Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or dougamous in nature; that we must have “two” sides or that we MUST be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross ALL sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality—including your own.
It goes onto say,
There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word ‘bisexual’ to be inadequate and too limiting.
That’s fine. I don’t judge people for identifying as pansexual. However, there is a twinge of discomfort, pain, and of being once more made invisible whenever it is claimed that one must be pansexual to be attracted to people outside of the socially constructed gender binary. The oft-stated “hearts not parts” line insinuates, to me, that bisexuals are not interested in those aforementioned hearts, and it circles right back around to the stigma that bisexuals are sex addicts incapable of fidelity or love.
I call myself bisexual because it is more comfortable for me. It has always made more sense. My definition would be something more akin to: attraction to people of genders like one’s own and attraction to people of genders dislike one’s own than anything to do with two genders.
The manifesto also says:
We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voice. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard. Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages.
I’m aware you made it clear these were general definitions, and it is difficult to easily explain the intricacies of sexuality sometimes. These are simply some of my thoughts on the matter.
It’s ok. I just find it incredibly reductive, and I’ve had pan “friends” before criticize, scrutinize, or outright label me pansexual without my consent because I’m not just into strictly men and women.
It’s ludicrous, imo. This definition necessitates that bisexuality is inherently transphobic, or at the very least demands that self-identified bisexuals show no attraction towards people of non-binary genders. I don’t identify that way and almost every bisexual I know does not identify that way. It is, in my experience, an external definition thrust upon bisexuals by others, and often by pansexuals themselves in order to differentiate themselves from the transphobic, exclusive bisexuals.
It really boils down to semantics, I think, and it’s not really a fight worth having – is pansexuality valid, is it another form of bisexuality, is it completely distinct in some meaningful way – but I take some grievance with the idea that bisexuals writ large harbor no attraction to peoples of nonbinary genders.
I disagree with this explanation (as a bisexual person).
It is all semantics and the labels sort of bleed into one another, but I prefer the definition laid out in Anything That Moves: The Bisexual Manifesto:
It goes onto say,
That’s fine. I don’t judge people for identifying as pansexual. However, there is a twinge of discomfort, pain, and of being once more made invisible whenever it is claimed that one must be pansexual to be attracted to people outside of the socially constructed gender binary. The oft-stated “hearts not parts” line insinuates, to me, that bisexuals are not interested in those aforementioned hearts, and it circles right back around to the stigma that bisexuals are sex addicts incapable of fidelity or love.
I call myself bisexual because it is more comfortable for me. It has always made more sense. My definition would be something more akin to: attraction to people of genders like one’s own and attraction to people of genders dislike one’s own than anything to do with two genders.
The manifesto also says:
I’m aware you made it clear these were general definitions, and it is difficult to easily explain the intricacies of sexuality sometimes. These are simply some of my thoughts on the matter.
Generalities will always leave out crucial, important nuance. Sorry if I was reductive and flattened your experience into a simple category.
It’s ok. I just find it incredibly reductive, and I’ve had pan “friends” before criticize, scrutinize, or outright label me pansexual without my consent because I’m not just into strictly men and women.
It’s ludicrous, imo. This definition necessitates that bisexuality is inherently transphobic, or at the very least demands that self-identified bisexuals show no attraction towards people of non-binary genders. I don’t identify that way and almost every bisexual I know does not identify that way. It is, in my experience, an external definition thrust upon bisexuals by others, and often by pansexuals themselves in order to differentiate themselves from the transphobic, exclusive bisexuals.
It really boils down to semantics, I think, and it’s not really a fight worth having – is pansexuality valid, is it another form of bisexuality, is it completely distinct in some meaningful way – but I take some grievance with the idea that bisexuals writ large harbor no attraction to peoples of nonbinary genders.
It is most certainly not ok for me to be reductive. Especially about identities that are not my own. Seriously, thank you for the insight.
Thank you for listening, comrade.