Wayne Brady Comes Out as Pansexual: 'I'm Doing This for Me'

If only they addressed that in the article...

“I am pansexual,” he says, meaning that he is attracted to persons regardless of their sex or gender.
Brady puts it another way: “Bisexual — with an open mind!” he says with a chuckle.

Oh wait they did. Read the article.

It really gets under my skin when folks frame bisexuality as bigoted pansexuality.

Edit: I'm not saying he wasn't making a lighthearted joke and I'm not even really saying he shouldn't have said it. I'm just sad that for a lot of people this may be the first time they hear about pansexuality and assume it means that people who say they're bi are transphobic, enbyphobic, or something else.
- Yeah tons of people use the label “bisexual” even though by strict definition they might actually be pan. And that’s totally fine, you don’t always have to use the most specific terminology.
  
  I probably lean harder pan than bi, but the bi flag is too nice to not like it.
  
  I'm not a pansexual because I refuse to fuck people with green skin, regardless of gender status.
  
  We all have our types I guess.
  
  Exactly. Unfuckable.
  
  Sulley tho...
  
  What about an olive hue to their skin complexion? Why do you love everyone except Mediterranean people?
  
  They don't appreciate your absurd twist of the term olive complexion, but I do.
  
  And it's because the Mediterraneans won't nut up and reestablish the Phoenician Empire.
  
  Should be the other way around. bi means two, which makes sense. pan means a fucking cooking pan, how does that make sense
  
  For those who might not have the best English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan#prefix
  
  *word-forming element meaning "all, every, whole, all-inclusive," from Greek pan-, combining form of pas (neuter pan, masculine and neuter genitive pantos) "all," from PIE pant- "all" (with derivatives found only in Greek and Tocharian).
  
  Well tell the CEO of Greek that I use a stove pan everyday and their language is wrong
  
  Good luck trying to eradicate every word with multiple meanings from the English language, I guess
  
  @mojo @can
  
  You first.
  
  What?
  
  https://www.etymonline.com/word/pan-
What is a close-minded bisexual?
- Only eats at a restaurant that has at least one Michelin Star, wears only black socks, listens only to music that was popular when they were between the ages of 12-18 years old, insists that video games and cartoons peaked when they were age 22.
- A closed minded bisexual would be someone that is only attracted to cisgender people of either sex. So only females that identify as women and males that identify as men.
  
  A pansexual person can be attracted to females that identify as women, men, neither, both, etc. Same with males that identify as men, women, neither, both, etc.
  
  When he said "open mind" it was a joke. You don't choose who you're sexually attracted to. If you're not attracted to trans people, that's fine and is no reflection on whether or not you're a bigot.
  
  You may know this, but I've run into several who don't, so I want to clarify.
  
  Bisexuality isn't transphobic. Transphobes are transphobic.
  
  Good lord, not being sexually attracted to trans folks is not transphobia.
  
  Being bisexual doesn't mean you can't be attracted to trans folks though.
  
  Fucking preach. I’m bisexual and I’m attracted to anyone my brain and heart click with. Which is very few people. Luckily I found another me to date, then marry, and be togevva foreva with.
  
  Bi = 2
  
  Bisexual = attracted to people of the other sex AND my own = 2
  
  So many people don’t get that.
  
  Well yes, we get that but some people are non binary.
  
  I’m bisexual. Those people would either
  
  Be the same sex as me
  
  Be a different sex than I am
  
  So they’re included.
  
  That's fair, and it's also fair if someone else identifies as pansexual.
  
  If you're refusing to date someone solely because they're trans, then yeah it kinda is. Things like genital preference, the person "passing", etc are preferences you're certainly allowed to have, but are going to apply on a case by case basis. If you're otherwise attracted to someone and the only deal breaker is the fact that they're trans, that's by definition a prejudice against trans people.
  
  Edit: listen nobody is forcing yall to date a trans person. What I'm saying is that most valid hang ups someone might have don't apply to every trans person, there's gonna be trans people with the junk/body type/voice/whatever else that you're into. So refusing to date someone just because they're trans is the prejudiced part, not whatever personal preference you have that's gonna stop you from dating some or most trans folks.
  
  No? If you're a cis straight person, you're going to be attracted to people of the other gender. For most people, this is both attraction to the behaviour (attracted to femininity or masculinity respectively), and the attraction to the specific gentials.
  
  If I was 100% in that cis straight guy box, then for a female trans person to meet those requirements, they'd have to be fairly indistingishable from a cis female. That's very rare, for example most people would not have had a vaginoplasty. If I was to date a trans guy, then I'd personally be put off by the masculinity, even if they had the genitalia I was into.
  
