[pansexual]
No, I’m not talking about being attracted to cookware, nor horny goat-men. (Okay, I might indeed be attracted to the latter, but that’s not the point.)
*sips coffee*
When I first heard the term “pansexual” and its given definition, I was excited to discover a word for a sexual orientation that did not erase (or imply exclusion of) non-binary-identified, genderqueer, and intersexed folks. I personally define “pansexual” to mean, “attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to men, women, and androgynes/genderqueer folk/neutrois/any other non-binary-i.d.’ed people”.
Unfortunately, some time later I found out that pansexuality as a sexual orientation/identity is tied to chasers who define it as “attracted to men, women, and trans people” (and it seems to be particularly associated with transmisogynist applications of that). See the difference in definition there? The first I gave does not differentiate between cis men/trans men and cis women/trans women. The second definition sets up binary-identified trans people as “other”, separate from cis men and women, and doesn’t even acknowledge genderqueer folk (or categorizes all non-binary-i.d.’ed folk into their respective assigned sex).
That is not what I mean when I personally say I’m pansexual. For the record, I define my sexual orientation as pansexual, bisexual, and queer. I don’t see why I need to choose only one of those terms, as they all apply. When asked, I say I’m queer. But I identify with all three of those.
I’m kind of bothered by the backlash against pansexuality as an identity. Sure, it’s used by chasers, who set up trans men and women as “other”. And, indeed, there is a good argument that “bisexual” does not inherently imply there are only two genders, that one may only be attracted to binary-i.d.’ed men and women. But the backlash stings, as a non-binary-i.d.’ed person. As long as pansexual is used by an individual in a way that neither others binary-identified men and women, nor excludes genderqueer folk, is there still a problem with it as an identity? I know many genderqueer folk who identify as pansexual, specifically because they feel excluded and erased by bisexual and, for whatever personal reasons, they just prefer pansexual over queer.
Is a thing inherently problematic because it is associated with chasers? And, if so, what is the solution? Stop using pansexual? Find a new word? Would that really stop chasers from being… well, chasers?
No, really, I’m honestly asking these questions. Consider this an open thread to discuss, if you’d like.
Very interesting post, thanks for writing it. You have gotten my brain ticking over on the idea of how people use labels, and how others view them.
Also, thanks for the link on bisexuality not inherently meaning only two genders, it’s a notion I had never come across before. Something else to think on; a ‘same’/'other’ situation, not a male/female dichotomy.
:D
interesting topic to talk about .. well .. I think that actually there could be just as much “labels” as people out there .. so I ask myself .. “do we need those labels?” … sadly (?) I think we do .. as long as *sexual identification and attraction* (as a topic in school) isn’t involved in education of teenagers (not only) .. that means: I think it’s so important to talk about it .. it would be less strange for them and maybe they would be more accepting, understanding and tolerant if they knew more about those things … and yes, I’m “waving the future flag” here, I know .. but I think it’s necessary for everyone to know more about it. btw .. if I’m asked .. I always like to say, that gender doesn’t matter to me .. if i’m in love then i’m in love .. so far,
take care,
andrea
I consider myself a pansexual – but in the sense that I we are all individuals and I do not judge on gender for my attraction towards someone : ) i will be posting my views on sexuality in future – so stay tuned to my blog !