14/07/2014
The latest post on www.freedomrequireswings.com
You’re among a group of people you don’t know very well, when the topic of s*xuality comes up. You mention offhand that you’re pans*xual, and, predictably, you hear the inevitable comment. “Isn’t that the same thing as bis*xual?”
We’ve all heard it, no matter our s*xuality - the implication that pans*xuality is just another form of bis*xuality, or is the same thing as bis*xuality, or some other variant on the same underlying idea - pan people don’t exist. Occasionally, the tone is less innocent, and the idea more hostile - that those identifying as pans*xual are merely seeking attention from others who will give it to them based on a “more oppressed” identity.
This, of course, is untrue - most people with a general familiarity of s*xual orientations understand the distinction between pans*xuality and bis*xuality. Yet the myth continues - this pervasive idea that being pan is merely a subset of being bi - and we often find ourselves in a conversation with someone who believes it. It’s difficult to explain the difference between the two to someone less familiar with identity politics, especially when the vocabulary of the issue is poorly-defined in modern dictionaries and its intricacies are still discussed in many forums in the community. The details of the issue are rife with controversy, much of which concerns trans* and non-binary identities. Introducing a less-knowledgeable person to it can be messy without introducing them to many other issues as well.
Even those who reject this argument must accept that language evolves, and many words today do not mean simply the composite form of their Latin or Greek roots. Not all gay people are effeminate or flamboyant, as the words once meant. Not all le****ns are from the Greek isle of Le**os, from which the word is derived. Similarly, not all bis*xuals are attracted to only two genders.
This issue only serves to further obfuscate an already-messy situation, which brings us back to our discussion on the distinction between pans*xuality and bis*xuality. If bis*xuals are attracted to the gender that is the same as theirs as well as others, and pans*xuals are as well, then what is the difference? Surely if the two groups are attracted to the same gender/s, then they are of the same s*xual orientation.
I believe that, rather than the problem lying in the definition of either pans*xual or bis*xual, it is instead in the definition of “s*xual orientation.” Dictionary.com defines it as “one's natural preference in s*xual partners; predilection for homos*xuality, heteros*xuality, or bis*xuality.” Not only does this definition completely erase pans*xuality (as well as other s*xualities), it defines orientation poorly. Many people, and apparently dictionary.com, believes that orientation is only who one finds attractive, whereas the word more specifically defines how that attraction is felt, and there lies the difference between bis*xuality and pans*xuality. It is not a matter of which genders one finds attractive, but rather how one is attracted to individuals of that gender. Generally speaking, bis*xuals are more often attracted to certain traits in certain genders, or have genders to which they don’t feel attraction, whereas pans*xuals generally feel more attracted to certain traits within all genders.
Of course, this complicated definition is less well-known. In a heterocentric society, a definition of “s*xual orientation” that applies well to heteros*xuals and the second-largest group in that society (homos*xuals) is likely to be well-accepted, especially as most mainstream conversations relating to gender politics discuss only heteros*xuality and homos*xuality, and only occasionally touches on bis*xuals - never, of course, straying from the gender binary or discussing less popular s*xualities.
Explaining to less well-read people that orientation determines more than the gender/s towards which one feels attraction may help them understand the difference between bis*xuality and pans*xuality. Explaining that common dictionary definitions of words like that are inadequate will probably help explain your position further.
Continue reading on www.freedomrequireswings.com