My 'issue' with certain gender and sexuality labels

[Mikeyfell]

With that said, let's move onto pansexuality. Again, I don't see what makes it so different from bisexuality. I know that the "bi" implies the gender binary, which many pansexuals don't agree with, but you can also define "bisexuality" as simply being both heterosexual and homosexual at the same time. Furthermore, it's almost like pansexuality implies that bisexuals can't be attracted to agender, genderqueer, and/or transgender people when, logically, someone that's attracted to men and women likely wouldn't have a problem being attracted to someone who has a mix of those characteristics, or even lacks those (most self-identifying non-binary people I've seen look pretty androgynous anyway).

A Pansexual woman explained this to me in a way that made me go "Okay... I get it now" let me share

Think of Bisexual as someone who's into body parts. They want various parts of their own anatomy inside or around various parts of other people. Bisexual people are attracted to men and women

Pansexual people aren't necessarily attracted to anyone's body and don't necessarily care which parts go where. They base a sexual desire on personality, or anything other than any physical aspect of their partner.Their more likely to get off by giving pleasure instead of getting (Although that might be specific to the person who explained this to me in the first place)

Bisexual: Equal sexual desire towards dicks and pussies
Pansexual: Equal sexual disinterest towards dicks and pussies while still wanting to cum

Bisexual: You're hot, let's fuck.
Pansexual: You're nice, let's fuck.

Obviously straight, gay and bi people feel that way too, but Pan only applies to people who exclusively feel that way
Does that help? Do other Pansexuals agree with my explanation?

 

[Mechamorph]

Personally I do not particularly care what sort of gender or sexuality you care to profess. However, to paraphrase one of my favourite lines from Dragon Age II, I do get rather annoyed if you will not shut up about it. I think such things are personal and should be treated as such. I do know some gay men who, aside from having very little reaction to attractive women, you might never peg as homosexual. Then there are the kind of people who do bad Dr Frank-N-Furter impressions just for the sake of attention. Now those I do take issue with as not only do I find such antics irritating and distasteful, I believe that they can help reinforce negative stereotypes about these lifestyle choices.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, what I'm here for is to try and understand.

The best way for you to understand is to find someone who identifies with a non-traditional label and ask them why. Actually, scratch that...the best way for you to understand is to find MANY someones who identify with a non-traditional label, ask them all why, and attempt to divine some element of commonality in their thought process.

Good luck finding them though. Contrary to local superstition, they seem surpassingly rare. Asking a forum primarily occupied by 15-25 year old males, a healthy percentage of which are pants-on-head obsessed with raging at "diversity" and "Tumblr ideology" at every turn of the clock, isn't going to give you any kind of understanding whatsoever. Save perhaps an understanding of just how many people in said demographic wouldn't know a fucking Poe if one was in front of them actively tweaking their nose.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

My question is always this: What is the ideal person you're trying to date look like?
It seems like all these arbitrary restrictions on sexuality just lead to a lot of lonely people.
Take Catlyn Jenner for example. I have no idea who she wants to date. She had said openly she's not gay, which can mean one of two things.

1. As Bruce she wasn't gay, meaning she wants to date women. Presumably that hasn't changed during her change, which means her target is now women who want to date other women(as she identifies as one) but like penis.

or 2. She isn't gay(lesbian) now which means she wants to date men. But men who like penis and breasts.

Those certainly are niche markets, but it just seems like she's setting herself up for disaster.
Anecdotal, sure, but for all these new sexualities it just seems like its way more complicated than it needs to be.

Anyone have an answer? Just what doe the endgame look like for these new sexualities?

 

[vallorn]

Some people identify as lesbians even though they freely admit that they're not exclusively attracted to women.

Others use the word "literally" when there's nothing literal about what they're saying. Fuck language.
I think that, in their insecurity, people like weird labels for the sake of weird labels. Like when you self-diagnose as "bipolar" because you're misunderstood or something like that.

