Some of you may think, “if bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing, it shouldn’t matter which one someone uses.” While I wish this was true, the “pansexual” orientation label has deeply bigoted roots and still damages people and communities today.
We should also examine the way labels are changing in our current age and how we’re heading in a dangerously individualistic direction (not necessarily a “slippery slope”).
My tone may feel combative at times, but hopefully you will understand where any exhibited emotion here comes from.
Please keep in mind again that I needed to cut things down for length; my thoughts are elaborated in their respective essays linked at the end of this carrd.
I’m sure you’ve seen various people accuse the “pansexual” label of transphobia or biphobia already and brushed them off. I get it. If someone told me being transgender was misogynistic, I certainly wouldn’t give them my time.
I’d like to make it clear that I — unlike the people who’d argue that transness is misogynistic — am not arguing against a state of being. I’m not arguing against attraction regardless of gender or people who experience it; that’d be arguing against myself. I’m also not saying that all pansexuals are inherently hateful. I’m focusing on the label. Criticizing a word ≠ criticizing the lived experiences of those using it. If it matters, I used to identify as pansexual as well.
I also can’t stop you from using it. You’re the only one with the power to introduce yourself to the world, and you can’t choose your experiences. You can, however, choose the words you use to describe those experiences. All I want is for you to reconsider that choice. The cultural impact of words is far more significant than their face value.
Almost every definition of pansexuality (i.e., every one that isn’t already a definition of bisexuality) demonstrates ahistorical and bigoted assumptions about bisexuality. They also routinely insist that attraction to trans, nonbinary, or gender-nonconforming people is pansexuality’s defining trait. They regularly separate cis and trans people, implying that trans men and women are not men or women.
In this carrd, I focus only on the label’s in an orientation context. The word itself has been applied to multiple other contexts, which complicates the history of pansexual self-identification. (You can find them all here.)
There will surely be people who steadfastly believe I’m only misrepresenting history rather than simply compiling everything I find on this topic. However, the few other articles trying to shed light on this label (when searching for them, almost all results only discuss definitions without any historical context) keep it considerably brief, hesitate to go into detail, cite very few (if any) sources, or even demonstrate the bigoted rhetoric that this carrd was made to shed light on.
Visit the comment section of virtually any pansexuality-related article, Instagram post, TikTok clip, YouTube video, tweet, you name it—you will find the ideas in this timeline regurgitated.
1970-90s
Click on the years for sources.
1973: James Nolan says pansexuality “overwhelms, outdates, and transcends” all other sexualities, “avoiding the older term bi-sexual, which is meaningless when you can count more than two sexes.”
1980s: One bisexual interviewed for Bi Community News says that when she came out as bisexual in the 80s, “the label pansexual it didn’t involve any kind of gender nuance: it was how someone explained their bisexuality feeling interwoven with their Pagan beliefs.”
1990: Possibly the first explicit definitions of pansexual orientation appears in print: “One who recognizes that one’s sexual capabilities transcend humanity; that inanimate objects, animals, plants, and concepts can also be sexually exciting,” and “One whose sexual interests include people who are gender minorities, i.e. not male or female,” which “is usually implied by the word Bisexual.”
1994: Greta Gaard notes in an essay that Paula C. Rust rejected the word “bisexual” and said we should “banish the concept of partner sex from our vocabulary,” suggesting the term “pansensual” to describe sexuality outside of a “merely genital” framework (as if “bisexual” directly references genitals). Gaard wants us to see “pansensuality” as not only distinct from bisexuality but more expansive.
1998: The Spring publication of Anything That Moves features an interview from Matt Rice. The interviewer, Marshall, tells him that “[s]ome have proposed the term ‘pansexual’ as more inclusive than bisexual” and asks, “is ‘bisexual’ limiting because it implies only two, fixed genders?” Matt, while not identifying with the term, says that “pansexuals don’t require that there be two and only two genders…”
1999: “A newer term, pansexual, has been adopted to include transsexuals and all other persons whose gender, sexual orientation, and affective orientation do not coincide with societal norms.”
2000s
2001: (We see omnisexuality first this decade, but it felt relevant here.) “Bisexuality implies that I am only attracted to men and women, which isn’t true. I’ve found transsexuals and transgendered individuals attractive as well. That’s why I call myself omnisexual.”
2002: Peter Boom defines pansexuality as including “all kinds of sexuality that can exist in a human being, gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans[s]exual, transgender, heterosexual, tendencies that may prevail either permanently or occasionally.” (I just find it really funny how “transgender” is an orientation here.)
2002: “Bisexuality identifies persons who are attracted to women and men, to varying degrees. Pansexuality or polysexuality represents the broader sense attraction to persons of diverse gender attributes. For example, a pansexual woman may be attracted at times to some biological women, to biological men, and to some transgender women.”
2002: The LiveJournal community “I Am Pansexual” states in its first post: “Pansexuals love people of all genders, male and female, but unlike bisexuals, pansexuals love transgendered, androgynous and gender fluid people, people who don’t fit into the categories of male or female.”
2003: “Pansexuality is a neologism that expresses essentially the same concept as bisexuality. The difference is that it refers to someone who is attracted to all sexes/genders, rather than both sexes, so a pansexual could be sexually attracted to a transsexual, for example.”
2006: “Pansexual men tend to enjoy any individual on the orientation spectrum, with a strong preference towards the feminine — be it a tran[s]sexual female, transgendered female, or female…”
2008: “Bisexual relies on two genders, and I don’t really believe in that anymore…”
2008: “Pansexuality is inclusive of bisexuality (attraction to both males and females) but additionally includes attraction to other genders and sexes such as those identifying as transgender, genderqueer, bigender, intersex, or genderfuck.”
