class which create that identity in the first place... The impulse to simply create more and more identity categories can only be understood as a liberating political project if we understand the project of placing people into identity categories on the basis of gender and sexuality to be a politically liberatory act in the first place.
Some may find me hypocritical for saying that definitions of pansexuality (that aim to set it apart from bisexuality) erase bisexuality while I go on to say pansexuals are bisexual. After all, people erase bisexuals all the time by pretending we’re either gay or straight. How am I any better? Well, these scenarios present a false equivalency. There’s a massive difference between telling a bisexual they’re gay/straight and telling a pansexual they’re bisexual.“Gay,” “straight,” and “bisexual” are not interchangeable By insisting I’m gay, one denies my attraction to women. By saying I’m straight, they brush off my attraction to men. They ignore the fact that I don’t exclude any gender from my dating pool.On the other hand, I do not deny a pansexual’s attraction to any gender by calling them bisexual. Bisexuality is functionally attraction to all genders. I don’t deny any facet of who the pansexual is. I don’t even say that they’re not pansexual, just that they’re also bisexual. (One can’t say that I, a bisexual, am also straight; I either like men or I don’t.)When someone says I’m straight/gay, they’re saying, “you don’t like all genders. You actually only like (wo)men, so I will call you straight/gay.” This reasoning comes from falsehood. When I say a pansexual is bisexual, I’m saying, “you like all genders, and that makes you bisexual.” That is a true statement. There’s no way to say that pansexuals are not bisexual without erasing multiple definitions of bisexuality.Saying that pansexuals are bisexual is like saying lesbians are gay women or that heterosexuals are straight people. Words don’t need to be completely separate from one another to exist together.But people seemingly want to understand certain identities as mutually exclusive, so when people began using pansexuality for “attraction to all genders,” they tried to alter the definition of bisexuality so these labels would keep their distance. By doing this, however, they trap bisexuality into falsehoods and encourage us to accept attitudes we shouldn’t.
Even if we (falsely) assume that bisexuality is not attraction to all genders (and that it’s possible to exclude nonbinary people from one’s sexuality the way we can with men and women), think about it this way.Let’s say we have the categories “man” and “trans man.” The former refers to all men, regardless of their race, class, sexuality, assigned gender, height, weight, hobbies, or anything else. The latter is a subset of men. “Trans” and “man,” while combinable, describe different groups when examined individually. However, while not all men are trans, we (hopefully) wouldn’t say that trans men are an entirely different gender altogether. That’s transphobic.We can apply this logic to bisexuality and pansexuality. Bisexuality, in a general sense, refers to the phenomenon of being attracted to men and women (I say this instead of “multiple genders” because nonbinary genders are a common denominator in all sexualities). Pansexuality would thus be a variation of bisexuality since they, too, like men and women.Sure, not every self-identified bisexual personally sees themselves as attracted to all genders, but this is to be expected when most cis people claim to not be attracted to nonbinary people at all, which an attitude we shouldn’t validate in the first place. Regardless, saying that pansexuals are not bisexual ignores that most definitions of bisexuality state or imply attraction to all genders.Bisexuals who agree that pansexuality is a separate orientation usually agree with the inaccurate definitions of bisexuality that supposedly necessitate the existence of the “pansexual” label. This throws other bisexuals with different experiences under the bus.
Some people insist that “while bisexuality and pansexuality overlap, the distinction matters to some people.” But what distinctions actually exist? How do we know which alleged distinctions a person is using to choose between these labels? It’s illogical to say that the difference between category 1 and category 2 is that category 1 has [X] when there are people in category 1 without [X] and people in category 2 with [X].Even if there was an absolute clear-cut difference between how bisexuals and pansexuals experience attraction, we can think about them like apples. Honeycrisps and Granny Smiths have different colors and tastes, which we can compare to attraction with and without a gender preference, respectively—but they’re still both apples.You couldn’t claim a Honeycrisp isn’t an apple. You wouldn’t say a Granny Smith was so different from a Honeycrisp that it must be a completely separate species, the way a mango or a grape is. There are various kinds of apples, but they’re all the same fruit. There are many ways to be bisexual, but they’re all just that: bisexuality.Many who insist that pansexuality is inherently unique will often contradict themselves to try establishing such a claim. Take, for instance, these two sentences from the same article:Semantically, bisexuality encompasses pansexuality, but there is a point where we can distinguish between the two, and this is important to much of our community. […] Is there a difference between bi and pan? Well, yes and no. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter.Besides the fact that the author doesn’t actually say what this “distinction” is (unless they believe bisexuality does not include all genders) or what they mean by “yes and no,” one must seriously wonder about the thought process behind treating mutually exclusive statements such as “the difference between bi and pan is important” and “the difference between bi and pan isn’t important” as coexistent.
