A Linguistic View on Sexuality

So I just read an amazing post by a transman (although he is much more than that, believe me) on what queerness means to him, and several words popped up that made me think.
The first is the word queer itself, the second is the word pansexual. I want to talk about both of these words, and why I only use one of them to talk about myself.


Queer, according to dictionary.com means "strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular" or "Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a homosexual, especially a male homosexual."


There are many more definitions than these, but these are the two significant ones. The word queer comes from Scottish, and originally from the Proto-Indo European word twerk* meaning "to turn, twist, wind" related to the modern english word "thwart." And yes, I realize that nobody cares about that but me, but it is relevant.


Queer is a word that is usually used for homosexual males, but that is a very narrow definition. Queer means strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint, and it was applied to sexuality in 1922 back before questions of gender were significant topics of conversation. But let's go back to the meaning of the word - it basically means "other." Let's apply it to gender, sexuality, love and sex (the verbs), and anything else we can think of. Let's make queer a word to describe something that is outside of conventional structure.
As Asher says, "Queer doesn’t mean 'don’t label me,' it means 'I am naming myself.'" Queer is the space one exists in if one is anything other than conventional. If you think that being gay is being non-conventional, then you might identify as queer. If you think that being a woman in a man's body is unconventional, you might identify as queer. But if you do not identify as queer, then nobody has the right to tell you otherwise (though it might be a little bit confusing for them). The word "queer" to me is about establishing a non-conformity of identity, and does not mean any one thing.
I think that is all I want to talk about there.


On to the more important (to this entry) word: pansexual.
I am not going to use the dictionary or etymology on this one because they are wrong. The definition of pansexual actually has nothing to do with the way that pansexual is used in reference to sexual identity.
Pansexuality essentially means that sexual identity is not restricted by sex, gender, or pretty much anything else you can think of. If you were to apply this definition to me, you would see that it fits. But I do not identify as pansexual - I identify as bisexual. But the queer community says "but why, Fenix? Bisexuality enforces the gender binary, which is something as a genderqueer that you by your very existence and identity defy!"
And they are partially right - very partially.


I know what I am and who I like, and I can point to the people I am sexually attracted to, the people I am emotionally attracted to, and the people I am romantically attracted to. I could make a list - and that list is not restricted by sex or gender or anything.


The reason for my identification goes back to my root belief about language. Language is meant for communication - it is meant to convey a meaning from one person to another so that they may understand my meaning.
I would venture a guess that nobody outside of the queer community knows what pansexual means.
I feel no need to define myself by a word, but we have a word for "blue" because it identifies a class of wavelengths that appear to us in a certain way, and we have a word for it so that we may communicate about it. A word is no good unless it is understood by both parties.
True, I could say I am pansexual, and then explain it every.single.time. And then I would have to explain the concept of a gender spectrum, rather than a gender binary. And let's be honest - at a party with a really hot man or woman or whatever, explaining gender theory is not what you want to do. The word "bisexual" allows me to communicate quickly and efficiently (which is the purpose of language in my worldview) that I am attracted to both men and women, to any particular man or woman I might meet.


I identify as bisexual, and for the nitpickers out there, I will define it for myself - because we are allowed to define our own identity.


The gender spectrum exists, I move around on it. But there are clear points on that spectrum when I feel more male or more female (and don't give me that "society defines where these points are" crap - I know what I am, and if I am allowed to define myself, then don't be a hypocrite), and so while it is a spectrum, and not a binary, there are two halves.


There is the male half, where the majority of the male population resides, there are more hypermasculine men, and there are feminine men, but they are still men. They are on that side of the spectrum, and the inverse is true of women. But there are two halves, and of course, there is a midpoint known as androgyny (translated from the greek "man woman" which is inaccurate, but we all understand it). So, when I say that I am bisexual, I am saying that I am attracted to both sides of the spectrum. Because nobody (well, I don't want to say nobody, but very few) is attracted to a single point. Heterosexual women are attracted to men, all kinds of men. True, they may have a "type" but different men have differing gender on the spectrum - some are more masculine than others.


That is what hetero, homo, and bisexual mean to me - which side of the spectrum you are attracted to.
Basically, I assume a gender binary, and then define sexuality based on that.


Yeah, I know this was confusing, and I think this was meant more for me than for you - but I needed to get it out. And of course, as usual, questions and comments are welcome.