2008: “Pansexual means an attraction to individuals of any of the five sexes (male, female, intersexed, transsexed); additionally, it is a term which goes beyond the self orientation identity of bisexual to include the orientation of transensual [defined as being ‘attracted to trans people. A form of sexual orientation distinct from hetero-, homo- or bisexual’].”
2009: “[B]isexuality implies a dichotomy, pansexuality suggests the possibility of attraction to a spectrum of gender identities.”
Early 2010s
2010: “Pansexual: attraction and/or sexual preference to males, females, and those who do not fall inside the gender or sex binary.”
2010: “Pansexuality recognizes that there are more than just the two distinct genders... This flexibility allows people to develop physical and emotional relationships not only to men and women, but also to transsexuals, androgynes, and transgender individuals who do not conform to conventional gender identities. [...] Pansexuals may be more interested in the feelings generated by their relationships, rather than in the biological sex of their partners or the way in which they express their gender.”
2013: “Pansexuality differs from bi-sexuality, as the understanding of attraction is not limited to dualistic social constructions of male/female and man/woman. Respondents suggested that pansexuality could be seen as an ‘advanced’ version of bisexuality; one that has a broader scope for attraction[.] […] [R]esearch respondents also suggested that bisexuality invested in gender and sex binaries, and therefore was different than pansexuality.”
2013: “[P]ansexuals may be attracted to those of all biological sexes or gender identities — including men, women, those who don’t identify with a specific sex or gender or those who are transsexual or transgender. This differentiates pansexuality from bisexuality, which denotes attraction to people of just two different sexes — male and female.”
2014: “Pansexuality does not mean bi-sexuality. According to Barbara Cothern, who is married to a man, pansexuality is an attraction to personalities, not a specific gender.”
2014: “Pansexual: sometimes referred to as omnisexual, pansexual describes an attraction to a person regardless of sex or gender. People who use this label may describe themselves as ‘gender blind’ or as being attracted to a person’s personality rather than his or her sex. The term also acknowledges a space for intersexed and transgendered people in an otherwise binary understanding of sexuality and gender.”
Late 2010s
2015: “A pansexual individual is attracted to a person, not a gender. It seems very similar to bisexuality. BUT, bisexuality, for the most part does not include genders aside from male and female, which is what the main difference is with the two.”
2015: “In response to the question: ‘What does pansexual mean?’ I’ve seen countless people reply: ‘I’m attracted to people of more than two genders. Not bisexual.’”
2016: “[T]hough many might describe [Mary] Gonzalez’s orientation as bisexual, pansexuals don’t believe in a ‘gender binary,’ and hence can be attracted to all gender identities.”
2016: “For GSA members, bisexual and pansexual identity labels were not interchangeable terms; bisexuality was associated with the fe/male binary and pansexuality served as a personal contestation to this dichotomy.”
2017: “[Pansexuality is] basically a more liberal version of bisexual… It means you don’t care about someone’s gender or identity or sexuality, you just like them for them. For instance, I am dating a guy right now, but I would be open to dating a female, or someone who is transgender.”
2018: “A pansexual person is someone who is attracted to people of all genders — not just cisgender and transgender men and women, but nonbinary people, gender-nonconforming people, and anyone whose gender falls outside of the gender binary, or beyond traditional definitions of what it means to be a ‘man’ or ‘woman.’”
2018: “The meaning of pansexual is clear: someone who is attracted — either emotionally, physically or both — to all genders. This includes cisgender, transgender, agender and gender nonconforming individuals.”
2019: “If you’re attracted to men, women, intersex, transgender and non binary people then yes I would say you are pansexual.”
2019: “People who are pansexual can be attracted to people who identify as male, female, androgynous, transgender, or intersex, taking it a step further than the traditional view of bisexuality.”
2019: “[My best friend told me that] pansexuality meant you could feel attracted to people of all genders — boys, girls, transgender people, non-binary people…”
2019: “[Pansexual] has since been adopted by some people as a more inclusive term than bisexual, a term that implies that there are only two genders (male and female). Pansexuals, on the other hand, can be attracted to transmen and women, intersex people, androgynous people, and cisgendered people, among others.”
2020
2020: “Well bisexual is someone who is attracted to two genders and pan sexual is someone who is attracted to everyone no matter the gender.”
2020: “Bisexuality is feeling attraction to people whether they are male or female. That’s important. It only is those two genders (some even say Bi only includes cis-gender, [but] that’s not the point). Pansexuality is when it doesn’t matter what gender someone has.”
2020: “Often confused with bisexuality, pansexuality is where gender isn’t factored into attraction at all. In contrast, those who identify as bisexual are attracted to both genders.”
2020: “It never felt right for me to identify as bisexual. I know so many people who are asexual or two-spirited, and I’m open to being with someone who is trans.”
2020: “ Pansexual is attracted to all, including transsexuals — Sex does not play any role.”
2020: “The term pansexual is viewed as being much more inclusive than ‘bisexual’, because it does not assume that a person is only attracted to men or women, but also those who don’t identify with a specific gender.”
2020: “Because pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, and pansexuality therefore rejects the gender binary, it is often considered a more inclusive term than bisexual.”
Unknown Year: “Pansexuals… may be sexually attracted to individuals who identify as male or female; however, they may also be attracted to those who identify as intersex, third-gender, androgynous, transsexual, or the many other sexual and gender identities. The latter distinction is what draws the line between pansexuality and bisexuality.”
