My label fell off...

Gender neutral is not identifying with being male or female, but rather as neither or in between. A person could be biologically female and identify as gender neutral (or as male) for example.

I saw this awesome chart once as part of a presentation this awesome speaker did for one of my fiance's classes. It had biological sex, gender you identify with, gender you present yourself as, gender you are attracted to... showing all the different combinations that are possible.

Yes I said awesome chart and awesome speaker in the same sentence, but really they were.
 
I identify with pansexual because I have a thing for F to M transexuals. Tranny boys.

I have been known to crush out on very random people, its not gender specific at all.
 
So, what you guys are saying is that people think that when someone says that they're "bisexual", as opposed to "pansexual", it must mean they want to have sex with everyone they meet, just because they are male or female?

That's the silliest thing I ever heard. It would seem to follow that heterosexuals want to have sex with every person of the opposite sex, and homosexuals want to have sex with every person of the same sex. We're ALL attracted to "people not genders". I have never met a single person that was attracted to others JUST because they were a certain gender. That's like saying you're attracted to people just because they are a certain race. I know there are folks who date only people of certain races, but that still doesn't mean that someone who dates, say, only African Pygmies is attracted to every African Pygmie they happen to meet.

Get real.
 
So, what you guys are saying is that people think that when someone says that they're "bisexual", it must mean they want to have sex with everyone they meet, just because they are male or female?

I don't think anyone here said that, Neon. I only wanna have sex with the cute ones.
 
I don't think anyone here said that, Neon. I only wanna have sex with the cute ones.


No, but several people have said that they use the word "pansexual" instead of "bisexual" to make it clear that they are attracted to "people, not genders". And I am calling that out as semantic psychobabble.

ETA: But I hear you about "only the cute ones"!
 
Well, straight people, by definition, would only be attracted to the "opposite" sex. A straight man might feel uncomfortable to find out that a woman he's been dating actually has a penis under her skirt, yes?

Bisexual men would be attracted to both genders, on opposite sides of the scale. They might not feel sexually interested in a person who seemed somewhere in between the 2 genders.

Some transpeople I know have given up on IDing someone by their genitalia. Gender is in the head. They might say, "I like femmes," or "I like butches," and not care whether the femme has a vagina, or the butch a penis.

Just random thoughts.
 
I agree with all that, Magdlyn. I'm just saying that I haven't met anyone who wants to fuck EVERYONE of a certain gender-assignment or lack thereof. Unless - and this is going out on a limb - there is a fetish. Do we know anyone who has a "fetish" for males or females? Well, even if we DO, I refuse to subscribe that the word "bisexual" implies that someone has a "fetish for males and females".

I venture to say (that is, I have no proof or experiences to back this up, so will the oppression-and-marginalization police please go easy on me this time?) that if someone were attracted to/interested in a person who is trans-gendered, and then they become disinterested because that person is pre-op or living a double life, that there are other factors at work of which speculation is beyond the scope of this thread. Issues including but not limited to: self-loathing, social programming, life-goals and expectations, and so on.

If a self-proclaimed bisexual woman, is attracted to males who cross dress, but not 'transgendered' people, does that render a changing of the label ? Or not ?


So back to this question, I would have to say "no", if only for the fact that there are far fewer "trans" gendered people than there are "non-trans" gendered people. Statistically, if a given bisexual person met enough TG people, they would eventually be attracted to one. Of course, I have no personal experience to draw on. I consider myself "bisexual", and I have been attracted to trans-gendered individuals at some point in my life. That does not make me feel compelled to say that I am "pansexual".

Once again, I think it is much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all that, Magdlyn. I'm just saying that I haven't met anyone who wants to fuck EVERYONE of a certain gender-assignment or lack thereof.

Ha. Seems I've met some men who will fuck anything w a vagina.

Being pansexual, however, does not mean I will fuck any cis-gendered man, woman, transperson, genderqueer, genderfucked, transvestite/cross-dresser, or intersexed person I meet or see on a page or screen. It means I might be sexually interested in them, no matter the gender they ID as.
 
Ha. Seems I've met some men who will fuck anything w a vagina.

That doesn't necessarily mean they are ATTRACTED to anything with a vagina. It just means they ran out of clean socks.

Being pansexual, however, does not mean I will fuck any cis-gendered man, woman, transperson, genderqueer, genderfucked, transvestite/cross-dresser, or intersexed person I meet or see on a page or screen. It means I might be sexually interested in them, no matter the gender they ID as.


That is my point.

But i think I see why some people find the need for the word "pan" now. It's because they want to convey an unlimited possibility of genders. What's wrong with the term "omni", then?
 
Last edited:
"Will fuck for sox." ??? :p
 
I typically don't participate in these discussions about "labels" because I don't think "labels" are that big of a deal. They are if you allow them to be. I usually have better things to navel-gaze about. Not today, I guess.
 
