For example, imagine a woman who exclusively likes women but calls herself bisexual because she grew up in a culture where heterosexuality was assumed, and she still feels a lasting connection to the way she once understood attraction or to past relationships with men. It could also reflect a complicated relationship with gender norms, or with how desire was modeled for her. Some might say she "should" identify as a lesbian, and that’s totally valid if that’s what she wants—but sexuality isn’t a math equation. It’s not a strict rulebook of labels matching behaviors. It’s about the language that best captures your truth.

Consider a nonbinary person who’s only attracted to feminine men—the interplay of femininity and masculinity that exists within those men. Because of this, their attraction doesn’t feel single-gendered to them. It feels layered—like they’re responding to multiple gendered qualities at once. They might not relate to being called gay, since that word feels too flat or binary—it doesn't reflect the blend of energies they're responding to.

Bisexuality is bigger and more nuanced than you thought, it contains multitudes. And soon it will contain you 😈 sorry I had to.

I don’t want to over-explain this part of queer theory, so I’ll leave it at that—back to bisexuality. I’ve already spoke about what it is modernly defined as, but I find the definition problematic.

BISEXUAL

Attraction to more than one gender… that’s a factor in every sexuality (lesbianism including non-binary people, homosexuality including genderfluid people, etc) so what really differentiates those monosexual (sexualities generally described as attraction primarily or exclusively to one gender, though often including nonbinary or gender-nonconforming people) sexualities from bisexuality? I’d like to provide my own opinion and answer.

I present: bisexuality—attraction to people of genders similar to and different from one’s own. (It’s also worth noting that romantic and sexual attraction don’t always align perfectly)

What I find compelling about this definition is how it introduces the concept of gender without restricting it to a binary framework. It acknowledges two categories while keeping their meanings fluid and open-ended. As a result it invites ppl to reflect on their own gender identities and how these identities connect to their attractions and desires. In essence it reveals the complexity of difference.

This definition raises important questions about what many might consider settled or obvious matters: How do I define gender? What is my own gender identity? What are the genders distinct from mine? How do I understand similarity in terms of gender? And how do I define difference? Which differences do I find romantic/erotic? Which similarities? Am I attracted to mixed gender traits in one person, or do I prefer clear gender distinctions? How does my gender shape my desires and relationships? How do these elements interact? How do my desires and relationships impact my gender identity?

I find it important to note, especially with the previous paragraph, that bisexuality inherently concerns gender.

Even if a bisexual person feels equally romantically or sexually drawn to multiple genders, the way that attraction unfolds—how it feels, how it’s expressed, how it interacts with one’s own identity—depends on their partner’s gender, and that that variation is part of what defines bisexuality as its own thing.

Now, to be fair, saying bisexuality inherently concerns gender is a strong claim. Some people use the term simply to mean “attraction to more than one gender,” without feeling that gender significantly influences how they experience that attraction. Others—particularly in queer theory and identity politics—argue that gender is central to how bisexuality functions both conceptually and experientially.

What this means is that while not all bisexual people necessarily have preferences between genders (though many do), their attraction is shaped by gender in some way. someone might feel equally attracted to all genders, but experience that attraction differently depending on the gender of the person they're drawn to. That difference could appear in how desire feels, what dynamics they prefer (romantic, sexual, emotional, etc), or how the relationship interacts with their own sense of self.

So even when there’s no imbalance in amount of attraction, the quality of that attraction can shift across genders. And it’s this shifting nature—this responsiveness to gender—that some view as core to bisexuality, distinguishing it from other multisexual identities and challenging its role as just an umbrella term.

