melmi

To be clear, that wasn't my point at all... I think it's perfectly fine for people to use whatever words they want for themselves, and to describe their sexuality with those words however they please.

My point is moreso that attempting to separate pansexual and bisexual beyond the individual level is useless because they aren't meaningfully distinct concepts. People can pick one or the other or neither and use it in whatever sense they want, but the problem arises when they try to generalize their pet definition to others. You see people in this thread arguing about the definition, saying "I think this is what it means" and then someone else comes in and says "no you're wrong it doesn't mean that". Some of the people saying that are because the definition was transphobic or something, but some of them are just disagreeing about the definition.

I think this is all a nonsense prescriptivist debate with no relation to reality (which is part of the appeal of course, but still). People just argue what they think the word should mean rather than thinking about how it's actually used. And if you think about how it's used, I don't think it's possible to separate the two. One person's pansexual is another person's bisexual.

People say this but I don't understand why. I don't think there's any reason to believe we meaningfully cease to be "continuous" while asleep, in fact we're not even unconscious when we sleep, our brain keeps processing stimuli, in parts of the cycle we dream, etcetera.

To transport just means to move, so if anything the term "transporter" implies physically moving people rather than copying. The term "teleport" is the more ambiguous one...

What if the original version of you did suffer?

Yeah the "bisexuals are monogamous" one was brand new to me, one of the weirder ones. I can't tell if it was meant to be a joke or not.

But is there really a difference, then? Both words communicate the same thing, i.e. being attracted to multiple genders. Anything beyond that is so subjective as to not really be meaningful beyond prescriptive queer discourse.

So the definitions I've seen here are:

• Bisexuals are only attracted to cis people, pansexuals are attracted to cis, trans, and nonbinary people
• Bisexuals are only attracted to binary genders, while pansexuals are attracted to all genders
• Bisexuals are attracted based on looks, pansexuals are attracted based on personality (possibly means they're demi too)
• Bisexuals are attracted to people because of gendered characteristics, pansexuals are attracted to people regardless of gendered characteristics (not really sure what this one means, different wording of the previous one?)
• Bisexuals aren't attracted to GNC people or androgyny, pansexuals are attracted to all gender presentations
• "Bisexual" is transphobic, pansexual is the more inclusive one
• Bisexual has always been inclusive, pansexual was unnecessary and is transphobic and/or biphobic
• Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, pansexuals are attracted to all genders
• Bisexuals are monogamous, pansexuals are polyamorous
• Bisexuals like the bi flag, pansexuals like the pan flag
• Plus various other joke definitions

Did I miss any? A couple of these were new to me. Innovations in the discourse?

I think the problem is that identifying as pan vs bi doesn't really communicate anything, because there's not a meaningful consensus of what either word means in relation to the other. The definitions vary wildly depending on who's using them, so you have to clarify either way and you may as well just explain your sexuality in more direct terms if the nuances matter.

That has nothing to do with being bisexual or not though. I might not be into bodybuilders "exhibiting their masculinity" by being absurdly jacked, but that doesn't make me not bisexual. I'm just not attracted to that particular gender presentation.

I think when people say "I'm not attracted to trans people" they have a particular idea of a trans person in their head, but plenty of trans people pass and some go "stealth". "We can always tell" is patently false. I suppose I can imagine a person who is so caught up in gender who would be turned off if they found out someone is trans, but I find it difficult to imagine anyone not asexual who wouldn't find some trans person initially attractive, at least post-op.

I agree with your last point though. At this point I've mostly given up on pansexual/bisexual and just call myself queer.

This is transphobic because it insinuates that trans people are some third gender rather than their actual gender. There is nothing about bisexuality or the "bi" prefix that would imply that bi people are only attracted to cis people unless you believe that trans and cis people are separate genders.

Nonbinary people, on the other hand, I can see how "bi means two" can be conflated to mean bisexuals can't be attracted to nonbinary people although I think that ignores the history of the term bisexual, as well as ignores the reality of nonbinary genders, i.e. you can't necessarily tell someone is nonbinary by looking at them. I think when people say they're "not attracted to nonbinary people" if they're not bigoted they likely mean something like not being attracted to androgyny, but not all nonbinary people present androgynously.

At least the kernel requires disclosure of AI use. The new Debian "policy" doesn't even require that.

You're greatly stretching the definition of fascism here. You're more describing fascism roleplay than "non-evil fascism".