If you went through the first carrd, notice how “regardless of gender” definitions of bisexuality predate “attraction to trans people” definitions of pansexuality. The pansexual identity has largely been built on false assumptions about bisexuality. The label cannot be removed from this past, especially not when the reasons people use for their pansexual self-identification today are the exact same as the ones used thirty years ago.
Bisexual history was erased, our decades-old definitions were claimed to have never belonged to us, and new stereotypes were created and spread to fabricate a fundamental difference between two synonymous labels. Countess people believe pansexuality is more inclusive than bisexuality because the most popular definitions pansexuals use(d) paint it as such.
If the first coiners of pansexual orientation acknowledged that it is essentially just bisexuality, which isn’t exclusionary, the label would be far less problematic. Unfortunately, this alternative timeline is not this one.
All responses were gathered in 2020 and cut for length. I only include a few here in the name of space conservation.
Orion, 18: I used to identify as pansexual when I was fourteen and it made me internalize a lot of biphobic and homophobic beliefs. A lot of pansexuals online made me feel like I had to be better than being a lesbian so I had to like boys as well.
Kim, 22: I was pansexual as a teen because someone told me it was transphobic to be bi, but after reading up on bi history, I was like, nah. I’m bi. It seems like I was lucky to do so.
Sebastian, 21: At fifteen, I came out to trusted friends as bisexual but was immediately shamed. I decided to look into bisexuality more online to make myself feel better, and I came across pansexuality. It was always described as a sexuality that means you can love all genders, “even trans and nonbinary people.” They emphasized that last part a lot.
I quickly switched over to pansexual as my label and sought out others like me. For two years I spread the rhetoric they ingrained in me, that pansexuals will love anybody regardless of gender but bisexuals won’t.
Luckily, as I got older, some folks educated me on bisexual history and I realized I had been misled. Looking back, a lot of the pansexual positivity I partook in was just biphobia. I soon began identifying as a bi again and felt a lot better about it.
WIlliam, 20: My first relationship after coming out as trans was with a pansexual cis girl. I had known her before coming out and I wasn’t sure if she’d be willing to date me. When I asked her if she would, she said, “of course I would, I’m pansexual.” I took this to mean that only pansexual people would ever want to date someone like me.
Quickly, my online experiences with the LGBT community reinforced my conclusion. I was constantly shown infographics that told me that pansexual was a better, more inclusive, more progressive bisexual and that bi people were inherently transphobic. Not wanting to seem close-minded, I adopted the label for myself, even though it didn’t really fit.
I constantly had to argue with myself over the differences between pansexual and bisexual. The most solid differences I could find were that pansexual people could be attracted to trans people and that pansexuals, unlike everyone else, weren’t only interested in their partner’s genitalia. As a young trans person who wasn’t comfortable with sex, this made me distrust people who were not pansexual.
When I was finally shown the historical meaning of bisexual and lots of other evidence against all these claims, it took me a long time to be comfortable identifying as anything other than gay, in fear of sounding close-minded. Later on, I stopped giving myself a label publicly and just explained that my partner’s gender didn’t make a difference to my love for them. I was met with a lot of pressure to identify as pansexual again.
Caedyn, 25: I started because of transphobic reasons in high school (“I don’t care what my partner’s genitals are! I like men, women, and trans people!”) and later moved to a different, what I thought of as more progressive, reasoning (“pan is an active rejection of the gender binary”), but I learned to love bi history and bi people and being bi.
Zac, 17: It’s so weird how people are desperate to accept 4+ synonyms for the same (material) sexuality but only when it’s bisexuality. People have been quick to point out that using “gay” over lesbian because lesbian “feels wrong” could well be a sign of internalised lesbophobia, but many are happy to believe some people have an innate discomfort with “bisexual” (even if it may describe them perfectly well) that should just be ignored. Even going by the umbrella term idea, I’ve never seen agender folks saying “we’re not nonbinary, we’re agender; stop calling us nonbinary!” or having positivity posts saying “you’re not ‘basically nonbinary.’”
Anonymous: When I identified as pan, I felt a lot of guilt when I thought somebody looked “hot” or “cute”, but instead of thinking about why, I decided to ignore it, which was definitely a large part of the whole “pan=personality, bi=looks” that was going around. Now I recognize that it was internalized biphobia and it’s something I’ve managed to work through, but it feels kinda weird because I wouldn’t have had to go through two years of shame and self-hatred if I had just been told that attraction is different but natural right through the get-go.
Mary, 18: I first came out as bi at nine. I didn’t care about gender, and pansexuality wasn’t a big concept outside of Tumblr. As a child, I understood bisexuality included everyone.
When I turned thirteen and joined Tumblr, I found people redefining bisexuality. Eventually, I was pressured into identifying as pan because bi people were seen as liking only cis men and cis women because of pansexuality.
It gave me so much internalized biphobia that I’m still dealing with it today. So many pan people enforced the belief that bi people are transphobic, regressive, unfaithful, and so on.
I ended up identifying as gay for three years because I felt so gross about the concept of identifying as bi but refused to identify as pan anymore. I repressed my attraction to women. It took meeting other bi people to realize that I could be bi.
To see people insist that pansexuality doesn’t harm bi people is repulsive. You will genuinely never understand the self-hatred I felt every time I found a woman attractive because I didn’t want to be bi. I actively hurt myself because of how disgusting your community made me feel. There are still so many people that believe pansexuality is better than bisexuality.