PANSEXUALITY

Now for pansexuality. Pansexuality is similar to bisexuality because they both share attraction to multiple genders similar and diff to their own. The only different between the two is that:

1) Pansexuality has no preference between gender, it describes an identity where one has equal attraction to all. (While bisexuality can have preference or no preference—an umbrella term)

2) Pansexuality by definition is characterized by attraction that is not influenced by gender. That doesn’t mean pansexual people are “gender-blind” or unaware of gender—it means that gender does not factor into why or how they experience attraction. A pansexual person is attracted to people of any and all genders, but their desire isn’t shaped or altered because of gender; gender is not the element that sparks or changes their feelings.

This sets pansexuality apart from bisexuality—pansexual attraction moves outside of gender as a determining factor. It isn’t that pansexual people ignore gender entirely—it’s that their capacity for attraction isn’t mediated by it. Someone’s masculinity, femininity, or nonbinary identity may still matter socially or relationally, but it doesn’t define or shape the feeling of attraction/desire/love.

Saying this, honestly, I wouldn’t define pansexuality as a subculture or subset of bisexuality because the two are rooted in fundamentally different relationships to gender. While bisexuality involves an awareness of gender and how it can shape or alter attraction—even without implying preference—pansexuality is defined by the absence of that influence.

To categorize pansexuality under bisexuality would impose a gendered framework onto an identity that explicitly rejects it.

Choosing a label can also be a political act—asserting visibility in spaces that have historically erased or misunderstood multisexual identities. For some, “bisexual” carries cultural and historical weight; for others, “pansexual” offers a way to reject gender binaries more explicitly.

OMNISEXUALITY

Now onto omnisexuality. Omnisexuality is fairly simple and is what I consider a true subculture of bisexuality (see above where I talked about why I wouldn’t consider pansexuality a subculture).

Omnisexuality describes a person who experiences attraction and/or desire to multiple genders, similar and different to their own, but has a preference for a certain gender. What sets it apart from other multisexual identities is that, while it acknowledges gender as a factor in attraction like bisexuality, it includes a clear or consistent gendered preference.

That preference doesn’t mean that their attraction is exclusive/limited to one gender, but it does mean that one gender may hold a stronger pull or more frequent presence or a deeper resonance in the person’s patterns of desire—unlike pansexuality where gender isn’t a factor in attraction, omnisexuality openly recognizes both multiplicity and preference. A true subculture of bisexuality.

Some people argue that bisexuality shouldn’t be used as an umbrella at all, especially if it doesn’t encompass their own experience. Others embrace the term for its political history and cultural legacy. Like with all language, context matters—and people will use the terms that best suit them.

Now onto more multisexual identities, summarized for your time:

Polysexual: attracted to multiple genders, similar and different from one’s own, not being to necessarily ALL genders. Another word for multisexuality/bisexuality (many people use this term because they believe it does a better job of staying away from the gender binary). The term first appeared in the late 1920s but used in the context of polyamory. As the term became established that conflation became outdated as and entirely distinct from practitioners of polyamory.

Multisexuality / Plurisexuality: attracted to more than one gender/broadly describes attraction to multiple genders. It can describe individuals who are pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, etc, or can be used as a stand-alone identity if one does not wish to specify their sexuality further.

Pluralian: an umbrella term for individuals who are attracted to multiple genders. It is similar to the terms achillean (men loving men) and sapphic (women loving women)—basically describing a multisexual relationship-attraction regardless of the person(s) sexuality (pluralian could describe a pansexual person, an omnisexual person, etc)

And of course many other sub-labels and interlinked identities that include sexual attraction, but aren’t really distinctively held as a sibling to bisexuality/multisexuality.

Before you go, I’d like to say that these identities are different to everyone and are valid in every form that people believe they are. One could have entirely different ideas of what these sexualities mean, and that is okay. Labels and definitions aren’t the main point of this post (even though that’s the title of it). Definitions are flimsy and changeable and limiting, this post tries to explain that the real definition of multisexuality is in oneself.

While these definitions are helpful for understanding general differences, many people experience overlap between them. Some use more than one label at once, or shift between terms over time as their relationship to gender and attraction evolves.

Thanks for reading!!!