What... did I just watch?

Also, yeah, I've said it before. Political Lesbianism is one of the worst things ever to happen to the gay rights movement, as a bi guy with a boyfriend myself I find it endlessly infuriating to hear people like that pontificating that they can choose to be gay when a big part of the gay right's movement has been showing that people don't choose to be gay or straight.

Onto pansexuality. I'm bi and I find quite a few trans people attractive, but I think that Pansexual is silly and made up so that people can feel better than others.

Snip

I wasn't talking about you. I sympathize with that. I'm thinking more the people who start frothing the second these terms come up and throw the term "special snowflake" around a lot.

Ahhh... you mean Republicans.

Can we please not drag personal politics into this?

 

[Mechamorph]

Personally I do not particularly care what sort of gender or sexuality you care to profess. However, to paraphrase one of my favourite lines from Dragon Age II, I do get rather annoyed if you will not shut up about it. I think such things are personal and should be treated as such. I do know some gay men who, aside from having very little reaction to attractive women, you might never peg as homosexual. Then there are the kind of people who do bad Dr Frank-N-Furter impressions just for the sake of attention. Now those I do take issue with as not only do I find such antics irritating and distasteful, I believe that they can help reinforce negative stereotypes about these lifestyle choices.

I'm juvenile, forgive me.

Also yes, private lives being private is a good thing, but that's can't reasonably happen until the people in question can be private without persecution. Until then, there has to be noise.

You know, I never even noticed...



All you young'uns and your fancy smancy linguistic evolution! Back in my day we smoked faggots by the gross lot and had a gay old time! And no one complained!

Captcha: walk the plank
Yesh everyone's a critic...

In all seriousness, I do believe that all individuals of whatever persuasion should enjoy life without persecution or harassment due to their lifestyle choices with the caveat that they harm no one. "Making some noise" does help to some extent but there are those for whom the noise drowns out the message. The younger generation does seem somewhat more liberal. Hopefully in time, those of my generation who were raised on very strict ideals of what it means to be a man (or a woman) and just can't seem to let that go will die out or fade out so that more enlightened viewpoints may flourish.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

My question is always this: What is the ideal person you're trying to date look like?
It seems like all these arbitrary restrictions on sexuality just lead to a lot of lonely people.
Take Catlyn Jenner for example. I have no idea who she wants to date. She had said openly she's not gay, which can mean one of two things.

1. As Bruce she wasn't gay, meaning she wants to date women. Presumably that hasn't changed during her change, which means her target is now women who want to date other women(as she identifies as one) but like penis.

or 2. She isn't gay(lesbian) now which means she wants to date men. But men who like penis and breasts.

Those certainly are niche markets, but it just seems like she's setting herself up for disaster.
Anecdotal, sure, but for all these new sexualities it just seems like its way more complicated than it needs to be.

Anyone have an answer? Just what doe the endgame look like for these new sexualities?

Lets say that you were attracted to a woman who was really into male cross-dressers who act effeminately. Actually, let's go a step further, and say that in this hypothetical the vast majority of women you'd stand to encounter were really into this. Would you wear makeup, wear dresses and skirts and act more effeminate just for the sake of having an easier time dating?

I'm not claiming this is at all perfect analogy, particularly since plenty of trans people don't fit into their gender stereotypes, but I imagine you probably feel more comfortable dressed and comporting yourself in a masculine manner, and you wouldn't permanently adopt a manner that's really uncomfortable to you just for the sake of having an easier time dating.

As for who Catlyn Jenner is attracted to, I don't really know, but I'd assume from the context that she's attracted to women

EDIT: Note, I am not trans so anyone should feel free to correct me if any of this off the mark. My answer's more or less based on what I've heard in these discussions and how I wouldn't portray myself in a manner I'm uncomfortable with just for easier dating.