Please rethink why you choose to identify with a label that causes this much harm instead of denying my experiences in favor of calling me a panphobe and plugging your ears.
All responses were gathered in 2020 and cut for length. I only include a few here in the name of space conservation.
Lindsey, 25: Even though I understand my bisexuality to be the capacity to love people of any and all genders, I feel judgment that my sexuality isn’t “enlightened” enough and that I should be identifying as pan instead.
Brian, 23: I vividly remember when the term pansexual started to become more common, and a few people of the handful of LGBT kids I knew back in high school started to refer to themselves as pan. The majority of them would always actively criticize me calling myself bi with the usual stuff, saying that it’s a transphobic and exclusive term.
I remember one case in particular when I was talking to a girl who had told me she was pan. She told me she called herself that because she “dated regardless of gender,” which I told her was confusing to me because I, as a bisexual, also date regardless of gender. A bit of back and forth with me trying to understand the difference later, she finally settled on just calling me a panphobe and refusing to speak to me.
Lucille, 19: I still feel kinda weird about actually saying I’m bi to people because they either say that I should just say I’m straight or gay, or they respond with, “oh, so you’re a transphobe? Why aren’t you pan? We love people for what’s on the inside, not their genitals.” So I’m either a greedy slut or a transphobic slut, even though I’m literally trans myself. Now I usually just say I’m figuring it out or that I’m not straight.
Indigo, 18: After I came out as bisexual I became more active in online LGBT spaces. I learned about pansexuality, and it was described as a “more inclusive” version of bisexuality. I was taught that if your attraction included trans people then you should use pansexual. Not knowing the real history of bisexuality or recognizing the transphobia in those definitions, I adopted the pansexual label and spent time in explicitly pansexual spaces.
As I spent more time in these spaces, though, I began noticing the biphobic sentiments that were pervasive in these communities, as well as the number of cis pansexuals who used their identity to excuse their fetishization of trans people. After that, I decided to leave the pansexual community and rejoin bisexuality.
Sawyer, 20: When I was younger, I was told that comfort in attraction to all genders was called pansexuality and that bisexuality was exclusionary. The “pan” label never felt right to me, though, so I went through many labels — which all felt wrong — before finally coming back to bisexuality. The pansexual label deprived me of comfort in my identity because I was told it would have been transphobic of me to identify any other way which terrified me as a trans person myself.
Em, 17: It’s incredibly frustrating how people continue to redefine bisexuality to make it narrower and narrower so that pansexuality seems more valid. It hurts me that so many others in the community are more ready to accept pan people despite the label not having much of a history in the community because they’re so eager to put down bisexuality. It hurts to see the extent to which panphobia is addressed, and people making positivity posts insisting that bi and pan people should have solidarity when biphobia is ignored.
Amy, 23: I realised that I was bisexual when I was 14. I first found out about the pan label when I joined Tumblr at around 14/15. I quickly found other LGBT people and joined in their discussions. I often heard that the main definition of pansexual at that time was attraction to men, women and trans people, whereas bisexual was plain attraction to men and women.
I realized I was nonbinary some time later. The definition of pansexuality changed to attraction to men, women and nonbinary people, as opposed to bisexuality which was still just men and women. This always struck me as strange. My experience of gender and sexuality showed me that it made no sense to make “nonbinary” a separate category. If gender was a spectrum, wouldn’t it make sense that bisexuals were attracted to that whole spectrum?
The attitudes towards bisexuals on Tumblr and in real life were generally the same. Even if Tumblr said it was friendly to LGBT kids, bisexuals were seen as immoral, dirty, and hypersexual. I was treated like a creep for being attracted to women, my attraction to men wasnt queer enough, and obviously as a bisexual I couldn’t be attracted to nonbinary people, so I must be transphobic, too. I hated every part of my bisexuality, ended up becoming suicidal from about 15, and started drinking at 17.
It took me a very long time to not hate myself. Now, I actually like being bi and can see that bisexuality is beautiful. I wish those who push pan as the better version of bi could see it, too. They can’t claim bi/pan solidarity while spreading bigoted shit. As a nonbiary bisexual, pansexuals who see themselves as heroes for being able to look past my gender infuriate me.
Mia, 25: I feel like I’m on a runaway train barreling down a hill, watching the pansexuality movement taking over the mainstream. It’s gotten to the point where even people who know the truth about the bi and pan labels won’t disagree with these ideas because they know so many people believe the mistaken definitions that they’ll look wrong for disagreeing. I can’t help but wonder if we’re too far gone and eventually I’ll be stuck choosing between being seen as exclusive/outdated for the label I’ve always used or going all “old man yells at cloud” struggling to defend the bi community when it’s a lost cause.
Nobody knows anything about our history or even cares. Nobody has ever cared about us but ourselves. And now people are being told it’s a good and woke thing to disdain or disregard us, and it’s working even within the LGBT community because both straight and gay/lesbian people have always wanted excuses to dump on us or ostracize us. These days when I come out I’m afraid of two outcomes: being in danger from biphobes, and people thinking I’m discriminatory or close-minded.
I also worry trans people may assume I’m transphobic because of the label I use and feel uncomfortable or unsafe around me. Whenever pansexuality comes up I really struggle about whether to say something. I want to defend myself and my fellow bisexuals and I don’t want to let these things go unchallenged in my presence but I don’t want to feel so often on edge with my life frequently becoming a debate.
