system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Pansexual is an unnecessary and inaccurate neologism.

Why is "bisexual" offensive? BTW, I'm not one of those trolls who confuses gender/sex. Aside from intersex conditions, there are two sexes. The existing term avoids the issue of gender identity/expression all together.

I never thought the term bisexual was exclusionary; if your gender identity/presentation doesn't match your biological sex then someone who's bisexual seems like a good match. 

This just seems like more of the status quo bisexual erasure. Most people who are't "monosexual" or whatever you wan't to call it have been told "oh you're just confused" or "you just want attention." What's the point of saying that "if you don't say pansexual" you're pretending trans people etc. don't exist, or that you automatically rule them out? Aren't there bigger fish to fry? Is it some sort of validation thing? Make me understand why "bisexual" is so problematic.

Edit: I decided to add this here, as I can't say any particular poster changed my view, but the discussions (including the ones I wasn't participating in) certainly helped me better understand where I was coming from, what was actually bothering me, what others seem to be thinking, and helped get me to where I am now.

One of the things I've realized is that I'm not as precise as I'd like to be with language, another (judging by some of the varied replies) is that language is not as precise as I often wish it was.

Further I'm feeling a bit out of the loop. From my perspective the term bisexuality encompassed people breaking out of the binary, to me you were basically saying "I'm not only attracted to men/women" (if you want to interpret that as male/female as biological qualifiers or gender identity that is up to you. I couldn't really detect consensus on the matter from the comments, but people seem to be tending towards gender rather than sex as the qualifier.)

My revised view would be this:

It seems that there is a push, by some folks, to give wiggle room to terms like gay and straight wherein you can self-identify as straight or gay and be attracted to trans-folks whose gender matches your (generally) sex-based preference. In this case your identity is not invalidated and, in fact, you are being supportive.

On the other hand if you identify as bisexual, some of these same people may say that you are failing to account for said variations because you are specifically supposed to call them out in a way that a gay or straight person is not required to.

This feels like a double standard (if I'm going to use something resembling an "I" statement)

However, I also realize that language may be shifting in the LGBT(Q) community since I last checked in from single-ville, maybe being partnered off makes you stop thinking about it so much, and it's possible that I am out of touch. I still question whether, outside of LGBT(Q) folks, extra definitions actually help with meaningful discourse, but this could just be me shouting the equivalent of "get off my lawn." I am reminded of when the terms heteroflexible and homoflexible were being tested. Did they catch on? Not sure, to reiterate, I'm out of the loop apparently.

It's all given me a lot to think about.
gpt
Bisexual isn’t offensive. It’s just a different term than pansexual. Sexuality is usually defined by gender, because a homosexual man isn’t attracted to trans women, because they mostly feel like, act like and look like women. So bisexual means you’re attracted to men and women (usually trans and cis) and pansexual means you’re attracted to all genders, like non binary people, gender doesn’t really matter to them. I’m a trans woman and I’m bisexual because I’m mostly attracted to men and sometimes women and not usually attracted to non-binary people. Gender matters to me, not to a pansexual person.