Maybe it would be more fun just to gaze at pix of my current favorite girly-man, Adam Lambert.

adam-lambert-on-stage.jpg
 
Hehe, it's indicated by no less than 3 embellishments on his cummerbund tho!

Goes off to search for Adam's navel...
 
Panasexual is one of the few labels I have taken on that I can feel comfort with in terms of my description of myself and my definition of the word. I hope when I use it that people will think that I am a person that walks into a room and searches out like minded people to be with and be close to rather than a certain type or gender. It really has nothing to do with sex or gender persay although, if I found myself attracted in that way then it could be an option later along the line perhaps.

I'm not sure where the word came from, but I, like others, heard people use it in a way that fit for me and so I started using it. Where did it come from and why not omnisexual? Good question.
 
I know I am 'open' in mindset. In my mind I am open,..but when it comes to actual relationships, I definitely see a pattern. The pattern works for me, so no reason to kill it.

I do enjoy being proven wrong, when I think I have myself known to a 'T'...


I had a interesting experience Friday night, meeting a younger man through a few friends. He had been a semi-finalist on one of those hit dance shows.

We ended up in deep convo about poly, dancing, dance schools, cross dressing, and living outside the norm. It was a really fantastic conversation. It reminded me of a few things to keep 'open' about.

*****
Though I do enjoy objecting to micro- labels, we still need a few adjectives at the end of the day. If someone asks me what my sexual orientation is, I can`t just stare back at them and dazzle them with my mime-like qualities.
 
*****
Though I do enjoy objecting to micro- labels, we still need a few adjectives at the end of the day. If someone asks me what my sexual orientation is, I can`t just stare back at them and dazzle them with my mime-like qualities.

I usually just say to the left.

That throws them all for a loop as they assume my orientation would go to the right. :p

oh monday morning bad joke, I know I know...
 
It`s Tuesday. :rolleyes:

It`s only Monday for campers who stayed up to late on the Monday night.


:p xo
 
Last edited:
jast, question for you: How do you know you're not attracted to transgendered people? How can you be certain that a person is a man dressed as a woman, and not a man becoming a woman? Do you reserve attraction for the moment you see their genitalia and confirm their biological gender?

I'm especially curious since you identify as bisexual, meaning you don't have an aversion to either penises or vaginas. I can see how a straight woman could be attracted to men and men dressed as women but not men with their penises cut off, because the penis is tied to her attraction... but if that's not the case for you, then what gives?

If you found yourself attracted to a post-op male-to-female whom you'd believed was a man dressed as a woman, and later found out she was TG: would you claim that you had never really been attracted to her in the first place? Or would you maybe be forced to reconsider your sexual orientation?

No, but several people have said that they use the word "pansexual" instead of "bisexual" to make it clear that they are attracted to "people, not genders". And I am calling that out as semantic psychobabble.

Of course it's semantic. The subject of discussion is the definition of the word pansexual. The definition of "semantic" is "relating to meaning in language" so by necessity, any discussion on the definition of a word is inherently semantic. I don't see where the psychobabble part supposedly comes in.

Bi means two. Poly means many. Pan means all.

The OP is attracted to men and women, but not transgendered. Therefore they are not pansexual. Pansexuals are attracted to "attractive people" regardless of gender, or lack thereof. Naturally, "attractive" is as subjective for pansexuals as it is for straight, gay, or bi people.

But i think I see why some people find the need for the word "pan" now. It's because they want to convey an unlimited possibility of genders. What's wrong with the term "omni", then?

They both mean "all" in their respective root languages, but pan- refers more to inclusiveness and therefore is more appropriate:

mac dictionary said:
pan-
combining form
all-inclusive, esp. in relation to the whole of a continent, racial group, religion, etc. : pan-African | pansexual.
ORIGIN from Greek pan, neuter of pas ‘all.’

omni-
combining form
all; of all things : omniscient | omnifarious.
• in all ways or places : omnicompetent | omnipresent.
ORIGIN from Latin omnis ‘all.’

* how cool of Apple to use "pansexual" as one of their example words in their dictionary! Convenient coincidence...

* omnisexual would be liking sex in all ways or places? Sweet!
 
Last edited:
If you found yourself attracted to a post-op male-to-female whom you'd believed was a man dressed as a woman, and later found out she was TG: would you claim that you had never really been attracted to her in the first place? Or would you maybe be forced to reconsider your sexual orientation?

Ive met and spoken with lesbians who were partnered with a butch lesbian, then this butch realizes she is actually male, and transitions. The relationship may or may not survive. The nontrans partner, if she stays with the other, now male, person, may still cling to her dyke ID, even tho she now seems heteronormative when walking down the street with her transman or boi.

And now she's stuck with dealing with all that testosterone... just like straight women. God bless her heart.
 
Back
Top