Graduate Journal of Social GJSS Science Pansexual Identification in Online Communities: Employing a Collaborative Queer Method to Study Pansexuality

Ayisigi Hale Gonel

The research investigates different aspects of pansexual self-identification within contemporary online communities. To explore this, it is asked whether pansexual identification constitutes an anti-identity position against conserva- tive conceptualisations of identity, as well as the new-homonormativities that mainstream LGBTQ movements of the West engage in to invest in normalcy. It must be noted that, while the research has the deconstructionist focus of queer theory, the anti-identity position of pansexuality investigated does not refer to a performative failure of the subject. As stated, the anti-identity posi- tion proposed is pansexual identification’s possible opposition to ‘traditional’ and fixed readings of identity, and the ‘respectable’ features of new-homonor- mativities. The study explores the way in which pansexuality is understood as a multiple and flexible identity that exists in stark opposition to binaries of sex and gender in the eyes of the research respondents. As the research inves- tigates pansexual identifications online by gathering data through an online survey, it follows a collaborative queer method that represents a conjunction of queer theory, sociology and cyberstudies.

Keywords: Pansexuality, queer theory, multiple and flux identity, new- homonormativities, collaborative queer methods

Introduction entations and acceptance. While As the Latin prefix pan- refers to one can forward a general defini- all, pan-sexuality refers to a sexual tion of pansexuality as applying to orientation that encompasses an at- those individuals who are romanti- traction towards all. The existence cally, cognitively, and/or sexually and recognition of an attraction that attracted to all genders and sexes, accepts and includes all, however, this research aims to address the embodies a tension with the way question of whether or not pansexu- in which mainstream gender struc- al identification (as a sexual orienta- tures perceive identities, sexual ori- tion) defines a position that stands