 

[Silvanus]

I only have a couple of points to make; firstly, that self-applied labels have a purpose other than literally/technically defining something. They help us communicate what our wants/interests are to others, and so for that purpose, people may use them a bit liberally. So, somebody with a little bit of same-sex attraction may still reasonably call him/herself heterosexual; someone with a little bit of opposite-sex attraction may still reasonably call him/herself homosexual. It's the same for bisexual/pansexual, I would guess. Sure, the proportion of the wider population who is pansexual or genderfluid may be very small, but individuals within that group may seek out others (via societies, message boards, etc), and in that context, it makes more sense to use those labels, even though they might seem unnecessary in gen-pop.

Secondly, it might seem that the difference between pansexual and bisexual is ill-defined or unnecessary, sure. But, you've got to remember that people still deny the existence of bisexuality on similar bases (believing that bisexuals are actually gay or straight).

Save perhaps an understanding of just how many people in said demographic wouldn't know a fucking Poe if one was in front of them actively tweaking their nose.

Spoiler: Hrmmm?

 

[Something Amyss]

Ohh, no please don't misunderstand me, I wasn't saying anything like it's about wanting to feel special or nothing, I was just simply curious as to the differences. Normally when it comes to sexuality I just accept it and let people do whatever the hell they want, it's their business, but since he's a very close friend I just wanted to know more and understand so I don't offend by accident. Thank you for telling me!

I took your "yeah" as an agreement with the prior statement, which included this:

which can be interpreted as somewhat exclusionarily offensive... to say the least.

Running with the theme that's going on here, it's easy to get the impression people just think it's a "holier-than-thou" thing. But yeah, my bad. Glad iI could clarify, however.

There's still a reasonable debate to be have in terms of whether or not such a term is necessary. People don't necessarily stop calling themselves Christians, for example, just because the WBC are exclusionists who think most people are going to burn in Hell.

There are definitely bisexuals that won't sleep with trans or NB, etc individuals. I don't have hard numbers, but they're at least enough to be noticed and cause a divide within the overall body (I hate using the word "community" in these cases), and I've even been told I can't be bisexual because I have had relationships with non-cisgendered people. Why? Because there does exist an idea that bisexual means both men and women, end of list. And with a footnote saying only if they are cool with their factory issued equipment.

My personal opinion? I don't agree, and I don't largely care. I'm fine with the bisexual label, but again, there are bsiexuals who don't consider me bisexual. And apparently a decent number at least.

At the same time, I don't care what anyone else calls themselves. Hell, I still don't care when those joke examples of nautical pronouns comes up because it doesn't hurt me in any way.

Also, Mars had a really good way of putting it, so instead of stealing it, I'll quote direct:

Pansexuality is currently functionally a way of not excluding trans folk.

Sorry to give you an extra notification, MA....

Non-Binary isn't really something I take issue with, since it proposes to be something different than existing categories. "Pansexual" really doesn't.

Much of what I said above addresses this, so I'm just quoting you because seriously, I'm not sure what else to add to your specific grievances.

Except, again, to point out that the argument was made for homosexuals and transsexuals in the past, that the distinctions didn't exist.

[
Bisexual: Equal sexual desire towards dicks and pussies
Pansexual: Equal sexual disinterest towards dicks and pussies while still wanting to cum

You're thinking more of the asexual label or the -romantic suffix (the latter more for the part I snipped after). Yes, I know you got this from a pansexual girl, but this is not generally how the term is used. It'd be like saying that I'm gay, and by gay I mean left-handed. I could identify that way all day long, but when I'm calling myself gay, people will assume I mean I like the same sex (and probably male).

Asexuals are the ones who are disinterested sexually but may still have a desire to get off, even with another partner. There are social attractions as well, and they may form romantic bonds without actually wanting to screw someone. The desire to still "cum" is generally normal within asexual individuals; they simply aren't necessarily interested in "cumming" with someone else.