  Personally, I'm not 100% straight because I'm more flexibile with the genitalia, so long as they have that femininity. But I 100% understand why other people wouldn't date a trans person because they're trans, even if they were fine being friends with them. After all, I wouldn't date a guy even though I'm fine being friends with them, that doesn't make me homophobic.
  
  Of course lemmy.world went down right as I finished writing my response and made me lose everything lmao
  
  Anyhow none of what you said contradicts the point I'm trying to make, which I've evidently failed miserably at making even with an edit.
  
  I'm not saying you have to go out and get a trans girlfriend. What I'm trying to get at is that, as you noted, it's possible for a trans woman to meet the requirements a cishet man might have for traits such as genitals, personality, voice, height, body type, etc. This hypothetical cishet dude doesn't have to be attracted to every trans woman, just like how it would be insane if he was attracted to every cis woman. But if that perfect trans woman showed up, who meets every possible requirement for the guy, and he still doesn't want to date her because she's trans, then that is prejudice against trans people.
  
  There's probably going to still be a disconnect on this despite my best efforts and this whole thing will probably get slammed with downvotes too. I'm rephrasing an argument based off of what I mostly remember saying in my original reply to this before world shit the bed, and plus this is a conversation about LGBT people happening in a comment section full of (presumably) cishet people. Getting within 1000 yards of the possibility that they aren't perfect allies with absolutely no internalized bias or prejudice is going to get people defensive. But hell, I'm several letters in LGBT and I've got internalized homophobia and transphobia that I'm trying to sort out, the point I'm trying to make here wasn't an easy one for me to consider either when it was said by someone way smarter than me.
  
  Hey there. Trans person here to tell you that you are just straight up wrong. We haven't been fighting for rights for years so people can backtrack on the basic rules of sexuality out of misplaced identity zealotry. The whole point of most queer dialogue is that you can't control who you're attracted to. Magically changing that is actually just another way to harm trans people in the eyes of potential cis allies.
  
  Hello, other trans person here questioning what part of my statement gave you the impression that I'm saying you have control over who you're attracted to. The entire idea I've said several times now is that if your attraction to someone is only overridden by the fact that they're trans rather than any actual physical or emotional traits they have, then at that point there's nothing to do with your sexual, emotional, or physical attraction to someone and just boils down to a prejudice against trans people. Any trait that might actually determine someone's attraction towards a person is not a single shared trait that all of us have.
  
  If you think that a relationship is the line where that prejudice is considered okay, that's for you to decide and I wont stop you. Everyone is going to have prejudices regarding potential partners, I'm married but personally wouldn't have dated someone with even vaguely conservative views for instance. But whether it makes cis people uncomfortable or not, it is prejudiced to ignore all attraction towards us just because we're trans and for no other reason.
  
  Human sexuality is itself prejudiced. That's the whole point of the queer movement. You are claiming that sexual attraction is never allowed to stop once it starts, but people do that all the freaking time over the most mundane reasons. The dealbreaker is absolutely allowed to be genitalia - it can also be a mole or an odor or a nose that you decide reminds you too much of someone who caused trauma or whatever. People are allowed their fluidity, especially once you start moving into less sex positive spaces. It is very much you saying we can control attraction to deny how sexuality operates.
  
  Human sexuality is itself prejudiced.
  
  Correct, people have their prejudices when it comes to partners. I think I'm starting to get the disconnect now. The comment I replied to stated that lack of attraction to trans people isn't transphobic. I think people are reading transphobic in this sense as explicitly hateful, and I've been trying to state that while it might not be hateful, it is transphobic in the sense that it's displaying a prejudice against trans people. Perhaps a misinterpretation of the term on my part, but I question if someone's prejudice towards a trans partner stems from a level of internalized hate, conscious or not.
  
  You are claiming that sexual attraction is never allowed to stop once it starts.
  
  No I'm not, and if that's really how it's been coming across, then that's a mistake on how I've been phrasing my argument.
  
  The dealbreaker is absolutely allowed to be genitalia - it can also be a mole or an odor or a nose that you decide reminds you too much of someone who caused trauma or whatever.
  
  I've been saying this over and over and I don't know how else I can phrase it to make it clear that I don't disagree with that idea. You're allowed to have whatever deal breakers you want, but that deal breaker being solely that the person is trans is prejudice against trans people.
  
  It is very much you saying we can control attraction to deny how sexuality operates.
  
  Again, I'm not trying to say this and if that's the position that's coming across, then I made a mistake with my wording.
  