Graduate Journal of Social Science February 2013, Vol. 10, Issue 1 © 2013 by Graduate Journal of Social Science. All Rights Reserved. ISSN: 1572-3763 Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 37 against understandings of identity an. At this point, for the sake of the that are embedded within dualistic argument, Jan Clausen’s ideas on perspectives of gender, sex, and bisexuality are useful: new-homonormativities. The re- search aims to contribute towards a [B]isexuality is not a sexual iden- determination of whether pansexual tity at all, but sort of an anti-iden- identification suggests a tension tity, a refusal (not, of course, con- between certain gender dynamics, scious) to be limited to one object possibly constituting an anti-identi- of desire, one way of loving (cited ty in relation to identities that base in Sullivan 2003, 39). themselves upon those dynamics, even within lesbian, gay, bisexual, Taking this argumentation for- transgender and ‘queer’ (henceforth ward, one might suggest that LGBTQ) communities. Rather than pansexuality is also an anti-identity pursuing a definition of pansexuality (perhaps even more so than bisex- from a theoretical standpoint alone, uality) not only because it takes a the possible multiple position of stand against this ‘one type of lov- pansexuality is investigated through ing’, but also because the object of an exploration of the accounts of desire is not limited to two sexes. pansexually identified individuals. While both sexual orientations find The possible existence of such possible attraction outside of the a position can be explained by realm of monosexuality, pansexual- pansexuality’s inclusiveness of the ity differs from bi-sexuality, as the individual as a subject. Indeed, understanding of attraction is not pansexuality not only refers to at- limited to dualistic social construc- traction to non-transgender and tions of male/female and man/wom- transgender males and females, an. intersex1, agender2 and differently Closely correlated to these dualis- identified individuals, but also- sug tic understandings, pansexuality as gests that the subjects themselves an identity position emphasises the can be of any genders and/or sexes. borders of the ‘respectable’ spheres As such, a different way of defining of new-homonormativities (Duggan pansexuality would be based upon 2003) that the mainstream LGBTQ3 an attraction, regardless of gen- movements of the West seem to der, sex, or lack thereof. From this create. In an attempt to be ‘tolerat- perspective, one can suggest that ed’ by the mainstream heterosexual pansexuality entails a stand against community, it can be argued that being attracted to only ‘men’ (includ- most LGBTQ communities (largely ing Female-To-Male) and/or ‘wom- led by white-middle class lesbian en’ (including Male-To-Female) as and gay identified groups) have a well as being only a man or a wom- predilection towards normalcy and 38 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 assimilation. Jane Ward suggests As such, the different lesbian and the respectable queerness of these gay identities that commit to such organisations invest in the homo movements become de-queerised version of hetero-norms; differen- themselves, since their identities be- tiating themselves from sexualities come reduced into the appearance that are not marketable to the patri- of uniform and singular entities. The archal mainstream society: ‘common struggle’ for normalcy and safety adopted by lesbian and gay [L]esbian, gay activists embrace groups position them outside of ste- racial, gender, socioeconomic reotypes about being gay, but in do- and sexual differences when they ing so align them with practices that see them as predictable, profit- are straight: able, rational, or respectable, and yet suppress these very same [It can be argued that] gays and differences when they are unpre- straights alike have an interest in dictable, unprofessional, messy defining themselves in opposition or defiant (2008, 2). to bisexuals through the institution of monogamy. First, monogamy Accordingly, these LGBTQ or- is a societal norm. And although ganisations become de-queerised straights, with their access to legal as difference is normalised and marriage, have perhaps greater turned into a shared uniform char- investment in that norm than gays acteristic. This is a particularly prob- and lesbians do, monogamy has lematic formation since this uniform in recent years became a social characteristic is at the foundation of norm among many American [as the created uniform gay identity: well as North Western] lesbians and gay men – especially as gay [C]onstructing provisional collec- marriage and civil partnerships tive identities has proven to be a become legal. [They] distinctly necessary tactical move for mar- wish to ‘retire’ societal archetypes ginalized groups, [however] group of gay promiscuity (Esterberg identities are also vulnerable to 2002, 161). countless forms of regulation and co-optation made possible by the In the current struggles of LGBTQ shared belief that identities are (a) movements that cannot move be- real, fixed, coherent, and -know yond the gender, sex, and sexual able, and (b) unified by a com- orientation boundaries (while at the mon struggle for normalcy, safety, same time seeking normalcy by prosperity, reproduction and the aligning with mainstream patriarchal like (Ward 2008, 18–19). norms of ‘proper sexual conduct’), it is possible that they perceive Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 39 polysexual orientations (including mativities regarding polysexual ori- pansexuality) as representing de- entations such as pansexuality can viance, messiness and unpredict- be better understood through an ability. Lisa Duggan picks up on exploration of the tension between the same idea, suggesting that the identity politics and queer activism modern, mainstream gay identity is (particularly of the 1980s). While devoted to safe and respectable ex- identity politics that mainstream istences of the mainstream cultures. LGBTQ movements engage in sug- She calls this the new-homonorma- gest that political arguments are (and tivity, which strives for access to should be) shaped by the categori- heteronormative and conservative sation of identities, and such politi- institutions of the patriarchal society cal argumentations will bring main- (2003). By omitting any sexual orien- stream society’s full acceptance, tation that does not commit to heter- queer politics take a stand against onormative constructions of gender this investment in inherent iden- and sex, the mainstream LGBTQ tity categories. Indeed, since queer movements and organisations ironi- activism criticises gay-only identity cally lack queerness, since they politics for subsuming LGBTQ iden- suggest a fixed conception of the tities and contributing to the concep- ‘homosexual identity’, and uniform- tualisation of fixed, closed, singular ise the differences that queer poli- identities, it becomes ‘the antithesis tics thrive upon. As a result, main- of identity politics’ (Bernstein 2005. stream LGBTQ movements lack an 56). Following this line of thought, emphasis on dis-identification that pansexuality serves as a possible suggests an individual’s identity is antithesis to new-homonormativites a process of passing and flexibility, that not only deem certain sexuali- one which serves to create an un- ties ‘unrespectable’, but also con- predictable subject: tribute to the conservative conceptu- alisations of identity which formulate We are deeply mired in a period sexualities in inherent categories. of prolonged conservatism, in Consequently, the antithesis forms which play around gender bound- an anti-identity that concurrently aries seems increasingly anach- takes a stand against the uniforming ronistic. Queer organizing seems politics of new-homonormativities, distinctly a thing of the past, and any conceptualisation that fails to there seems little social move- recognise the multiplicity and flex- ment organizing that celebrates ibility of sexual identities, and any anything queer or transgressive understanding that limits sexual ori- (Esterberg 2002, 163). entation to binary constructions of gender and sex. The analysis of new-homonor- As a result, in this research, the 40 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 concept of ‘anti-identity’ does not rative queer methods. As a result, refer to a group of subjects decon- the method follows queer theory’s structed into a performative failure conceptualisations of the multiplic- (Butler 1990), but rather it sug- ity and the fluidity of identity, and the gests an anti-conservative reading sociological tools of gathering data of identity. Going back to dualistic and interpreting. In addition, the understandings of sexual orienta- research also bases itself upon a tion, gender, and sex, alongside queer perspective of analysing sex- new-homonormativities, conserva- ual orientation. By understanding tive in this sense applies to any un- sexual orientation as a continuum, derstanding of identity which falls rather than a binary of ‘heterosexual under these normativities and bina- and the rest’ (Silverschanz 2009), ries, including those within LGBTQ the research design once again communities. Moreover, the way in commits to queer theory’s ideals of which the research conceptualises capturing the diversity and fluidity of ‘conservative’ also reflects upon tra- sexual identifications. Through re- ditional readings of identities: that jecting conservative conceptualisa- identities are fixed, finished and tions that equate sexual orientation singular. By establishing the ‘con- to experiences of sexual attraction, servative’ as such, it is suggested this research perceives sexual ori- here that the pansexual anti-identity entation rather as a complex struc- position forms the flux, progressive ture that builds upon the cognitive, and transgressive identity category behavioural and effective dimen- through locating itself (or being lo- sions of sexual attraction (Parks et cated by) outside of these identity al 2009). categories. Accordingly, this analytical frame- The research follows a collabora- work invests in the multiplicities of tive queer method (Dahl 2010), as social structures, concurrently fitting it chooses to investigate pansexu- within the conceptualisations that al identification without limiting it- cyberstudies have to offer. As cyber- self to text and discourse analysis. studies suggest that the online per- Aspiring to explore the formations sonae that Internet users engage in of pansexual identifications that ‘cir- do not represent a false fictiveness, culate between the everyday prac- but rather a part of their multiple self- tices of people within the spaces of hoods (Turkle 1997; 1999; 2011), their life-world’ (Burkitt 1998, 500), the research finds a space of inter- the research invests in a method- rogation, where pansexual identifi- ology of interdisciplinary work be- cation can be explored from queer tween queer theory, sociology and theory’s perspective. Moreover, cyberstudies, and serves as an ex- conducting the research online ena- ercise in the application of collabo- bles the investigations of possible Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 41 tensions between pansexually iden- to conservative understandings of tified individuals and the LGBTQ identity, binary conceptualisations communities of ‘real life’, as it offers of gender and sex, and the new- the concept of virtual communities homonormative politics of main- as a part of everyday life-space. stream LGBTQ communities, the It should also be noted that survey was designed to investigate while conducting the research on the way in which the respondents pansexual identification online of- directly or indirectly exercised mul- fers the researcher aforementioned tiplicity through identification. To en- possibilities in exploring the intrica- hance the depth of this analysis, the cies of such identification, questions survey’s content was designed to of representativeness also arise. assess how the respondents viewed Since Internet users are rarely fully their pansexuality in relation to other identifiable, the researcher has no sexual orientations and communi- option but to employ convenience ties. Such investigation was con- samples, as random sampling be- ducted through use of a web-based comes virtually impossible (Hash mixed survey employing open ac- and Spencer 2009). While from the cess to gather data. This was done sociological perspective the lack of for