you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 2 weeks ago (53 children)

As a bisexual girlie, would someone let me know what the true difference is when it's figured out??

Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels.

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    bi is also one character less to type

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 2 weeks ago (31 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago* (18 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Because the only trans people they personally know are ones they aren’t attracted to?

    That doesn't mean they won't be attracted to any and all trans people.

    There's nothing different about a bisexual man and a straight man when it comes to dating. If someone doesn't like bisexual men because bisexual men are also attracted to men, that is a preference rooted in homophobia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    You aren’t the only person in the world.

    I'm not trans, but ok.

    It also doesn’t mean they will be either.

    That's the point. They don't know either. So to assume that every single trans person is not attractive to them is an assumption based in bigotry.

    Yeah, because gay and straight people totally always have the same culture and behavior right?

    They can overlap a lot depending on the person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I'm gen z and consider myself pan because the flag colors look like an ocean sunset and yummy ice cream. And also because gender is irrelevant to me in regards to attraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    "Honestly it seems like a generational divide between the two labels."

    Yup pretty much exactly it.

    Pansexual means attracted to all genders, bi is more than one. All pansexuals are bisexuals, not all bisexuals are pansexuals.

  • source
  • parent