Bisexual vs. Pansexual
As a bisexual man, I find myself often having conversations with people about what exactly is the difference between bisexual and pansexual? A quick Google search shows that bisexual is defined as being attracted to two or more genders and pansexual is defined as an attraction to all genders.
What the fuck does that even mean?
I'm usually not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm also not an idiot either. In my experience, when discussing human sexuality, many people tend to get wrapped around the axle with regards to the complexity and seemingly infinite variety of preferences and attractions that humans are capable of.
“The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple”
IMHO, this confusion stems from the modern, modified definition of the word “gender”. For those that are not aware, the word “Gender” literally means "kind" (from the Latin "genus"). Historically, gender was not a word that was commonly used by most people, but sometime in the 1950s (I think, I can’t remember exactly), more and more people started to use it as an alternative to the word “sex”, since sex also meant fucking. The word sex was apparently too close to vulgarity for civilized conversation, so gender replaced sex as a way to describe the biological distinction between males and females.
We see this word definition change or swap with other words as well. For example, Ass became Donkey and Bitch became…well…it’s still defined as my ex-mother-in-law as far as I’m concerned.
Anyway, words become words through use and since that time, the word “gender” was defined as the biological makeup of an individual, as well as the trait that determines an individual's role in the reproductive process. It simply meant male or female and could refer to humans, animals or plants.
Fast forward to the 1970s (again, I can’t remember exactly, but it was in this general time frame), you’ll see that in mostly academic circles, and for reasons that I do not know, an entirely new concept was invented and attached to the label "gender". The new concept was that the way one presents themselves in society is the definition of "gender", but as I mentioned above, this was never the historical meaning of the word nor was it the commonly understood definition of the word. It was completely new. To be clear, this isn’t an issue. You just have to expect that it will confuse the shit out of people for quite some time.
That brings us to the question at hand; as per my understanding (which admittedly is limited on this subject) I believe that the notion that there are multiple genders, refers to the modern definition of the word (not it’s more commonly understood definition, nor its original meaning). So, if a man wants to wear clothes that are typically worn by women or behave in a manner that is generally considered feminine while also exhibiting behaviors and/or characteristics that are generally considered masculine, you find yourself with a near infinite mixture of possibilities and therefore a near infinite number of “genders”. Couple that with a society that is “more tolerant” when it comes to alternative lifestyles than it has been historically AND the need for all human beings to feel love and belonging (remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?) we find ourselves here.
Still with me?
We find ourselves in a situation where more and more people are using the modern definition of the word while many are still using the 1950s definition…in the same conversation, and it’s fucking confusing.
For me, the simple way to define all of this is to use the 1950’s definition when thinking about bisexuals. Why? Let’s start with the prefix “bi”…need I say more? In my opinion, the word itself implies 2, so therefore it cannot be disrespectful or non-inclusive, to simply refer to men and women when using this label.
Pansexual can be a simple way to describe those individuals that are open to men or women or transgender people or any mix of gender (modern definition) identification and/or expression.
But that would be too easy and offers too few opportunities to be outraged…and that simply will not do.