several reasons. For one, it al- random sampling may be read as lowed a feeling of visual anonym- a coverage error that creates the ity to respondents, which becomes lack of representativeness of diver- useful in a study of sexualities. The sity, this problem becomes minimal sense of anonymity was furthered when the sample group is under- by using a web-based survey, rath- stood as a pilot. On the other hand, er than an email-based one. The when viewing this design from queer research also benefited from a web- theory’s perspective, it fits perfectly based survey system as it created with the theory’s dedication to the the opportunity of open access: unorthodoxy of knowledge. Indeed, since queer theory suggests that Open access can be used when knowledge is never fully representa- the researcher wants any poten- tive or generalisable (Jagose 1996), tial participant to be able to link di- findings based on convenience rectly to the website and take the samples is hardly problematic, in survey without contacting the re- that queer knowability never offers searcher. [F]or [LGBTQ] persons, universal truths. open access may provide a sense of anonymity and increase their The Survey comfort in answering the survey In exploring whether pansexu- questions (Riggle et al 2005, 15). ally identified individuals define their sexuality in ways that run counter Moreover, following the ethi- 42 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 cal protocol addressed by the can benefit enormously from the Association of Internet Researchers collection of qualitative data that (Ess and the AoIR ethics working elicits direct feedback from partic- committee 2002), it is suggested that ipants on their experiences by us- anonymity achieved through open ing open-ended rather than close- access offers minimal risk of harm, ended questions (2005, 4). and secures the integrity and the autonomy of the respondents. In ad- To capture these experiences, dition, the mixed method employed the content and design of the sur- led to the production of knowledge vey was based on the format used that is both to be adequate and per- in traditional face-to-face interviews, tinent to the research goals. and were developed with a view Since the research is in a critical towards the exploration of the anti- dialogue with self-identification, it identity position that is suggested called for employing a method that in this research. The mixed design can capture individuals’ specific ex- that the survey was based on was periences, opinions and desires. To used as a means of exploring anti- this end, the survey incorporated a identity positions, without steering mixed method that contains both the respondent into giving ‘desired’ closed-ended and open-ended answers. Thus, while the survey in- questions. While the closed-ended cluded targeted closed-ended ques- questions helped structure the sur- tions, such as what respondents vey with a focus on the sensitive top- thought it was that constituted their ic of sexual identification, the open- sexual orientation, it also employed ended questions were of utmost rather general open-ended ques- importance towards capturing the tions, for instance, by asking how personal experiences, opinions and the respondents would explain their desires that touch upon pansexual- pansexuality to others. The latter ity, self-perception, and also the per- was done in order to gather answers ception of other sexualities vis-a-vis which may indicate an anti-identity pansexuality. According to Riggle position without influencing the - re et al, employing these open-ended spondent. In this way, the answers questions are especially crucial given to the open-ended questions when researching LGBTQ groups were interpreted in relation to the re- online: search questions of the study. To commit once again to a so- As the empirical literature on [LG- ciological method, the quantitative BTQ] populations is still in its in- data gathered was analysed us- fancy compared to other research ing SPSS4. Indeed, the program is areas, many exploratory ques- an efficient tool towards minimising tions remain. [R]esearch efforts possible measurement errors and Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 43 enabling the researcher ‘to analyse [the] study, the identity and affilia- quantitative data very quickly and in tion of the researcher, the voluntary many different ways (Bryman and nature of participation and the right Cramer 1990, 16).In order to further to withdrawal, and the promise of minimise measurement errors, the anonymity for participants’ (Hash survey was put on the Internet using and Spencer 2009). Given that this the online survey software provided explanation and the possibility of by Survey Methods5. Formulating contacting the researcher were pre- the closed- and open-ended ques- sented before accessing the survey, tions through the templates created clicking the ‘continue to survey’ but- by the software, a twenty-question ton at the bottom of this page ena- long survey divided into two sec- bled the participants to submit their tions was published on the website. consent. The URL of the web-based survey The recruitment text and the link titled ‘Pansexual Self Identification’ to the survey was posted on the was posted on web pages frequent- web pages of five pansexual-iden- ed by the target population of the tified groups on the Internet: the research. group titled ‘Pansexual’ on radio Alongside the URL link, an in- based networking website LastFm7 formative text explaining the pur- (116 members); the ‘Pansexual poses of the study, the position and Pride’ group on networking web- contact information of the research- site Facebook8 (779 members); the er was posted on these web pages. ‘I Am Pansexual’ group on expe- When explaining the position of the rience-based networking website researcher, and in order to increase Experience Project9 (251 members); overall motivation amongst pos- the blog ‘Pansexual Pride’ main- sible research respondents, this tained by a pansexually identified informative recruitment text con- individual on Tumblr10 where other tained an emotional appeal (Farrell bloggers submit comments, entries, and Petersen 2010, 121). The text and information about themselves; stated that the researcher identi- and finally the ‘Pansexualitet’ group fied as pansexual, and while the on Nordic queer-networking website motives behind the research were Qruiser11 (20 members). academic, there was also a per- The survey was accessible for sonal desire to produce research a period of ten days (April 15–April data on pansexuality, given that it 25, 2011) and gathered data from seemed to be lacking, even within 57 research respondents, with an LGBTQ studies.6 Once the URL overall dropout rate of 8.7 per cent. link was clicked, the participant was As mentioned previously, the num- welcomed by a page of consent that ber of respondents does not consti- informed them of ‘procedures of tute a signifier of the sample group, 44 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 since online researches rarely offer align with queer aspirations. Moving the researcher measurability to- beyond this methodological indica- wards the response rate. However, tion, an analysis on the survey re- as previously noted, because the sults shows two recurring themes14 research does not invest in the gen- when respondents explain their eralisable representativeness of the pansexual identification; the mul- sample group, the impact of this im- tiplicity of identity, and the tension measurability is regarded as mini- with new-homonormativities. mal. Avoiding the establishment of generalisable representativeness The Multiple, Flexible Pansexual becomes crucial when assessing Identity as Ongoing Process the demographics of the group. The first recurring theme in re- According to answers provided, search respondents’ answers was 61.4 per cent of respondents iden- the way in which pansexual identifi- tified as non-transgender woman, cation was described, experienced, 12.2 per cent identified as gender- and understood as a multiple iden- fuck12, and 10.5 per cent identified tity. Within the survey, multiple as agender. Respondents were in- questions dealing with pansexual formed that they could choose more identification made it possible to an- than one option on gender identi- alyse these issues in a substantive fication, and 21 per cent chose to manner. When research respond- do so.13 Following up, 89 per cent ents were asked what they sexually of the research respondents ethni- identified with, 57.8 per cent chose cally-identified with Anglo/White/ more than one sexual orientation. European descent; 68.4 per cent of Moreover, amongst respondents respondents chose United States identifying as pansexual, 55.3 per of America as their home country; cent chose more than one sexual 50.8 per cent stated that they were orientation to identify with. In her under the age of 20; 52.6 per cent research on bisexual identification, of the respondents chose 13 to 15 Paula Rodriguez Rust highlights years of education (which suggests similar observations towards the at least some postsecondary edu- multiplicity of sexual identification cation); and finally, 52.6 per cent and suggests ‘that many individuals stated that they were students and [...] have more than one concurrent unemployed. It is reiterated here sexual self-identity’ (2009, 112). that the sample group’s ‘whiteness’, Indeed, when research respond- youth, locality (North America) and ents were given an option that al- gender does not create a research lowed for an explanation of the way problem in terms of external validity, in which they used different sexual as the research has ‘opted out’ from identifications together, their an- generalisability in order to better swers provided insights on the com- Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 45 plexity of identification with multiple in a straight marriage and have sexualities: straight privilege. If someone calls me bisexual, I do not always feel [I] describe relationship[s] with the burden to correct them (RR other cisgender women as ‘Lesbi- 48). an,’ and Queer if I do not feel like describing pansexual (Research Indeed, according to the re- Respondent No. [Henceforth RR] sponses, this strategic use primarily 10, original emphasis). depended on the other party’s abil- ity to understand, or familiarity with I think either bisexual or pansex- non-heteronormative ideas, such as ual could accurately describe my the rejection of gender and sex bi- sexuality. I think pansexual de- naries, and an open mind about dif- scribes me slightly better, but I ferent sexual orientations: feel comfortable with bi as well (RR 34). I came out as bisexual to my par- ents in middle school. [A]ll of my Answers describing these mul- friends know that I am bisexual (I tiple and fluid identifications are tend to use that word unless I’m not only suggestive of a level of around people who are familiar comfort the individual found in ad- with [pansexuality] because it is dressing the multiplicity of the self, easier for them to understand) but also signal a possibility of using and no one has ever reacted these identities strategically in their negatively. Sometimes I tell co- daily life. As respondents answered workers, if they seem open mind- questions on their sexual identifica- ed, but usually feel comfortable tion, they suggested that they tend- not discussing my personal life at ed to use sexual orientation ‘labels’ work (RR 34). that were more widely used (within mainstream patriarchal discourses) The strategic use of these mul- when they felt the need to: tiple sexual identifications is also reflected in the fact that 22 out of I usually say queer when I don’t 57 research respondents indicated want to explain what pansexual that they referred to themselves dif- is, if I want to shock people with ferently, often using non-pansexual word choice, or if I want to encap- ‘queer’ sexual orientations, with dif- sulate my gender and sexual ori- ferent audiences. This strategic dif- entation both (RR 56). ferential self-referral, according to respondents, depended on the ex- I’m pansexual. When I don’t tent to which they perceived given want to explain, I’m queer. I’m groups of people as familiar with 46 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 pansexuality. This is reflected in uality’s existence, or when they Figure 1, which indicates self-ref- attributed negative connotations to erence was influenced by the audi- pansexuality: ences’ lack of knowledge of pansex-

