Wait. I don't get it.
In that case is the person saying that man or a woman? Cause... It could be both, depending on the reference point. Pls, gendered pronouns, hulp.
So, pansexual is attracted to a fenotype?
Bisexuality is being attracted to two or more gender presentations, etc. (not just make/female)
And Pansexuality is like asexuality but you CAN be attracted to someone sexually as a person.
Still don't get it. Ok, let me put it this way
A woman is attracted to a man (woman?) who is a trans-man and she knows about it.
So in that case is she straight, homosexual, bi, or what the fuck?
I sexually identify as a potato :>
Bisexuals are attracted to both the same and opposite sex.
Pansexuals can be attracted to any sex, including hermaphrodites* and transexuals. The word 'pan' means 'all'.
*For some reason they often prefer to be called 'intersex', even though hermaphrodite is technically correct and is in common use for all other animals.
I'm starting to suspect bisexuality as a category is very limitting and hard to define properly... (it sort of upholding the gender binary and such)... or rather, that the way we interpret the sexuality tags in itself has some sort of intrinsic flaw at its core.Essentially, Bisexuals are not attracted to hermaphrodites or transexuals, but Pansexuals are.
Absolutely. If a man has a fenotype of a woman, looks and behaves as a woman then... well...
I'm starting to suspect bisexuality as a category is very limitting and hard to define properly... (it sort of upholding the gender binary and such)... or rather, that the way we interpret the sexuality tags in itself has some sort of intrinsic flaw at its core.
Essentially, Bisexuals are not attracted to hermaphrodites or transexuals, but Pansexuals are.
...the fuck did I jus' read?
So a person attracted to:
a) people of the opposite sex and gender
b) people of the same sex but with the opposite gender
only would be still called pansexual?
But it collides with the very definition of the pansexualism. And it isn't bi. So what do you call it? Heterosexual pansexual? Ungh...
I don't know man, sexuality is hard in general. Too many factors and unrecognized/underexposed/understudied realities to consider.Don't be silly, the word 'Bisexual' does a wonderful job because its meaning is crystal clear.
I think I could maybe get behind this post.Homosexual = I like the same sex
Bisexual = I like men and women
Heterosexual = I like the opposite sex
Pansexual = I like you regardless of what's between your legs, or what your mental gender is
That's how I udnerstand it.
Pansexuality includes trans, and IMO is pretty stupid because it isolates trans people as an "other"
I'd definitely get with someone working in the transportation industry.
It doesn't, pansexually literally includes everybody.But according to the definition pansexuality shouldn't reject people of the same sex and gender or different sex but same gender.
One thing now I know for sure. Those definitions aren't worth a shit.
It doesn't, pansexually literally includes everybody.
That's where my problem lays.
Why can't we just lump trans people under homosexuality or heterosexuality?
Why can't I be with a trans man and say "I'm a homosexual"? Why do I need to label myself a heterosexual?
This is because people would say "well the pre-op trans man still has a vagina so that makes you hetero" and I'd be like "no, because not all men have penises"
Pansexuality IMO seems like an orientation made up so that we can stick trans men and trans women under an "other" umbrella. It's a subtle way of saying "not a real man"/"not a real woman" when we should really just consider it homosexuality or heterosexuality regardless of their sex.