I feel physically uncomfortable and threatened now when I hear or read this misinformation, especially from a big TV show or popular media outlet. Funny how things flipped from “bisexuals are dirty cheaters and hoes who are into anything that moves” to “bisexuals are discriminatory, close-minded and bad” and either way we lose. (And once again it’s all made about us caring about genitals, because everyone has always made us out to be sexually predatory.) It all makes me feel so hurt and helpless.
The popularization of the “pansexual” label and the increased number of people thinking bisexuality is preference-dependent or transgender/nonbinary-exclusive is not a coincidence.
The “pansexual” label has existed for decades as a supposedly more inclusive alternative to bisexuality. The only evidence for this claim, however, is that the prefix “bi” means “two” and “pan” means “all,” which fails to acknowledge the actual etymology of the word “bisexual” and the fact that bisexuals didn’t get to choose what they were called at first.
The reclamation of “bisexual” from its medicalized origin has a long and complex history of fighting to have our attractions recognized as full and real. The “pansexual” label has divorced our attraction from its political and historical context, from bisexuality itself, and routinely declares itself the spiritual successor to bisexuality. We are a community actively being pushed further into the shadows because of people basing their identities on assumptions about us.
When trans folks continually have to explain who we are and that no sexuality inherently excludes us by default, that isn’t the time to cling onto preconceptions. When bisexual people and organizations keep having to tell people what bisexuality is because pansexuals bend their definitions and experiences to support their narrative, that isn’t the time to keep warping it. When LGBTQ people keep having to remind the world that being LGBTQ doesn’t make you a genital-obsessed deviant, that isn’t the time to keep chanting “hearts not parts.”
Stubbornly clinging to the “pansexual” label only reinforces these misconceptions and stereotypes about LGBTQ people.
The mainstream introduction of pansexuality has practically shifted sexual orientation from being an indication of who someone likes to a declaration of personal values. The point of the LGBTQ community’s formation and alliances was to show that our sexualities and gender variations don’t make us inherently lesser. Yet, we’ve allowed ourselves to circle back to the mindset that who you’re attracted to has a bearing on how good you are — the very rhetoric that deems gays and bisexuals perverted sinners.
Many bisexuals used to accept different labels for bisexuality because we know how it feels to be erased and excluded. It felt cruel to do that to others. But we witnessed those supposedly “harmless” labels wreak havoc on so many people both within and outside our community.
We watch these labels gloss over our history. We see them take our definitions and experiences and literally try to exclude us from them. We deal with them constantly trying to tell us that we’re not bisexual because we don’t obey biphobic stereotypes or define our orientation in restrictive ways. We see people ashamed of themselves for identifying as bisexual because of other labels deeming us regressive and sex-obsessed. Is it any wonder that some of us got fed up and took a step back?
The idea that labels don’t correlate with one’s actions or beliefs is rather bold. In a way, though, it has some merit: it doesn’t matter how vehemently you claim to ally yourself with trans, nonbinary, or bisexual people if you knowingly and routinely do things that isolate and harm us purely because you find comfort in it. Consider why your satisfaction takes a higher priority than our humanity.
Many pansexuals view their identity as a “more progressive” form of bisexuality that explicitly rejects the gender binary. It’s good that they want to disrupt the binary, but a label alone does nothing — especially not when they also assert that only pansexuals can date nonbinary people.
Claiming to threaten gender boundaries just by being attracted to nonbinary people is like saying attraction to women is a feminist strategy. It’s performative (and counterproductive) allyship at most, and it allows cisgender people to brush off the idea that they might need to do more to respect transgender people than admit they might sleep with us.
Not to mention, many self-identified pansexuals ignore and even actively contribute to systematic biphobia, often using biphobic stereotypes to justify their identity. Pansexuals don’t only use their label to describe their attraction — they deliberately distance themselves from their own (bisexual) community. Many continue to paint bisexuality as regressive or impure. Biphobic beliefs that society has forced on us become cemented as truth rather than signs of our oppression, which we are then blamed for since we choose to continue identifying as bisexual.
This enforces bigotry both within and outside of LGBTQ circles. It also makes pansexuals feel as though they can’t suffer from internalized biphobia and don’t have to deal with it. They refuse to question why it’s relieving to identify with a less stigmatized label, which not only perpetuates biphobia but may even damage their mental health in the long run if they don’t examine the root of their discomfort with bisexuality.
Not to be confused with individuality, individualism is the view that the worth and freedom of individuals overrides that the larger group(s) they're a part of. It's associated with upholding independence and self-reliance. This is opposed to collectivism which prioritizes interpersonal connection and the group as a whole over the self.
Some people will see my attitudes as restricting or infringing on people’s right to choose how they describe themselves. We live in an era where individuality and more options are increasingly emphasized and valued. While this is not bad on its own, some labels are genuinely currently harmful, and we shouldn’t excuse them purely for the sake of saving feelings.
People argue that it’s only actions that matter, not what someone calls themselves, but labeling oneself is an action —and it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Words have meanings and connotations, and what term someone chooses not only often reflects their worldview but can perpetuate certain attitudes towards others. The identity labels we use remain politically relevant.
Sexuality labels started out as political and remain so today. “Straight,” “gay,” and “bisexual” aren’t merely identities; they’re collective legal categories and positions in an oppressive power dynamic. We cannot ignore that reality when people are still being fired and disowned and killed for who they love. That’s why the LGBTQ community exists, why we fight for our rights.
When we encourage the idea that sexualities are nothing more than self-expression cards, many people turn away from a large community that would welcome them with open arms and resources. They see “bisexual” and go, “well, this clearly isn’t for me,” as if labels override the attraction we all share.