Furthermore, the multiple and I have had to come out to the fluid identification observed sug- same people several times, and gests that research respondents explain my sexuality each time viewed their sexual identification as (RR 17). an ongoing process, rather than a fixed and finished part of their self. At first, I thought I was bisexual, The way in which the respondents so after some time thinking about explained their sexuality as a never- it, (to be absolutely sure), I came ending process became more evi- out to some friends, and eventu- dent when they were asked to de- ally family. After that, I started be- scribe their coming out experiences: ing really open. I soon came to Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 47

find that I was pansexual, (or so perceived pansexual identification I thought), so then I came out as through a complex structure that that too. Now I’m thinking that I am does not depend solely on behav- actually more panromantic. But iour. To better understand this, the I’m tired of coming out (RR 21). research respondents were asked to assign a numeric value from1 to As previously mentioned, in or- 3 for what they thought constitut- der to capture the multiplicity of ed the most important part of their sexual identity, this research de- pansexual identification, with 1 be- fined sexual orientation not solely ing the strongest aspect, and 3 be- based on past experience, but also ing the weakest. Results showed on potential cognitive and effective that the respondents considered entitlements. The survey was de- the ability and willingness to be at- signed in a manner that allowed for tracted to all genders and sexes as an analysis of whether the respond- the most important aspect of their ents also realised their sexuality as pansexual identification, their past not being limited to physical experi- behaviour as the second in impor- ence alone. This produced outputs tance, and political reasons as the that suggest that the respondents weakest aspect: 48 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1