And again, you can refer above to what I said to Padwolf or the line I stole from Mars. The divide between bi and pan is largely one of inclusivity.

Bisexual: You're hot, let's fuck.
Pansexual: You're nice, let's fuck.

Basically, a pansexual can still want to nail you because you're hot. Think more Jack Harkness, though it's a crude example.

The best way for you to understand is to find someone who identifies with a non-traditional label and ask them why. Actually, scratch that...the best way for you to understand is to find MANY someones who identify with a non-traditional label, ask them all why, and attempt to divine some element of commonality in their thought process.

I would have thought that would be the point of this thread.

Good luck finding them though. Contrary to local superstition, they seem surpassingly rare. Asking a forum primarily occupied by 15-25 year old males, a healthy percentage of which are pants-on-head obsessed with raging at "diversity" and "Tumblr ideology" at every turn of the clock, isn't going to give you any kind of understanding whatsoever. Save perhaps an understanding of just how many people in said demographic wouldn't know a fucking Poe if one was in front of them actively tweaking their nose.

Actually, every time a gender ID/sexuality poll comes up here, the LGBT community is represented way above proportion. There might not be such a fight over diversity here if there weren't so many of us darned minorities around.

Though looking at the way some of these echo chambers go off on subjects, maybe not.

Also, consider for a moment that there was a time before someone with a vagina making a game you didn't like was worthy of dozens of threads around these parts. The Escapist used to be quite progressive, and it's the only reason some of us were here in the first place. I don't doubt quite a few have been driven off. But I'm still seeing names on here that were part of the group that broke the statistics. I'm betting there are way more non-binary, pansexual, asexual, etc on here than you would normally find. Likely by orders of magnitude. I'm messaged a couple, to see if they want to tag in on this subject, but the bigger problem may simply be that they've been shouted down and not interested in engaging people publicly. I can appreciate that, because I felt that way for quite a while.

 

[Ikasury]

i remember being on the internet like a year ago and finding all these new words like 'transphobic' and 'anti-trans' and blah blah blah blah blah... my general opinion was and still is 'so this is the new gay?' -.-
now that Gay Marriage is finally legal we have to come up with something else... great...

also, i'm slightly annoyed because people that identify as Trans seem to be very pushy/edgy, they HAVE to let you know and you HAVE to acknowledge it and that's just irritating... i know a guy that's doing hormone therapy to become a girl, his friends were all supportive of him and didn't care or see it as an issue since he/she still wanted to date girls and wore dresses and even went by a new name... but he blamed them for 'not understanding!!' and basically shut them all out because they were 'normal people!!', one being a hardcore sub-BDSM hetero-male and the other a panamourous 'i love everyone' and therefore proceded to fuck everything gay guy... even i met him and liked him before and didn't care about what he was doing and supportive but the hostility for no reason because we weren't 'trans' and therefore automatically 'didn't understand!!' just made me want to roll my eyes and go 'oh great, Emo's back in town...' -.-

Gender is a big issue, i get that, i have my own gender issues and have been dealing with them since i was a kid, i liked doing what guys did, still like doing things like working on machines, fighting and other things, it wasn't until i was an adult i was comfortable enough to 'allow' myself to even like certain girly things and admit i like pink... because when i was a kid that stuff was expected of 'girls' not me who was the 'boy-girl' or called boy by others and that became a serious issue for me psychologically that i'm still only now getting over, and i'm married and almost thirty... at the time i knew i never wanted to be a boy, i liked being a girl, but i didn't like being a 'girly-girl' who wore dresses and stuff like that... now as an adult and knowing more i recognize i have just as much of a male aspect and way of thinking as a female one, i'm just me and i feel most people just can't seem to accept that in themselves nowadays...

this whole 'Trans' thing sparks a lot of personal irritation to me because its like a lot of these people just won't be happy with who or what they are, and now they're given social credence to ***** and complain without being able to receive flak for it or learn to grow up and accept yourself...

