let’s talk about panphobic dogwhistles
A panphobic dogwhistle is coded/subtle to avoid opposition. These statements aren’t inherently panphobic and not everyone who shares them is panphobic.
“You can identify as pan, if... I support you being pan, but...”
This create hoops for pan people to jump through in order to be supported. But support and respect contingent on us internalizing and regurgitating panphobia isn’t genuine. We don’t trade autonomy for a sliver of pseudo acceptance.
“New labels damage the community. It doesn’t matter if a label is valid, it matters if it’s useful, materially different, and serves a political purpose.” And other anti self-identification/individualism statements.
This targets any label that isn’t The Four. Labels are, and always have been, useful if they help someone understand and communicate their feelings, identity, and experiences. We don’t owe our queerness to anyone, and we don’t have to use our queerness as a calculated strategy for anything.
What damages the community is creating an environment where any kind of difference in identity/language/expression or rebellion against norms/status quo/rules is met with hostility, fostering fear and distrust of the people who are supposed to support and nurture that self-discovery and expression.
“All genders/regardless of gender has always been the definition of bi.”
This often perpetuates the counterfactual ideas that pan “stole” The bi definition and isn’t necessary because “bi already means that”. This is also ahistorical biphobia; there’s never been one “true” definition of bi (this isn’t even the common community one) and it erases bi history/people who don’t relate to it.
Using scare quotes around pan.
Putting pan in quotes when it isn’t necessary is often a way of disrespecting its legitimacy, casting doubt/judgement, especially if pan is the only one in quotes.
“Bi has always included trans/nonbinary people.”
This is often used to falsely claim pan was created because “biphobes thought bi didn’t include trans/nonbinary people, so pan doesn’t need to exist”. (Binary bi texts aren’t universal, but there are plenty that speak to a reality that affected people and contributed to the current more inclusive language.)
“Mspec labels overlap but the distinction matters to some and that’s okay.”
I’ve seen this said so many times in response to people asking what bi and pan mean and how they relate to and differ from each other. What good is it to tell people the distinction matters while avoiding explaining what that distinction is? Ultimately this statement discourages any dialogue about mspec labels.
“Bi is an umbrella term that includes pan.”
The bi umbrella was once genuine inclusion of all mspec people, and activists/orgs use it, so most people don’t see it as anything else. But when bi only content has “bi+” slapped onto it, it becomes meaningless and performative. Panphobes also use it to argue pan doesn’t need its own, specific visibility.
“When a character ‘just likes people’ or is ‘attracted to all genders or regardless of gender’ they aren’t automatically pan instead of bi.”
I’ve experienced this from panphobes who simply assume pan interpretations of pan definitions/common pan explanations must be because of biphobia. But it’s a big, false, and purposely bad faith leap of logic to fuel the panphobic narrative that pan people are always misrepresenting bi.
“Pan people need to let bi people have something and stop making everything about themselves.”
This might seem like advocating for bi only content/events for the sake of bi visibility/community, but it’s often malicious exclusion of pan people who’ve always been included. We aren’t “invading” or “derailing” anything by being in spaces we’ve always been in, or by sharing a bi post because we relate to it.
“Read the Bi Manifesto.”
A lot of the time, people say this because they think the manifesto states the true definition of bi and proves pan is unnecessary/biphobic. However, the full text explicitly states there isn’t one true definition of bi and the group who published it explicitly supports all mspec people and identities.
“People identify as pan due to internalized biphobia.”
This masks panphobia with concern for internalized biphobia. Pan is being written off as a product of biphobia under the guise of wanting bi people to embrace being bi. Pan people are being equated to bi folks who just haven’t unlearned biphobia enough to embrace being bi, when that isn’t the case.
“All pan people are bi, but not all bi people are pan.”
This appears to be an easy explanation of bi/pan, borrowing from “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”. But queerness isn’t geometry and doesn’t work like that. The only pan people who are bi are the ones who also identify as bi. We can’t box queerness into simple, universal categories.
“Analyze why you’re uncomfortable with being associated with bi people or being called bi.”
Of course, pan and bi are associated, but it’s never mere association these people are referring to. Pan people are vilified and wrongly painted as biphobic for criticizing the erasure and mislabeling of our identity.
“Bi and pan people need to stop fighting each other, both are valid and neither is -phobic.”
This implies the “fighting” is equal. But there are popular bi accounts dedicated to panphobia, “battleaxe bi” was coopted for panphobia, a major bi org spreads panphobia, panphobic bi authors/activists are praised, and researchers subsume pan data into bi data. Biphobia from pan people just is not on the same scale as panphobia from bi people.
This is not to disregard/downplay biphobia from pan people. It’s just important to acknowledge the reality, severity, and disparity of the situation. Erasing that by saying or implying it’s just a silly mutual argument about which word is better is disingenuous at best, and malicious misrepresentation at worst.