for me. I will love someone re- The same tendency of the re- gardless of what they are, be- spondents to perceive their pansex- cause I only care about who they ual identification through their ability are (RR 5). to love all genders and sexes (or be- yond them) also became apparent Pansexuality indicates that you when they were asked to describe are physically and emotionally what pansexuality is in their own attracted to people regardless of words: what reproductive organs they have, or what gender they identify I have the ability to be attracted to with (RR 26). any person, wether [sic] they are trans* or cis or intersex or some According to this definition of other non binary gender/sex. I pansexuality, the pansexual indi- don’t like everyone, but I could vidual’s ability of attraction is con- (RR 10, original emphasis). sidered to be gender-blind’, in that it allows for the potentials of loving [Pansexuality is] the potential to persons regardless of their gender be attracted to someone of any and sex. However, another way gender (RR 12). the research respondents defined their pansexuality suggests that the Interestingly, an in-depth analy- pansexual individual understood sis of respondents’ definitions of that there were many genders out pansexuality indicated two distinct there, not only two, and that the and perhaps contrasting ways in pansexual had the ability to be at- which individuals understood and tracted to all these genders: experienced their sexual identifi- cation. While some respondents Pansexuality is attraction to all suggested that pansexuality was a genders, sexes and gender iden- sexual orientation that saw beyond tities. [I]disagree with many pan- genders and sexes, others suggest- sexuals who define pansexual ed that it was a sexual orientation by the catchphrase ‘I love you no that was defined by attraction to all matter your gender or sex’ [sic] To genders and sexes, as opposed to me this is panromantic, but I de- viewing them as irrelevant: fine pansexual as a physical and sexual attraction, as in I would I tell them that I believe that love totally tap that, penis, vagina, or is love, and I don’t think gender, other (RR 57, original emphasis). which is a socially imposed con- straint anyways, should have an Simply, ‘attraction to all genders: affect [sic] on that, and it doesn’t male, female, and people who Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 49

aren’t part of the gender binary’, would identify myself as pansexu- or perhaps ‘you know how some- al right away, to help me build the one can be really awesome and courage to really come out (RR you can acknowledge how great 27). they would be to date/fuck, but you couldn’t do it because you From the perspective of the mul- just don’t swing that way? I just tiple, and flux identity, the individual happen to swing every way.’ (RR who is not out in the ‘real world’, 25, original emphasis). yet identifies as pansexual on the Internet, and thus engages in virtual While these different definitions communication patterns through this of pansexuality viewed the ‘object of outness, does not constitute a false desire’ quite differently, they shared and fictive deception, but a persona the common understanding that the that is part of the self. As the online pansexual was a person who could persona may be a step towards be- see beyond the binaries of gender ing out in the real world, it can also and sex. The way in which pansexu- be a means through which the in- ality stands in tension with these bi- dividual finds comfort and support naries will be discussed later. that they may fail to receive in the The research respondents’ an- mainstream heterosexual society. swers hint at another aspect of the In this sense, the online groups that multiple sexual identity, through these individuals are coming out to, a suggestion of ‘outness on the can be understood as communities, Internet’ as an element of experi- and rather appealing ones at that: encing their sexuality. Indeed, when respondents were asked to indicate On the Internet, people have the the level of their outness, 26.7 per potential to experience the ben- cent stated that they were only out efits of communal life with none of on the Internet, and explained this the burdens. They can share their ‘online outness’ in detail: deepest, darkest secrets without risking their personal privacy. [F] The internet [sic] communities I’m or many, these new forms of so- a part of are very open about sex- cial connection promise not only uality, so I was able to mention it a fundamental change in our ex- ‘casually’ as a way of ‘coming out’. perience and understanding of in- As for the few family members terpersonal relationship but also a I’ve told, it was rather awkward change in the process, a transfor- and required a lot of explanation mation of public life (Song 2009, (RR 25, original emphasis). 1).

When I got a tumblr, I decided I Indeed, while these groups on 50 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 the Internet are virtual, the feeling constructions of gender and sex: of support, comfort, solidarity, grati- fication, security, as well as the plat- [Pansexuality is] accepting and form of expression that they offer, embracing the fact that there are are real: more genders in the world. Ac- knowledging that love and attrac- I’ve told my mother that I’m bi- tion truly are blind (RR 53). sexual, as well as a few friends. Everyone has been supportive I like people for people. Gender and respectful. However, I feel identity is very important and I re- like I can’t really discuss my sexu- spect and acknowledge it while ality with the people I’m close to, at the same time I have the po- I’ve sought out Internet communi- tential to be attracted to people ties in order to connect with other of any gender and sex. Depend- people who identify as queer. I’m ing on the [sic] what I know of the ‘out’ on Tumblr and on a blog, but person’s background knowledge not on Facebook (RR 29, original I might also explain the fact that emphasis). pansexual by definition reject the existence of a gender binary or a Research respondents’ involve- sex binary, and thus realize and ment with virtual communities, can accept that there are people of be further explored through how other genders and sexes than the they regard binaries of sex and gen- two typically assigned, portrayed der, as well as the ‘real’ life LGBTQ and accepted in mainstream cul- communities which are perceived to ture (RR 56). invest such binaries; another possi- ble theme in their answers. This rejection of the gender and sex binaries was also apparent in Pansexuality in Tension with the way in which they related their New-Homonormativities pansexuality to bisexual and mono- While research respondents pro- sexual orientations. Respondents vided different opinions as to what suggested that pansexuality could constituted pansexual orientation, be seen as an ‘advanced’ version of what their sexual orientation meant bisexuality; one that has a broader to them in different situations, and scope for attraction: the experiences they had in terms of their outness, there has been one Pansexuality is an update on bi- common thread that ties together sexuality, taking into account the their definitions of pansexuality. concept of gender as a spectrum According to their responses, the or a continuum rather that a bi- respondents perceived pansexuality nary of strictly man and woman to be in contrast with dualistic social (RR 41). Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 51