Many people think LGBTQ liberation is achieved when people have a plethora of options to choose from to perfectly fit their being, but this is nothing more than capitalist market logic: “more options for the consumer = happier consumer” (which isn’t actually true). Such microlabeling (with sexuality specifically; neogender labels are a different story that I don’t see much issue with) is very reminiscent of arguments that having fewer brands for a product rather than a bunch for the same thing — even if all those brands are owned by just one company — is a threat to freedom.
In reality, this sense of freedom is illusory. Sexualities shouldn’t be commodities, and buying into the branding hinders change. Liberation involves dismantling our society’s sexual and gender hierarchies; then, the categorization of people’s behaviors to this extent is no longer treated as vital.
Continuously breaking labels down and creating terminology for each facet of one’s identity shrinks communities until it’s just one person convinced that they’re the only one who relates to their experiences. It isolates people and ignores the importance of individuality within a collective identity.
Repurposing identities as tools to erase the hierarchies they enforce is important in a capitalist system where its profits lie in the exploitation found in these hierarchies. On the other hand, using these terms purely as self-descriptors lets society turn them into commodities for which you can buy and sell your identity. (The “feminist” label is a prime example of this.) It distracts us from the collectivist movements we need to make a significant change to oppressive systems.
A strong community cannot exist if everyone’s label is so hyper-personalized that it can only describe them, thus divorcing the internalized discomfort in their mind from the systems that are suddenly part of that person’s core being. If we only have individual snapshots of individual experiences, the bigger picture is nonexistent.
FAQ
This FAQ assumes you read the rest of the carrd.
“Are you saying pansexuals aren’t LGBTQ?”
Pansexuals are bisexual; bisexuals are LGBTQ.
“Don’t force your label on me!”
I never said that you needed to identify as bisexual. This is also a rather hypocritical demand when so many people, including many self-identified pansexuals, insist that we shouldn’t call ourselves bisexual if we lack gender preferences or include trans people in our dating pool.
“What if I just use ‘pansexual’ around transphobes to make sure they know I like trans/nonbinary people?”
This allows transphobes to go unchallenged and even validate their transphobia by implying that only pansexuals are attracted to trans and nonbinary people. If you’re cis, think about why you feel the need (or even have the authority) to defend an identity that, for decades, has based itself on the idea that other sexualities aren’t attracted to us.
“What about trans people who identify as pansexual?”
There are also trans people who deny the existence of nonbinary people. Trans people can be transphobic, just like some women are anti-feminists. Just because some oppressed people identify with something that hurts others in their demographic doesn’t make it okay. Even if it did, transphobia isn’t the only problem with the label, so trans pansexuals still aren’t an effective gotcha.
Most pansexuals don’t mean to harm bi or trans people!
That’s precisely why I’m discussing this in the first place: to let them know that the label they’re using harms us and why. Plus, a lack of intent to harm doesn’t negate that harm, especially when you continue doing the harmful thing.
“Most pansexuals don’t believe these harmful things!”
Explicitly bigoted definitions of this label are frequently found quite literally everywhere—from contemporary scientific journals and (text)books to explanatory articles to celebrities with massive platforms. There is very little pushback from most pansexuals themselves to these definitions. You may know pansexuals personally, but that small group of people is not representative of the larger picture.
People like to chalk down harmful actions to just an exceptional “fraction of the community” instead of acknowledging how prevalent the issue is regardless, which is an unhelpful deflection. The mindsets shown in the timeline were exhibited by the first people who identified as pansexual (i.e., in the way comparable to other sexual orientations, not BDSM), a trend that hasn’t stopped at all.
“These bigoted pansexuals are just a few bad apples.”
Ignoring that the definitions and attitudes on pansexuality presented here are quite literally the majority, many people misunderstand the “bad apples” metaphor. While most today understand it as “a few bad people do not constitute the rest of the group,” the original proverb (“a rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor”) had the opposite intention, acting as a warning to stay away from or remove bad influences, lest everyone else in the group becomes complicit or follows in their footsteps. One “bad apple” indeed, scientifically, spoils the barrel.
“A few bad apples” does not mean “this group is good, so bad members neither represent nor concern us,” it means “this group is corrupting from the inside, carried out by some people’s behavior and perpetuated by the natural processes and passivity of everyone else.” The response to bad apples should be holding them accountable (if not removing them), then making sure the rest of them aren’t also in the process of rotting.
“Don’t all sexuality labels have transphobic origins?”
The terms “gay”/“homosexual,” “straight”/“heterosexual,” and “bisexual” were not founded on the idea that trans people are inherently a different gender than cis people or any other variation of claiming that trans wo/men aren’t wo/men. Whether or not relatively archaic definitions of the aforementioned labels, like “attraction to the same sex,” are transphobic relies on individual interpretations of “sex,” whether they see it as interchangeable with gender and, if so, in what ways.
For instance, a cisgender gay man can interpret “attraction to the same sex” in at least three ways: 1) “attraction to cisgender men and transgender women,” 2) “attraction to cisgender men, transgender men who transition and transgender women who don’t,” and 3) “attraction to men/anyone who identifies as male, regardless of any other factors.”
Even if other sexuality labels objectively had transphobic origins, though, their reasons for that are different than pansexuality’s, so they’re not exactly comparable. And even if the “pansexual” orientation label’s origins weren’t transphobic at all, I’ve shown its various other problems.
“Terms aren’t bi/transphobic—people are.”