hell i just finished a paper on Alfred Kinsey and i think he'd be laughing at all this 'renaming' of stuff he made back in the fifties just so people can feel more 'unique' and 'superior' about themselves...

but to get back to the whole Pansexual vs. Bisexual thing... that deals with more of the whole 'phsyical vs. mental' bullshit this kinda psych brings about... Pansexual/Omnisexual implies/covers/infers that one is literally sexually attracted to anyone of any physcial sex, gender state of mind, race, creed, etc. etc. it goes beyond the physical... while someone who is Bisexual implies only sexual attraction to both of the physical sexes, Male/Female as was originally coined by Kinsey back in the 40s... so there, there's that for a distinction if you want... why anyone as a pansexual would be 'offended' by being called bisexual is beyond me as it is a part and the original consideration of such a considered sexual orientation...

personally, i'm demisexual, i'm only sexually attracted to people i have a deep strong emotional attachment to, this includes both men and women, so since no one ever has 'demisexual' on a list i'm perfectly fine with stating 'bisexual' as it covers my physical preference of having no preference between men and women...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually, every time a gender ID/sexuality poll comes up here, the LGBT community is represented way above proportion. There might not be such a fight over diversity here if there weren't so many of us darned minorities around.

The OP didn't appear to be looking for LGBT representation, which as you say is pretty healthy on these forums. He appeared to be looking for "genderqueers" or "pansexuals" or other, further splinter identities, which aren't really represented in large numbers anywhere. I recall we had two or three self-identified asexuals on the forums a while back, but I haven't heard a peep on the subject in at least a couple of years.

I'm betting there are way more non-binary, pansexual, asexual, etc on here than you would normally find. Likely by orders of magnitude. I'm messaged a couple, to see if they want to tag in on this subject, but the bigger problem may simply be that they've been shouted down and not interested in engaging people publicly. I can appreciate that, because I felt that way for quite a while.

Anything is possible. Threads like this tend to be flames that draw a very particular kind of moth, though, as I'm sure we're both aware. As this one clearly has.

 

[Something Amyss]

Just a disclaimer that there are a bunch of derogatory terms in the following response. They're not aimed at anyone.

Lets say that you were attracted to a woman who was really into male cross-dressers who act effeminately. Actually, let's go a step further, and say that in this hypothetical the vast majority of women you'd stand to encounter were really into this. Would you wear makeup, wear dresses and skirts and act more effeminate just for the sake of having an easier time dating?

I'm not claiming this is at all perfect analogy, particularly since plenty of trans people don't fit into their gender stereotypes, but I imagine you probably feel more comfortable dressed and comporting yourself in a masculine manner, and you wouldn't permanently adopt a manner that's really uncomfortable to you just for the sake of having an easier time dating.

A simpler analogy might be this: if you think that identity doesn't matter, go around misgendering people and see how long it takes for someone to take offense. Most people seem to reject being called a man or woman when they're not one, so it's not much different here.

As for who Catlyn Jenner is attracted to, I don't really know, but I'd assume from the context that she's attracted to women

Caitlyn has repeatedly asserted an attraction to women. Whether this is exclusively so or not, I don't know.

There's a whole can 'o worms around this one. One thing I would point out is that the question asked about being interested in men who like women with a penis, or something to that effect. The answer isn't clear and I can't speak for Caitlyn, but generally speaking, you're probably not interested in that. There is an issue in the trans community with trans fetishists and so-called "tranny chasers" for just that reason.

Trans individuals aren't a hive mind, but it's unlikely Caitlyn specifically identifies as a "chick with a dick" or however that would go. I know I don't.

Though god help me, this is still awkward to talk about.

However, you know, no one person can speak for the group. There's actually a bunch of trans people out there who identify as "traps." Trap is basically a derogatory word based on the concept that trans women (and possibly drag queens) like to trick men into sleeping with them.