Respondents’ coming out sto- contrast to these other orientations, ries can also be analysed from this mainly in terms of rejecting binaries perspective. The way in which most of gender and sex: answers suggested identity as an ongoing process can be understood The only difference (assuming through the majority of the respond- that bisexuality is referring to the ents’ initial bisexual identification: attraction of the binary genders, which it typically does) is that pan- I came out as bisexual to myself sexuality has no limits and there in eight grade after having my first is the possibility to be attracted to crush on a girl (I just assumed that anyone within, and outside the bi- I was straight up to that point) and nary (RR 22). my family soon after. I grew up in a pretty liberal family so they were Pansexuality rejects all notion fine with it. After that I started com- of a gender-binary by definition, ing out to my friends and anyone something that is usually perpetu- else who asked. Thankfully my ated by other sexual orientations. friends are all big supporters of gl- Of course someone who identifies btq rights so it was easy. This past as lesbian [sic] gay or bisexual is year (I’m senior in high school) I not limited to the gender-binary, started learning more about what but it is much more likely that it’s like to be transgender and, someone will assume they are, after learning about people who and in many cases that assump- fit outside of the gender binary I tion is correct (RR 17). decided that pansexuality fits me better (RR 26). Indeed, the way in which pansex- uality takes a stand against such bi- While respondents suggested a naries also suggested that the big- degree of connection with bisexuali- gest problem they faced when they ty (especially in their past, with most were explaining their sexual orienta- of them coming out as bisexuals tion to others was that people failed first, or choosing to tell people that to understand a position outside of they are bisexuals because of its those same binaries (see figure 3). wider recognition than pansexual- Interestingly, while research re- ity), research respondents also sug- spondents in general suggested gested that bisexuality invested in that they expected a certain rejec- gender and sex binaries, and there- tion of gender conformity from non- fore was different than pansexuality. pansexual LGBTQ individuals and When asked whether being pansex- communities, this was not always ual was different from being lesbian, the case: gay or bisexual, respondents situ- ated their pansexual orientation in I would say that I’ve probably en- 52 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1

countered more disbelief/disre- When faced with perceived dis- spect/panphobia from the queer crimination emanating from within community than from my straight the LGBTQ community, research friends, which I think is really in- respondents’ answers suggested teresting. The negative response that they aligned themselves with is not typically from bisexuals/ bisexuality in response to being pansexuals/polysexuals/queer- confronted with this non-tolerance: heterosexuals/queer-identified- individuals/non-labeling-individ- [P]ansexuality is a rather un- uals but from gay men and/or known term, even for those in the lesbian women. They’ve called LGBT community. People tend me ‘desperate’, ‘confused’, im- to classify everything in a binary plied that I was STD15 ridden fashion; you’re either black or (I think this is partially because white, gay or straight. Pansexu- many lesbians think that lesbi- als, in my experience, have often anism alone is an effective STD been discriminated in the same prevention [I am female-bodied]), way bisexuals have (people told they’ve erased my identity by call- me that ‘bisexuals are just gay ing me a lesbian (responding ‘You people too afraid to fully come out know what I mean!’ when I correct of the closet’) (RR9, original em- them) or bisexual. Straight people phasis). are usually curious/confused (RR 56, original emphasis). While most research respondents Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 53 stated that they felt discomfort when pansexuality (as well as bisexuality) people suggested that bisexuality is falls under polysexuality. Indeed, the same thing as pansexuality, one multiple respondents have indicated respondent stated that her under- that monosexuals perceived their standing of pansexuality did indeed pansexuality as a way of engaging equate to bisexuality, but it was dif- in promiscuity: ferent in the sense that it was a label that could be used to avoid biphobia People [...] think that pansexual- within the LGBTQ community: ity means ‘I’ll jump anything with a pulse’ (aka low standards and [T]he other reason people tend promiscuous, of which I am nei- to use [pansexuality] is because ther (RR 47, original emphasis). it is hard to be labeled bisexual. Straight people just hate on you People think that pansexuality is and call you ‘Fag’ and the main- desperate promiscuity (e.g. ‘Any- stream Lesbian and Gay commu- thing I can get’) (RR56, original nity is nasty too, calls you ‘clos- emphasis). eted’ and ‘half-gay’. Also people say [that] bisexual means slutty This attribution of ‘unrespect- or that you are a ‘2-Beer-Queer’. able’ qualities, taken together with So people don’t want to stand up the investment in social construc- because face it, it’s hard. So they tions of heteronormativities, can be say ‘oh that’s not me, I’m pansex- viewed as a product of the subsum- ual’. well [sic] really only other ing politics that mainstream LGBTQ bisexual people care you know? communities of the contemporary Everyone else just snickers and West engage in, and how pansexu- rolls their eyes (RR 55, original ality embodies the counter-point. emphasis). Mentioned earlier, it can perhaps be said that the mainstream LGBTQ Although the majority of the re- movements are found lacking in spondents would likely reject this presenting a queer that is less about definition of pansexuality, this state- same-sex practice and more about ment is potentially indicative of a a resistance to fixed-identity hetero- disharmony within LGBTQ commu- and homonormativity, and the main- nities. Respondents’ accounts sug- stream respectability. In this way, as gest a possible reason for the man- a sexual identification that frames ner in which they felt as if they were itself vis-a-vis a rejection of socially not accepted by lesbian women and constructed binaries of gender and gay men. This tension can be un- sex, and invests in the multiplicity derstood in that being gay or lesbian of sexualities, pansexuality stands are monosexual orientations, where in stark opposition to these new- 54 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1 homonormativities: adequately, or address their needs, these individuals may be turning to [Pansexuality] is an identity that online communities for support, ad- is often erased, ignored or dis- vocacy, and as means for meeting respected. [I]t’s easier to be a other pansexuals. straight ally, especially a casual Moreover, respondents ex- straight ally, for LGB people than pressed a link between pansexu- for trans* or pansexual/polysexu- ality and queer as 40.4 per cent of al people (RR 56, original empha- those whom identified as pansexual sis). and chose more than one option for their sexual orientation have chosen This is not to say that all LGBTQ queer as a part of their sexual iden- organisations are embedded in pan- tity. Interestingly, within academic phobia, that they all invest in these queer theory there exists a possible new-homonormativities, or that non- paradox in that ‘queer’ is indefinable pansexual LGBTQ individuals sin- in that it rejects the categorisation glehandedly discriminate against of the subject, while simultaneously pansexuals. However, the ways in the street usage of ‘queer’ poses an which respondents felt as though identity category that bases itself they did not belong to LGBTQ or- on sexual transgression (O’Driscoll ganisations can be understood 1996). Consequently, the tension through this conceptualisation of arises within queer theory since new-homonormativities. According the ‘original’ street term refers to to the survey results, 80.7 per cent a material sexuality that suggests of the research respondents were ‘non-heterosexuality’, whereas the not heavily involved with LGBTQ academic usage refers to sexual organisations, while half of these transgression that does not neces- respondents were not involved with sarily refer to non-heterosexuality. any LGBTQ organisation. Moreover, The way in which respondents un- 56.4 per cent of these respondents derstand ‘queerness’ as an identity suggested that this was due the fact on the other hand, suggests a com- that pansexuality was not repre- bination of the above. According to sented, their needs as a pansexual respondent accounts, queer as an were not addressed, or that they identity suggests a degree of inclu- did not feel welcomed. The way in siveness and fluidity. This inclusive- which pansexually identified individ- ness and fluidity arises because uals turn to online communities can queer implies a non-heteronorma- also be viewed in the same light. By tive way of loving, without going into failing to find ‘queer’ communities details of who is loving who. It flows that accept them as pansexuals, from this that while queer still consti- represent their sexual orientation tutes an identity category for these Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 55 respondents, it represents a rejec- than one orientation to sexually tion of labelling due to this ambiguity identify themselves, and that they surrounding the issue of inclusive- usually do for strategic reasons. ness. As such, respondents see a They suggested that their sexual possible link between identities of identification was a complex reality pansexuality and queer: both fluid, that could not solely be based on both inclusive, and both transgres- past behaviour. They also signalled sive in that they reject binaries of the possibility of understanding their gender and sex, heteronormativities online personae as a part of their and new-homonormativities: sexual identification of multiplicity. Secondly, respondents’ answers I use bisexual mostly because highlighted the way in which gen- it’s easier for people to under- der and sex binaries are embedded stand, but I think that pansexual within communities (even within and queer are the most accurate LGBTQ ones), and how pansexu- (and open) labels for my sexuality ality from their viewpoints stood (RR29). against or contrasted with these binaries. Respondents suggested ‘Queer’ describes the general that pansexuality existed in tension broadness and fluidity of my sex- with ‘other’ non-heterosexual orien- uality (I find it nearly synonymous tations, such as being gay, lesbian to pansexual) (RR 24, original or bisexual. As those orientations emphasis). were perceived as an investment in the binaries of gender and sex, re- Accordingly it can be suggested spondents’ answers also indicated that respondents find queer as an a certain understanding of similarity identity category they find comfort between bisexuality and pansexual- in: one that welcomes individuals ity, considering they both fall under that invest in fluidity and multiplicity. polysexuality. In this sense, they suggested a potential link between Conclusion the problems they faced when ex- The analysis of research re- pressing their sexualities and bi- spondents’ answers suggests that phobia. In particular, respondents pansexual identification stands in noted that the mainstream LGBTQ contrast to conservative under- communities led by non-transgen- standings of identity and hetero- der, monosexual lesbian and gay normative social constructions that identities, not only did not recog- mainstream LGBTQ communities of nise pansexuality, but created a the West borrow from. This is seen dequeerised environment in which in a number of ways. First, respond- pansexuals struggled to success- ents suggested that they use more fully establish their identities. 56 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1

