Difference between pansexual and bisexual

[Barebacked]

What exactly is the difference between being pansexual (comes up more and more often, lately), and being bisexual?

I know the etymology, and yet, I’m at odds between the actual difference, as we are either one or the other, chromosome-wise.

Pan comes from Ancient Greek and means “all”. The Pantheon is a temple to ALL gods. Pangaea was a supercontinent when ALL modern continents were “glued” together.

Bi means two, and bicycle, bilingual, and bilateral are just a few of the thousands of words we find in English, today.

So, what’s exactly different between being into both men + women (bisexual), and being into ALL (pansexual)?

I wouldn’t assume being pansexual means being into other species than humans, and I certainly hope so because there’s another word for that, which I am not referring to, here.

Thank you for reading. 

[BootmanLA]

In practical terms, there probably isn't much difference in more than 95% of cases.

But speaking for how things actually work out, bisexual typically means "cisgendered" people - you are a man who likes men who have identified as male since birth, and women who have identified as female since birth.

Pansexual would include transgendered individuals - accepting partners who are male but who were born with a vagina, or female but born with a penis and testicles. Pansexual people also tend to be more open and accepting of individuals like demisexuals, who need emotional attachment in order to feel physical/sexual interest (many people, both straight and LGBT, don't have the patience for demisexuals). Pansexual people, in my experience, are more open to ideas about gender and sexuality that are less mainstream. That's not a definitional difference; just a practical one that I've observed.

[Guest]

Biggest difference between the two is the role gender plays. Bisexual attraction is gendered while pan is non gendered. Pansexual folks don’t factor gender in their attraction to someone. They are attracted to people regardless of gender so it can be male, female, trans, non binary or gender non conforming. It doesn’t matter to them. Bisexual folks do factor gender in their attraction so generally attracted to CIS men & women. There can be some overlap between bi and pan as bi ppl can find themselves attracted to trans folks. 

[11bi11guy]

I believe there is significant overlap of bisexuality and pansexuality. In our popular culture, the concept of bisexuality has a longer history than the concept of pansexuality. Unfortunately, the concept of pansexuality and its alleged distinction from bisexuality have been pushed recently by culture warriors who want to draw divisions rather than accept existing definitions that are inclusive and already well-understood in popular culture.

Historically, non-hetero sexuality and transgender identity were mostly hidden from public view and discussion. Because heterosexuality was the only culturally acceptable sexual identity in much of the world for the last two millennia, all non-heterosexual identities were initially lumped with its opposite—homosexuality. This made sense in a Western Christian world steeped in duality.

As people with non-heterosexual identities began fighting for (and winning) cultural recognition and civil rights over the past century, the concept of bisexuality began to gain recognition in popular culture. The Kinsey scale recognized sexuality as a spectrum with heterosexuality at one end and homosexuality at the other—the scale recognized gradations in between the two extremes, but everything in between was lumped under the bisexual label. There was no separate recognition of attraction to transgender individuals, or distinction between attraction to cisgender and transgender individuals.

Labels are simply a way to communicate—with oneself and with others. Historically, by adopting the label “bisexual,” people communicated to themselves and to others that their sexuality was not strictly heterosexual and not strictly homosexual. Thus, “bisexual” became the way to identify people who were attracted to more than one gender.

It is still the easiest way to identify people who are attracted to more than one gender. Since the 1990s, bisexual activist Robyn Ochs provided an inclusive definition of bisexuality: “the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.” 

I agree with Ochs’s definition of bisexuality. I’m sure those of us who are terminally online can understand the capacity for nuance here, and that there are likely some people for whom the distinction between bisexual and pansexual means a great deal. I honestly cannot think of a specific example where that might matter, because all I can see is the potential for divisiveness for its own sake. What is the benefit of drawing a distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality? Assuming a limited definition of bisexuality as being attracted to only two genders, where pansexuality fills the space of the expansive definition of bisexuality, is there really a benefit in being able to communicate that distinction?

I honestly think it’s really a useless distinction. I believe the vast majority of people who identify as bisexual are in fact attracted in some way to transgender individuals as well as cisgender individuals.

I am bisexual under the expansive Ochs definition. There are nuances to my sexuality (I am heteroromantic; I have a high libido; I am attracted to feminine male-to-female transwomen, and feminine female-to-male transmen; I am generally a bottom with men, and I am attracted to masculine men; I have not yet had the opportunity, but I think I am attracted to feminine men and I’m interested in topping them). But most people don’t need to know all of that nuance; I can simply say I’m bisexual. Saying that I’m pansexual—in my mind a useless and needlessly complicated term—is less well understood, and would often require unnecessarily obnoxious and narcissistic follow-up conversation.

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, 11bi11guy said:

I honestly cannot think of a specific example where that might matter, because all I can see is the potential for divisiveness for its own sake. What is the benefit of drawing a distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality? Assuming a limited definition of bisexuality as being attracted to only two genders, where pansexuality fills the space of the expansive definition of bisexuality, is there really a benefit in being able to communicate that distinction?