Because the threat of being murdered isn't already terrifying enough, let's get into a situation where people will accuse you of rape, I guess.

There may even be a legit "shemale" community out there. I've known transmen who call themselves "trannyfags[footnote]and while I find the term repulsive, it's not my place to tell them they should[/footnote]," so why the hell not?

I only have a couple of points to make; firstly, that self-applied labels have a purpose other than literally/technically defining something. They help us communicate what our wants/interests are to others, and so for that purpose, people may use them a bit liberally.

The interesting thing is that a lot of the stuff that gets complained about is stuff I would think people would want to know up front.

Me, personally, I don't really care what's in your pants as long as I like you and you like me back. It also doesn't really matter how you identify. I'm hard pressed to say I don't care there, because of the negative connotation. I'm not dismissing anyone, it's just that I seem to have no problem switching gears. Which may be why I fail the bisexuality check. >.>

I think one of the big issues here is that people forget that because for most people, most of those boxes are a majority option. We assume someone with a penis is a boy and someone with a vagina is a girl. We assume they're each cool with those designations, and that they're attracted to the opposite sex exclusively. We assume that they are interested in sex, and we generally assume the same kind of sex. We start to assume that because these things are "normal," they are the default or even only option. And if that's the case, wouldn't you want to know if your (potential) partner outside those boundaries?

...actually, that's kind of a serious question if anyone wants to answer. I seriously don't know. Because unless we're talking about a proclivity to kill after sex, it doesn't matter to me in the first place. I don't understand it anymore than most people understand gender dysphoria or sexuality.

 

[Something Amyss]

The OP didn't appear to be looking for LGBT representation, which as you say is pretty healthy on these forums. He appeared to be looking for "genderqueers" or "pansexuals" or other, further splinter identities, which aren't really represented in large numbers anywhere. I recall we had two or three self-identified asexuals on the forums a while back, but I haven't heard a peep on the subject in at least a couple of years.

Actually, we had one not long before I gave up on posting here before. It doesn't show up in the search, and so I wonder if it got deleted or something, but I'm friends with the user who made it. It had quite a few respondents talking about asexuality.

Keep in mind, when I say LGBT, I really mean it as an umbrella term, and mostly because the acronym otherwise ends up being a book long. We've had asexuals, pansexuals, and agender/genderqueers posting on here in recent years, though as with many other posters, several of them have fallen by the wayside.

I'm hesitant to name names, as I don't like being outed or used as an example, but again, this is why I messaged a few people. Because I know them. Or knew them when they were posting, maybe? So it's up to them to volunteer.

And now to divide myself into the five elements and go nap in some rings.

Anything is possible. Threads like this tend to be flames that draw a very particular kind of moth, though, as I'm sure we're both aware. As this one clearly has.

Oh no, I had no idea! >.>

...nobody's buying the feigned innocence, are they?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think one of the big issues here is that people forget that because for most people, most of those boxes are a majority option. We assume someone with a penis is a boy and someone with a vagina is a girl. We assume they're each cool with those designations, and that they're attracted to the opposite sex exclusively. We assume that they are interested in sex, and we generally assume the same kind of sex. We start to assume that because these things are "normal," they are the default or even only option. And if that's the case, wouldn't you want to know if your (potential) partner outside those boundaries?

...actually, that's kind of a serious question if anyone wants to answer. I seriously don't know. Because unless we're talking about a proclivity to kill after sex, it doesn't matter to me in the first place. I don't understand it anymore than most people understand gender dysphoria or sexuality.

I'd definitely want to know if someone fit those boundaries for me. They are pretty relevant to a relationship or potential one. Of course I wouldn't blame someone if they didn't feel comfortable mentioning said issues for a while but I certainly wouldn't be upset to be better informed

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Bisexual = Attraction to more than one gender.
Pansexual = Attraction to all genders.