Some people believe the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is preference or the lack thereof, while others think it’s that only the latter includes trans people. Not only are such claims false and invalidating, but the lack of consensus is an issue. The fact that “the” contrast depends on who you ask further disproves the existence of a real contrast.While it’s pretty much impossible to achieve perfect harmony, we should ideally be able to agree, at least somewhat, on how some words should be defined. When this isn’t possible, we will virtually never find a middle ground when talking about the topic at hand due to fundamentally different understandings of the concept leading us to believe the other person doesn’t understand at all.Furthermore, while people are free to tailor their individual understandings of their sexuality, but statements such as “people can define both terms however they want” can be harmful. Imagine someone who doesn’t identify as A going, “A, to me, means [X definition], which is why I call myself B, because it means [Y definition],” even though some A people, and not all B people, use Y definition.This behavior should not be encouraged. The person in question does not get to decide what A means “to them,” as other people’s self-descriptions are not up for interpretation or debate. They are speaking over group A and risk spreading misinformation about them.Bisexual activist Shiri Eisner additionally points out that:
The definition of pansexuality is often dependent on the definition of bisexuality (and, dare I say, the rejection thereof)... [M]any pansexuals feel the need to define bisexuality as attraction to no more than two genders (a definition which most outspoken bisexuals... vehemently dispute) in order to constitute the difference as related to desire rather than as related to politics... Another problem here is that this kind of dependency on meaning and comparison erases pansexuality as an identity in its own right.Not to mention, sexual orientation is defined primarily in terms of who one is attracted to, not how they experience that attraction. This is rather evident when you (aside from just looking at definitions) take note at how orientation is described in everyday scenarios and recognize that heterosexism oppresses people on the basis of who people like.The fact that I have a gender preference is not the part of my bisexuality that might get me fired or fetishized or harassed. Even if every single bisexual felt attraction in one way and all pansexuals felt attraction in another way, it wouldn’t really matter. Identifying oneself primarily based on personal nuances that no one can detect is simply impractical, especially considering that everyone experiences attraction differently. We don’t need to assign titles to every little detail about ourselves.
The closest thing to a “difference” between bisexuality and pansexuality, then, is that the latter requires acknowledgment of one’s attraction to trans and nonbinary people while the former does not, but as I’ve explained before, this is not criteria we should divide sexual identities by. It excuses trans exclusion and normalizes the idea that “trans,” “nonbinary,” and “cis” on their own are as different as we perceive “male” and “female” to be, which misunderstands and misgenders us.If you wouldn’t say, “some gay people wouldn’t date trans or nonbinary people of the same gender, so we should have a label just for gay people who would,” then you shouldn’t treat the “attraction to trans and nonbinary people” definition of pansexuality as legitimate.If one seems to find more “differences” that set pansexuality apart, there are definitely many bisexuals with that trait in common, too. Differences between individuals who identify with either label don’t demonstrate a fundamental difference between the orientations themselves, especially when their definitions of each word varies. If an identity hedges its bets on allegedly not being another identity (while saying that the very obvious, well-known “overlap” between both identities is also somehow valid?), something weird is happening.With regard to what Eisner noted earlier, the frantic distancing of pansexuality from bisexuality parallels the way some lesbians try defining lesbianism not through a love for women, but through a lack of love towards — and “rejection” of — men. But by doing this, their definition of lesbianism inadvertently depends on men. It also implies that straight and bisexual women can’t reject men; these women are often accused of “centering men” in their lives just by being attracted to them, which is a frankly misogynistic claim.In any case, if being pansexuality is all about being “not bisexual,” then pansexuals don’t even have a reason for that identity that they don’t owe to bisexuals. Thus they indirectly base their identity around bisexuality.
Ultimately, “pansexual” is just a newer word for bisexuality, and we have always been the same community. This is even further exemplified by the fact that prior to the release of the pansexual flag, pansexuals used the bi flag in their symbols. (Speaking of which, contrary to popular belief, the pink and blue stripes in the bi flag do not represent specific genders. According to the designer, they stand for same-gender and different-gender attraction, respectively.)Not to mention, some people identify as bisexual and pansexual simultaneously, not claiming to have two sexual orientations. If there are folks who find so little difference between the two labels that they can comfortably identify as both, that should speak on how they're actually used in real life (i.e., to communicate the same attraction).None of this on its own should be seen as an invalidation of the pansexual identity. A few people who still believe that it is have asked, “as a bisexual, don’t you know what it feels like to be invalidated?” Sure I do. But to invalidate is to negate, to deny legitimacy. Invalidating bisexual identity means rejecting the idea that someone can be attracted to people of both similar and different genders (e.g., saying bisexual men are just “gay men too cowardly to ‘fully’ come out of the closet”).Someone saying that bisexuality is more-or-less the same as pansexuality does not invalidate me; both labels describe attraction to people of any gender. Saying that pansexuality isn’t real (i.e., saying that attraction to people of any gender is impossible) is invalidation. I never said it doesn’t exist, just that it’s synonymous with bisexuality.Many people who insist that the two labels merely “overlap” are also quick to say that bisexuals who explain our sexuality in ways that pansexuals do (e.g., attraction to all genders) are “actually” pan. This is disrespectful because their descriptions have always been ours. They are now used by multiple labels, but please stop redefining us bisexuals without our consent. Trying to posit bisexuality and pansexuality as inherently separate restricts the possibilities for both labels.(I also recommend these two videos by Ritchie.)The next carrd focuses on how society influences what we call ourselves, sometimes without us knowing it, and how this may hurt and isolate us.