Should Bisexuality be Retired?

Laci Green is the host of Sex+, a youtube channel dedicated to learning and talking about sex freely and in a positive manner. In this episode, she defines her sexual orientation, pansexuality. Yeah, she's so totally attracted to that pan. Check out her stuff! She has a lot of awesome things to say. Go ahead. I'll wait. Okay, did you watch? Good. And now, on to the article.

As Laci Green states in the video I posted, there are various interpretations of bisexuality, including: liking same and different gender, two genders, men and women, or liking all genders.

There's also the emerging term pansexuality, which generally either means: attraction to all genders or attraction by personality.

Whoa! That's a lot of different interpretations! No wonder people get so confused. Laci takes the stance that it's up to you what you define labels as, and that labels don't get to define you. While I agree with that, I'd like to go one step further and say that we really need to take a look at our definitions and start settling on what the words "bisexual" and "pansexual" mean.

To me, I've taken to identifying as bisexual. I'm attracted to either gender/sex (that includes MTF or FTM, genderqueer and intersex), and I'll even like masculine females or effeminate males. I'm aware not all bisexuals feel that way, and some would even tell me I'm pansexual. But let's think for a moment about heterosexuality and its definition, as it's been established and focused on for quite some time now, being the most common and traditionally accepted "norm".

A heterosexual can pretty much like anyone from the opposite sex, even someone whose gender expression falls elsewhere.

(Gender expression and gender identity are different terms. Identity being who you identify with and expression being how you want to dress and act, but not necessarily who you identify as. Cross dressers are an example of gender expression of the opposite gender.)

It seems these days you can even be heterosexual and open yourself up to transpeople who identify with the gender you're attracted to. Or if that doesn't float your boat, you can just identify queer, which has become a catchall as of late for anyone who rejects the definitions all together. Or you could be heteroqueer, someone who both identifies as heterosexual and queer.

So, I don't count gender expression or physical sex in my sexuality. However, what about genderqueers? I'm attracted to people not on either side identity wise. But some bisexuals would just stick with either end of the binary and nothing between or outside of it.

(Again, queer has become a catchall of sorts, and in this case appears no different. If you're genderqueer, you essentially are checking the "other" box when asked what gender you are. You neither identify male or female, but rather something between or entirely different.)

Well, this is where the argument for pansexuality's existence comes in most strongly. Pansexuality includes every gender identity, including genderqueer and that's generally something all people agree on. Then there's intersex, which is a bit like genderqueer only the physical version of it. People who are intersex may identify as genderqueer, male or female, and not all bisexuals would be attracted to an intersexed individual. However, not all pansexuals would either, but many people would consider themselves pansexual over bisexual if they were attracted to intersex.

Then there's people who are attracted to transsexuals (MTF or FTM). Sometimes, due to this, they may call themselves pansexual in order to include transsexuals. However, I strongly disagree with this assumption. I must remind you that transsexuals don't want to be considered "other gender"; they want to be considered as "opposite gender of the sex they were born as". I want my girlfriend to call me her boyfriend. I want to be considered a man, a sir, a he, and not differentiated merely because I was born as the opposite sex I identify as.

I can only imagine that some intersex, specifically those whose gender identity is either male or female, experience a similar reaction to my own. They'd prefer to be considered the gender they identify with, not what sex they were born with. And therefore, these particular people may also find themselves insulted by people having to be considered pansexual merely to be attracted to them.

So again, genderqueer appears to make the best argument for pansexuality, whether that genderqueer's sex is female, male, or intersex.

But for me, I like genderqueer people, yet I still pick bisexuality. Why? Because, well, I'm not certain. I suppose according to my own argument, I'd be pansexual.

I think I pick bisexual for more emotional reasons. It irritates me that some people would solely consider themselves pansexual because they'd date an FTM or MTF, as if they're an "other" and not the gender they desire to be identified with.

So, that finally brings me to the title of this entry. Should bisexuality be retired? Should we just make up some new definitions? As more and more people find themselves constrained by our outdated definitions, will we finally come together and come up with something better?

Only time will tell. Until then, we're all going to have to be a little more specific when we define our sexual orientations.

Love you guys! Lemme know what you think! And if you've got some new definitions, hit me with them in the comments below!