• FishLake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Generalities will always leave out crucial, important nuance. Sorry if I was reductive and flattened your experience into a simple category.

    • SovereignState
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • FishLake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.