The idea that words and phrases are never bigoted is just incorrect. The n-word is an antiblack slur, “bihet” is a biphobic pejorative, David Lane’s fourteen words (often shorthanded as the number 14) comprise an explicitly white supremacist slogan, and many other words are dehumanizing in some way. Language does not exist in a vacuum or independently of humanity; people create it, and sometimes the creators, knowingly or not, hold harmful views about others. We cease using terminology due to its harm all the time.
It is true that not every instance the word “pansexual” appears in is bigoted; its contexts in BDSM circles, pansexualism theory, or simply describing openness to various sexual activity have pretty much nothing to with marginalized groups at all. No one would be claiming that the word “pansexual” hurts people if it stayed within those bounds; I was quite interested while learning about the other things “pansexual(ity)” described. However, we’re focusing on its formation use as a sexual orientation here, which is the primary the way it’s currently used — and the only one most people know. This instance is troublesome.
You said 30-40 years isn’t very long, so why do you feel like the pansexual label has passed its expiration date?
There’s a difference between something being done thirty years ago but not since then, and something having been done constantly for the past thirty years and counting. And we are humans, after all, so the fact that these events have been going on for essentially half a lifespan is still concerning. It’s true that when looking at the entirety of humanity, a few decades is a blink. Still, if you had a friend that continually did something bigoted for years, is still doing it, and refused to stop no matter how many people were hurt by it, you probably wouldn’t want to be their friend anymore.
“I’m reclaiming ‘pansexual’ from harmful definitions!”
The community that created the harmful definition of a word—that wasn’t used against them insultingly, they crafted that definition and used it on themselves for decades—cannot “reclaim” the word. That’s not how reclamation works. It always belonged to the community; they can’t “take it back” from themselves. More importantly, the use of “pansexual” as an orientation has too frequently been bigoted and revisionist.
Even if individuals acknowledge that pansexuality is bisexuality, we run into two remaining issues. First, the vast majority of pansexuals don’t do that; they continue to claim that pansexuality is completely different from bisexuality. Second, even if every pansexual switched around to saying, “oh, it’s just another word for bisexuality,” that wouldn’t erase the irreparable harm caused by the bigoted past definitions of pansexuality.
Every time people have criticized pansexuals for bigoted or inaccurate definitions in the past, they swiftly insist they’re not the “real” definitions. The fact that they will consistently change how they describe their sexuality just to maintain the illusion of distinction reveals what the pansexual identity is often really about : distancing oneself from bisexuality.
“There’s a passage in the Bisexual Manifesto that supports pansexuality!”
From the third issue of the Anything That Moves (ATM) magazine onward, this quote appears: “Many of us choose not to label ourselves at all, and find the ‘bisexual’ to be inadequate and too limiting.”
Some people use this one quote to imply that it’s a-okay to use the “pansexual” label and that any arguments against it are somehow automatically void. This is despite the fact that right after this sentence, we are told to “not assume that the opinions expressed [in this magazine] are shared by all bisexuals, by those active in the bisexual movement, or by ATM staff.” Keep in mind, also, that the original manifesto from 1990, a rather short document on its own, does not include this passage.
The Manifesto is not by any means representative of the larger bi community; it was written by a small number of people under one bi organization in San Francisco. If you look at issues of ATM or even just their archive website, you would know that this manifesto exists within the context of the magazine, as the sentence right before the first one in the manifesto reads: “ATM was created out of pride; out of necessity; out of anger.” ATM staff calls it “our manifesto,” not the manifesto.
Not to mention, the quote about limitations says nothing about using other labels, let alone “pansexual.” It simply states that some people refuse labels entirely and believe that the bisexual label is limiting, not that it is or even that thinking that is justifiable (though we can definitely assume the latter is a belief held by at least some ATM staff and contributors). Within the context of the time period at which this was written, the intended message was most likely just that labeling something arguably limits how others view the thing its label describes.
Naomi Tucker’s essay, “What’s in a Name?”, found in the 1991 book Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, confirms that this was a thought process of some bi activists at this time: “Definition implies boundaries. Boundaries mean limitations. And I refuse to limit myself by squeezing my sexuality into a one-word definition.” New labels would thus not solve the problem that Tucker, other activists, and ATM contributors discuss.
Ultimately, the idea that any single document can give us “permission” when that isn’t even the document’s purpose is silly. The writers explicitly deny the authority to decide what is “okay” for the entire bisexual community. The manifesto is good for showing how our community has defined bisexuality in nonbinary ways for a long time, not for determining how we should treat labels today.
“Pansexuality is still valid!”
This mentality of “everyone’s label is valid no matter what” leads to people getting away with being as homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic as they want as it’s no longer seen as bigotry, but rather an essential part of their being. That isn’t okay, and it never should’ve been.
Attraction regardless of gender is “valid,” sure, but the bigotry exhibited by one’s willingness to identify with a label largely, explicitly rooted in transphobia, biphobia, and historical revisionism is not. We worry far too much about everyone “feeling welcome” instead of interrogating real, tangible problems—like those which some people’s “validity” depends on.
Many pansexuals demand that people validate their identity, but when people, cis and trans, among all other sexualities, express how they feel invalidated or even dysphoric by the dominant ideas of pansexuality, everyone seems to ignore it. We sacrifice safety and justice for feelings — but the only feelings that seem to matter are those hurting us.
“How can I be biphobic if I don’t hate bisexuals?”
Bigotry is more than just hatred. Biphobia is often much more insidious; we’ve all been spoonfed it our whole lives. Anyone can be unwittingly biphobic, even me. You can fill your heart with nothing but good intentions and still believe and spread biphobic rhetoric. It’s easy to call someone out for saying “bisexuals spread HIV,” but it gets more difficult to realize that saying “bisexuals obsess over gender” is also biphobic.
