is there any actual difference between pansexuals and bisexuals or are you people so mentally ill you need your own special thing to define you as a person?
the difference is pedantic, but important in context. it's just a way to specify that you're okay with trans or non-binary people.
>>5862901
most of the time i saw someone explain pansex they said something along the line of that they don't care about the body but only the personality. bisex isn't usually opposed to trans people?
>>5862836
they just wanna feel special
>>5862929
"bi" as in "both," and "pan" as in "all." it's just latin base
>>5862946
i know that but i don't know why you replied to me?
>>5862929
It's less that bisexuals are unaccepting, and more that pan is being extra specific.
It also goes for people who are offended by the implication that there are only two genders.
A lot, if not most, bisexuals are technically "pan". But they don't find the need to change their terminology.
>>5862836
I've read many different explanations. The way I see it, bisexuals are attracted to two genders, while pansexuals are attracted to all genders there are, thus signifying that they believe that there is more than one gender. Basically, if you believe that non-binary people exist and are attracted to them, you are pan. If not (believe they exists but aren't attracted to them, or don't consider them separate genders at all), you are bi. I'm not sure about non-binary genders existing (how do we prove it, anyway?), but I use the term bisexual when describing myself because more people know what that means and it doesn't generate as much shitstorms.
>>5862836
There isn't any. Pansexual is just a term bisexuals use to show that they're allies of trans. Whether or not view people who are trans as they gender they identify as does not alter your sexuality.
>>5862929
I'm bi, but have no desire for trans, so it helps me that people identify as pansexual.
>>5863046
>It also goes for people who are offended by the implication that there are only two genders.
What do we call bisexuals who don't want to offend people with the implication that the earth is round?
there was a thread here the other week asking for cis peoples sexuality and whether or not they would date/sleep with a trans guy or girl
it was a good example of why pan is a useful term cause while some bi people tentatively stated they might date a trans person, there were also a tonne of bi people who wouldn't walk on the same side of the street as a trans person
people who identified as pan didn't need to specify further whether or not they would date/sleep with a trans person because thats what that word means
>>5863139
What about the trans who are offended by the term. Some view it as trans fetishism and others view it as a way of separating cis man/woman and trans man/woman. As if to say that transwomen and transmen are not really men or women, but something else. Are these complaints valid to you?
>>5863145
>As if to say that transwomen and transmen are not really men or women, but something else.
>transmen and transwoman
technically by writing it this way you are saying trans men and trans women are not men or women.
>>5863145
Everything is fetishism to the trans crowd though, everything. It's an compulsive trait to them, because in fact they are the ones fetishizing themselves and what they should look like, but the turn that fetishism outwards to control not only how they look but how they are presented, how people should be attracted to them, how people should talk about them. There's not a thing that is left from their ocd.
>>5863150
Doesn't that validate the complaints they have against pan? By saying you're (not YOU specifically, but pans in general) into cismen, ciswomen, transmen and transwomen aren't you doing what your post is saying I'm doing?
>>5863157
yes.
cis and trans are words (i forgot the term) to further describe what kind of women or man a person is. like "this table is round. it's a round table". you wouldn't write this is a roundtable.
>>5863154
b8/10
>>5863145
(I'm not the other anon just a random tranny)
NO. Complaints are not valid because trans and cis are not the same thing and are rightly distinguished from each other.
Trans women are different from cis women, some people like one and not the other. Deal with it.
Some people like all of the above tho, and deserve the pan label.
And your boyfriend is less than 100% straight if he sucks your dick.
>>5863165
Sorry, that last post was my fault. I worded that wrong
>By saying you're (not YOU specifically, but pans in general) into men, women, transmen and transwomen aren't you doing what your post is saying I'm doing?
FTFM
>>5863173
you know trans women without a dick exist? you know most trans women do not want their dick to even be mentioned? you know trans men exist too?
i'm not debating your point right now, your view seems awfully misinformed and prejudiced though.
oh and
>inb4 axewound meme
>>5863174
i get the feeling you are baiting me.
>>5863170
not bait and very true, and you know it.
>>5863188
oh, just a random /pol/tard.