Bisexuality doesn't erase non-binary genders. Bisexual could mean you are attracted to just two genders, it could mean you're attracted to all genders.

Labels can actually mean a lot to queer people, I'm saying this from personal experience. It's great, like really great to know that you're not the only person who feels how you feel, that there are other people in the world like you who feel the same way you do. I feel much better about my sexuality and gender identity now that I found out about different terms. I didn't even know about bisexuality or non-binary genders until my teenage years. Finding out there are terms to describe people like me was great. Labels aren't just how you explain yourself to others, they can also be how you come to terms with yourself. And while I use rather broad labels, I don't see why anyone would have an issue with people using more specific ones.

Also, I really hate people who use terms like "special snowflake" to demean people with non-monosexual or non-binary identities.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I can't believe that I'm about to take part in one of these countless gender-identity threads(honestly, I even didn't hate the days of friendzone threads as much as these), but I'll give it a shot anyway:

In my country, if you're over 18, you can pick your gender(if you feel female, you can put yourself down as female, so on so forth...).
If a country dosn't have a system like this in place, then do it the old fashioned way, with chromosones(XY(and variants)=male, XX(and variants)=female).

Not to be overly nitpicky about a very minor point, but I don't think chromosomes have ever been a real definition used in any context except for specialised medical settings, and the odd very unusual legal cases. (mostly athletics, and a few very odd cases that were about chimerism and who was technically the biological mother of a child)

Besides, you can't exactly call something based on chromosomes (a concept which has existed less than 60 years) old-fashioned.

Societies have been deciding on people's sex for social and legal purposes for millennia.
By and large the definition used has been 'does this person have a penis'?
Usually very little else was ever considered.
Vaginas or reproductive capacity generally weren't given much weight most of the time either.
Literally just whether the child had something resembling a penis between it's legs.

A sudden obsession with chromosomes, if anyone actually checked newborns for that (they don't, as a rule, usually), would certainly lead to a small minority of women who historically would definitely have been considered women, with no ambiguity at all, to be reclassified as men for no real reason. (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome causes someone to be born female even though they have XY chromosomes)

OT: I don't really care much. But sometimes there do seem to be far too many words where you wonder what the point of them is.
As an example, Personally, being bisexual, pansexual has always seemed redundant to me. Even when someone explained the supposed difference to me, I found it very hard to follow why that needed a seperate word, because what it describes, is, based on my own personal experience already covered by bisexual.
So it comes across as a pointless extra term that has a unique meaning only if you are extremely pedantic about things.
At least stuff like asexual and agender or the like is a definable unique position. (no sexual attraction to anyone, and no gender identity at all - the second is improbable, but at least a clear, logically distinct state).
There are certainly too many words, but perhaps more importantly, too many pedantic arguments about the meaning of these words.
Does it really matter that much which exact words are used to describe you?
As long as it isn't insulting, or cause you huge legal or social problems, who cares what words people use?

 

[CrystalShadow]

i remember being on the internet like a year ago and finding all these new words like 'transphobic' and 'anti-trans' and blah blah blah blah blah... my general opinion was and still is 'so this is the new gay?' -.-
now that Gay Marriage is finally legal we have to come up with something else... great...

also, i'm slightly annoyed because people that identify as Trans seem to be very pushy/edgy, they HAVE to let you know and you HAVE to acknowledge it and that's just irritating... i know a guy that's doing hormone therapy to become a girl, his friends were all supportive of him and didn't care or see it as an issue since he/she still wanted to date girls and wore dresses and even went by a new name... but he blamed them for 'not understanding!!' and basically shut them all out because they were 'normal people!!', one being a hardcore sub-BDSM hetero-male and the other a panamourous 'i love everyone' and therefore proceded to fuck everything gay guy... even i met him and liked him before and didn't care about what he was doing and supportive but the hostility for no reason because we weren't 'trans' and therefore automatically 'didn't understand!!' just made me want to roll my eyes and go 'oh great, Emo's back in town...' -.-

I think you're making the classic mistake of assuming the loudmouthed, highly visible ones are the only ones that exist.
That's not surprising, because, by definition, the quieter types, whose main goal often tends to be to not get noticed as being trans don't register as existing unless they find some need to purposefully out themselves.
For this group, the irony is, the better they are at meeting their own goals and blend in with non-trans people, the more people fail to realise they even exist in the first place.