Involuntarily biphobia does not inherently make anyone a bad person. Everyone has had misconceptions about LGBTQ identities, including myself. The important thing is willingness to grow and not getting overly defensive. P.S. Having bisexuals in your social groups does not inherently make you any less biphobic than anyone else.
“Other bisexuals defend us!”
Some trans people think nonbinary people bastardize the trans community. Some black people defend the police and white people who say the n-word. Just because two people share an identity doesn’t mean they will agree on everything (or anything). It also doesn’t mean you can use the opinions of others in said demographic as a gotcha whenever you find it convenient.
As members of a marginalized community shunned from virtually all directions, many of us (bisexuals) naturally want to be as accepting of others as possible, as we know what the inverse treatment feels like. I used to think I had to be this way to prevent spreading the hurt that I often feel due to my sexuality. However, we must come to terms with the fact that “more accepting” does not always mean “right.”
“I’m bisexual, and I don’t think the pansexual label is harmful. Therefore, you’re wrong/overreacting.”
Anyone can use that logic about any opinion. Your disagreement doesn’t automatically make your opinion any more legitimate. You’re obviously allowed to express it, but there will always be people in a group who find something bigoted while others disagree. That doesn’t mean that anyone can tell the rest of group what they should(n’t) take offense to, or that certain things shouldn’t be discussed or criticized.
“This is gatekeeping!”
Gatekeeping is when those with positions of power control access to goods, services, or information. What community am I controlling access of? It isn’t the pansexual community —I don’t care about who’s “pansexual enough” — and it surely isn’t the bisexual community because I’m quite literally encouraging you to acknowledge that you are already part of it. In any case, one cannot legitimately gatekeep unless they’re in a position of power. Please stop misusing this term.
“You’re being panphobic!”
The fact that complaints about the rampant biphobia and transphobia among pansexuals get brushed off as “panphobic” is very telling.
What does it mean that you view someone saying “this definition of pansexuality is biphobic,” or “the history and current usage of your term lie in bigotry,” or even just “bisexuality has historically always been attraction regardless of gender,” as an oppressive act? Could it be that the pansexual label is so routinely dependent on bigotry and historical revisionism that to reject those things is to be against the label itself?
Regardless, there’s no way to insist on “panphobia” being a different axis of oppression than biphobia unless you’d also like to argue that gay women oppress lesbians. Oppression does not happen solely due to self-identification. Biphobia hurts everyone attracted to men and women. Some people are so caught in this mindset of “these are two distinct labels that should never be conflated” that they refuse to acknowledge the actual structural issues that hurt us all.
It’s very telling of our priorities as groups when discussions about biphobia delve into our rates of poverty, discrimination, domestic violence, and a heap of other things that tangibly endanger our lives, but all panphobia seems to be is saying the “pansexual” label is harmful or even just the same thing as bisexuality.
“Why can’t we just coexist and support each other?”
Many of you try backing everything up with, “where’s the solidarity?” but routinely ignore our voices, struggles, concerns, history, and lives. That isn’t solidarity, that’s wanting to get away with what you’re doing and revealing that you only care about bisexuals who don’t call out your bigotry. That is interest in our silence, not unity.
“I’ve identified as pansexual for a long time, so switching labels feels like I would be abandoning a part of myself. How do I address this?”
It’s perfectly understandable to be reluctant about dropping an identity you’ve had for a long time. Many of us form strong emotional connections to our labels, myself included, and I know that if any label I used happened to be harmful, it would take me a while before I could truly leave it in my past.
If you see eventually identifying as bi as your goal, there’s no need to rush into it. Slowly moving away from the “pansexual” label rather than just rashly severing the connection is a much healthier way to go about it. You can go without labels for a bit as you come to terms with your feelings.
I advise familiarizing yourself more with bisexual spaces and people, read more about bisexuality, and leave behind pansexual spaces (if you attend any) at your own pace. Remember that all your experiences that you have called “pansexual” fit inside “bisexual.” You have always been a part of our community and we will welcome you with open arms. People who judge you just for switching labels aren’t worth being around.
Anything that becomes a significant part of who you are will be difficult to let go of since you built up your personal narrative around that identity. Still, people change and grow all the time, and it’s normal and good to create new narratives for yourself.
“If I want to get other people I know to stop identifying as pansexual, what should I do?”
Prioritize educating them about bisexuality, ideally without even mentioning pansexuality. Some people will switch labels just after learning about bisexuality and trans/nonbinary identity. I’ve known a few folks who dropped the label simply after hanging out with bisexuals who casually talk about bisexual history and politics.
Perhaps bring up biphobia, discuss how prevalent it is and how you and them are both victims—and people able to combat and overcome—this oppression and the stereotypes it produces. People are more likely to change their minds if they feel like you’re on their side.
While you may be able to explain why certain definitions of pansexuality are harmful, don’t immediately denounce the label. Most importantly: maintain compassion. People often put their emotions before facts (or other people’s emotions), which is a frustrating but natural, virtually fundamental part of being human.
You made it to the end. Cheers!
Assuming you identify as pansexual, know that I used to be in your position. I can’t force you to change your label. All I can really hope for is that some of what I’ve put out here will stick with you, and that you’ll do some self-reflecting like I did.
If you still choose to call yourself pansexual, I can’t do much about that. The pansexual identity has become too mainstream for me to expect it to go away—I’m just hoping what I’ve put out here makes at least one person think.
Regardless, thank you for reading.