  We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not refusing to date a trans person is okay, but I'm not trying to argue the morality of prejudice against a trans partner(though obviously I have opinions about it). You and the other person who replied to me may think that the prejudice is okay, prejudice isn't inherently negative. But the argument I'm reading from both of you is that it's somehow not prejudiced, which is simply incorrect by the definition of prejudice.
  
  Bigotry is when you attack a person with prejudice. It’s not if a person just doesn’t date a person. No one is owed sex. Not getting sex is not a prejudice nor is it oppression.
  
  And if a person didn’t go the distance to attack people they simply aren’t attracted to, attacking someone by calling them prejudiced just cuz they won’t have sex with someone is an incorrect use of the meaning of that word. This breaches on being malicious with intent to harass.
  
  Evidently there's something wrong with my word choice of "prejudice" because that word choice really seems to be the part everyone's getting pissed over. Do you have any suggestion for a more appropriate word choice because you seem to at least kinda get what I'm trying to say.
  
  Yep, right here. The perfect example of how we shouldn't do inclusion. No, I don't want to date a trans person. It's a preference. Not prejudice. I am into biological women. Why would you care? It's not your call to make what I can or can't be into and it's not yours to call me prejudiced because I don't want to date a trans person.
  
  You are missing their point.
  
  Consider a cis woman, and compare her to a trans woman who is has been on hormones their entire adult life (never went through male puberty) and has had the complete series of surgeries to get her genitals and secondary sexual characteristics perfectly in line with her gender.
  
  Now consider two more women, one of which is similarly cis, and the other is similarly trans, but you don't get to know which is which beforehand. Would your attraction magically know which woman had female genes? Of course not.
  
  So the point is if it is the knowledge of their being trans is the entire reason for your lack of attraction then that is a negative bias against trans people, commonly referred to as transphobia. If you can base your lack of attraction on character, behavior, physical features, compatibility, or even just what sex organs they have, then that is not transphobia.
  
  You should just come in and take over on this because this is exactly what I've been trying to say, but now it's being said properly by someone who isn't a moron lmao
  
  Whether you like it or not, that is a prejudice towards trans people. Call it a bias or a preference or whatever else you like, but its there. You're allowed to date whoever you want for whatever reason, but those are still prejudices towards or against particular traits about someone.
  
  Are we now going to see biphobia from trans people too? Fuckin A. As you were, we are used to it.
  
  People don't choose who they are attracted to, there's nothing transphobic about not being attracted to trans people
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Going to? They have always been here, but like the rise of TERFs or Cubans in Florida, now that a lot of the LGBTQ spectrum has gotten some progress--enough that the T part of that list is being addressed--some people are gonna play the "got mine, fuck you" game.
  
  It's a good reminder that even people who agree with 99% of what you do can still be assholes somewhere deep down in their cold hearts.
  
  Trans women are female. Trans men are male.
- Likes males and females and the trannies.
Wait, you can read articles?
So somebody wanted to broaden their understanding by asking a simple question and you decided to be a dick?

Maybe they didn’t have time to read the article and thought somebody would help.
- The previous comment getting so many votes is saddening on lemmy. Someone asked a question that wasn’t bigoted and instead of taking the opportunity to educate another human they took the time to quote the article and type up a reply that was dismissive. These types of issues can only be resolved with education and someone taking the extra time to put someone else down is definitely not an ally.
  
  Right. I personally struggle with a lot of the “terms” these days - not because I think they are wrong, only because I don’t always understand what they mean.
  
  On Reddit, when I saw them used, I would ask for clarification and I’d learn something.
  
  Being dismissive to people trying to learn isn’t going to bring them into the ally space.

The definition I originally came across is a pansexual person is not attracted by gender but by the personality. So no rules or restrictions on sex organs or gender identity or presentation. It's really attraction to the person underneath above all else.

don't mean to be ignorant but how is that not just a word for non-superficial bisexual?
- The "bi" part of bisexual implies a gender binary. Some people like that, some people don't. Pansexual is just an alternative that is explicit in its attraction to non-binary people. Some people aren't attracted to non-binary people, and use bisexual as a label to specifically mean only an attraction to men and women. Other people who might be described as pansexual describe themselves as bisexual simply because it is a more well known word. It all varies.
  
  "Non superficial bisexual" isn't the worst definition of pansexual, but saying pansexual is shorter.
  
  I’ve always felt that bi = people of my sex or people of the other sex. Nothing about the word “bisexual” implies any gender to me, it just means I’m not explicitly gay or straight!
  
  Allow me to be more clear about why I said that.
  
  It is mostly because of the words themselves. The "bi" prefix means 2, or twice, etc. That would mean the word bisexual literally means "twice sexual". Sexuality is inherently related to gender because it is a quality defined by relationships between people's genders, and bisexual thus (literally, but often not functionally) means a person who is sexually attracted to two genders.
  