>>5863187
It's not. I said
>As if to say that transwomen and transmen are not really men or women, but something else.
Then you said
>technically by writing it this way you are saying trans men and trans women are not men or women.
And I meant to say
>By saying you're (not YOU specifically, but pans in general) into men, women, transmen and transwomen aren't you doing what your post is saying I'm doing?
But ended up fucking up and saying
>cismen, ciswomen
Making a mistake is not trolling. It's making a mistake. Trolling is intentional
>>5863187
You know that I was making a statement specifically about guys sucking dicks being non straight by definition right. It was a bit off topic I'll admit but I didn't say a goddam thing about dickless people so stop making it about dickless.
Fucking self obsessed dickless people.
>>5863193
yeah, I'm pol hanging on lgbt...
everything I said is true, the trans crowd is riddled with ocd. daily we get a hate thread on caitlyn jenner because she's not trans enough and its giving people dysphoria that she is allowed to represent transwomen. I mean, how much more compulsive can you be in wanting to control who "represents" you.
then there are chaser threads, people are not allowed to find you sexual attractive for so and so reason, let trans people tell you how you should be attracted to them instead.
its not enough for them to attempt to shape their biology, they also have to shape their reality around them, and if its not perfect, its giving them dysphoria. which totally isn't ocd.
>>5863202
I fucking despise Caitlyn but besides my general hatred for the cunt I have no fucks to give about her supposedly "representing" me. I represent myself and you dickless should too.
>>5862836
>is there any actual difference between pansexuals and bisexuals
Honestly, no.
>>5863194
>transmen and transwomen
this is still grammatically wrong and the thing i criticized the very first time.
>>5863197
you're very obsessed about dick.
>>5863202
it's not ocd. you are catching bits of information and mixed with prejudice and ignorance you form your opinion. i won't even try to argue with you given that you are from /pol/ and this will most likely result in shitflinging.
>>5863213
>you're very obsessed about dick
You're damn right.
>>5863213
>this is still grammatically wrong and the thing i criticized the very first time.
But isn't the whole idea behind pan that there is a speration of transmen and men and of transwomen and women. A bisexual will say that they are attracted to men and women but a pansexual will add the trans. If pointing out the differences between men/women and transmen/transwomen is grammatically wrong doesn't that make pansexuality grammatically wrong?
>>5862836
pansexual is inclusive of people who don't identify as either gender
It sounds a bit like it's enabling special snowflakism, but it's actually also inclusive of admittedly rare but inarguably legit cases like intersex people who don't identify as either gender.
>>5863229
(Not that anon but..)
It's grammatically wrong because the "trans" in "trans woman" is actually an abbreviation of transgender and not a suffix that you can tack on to the word woman.
So flex those thumb muscles and add an extra space you dumb cuck
>>5863246
Dammit, you got me
>>5863251
Got you so hard you didn't even notice that I fucked up and said suffix when I clearly meant prefix
>>5863257
Marry me. Nobody has ever gotten me this hard before
>>5863145
the only people i've ever seen offended by the word pansexual are people going "THATS NOT A WORD SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE TUMBLR WORD NOT REAL NO MEANING TMUBLRER MEME NO NO NO"
my response to anyone offended by the term is the same though. its a word that exists and is useful. get over it.
>>5862929
by definition, bisexuality isn't opposed to trans people, but the reason pansexuality as a term has risen in popularity is because of the number of self-described bisexuals (mostly cis females) who explicitly exclude trans girls and guys from that.
>>5862901
Ah, so it's a part of that freak-show.
And this is why I say we should drop the T before they drop the ball and make normal people snap and bring back fascism.
>>5863202
>I mean, how much more compulsive can you be in wanting to control who "represents" you.
Really? You wouldn't be upset if someone "represented" your group while totally not representing the interests of people within the group?
>then there are chaser threads, people are not allowed to find you sexual attractive for so and so reason
So people aren't allowed to complain? The reason chasers are hated is that they're usually disloyal and attracted on the basis the features one hates the most.
>>5864824
No, because gay people have for years not been able to control who represent us. I don't care because I have nothing to do with that side of homosexuality anyway. I don't want it changed so it should only reflect my perfect views.
