• rarWars@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    People don’t label themselves according to rigid definitions.

    • signed, an inclusive bisexual who does not identify as pan
    • HellieSkellie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m confused and I don’t know how to ask questions about this topic without sounding like a mouth breather, I’m sorry for my autism: why label yourself at all then if there’s no rigid definition?

      Wouldn’t it be easier to have no label rather than a label whose definitions do not fit you? My spouse is pansexual and doesn’t enjoy when people lump pansexuals and bisexuals together. I admittedly don’t understand entirely why and would like to hear from somebody bisexual who has an opposing opinion on that so I can better understand

      I mean this with no judgement and much curiosity

    • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I probably fit the “inclusive bisexual” definition better but prefer the label pan. I also like the bi flag better so if I’m ever throwing a flag up it’s usually bi lol. I use pan because I’m agender and it feels kinda weird to say that gender is something I care about when it isn’t, but I find myself more attracted to people that present either androgynous or feminine, but not really masc (except for the ladies sometimes). All that to say, these labels are basically pointless and only serve to (poorly) provide a surface level summary of whatever the hell is going on in our heads