Some of us would like nothing more than to not even register as 'trans' anything. Appearance and biology generally can make this very difficult, though it varies a lot with the individual.
More importantly though, prevailing attitudes about being 'tricked' and so on make being that quiet a surprisingly dangerous game.
If you don't stand out as trans, and don't actively point it out to people, very bad things can happen if they then find out by accident.
It's a very stressful tightrope to walk, and if you are any good at it, the issue of 'do I tell this person or not, and if so, when?' comes up far too often.

If all you'd really like to do, ultimately, is blend in, and kinda forget trans-anything is even a thing, or that it applies to you personally, the situation society currently presents you with is very frustrating, and kind of intimidating.

You never know if your silence is putting you at risk for abuse, violence, or even being murdered.

Being invisible can be the goal for some, but in some ways it can be a far more difficult path than being a highly visible obnoxious loudmouth.
Worse still, those highly visible obnoxious loudmouths end up being the only ones that speak on our behalf.
This can't be avoided, because you can't be both invisible and visible at the same time.

And, for obvious reasons, the part of the trans community trying to be invisible only shows up when they fail at it, thus reinforcing the idea that they don't actually exist in the first place.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Not to be overly nitpicky about a very minor point, but I don't think chromosomes have ever been a real definition used in any context except for specialised medical settings, and the odd very unusual legal cases. (mostly athletics, and a few very odd cases that were about chimerism and who was technically the biological mother of a child)

I can't remember what it's called, but there's a condition where you have XY chromosomes, but only express the X chromosome. By the chromosomal definition, someone who looks, thinks, and has the hormones of a woman should be considered as and treated like a man.

 

[Mikeyfell]

[
Bisexual: Equal sexual desire towards dicks and pussies
Pansexual: Equal sexual disinterest towards dicks and pussies while still wanting to cum

You're thinking more of the asexual label or the -romantic suffix (the latter more for the part I snipped after). Yes, I know you got this from a pansexual girl, but this is not generally how the term is used. It'd be like saying that I'm gay, and by gay I mean left-handed. I could identify that way all day long, but when I'm calling myself gay, people will assume I mean I like the same sex (and probably male).

Asexuals are the ones who are disinterested sexually but may still have a desire to get off, even with another partner. There are social attractions as well, and they may form romantic bonds without actually wanting to screw someone. The desire to still "cum" is generally normal within asexual individuals; they simply aren't necessarily interested in "cumming" with someone else.

And again, you can refer above to what I said to Padwolf or the line I stole from Mars. The divide between bi and pan is largely one of inclusivity.

Bisexual: You're hot, let's fuck.
Pansexual: You're nice, let's fuck.

Basically, a pansexual can still want to nail you because you're hot. Think more Jack Harkness, though it's a crude example.

You're wrong about what Asexual means.
The only reason I latch onto that definition Besides it coming from within the group in question is that it makes a distinction between pan and bi

'cause one of my best friends is a lesbian and her wife is bisexual and both of them would fuck a hot transgender person in a heart beat.

Inventing a new word like "Pansexual" just to give an old word like "Bisexual" a negative connotation by implying trans-phobia is intolerable.
What's stopping me from saying "I'm not white, I'm eggshell. That means I'm fair skinned but not racist"
That would make me look like a shithead.

I've only ever met one person who felt the need to differentiate between Bi and Pan. But if it's actually only about attraction to trans people I can't abide.

There are 2 different sets of private parts, you like 1, both or neither. pick your word