“I’ve never seen a definition of pan that isn’t biphobic/transphobic.”
Panphobes involved in bi/pan “discourse” saying this aren’t hoping to learn the actual (read: non bigoted) definitions of pan, they’re saying there aren’t any definitions of pan that aren’t biphobic or transphobic, because they believe pan is inherently biphobic and transphobic.
“Behaviorally/scientifically bi.”
“Behaviorally” and “scientifically” bi are used to categorize people based on so-called innate, universal indicators of being bi. Both say pan people are actually bi, hiding identity policing/erasure behind science. Funnily enough, researchers have said it’s hard to determine who is “actually bi” because “individuals determine this for themselves”. In other words, there aren’t innate or universal indicators, we simply are who we say we are.
So. I’m sure there are plenty more examples I’ve missed, and if you have any please send them my way! (I tried to make this as short as possible, so if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these, let me know and I’ll happily do so!)
But I hope this will encourage you to think a bit deeper about the things people say and the possible intent behind it before sharing, as well as be more invested in supporting pan people and trusting us when we tell you something is being said to spread panphobia.
389 notes
·
View notes
✨ How did you come up with the OC’s name? For Balthazar (Seriously curious because I love that name and have had a stuffed animal named it for years)
Siren, I fear you (and Cassy, who asked as well) are about to get far more than you may have anticipated for this and it will be very silly. Balthazar is probably second only to Carmen (who is a much older character) in terms of convoluted meta histories that get long winded answers.
[prompt list]
✨- How did you come up with the OC’s name?
Okay, so there's a bit of necessary background here. Balthazar is loosely derived from a character conceptualized in 2016 who never had a real, settled name (mostly a series of titles; at this point the most consistent have been Herald and Three-Horned Devil). The project this character was made for was mostly to entertain me and keep me sane during the first year of university. At some point in the front half of 2017 I began learning 5e. A part of the process for this was getting a feel for the scope of characters and limits of character creation by making a bunch of character sheets with different concepts. To expedite this process, I used OCs from stagnant or abandoned projects as the basis for concepts; Caina and Balthazar were pulled from the same one (although it's possible that Balthazar actually had a 3.5 sheet first- he was a recurring character in my 3.5 campaign and I don't remember if he was introduced in spring or fall).
So Balthazar at this point did not have a name, and I needed to make a "traditional fantasy" name appropriate for what was then a half-elf sheet. The class, sorcerer, had already been determined, as had the first of several concepts for the adapted version of the Herald. My goal was to make a name with an occult sound to suit this ambitious Vecna cultist and to honor the Herald's whole evil god thing. And my other, more specific goal? To work in at least one demon name to amuse myself. I hate coming up with names so I have a bad habit of the joke name that sticks.
Anyway. I started with the demon names. The first and most obvious point to me was Ba'al. I was familiar with Ba'al as god king and god of storms from the Ba'al cycle and some related Urgaritic texts, but as I recall Ba'al was a title meaning "lord" attached to a number of regional deities (some variants of that Ba'al). In Jewish and Christian texts Ba'al appears as a false god and force of emnity. Ba'al also provides the root of "Beelzebub," and eventually becomes absorbed into the roster of demons in many traditions (I'm most aware of medieval Christian here) before washing back up in horror flicks as a stock name for a demonic force. The aspect of transformation was appropriate, I felt: a messy polytheistic deity who was also now known as a menacing demon. This worked well for the Herald. I was especially attracted to the "false god" aspect. So I wanted a name that could incorporate that name and ideally might naturally produce something functionally like Ba'al as a nickname. I chose Balthazar. It was a real name, which felt especially grounded, and it had an archaic sound due to having fallen out of style in the region I live in long, long ago, which gave it a certain mysterious flair.
From how that story went you may already have guessed about Lucienne. And you would be correct. That famous angel Lucifer was the over the top element used to round things out- partly because it's very easy to find other derivations from lux. It's also true that Lucian was a given name I'd considered for the character before discarding for being too trite (although Lucian Balen would become a recurring tongue in cheek alias for NPC Balthazar cameos in oneshots). I decided to push for a French sound because in my mind - and don't ask why, I have no fucking idea - French was an especially alchemical sounding language. Now some of you reading this may know some things about French, and may perhaps speak it yourselves. If this is you, you've probably caught the thing I wouldn't realize until two or three years too late, which is that Lucienne is not a French sounding name. It is an actual French given name of the feminine gender, the feminine equivalent of Lucien and the French version of Lucia. Whoops. At that point I was in too deep to change it and I just pretend I do not see it. Maybe it's endearing in a quirky JRPG way. French doesn't exist in most fantasy settings anyway despite the prevalence of Latin out there. It's fine. At this point the in story origin of the name is that he made it up himself anyway, so who knows. Maybe that 12 Int just produced the same mistake as me.
13 notes
·
View notes