In addition, following a collabo- As queer activism criticises gay- rative queer method that takes re- only identity politics for subsuming search on pansexual self-identifica- queer identities, respondents sug- tion online proved to be successful gested that their pansexuality ex- in creating possibilities of further an- hibits the same criticism, since they alysing the multiplicity of pansexual do not align themselves with the identification. It not only reinforced new-homonormativist mainstream that the pansexual self was based LGBTQ movement that does not on multiplicity and flexibility, but also recognise their sexuality, or estab- made it possible to analyse the way lish them as respectable, due to the in which the respondents who were fact that pansexuality does not in- pansexually identified chose to form vest in binary social constructions of online communities rather than join- gender and sex. ing ‘real world’ LGBTQ communi- With this considered, it can be ties.16 suggested that pansexuality ex- This research concludes that pressed through respondents’ ac- pansexual identification in the online counts not only commits to queer communities studied does estab- activism’s position as the antithesis lish an anti-identity position against of identity politics, but also forms conservative conceptualisations of the anti-identity position against identity, and the manner in which conservative readings of identity new-homonormativities have pos- in that it embodies these criticisms sibly ‘hijacked’ Western mainstream into the expression of a sexual at- LGBTQ movements. Respondent traction. However, considering that accounts of how they define their any academic queer position would pansexuality starkly contrasts with reject an attempt to generalise the conceptualisation of inherent these findings into universal truths, identity categories, and politics as- it must also be mentioned that the sociated with this type of essential- anti-identity position of pansexuality ism. Faced with the new-homonor- should be understood from a tem- mativist identity politics of the poral point of view. As the research mainstream LGBTQ movements, respondents themselves suggest, pansexual identification through re- pansexuality as a sexual orientation spondents’ answers align with queer still lacks large-scale recognition activism. Indeed, as queer activism from both mainstream and LGBTQ criticises gay-only identity politics communities, thus suggesting the for their assumptions on fixed cores possibility of a position outside of of identities, pansexuality embod- heteronormative and new-homonor- ies this criticism in that respondents mative ideals. On the other hand, it suggest that their sexual identity is can be argued that the anti-identity multiple, ongoing and transgressive. position of pansexuality as an out- Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 57 sider can only exist as long as it is fication featured the ‘other’ option. As new, that is, until it is taken over the research aimed to capture the fluid- ity and multiplicity of sexual identities, it by the mainstream. From this per- was accepted from the initial design that spective, contemporary pansexual any number of identity options, no mat- anti-identity can be understood as ter how general, popular, or obscure they ‘perfectly queer’ through the way in are, would fail to capture the diversity which it embodies the sexual trans- of sexual identifications of respondents. For instance, when respondents were gressiveness that queer thought asked to indicate their gender, they had thrives upon, but only as long as it the ability of choosing from nine options stands its ground in opposing con- differing from non-transgender man to, servative constructions of identity genderfuck, but they also had the chance and new-homonormativities. to choose the ‘other’ option, and explain. The same applied for the question on sexual orientation. Thirteen answer op- Endnotes tions, including pansexual, straight, pre- 1 Refers to individuals who were born with fer not to label oneself, also came with an anatomy that combines female and the ‘other’ option. male biological characteristics. 14 While thematic analysis was used in as- 2 Refers to individuals who feel as though sessing qualitative datum, here the word they do not belong to any particular gen- ‘theme’ is used in its colloquial meaning. der category. 15 Sexually Transmitted Disease. 3 As this research argues, within these 16 The research at hand initially set out to LGBTQ movements, the trans, queer and explore pansexual identifications in ‘real bisexual identities are not the protago- world’ LGBTQ communities. As LGBTQ nists; in fact they are ‘still at the back of advocacy and community organisations the bus’ (Gan 2007, 136). However, the were contacted, it became clear that research still semantically employs the these organisations were not engaged umbrella term, since most non-hetero- in representing pansexuality. Hence, the sexual organisations still commit to the way in which the research transformed usage of the term. into an online study can also be read as 4 Statistical Package for Social Sciences. an indicator of the possible tension be- 5 http://www.surveymethods.com tween pansexual identification and main- 6 For instance, a simple search on the stream LGBTQ movements. ‘EbscoHost LGBT Life’ database will show a pronounced lack of academic re- search on pansexuality as a sexual iden- Bibliography tity or sexual orientation. Bernstein, M. 2005. Identity Politics. 7 http://www.last.fm/group/Pansexual Annual Review of Sociology 31: 8 http://www.facebook.com/group. 47–74. php?gid=75944101351 Bryman, A. and D. Cramer. 1990. Quan- 9 http://www.experienceproject.com/ titative Data Analysis for Social groups/Am-Pansexual/1039 10 Scientists. London: Routledge. http://pansexualpride.tumblr.com Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Femi- 11 http://qruiser.com nism and the Subversion of Iden- 12 Refers to individuals who intentionally identify outside or in between the gender tity. London: Routledge. binary. Burkitt, I. 1998. Sexuality and Gender 13 Moreover, questions regarding identi- Identity: From a Discursive to a 58 GJSS Vol 10, Issue 1