  The "pan" prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.
  
  .
  
  The “pan” prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.
  
  The “pan” prefix on the other hand, means all, or including everything. Thus we can assume pansexual to (literally) mean a person who is can be sexually attracted to any and every gender that there is or could be.___
  
  Hetero, bi, and gay people are not attracted to any or every of their preferred gender. It's a small difference in language but I think pansexuals would agree that phrasing it as "is sexually attracted to any and every gender" implies pansexuals are out there trying to bang anything with a pulse whereas the truth is just that gender or sexuality are not barriers to them. I guess it would be more accurate to say "pansexuals are sexually attracted to partners independent of sex and/or gender identity"?
  
  This is probably oversimplified, but maybe helpful:
  
  Straight - consider themselves sexually attracted to opposite gender/sex
  
  Gay - consider themselves sexually attacted to same gender/sex
  
  Bi - consider themselves sexually attracted to either gender/sex
  
  Pan - consider themselves sexually attracted
  
  I agree that pansexuality doesn't mean an attraction to every individual of every gender, yes. I should have been more direct in how I said this part, but when I say "a person who is sexually attracted to every gender that there is or could be" I am just trying to communicate what you said. I suppose I would personally see a distinction between "attraction to a gender" and "attraction to a person of said gender", where the prior means overall sexual compatibility with that gender, and the latter means a literal instance of someone feeling attracted to someone else. But I can see how there isn't any actual clear distinction between the two, I should say it different.
  
  I feel as a straight man with few connections to the LGBT community that I should be able to define the differences between Pan and Bi
  
  makes sense, thanks
  
  The "bi" part of bisexual implies a gender binary
  
  No. Historically it kind of did, but the definition has evolved since the existence of non-binary started to be widely accepted in LGBT+ circles. Now it just means attracted to more than one gender. Pansexual is a subcategory of bisexual.
  
  Humanity is a sexually dimorphic species. There is only male and female.
- The way I (a bisexual) have always interpreted the difference is that pansexuals feel the same attraction to all genders and that bisexuals feel different attraction to different genders. I identify as bi because I definitely feel different kinds of attractions towards men, women and enby's.
- From what I can tell bisexual can mean a couple of things depending on who you ask. Either an attraction to two genders eg. cis men and women, or perhaps an attraction to multiple but not all genders. Pansexual on the other hand means an attraction to all, including trans or nonbinary people, etc.
- I’d assume people that are bi are attracted to biological males and biological females, but not necessarily transsexuals or anything else on the sexuality/gender spectrum.
  
  Sorry, that's incorrect. Bisexuals are attracted to more than one gender, and thats any of the genders on the gender spectrum. Pansexuals are less specific; most define it as gender not being the primary part of their attraction. Some pansexuals are only interested in certain genders, others consider themselves open to any gender. The overlap for these two terms is pretty big, but there are a few differences nonetheless.
  
  "Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations." (The Bisexual Manifesto, Bay Area Bisexual Network, c. 1990)

Lover of cookware

I’m pansexual.
In doing my research, both with myself and just with the world, I couldn't say if I was bisexual, because I had to really see what that was, especially because I really have not gotten a chance to act on anything. So, I came to pansexual because — and I know that I'm completely messing up the dictionary meaning — but to me, pan means being able to be attracted to anyone who identifies as gay, straight, bi, transsexual or non-binary. Being able to be attracted across the board. And, I think, at least for me for right now, that is the proper place. I took pan to mean that not only can I be attracted to any of these people or types physically, but I could be attracted to the person that is there.

Universal Boner Donor.

Permanently Deleted

Pansexuality is broader than bisexuality, and people who identify as pansexual may be attracted to people of all genders. Bisexuality is the attraction to two or more genders, but not necessarily all.

The terms broadly overlap, but the distinction matters to some people and that's okay.
- To clarify, most people had no idea what bisexual was before David Bowie put a label on it in the late 70s and I doubt people who are calling themselves bisexual are doing it to be exclusionary. Shit, people still have trouble admitting the Starman liked women and men to this day and the guy was dumped by the love of his life for that revelation.
- I know we don’t use this term much here but
  
  Hella based.
- Right so there's actually 17+ genders and bisexuals are sexist for only liking a mere two of them.
  
  Two or more. If you're really dead set on saying bisexuality is inherently sexist or transphobic, that's your own thing to deal with. I don't get the sense that this is in good faith.
  
  17 plus genders? Amateur numbers.
  
  https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes
  
  Every time you complain, we add 5 more.
Or just read the article before you post something so ignorant.