I honestly think it’s really a useless distinction. I believe the vast majority of people who identify as bisexual are in fact attracted in some way to transgender individuals as well as cisgender individuals.

I am bisexual under the expansive Ochs definition. There are nuances to my sexuality (I am heteroromantic; I have a high libido; I am attracted to feminine male-to-female transwomen, and feminine female-to-male transmen; I am generally a bottom with men, and I am attracted to masculine men; I have not yet had the opportunity, but I think I am attracted to feminine men and I’m interested in topping them). But most people don’t need to know all of that nuance; I can simply say I’m bisexual. Saying that I’m pansexual—in my mind a useless and needlessly complicated term—is less well understood, and would often require unnecessarily obnoxious and narcissistic follow-up conversation.

One could, of course, say that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are divisive, when "sexual" simply covers both. The point is that language is rich, and different words have (sometimes subtly) different meanings, and of course the point is to distinguish things. Linguists have learned, for instance, that in some languages, there aren't separate words for blue and green because they're seen as variants of the same color (just as we consider sky blue and navy blue variants of blue, they consider the various greens and blues as variants of "blue-green"). Eventually, language develops words to give us a means to convey subtle distinctions where cruder, less specific terms fail.

I would also argue with your suggestion that the "vast majority" of bisexuals are in fact attracted in some way to transgender individuals in addition to cisgender individuals. That's not my experience, and it's not the experience of the (admittedly limited) sample of each in my circles. Most trans people I know tell me that they see just as much disinterest from bisexuals as from gay or straight people, and one (a trans man) specifically noted that he'd been told more than once by a bisexual that "when I want a man, I want a real man, and when I want a woman, I want a real woman". That's not to say some self-identified bisexuals aren't open to trans people; but then again, they may simply not be familiar with the term "pansexual" and not realize it may apply better to them.

As for "obnoxious and narcissistic follow-up conversations", I don't think it's either one to simply explain "pansexual means I'm interested in the person, regardless of the gender, whatever it might be and however the person might identify." 

[11bi11guy]

Unfortunately there’s not much research on this subject, so I suspect we’re both generalizing from our own anecdotal experiences. Might be an interesting study. All of the bisexual men I know personally are attracted to trans women. (In addition to self-identified bisexual men, I am also including in that group several men who identify as “straight” or “bi-curious,” but claim they’re simply attracted to penises.)

I understand language and abstract thought are different across cultures, and that both are constantly changing. But I also think that language is political, and individual (and ultimately collective) decisions about what language to use have political consequences.

I am a leftist. But I am also a political pragmatist. From a pragmatic perspective, I think the attempt to introduce unnecessary distinctions related to sexuality and gender—along with the attempt to force larger populations to accept those distinctions and any new definitions—does more harm than good. What good is achieved by introducing the concept of pansexuality? The concept did not exist in mainstream popular culture 30 years ago. A broad and inclusive concept of bisexuality did exist (see Ochs’s definition). So I still fail to see the reason for the introduction of pansexuality as a concept.

And that’s coming from a leftist bisexual man with a background in political science, philosophy, psychology, and gender studies! Imagine what the concept of pansexuality sounds like to your average everyday American, who may have just recently started to come around to the idea that, “You know, LGBTQ people aren’t so bad. That couple down the street seem nice enough. So what if they want to get married? It doesn’t affect me at all.”

Trying to force change for the sake of change is bound to create backlash, and the concept of pansexuality is not a hill worth dying on. Especially when there is a whole battalion of far-right religious fundamentalists waiting in the wings with plans to dismantle hard-earned LGBTQ civil rights. All they need to achieve their goals is anti-LGBTQ momentum in the cultural center mass of America. And all that requires is a spark that makes the LGBTQ community seem unreasonable.

Here’s a funny clip I saw making its way around Instagram recently that helps illustrate my point.

Although lighthearted, it underscores a more serious cultural idea: that the LGBTQ community is unreasonable, demanding, whiny, silly, and yes, obnoxious and narcissistic. (Maybe “unserious and self-absorbed” might be a better way of putting it.) That each of us must be seen and heard and understood by everyone in the wider population. That we are all unique snowflakes who deserve to be recognized and celebrated for our uniqueness.

From personal experience, I deeply understand why recognition and acceptance of one’s sexual identity is important. But when trying to gain and hold political ground in a diverse, heterogeneous democratic society, I’m much more concerned about the effect of pushing those ideals on your average dullard who listens to Joe Rogan and Tulsi Gabbard.

When deciding what label to use to describe my sexual identity—either (a) a relatively recent niche term that is poorly defined even within its own community, let alone the larger public; or (b) an accepted, inclusive term in long usage that is generally understood within the larger public—I think it’s important to realize that language has political consequences, and anti-wokeness wins elections.

Edited January 12, 2023 by 11bi11guy