Relational Analysis. Sociological troduction. New York: New York Review 463: 483–504. University Press. Dahl, U. 2010. Femme on Femme: O’Driscoll, S. 1996. Outlaw Readings: Reflections on Collaborative Beyond QueerTheory. Signs 221: Methods and Queer Femme-inist 30–51. Ethnography. In eds. K. Browne Parks, C., T. Hughes and L. Werk- and C. Nash. Queer Methods meister-Rozas. 2009. Defining and Methodologies: Intersecting Sexual Identity and Sexual Ori- Queer Theories and Social Sci- entation in Research with Lesbi- ence Research. Burlington: Ash- ans, Gay Men and Bisexuals. In gate Publications. ed. William Meezan and James Duggan, L. 2003. The Twilight of Equal- I. Martin. Handbook of Research ity? Neoliberalism, Cultural Poli- with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and tics and the Attack on Democracy. Transgender Populations. Lon- Boston: Beacon. don: Routledge. Ess, C. and the AoIR ethics working Riggle, E., S. Rostosky and S. Reedy. committee. 2002.. Ethical De- 2005. Online Surveys for BGLT cision-Making and Internet Re- Research: Issues and Tech- search: Recommendations from niques. Journal of Homosexuality the AoIR Ethics Working Com- 492: 1–21. mittee. Approved by AoIR, 27 No- Rodriguez., P. 2009. No More Lip Ser- vember 2002. Available at http:// vice: How to Really Include Bisex- www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf uals in Research on Sexuality. In [Accessed 12 May 2011]. W. Meezan and J. Martin. Hand- Esterberg, K. 2002. The Bisexual Men- book of Research with Lesbian, ace: Or, Will the Real Bisexual Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Please Stand Up? In eds. D. Rich- Populations. London: Routledge. ardson and S. Seidman. Hand- Silverschanz, P. 2009. What’s ‘Queer’ book of Lesbian and Gay Studies. Got To Do With It? Enlightening London: Sage Publications. Mainstream Research. In ed. W. Gan, J. 2007. ‘Still at theBack of the Meezan and J. Martin. Handbook Bus’: Sylvie Rivera’s Struggle. of Research with Lesbian, Gay, CENTRO: Journal of the Centre Bisexual and Transgender Popu- for Puerto Rican Studies 19 (1): lations. London: Routledge. 124–39. Song, F. 2009. Virtual Communities: Hash, K. and M. Spencer. 2009. You’ve Bowling Alone, Online Together. Got Subjects: The Promise of the New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Internet in Research with Lesbian, Sullivan, N. 2003. A Critical Introduc- Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender tion to Queer Theory. Edinburgh: Populations. In ed. W. Meezan Edinburgh University Press. and J. Martin. Handbook of Re- Turkle, S. 1997. Life on the Screen: search with Lesbian, Gay, Bisex- Identity in the Age of the Internet. ual and Transgender Populations. New York: Touchstone. London: Routledge. Turkle, S. 1999. Looking Toward Cy- Jagose, A. 1996. QueerTheory: An In- berspace: Beyond Grounded So- Gonel: Pansexual Identification in Online Communities 59

ciology. Contemporary Sociology 286: 643–48. Turkle, S. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect So Much from Tech- nology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books. Ward, J. 2008. Respectably Queer: Di- versity Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations. Nashville: Vander- bilt University Press.