#but pan people exist and there is a place for the pan label if ppl identify w it

[nothorses]

re: your recent ask abt terf recruitment

Long ask, but your anecdote struck a cord as I had a very similar experience to you when it comes to hidden terfs online

I was a younger and less experienced in online spaces, I had no idea what a terf was (had originally assumed it was some garden variety Internet insult not to be taken much note of) and ended up following a terf that didn’t openly say they were a terf (but openly labeled themself a radfem, another label I was only vaguely aware of)

I was very lucky that I had also followed ppl who were anti terf and one of their posts on identifying terf rhetoric set off alarm bells, which led to me digging into the other persons blog and realizing the “predatory men” they referred to were actually trans women

This revelation led to a lot of self reflection of how I ended up in the early stages of terf recruitment, especially the “men bad” mindset I was prone to (which is how I was drawn in in the first place), but the idea that I had thoughtlessly agreed with such beliefs was obviously horrifying to me

It’s because of this experience that I get so frustrated with many ppl who seem to be unable to pick up terf rhetoric and gotcha tactics without a neon sign saying they hate trans women in specific. Especially bc I see so many ppl who openly say they’re anti terf & anti transphobia but blatantly and thoughtlessly regurgitate terf talking points (men bad, equating genitalia/hormones to personal morality, aspec & bi/pan exclusion, “q slur”, etc etc)

The idea ppl seem to have that they’re magically immune to terf rhetoric bc “well I don’t hate trans women” is so dangerous, the most dangerous thing to believe when it comes to a pervasive ideology is that “I could never be tricked into believing that” when clearly you can! Many are! Without even realizing who they’re agreeing with!

And when ppl DO get called out and told that it’s terf rhetoric many bury their heads in the sand and deny it

It’s just so disheartening, I don’t know how ppl expect to prevent terfs recruitment if they refuse to acknowledge how they gain foothold and exploit pre-existing mindsets in the first place

God, yes, all of this.

imo, people who have actually been through and seen how TERF recruitment works are also the most valuable resources we have in learning how to prevent it. I interviewed an ex-Radfem a while back, and the insight is genuinely so helpful.

(I also have a couple of other people I asked to interview before I left for camp and never followed up with 😬 if that's you, I'm sorry, and I will probably try to DM you again soonish in case you're still down for that.)

#terfism

[bisexualsdeservebetter]

Good faith question:

I looked into the bi/pan argument and I see how they’re the same and the problems with “everything’s fluid, there are no lines.”

That being said, I’m wondering why you don’t like neopronouns? Since pronouns are about what ppl are comfortable being called I thought they were fine. Ex: many binary ppl use “they.”

I never heard anyone use neopronouns except for when I went to a place with a lot of very depressed queer teenagers, and many of them used neopronouns. I’m pretty sure they weren’t doing it for the heck of it since they were all really struggling, so I’m wondering:

1. What do you find problematic about neopronouns

and

2. Do you think they’re okay if they aren’t used just for the heck of it?

My issue with neopronouns is that pronouns are not just words you are comfortable with, they're specifically to describe your gender. I'm he/him because I am a trans man, not because I like he/him pronouns or for any other reason aside from it's the proper way to describe me as a man.

I think neopronouns generally contribute to making trans people look like a massive joke in the same way that xenogenders and all other MOGAI nonsense does. They are not necessary, they serve absolutely no practical purpose.

The only time I don't really care about neopronouns being used is like, in your own online circles. But they're not something I think will ever be sensible to use in real life, or outside of your own social circles. To be perfectly frank, if you are in such a precarious mental place that somebody refusing to call you "it" or"ey" or whatever other "pronoun" you've chosen is going to cause you severe distress or cause you to harm yourself in some way, you NEED therapy URGENTLY. Neos are just another extension of MOGAI hyperindividuality. Other MOGAI labels make people feel comfortable but I'm still against those too, for similar reasons to what I've listed here.

I will add I know there are some neopronouns that have existed for a while, such as ze/hir (I think), but I don't really subscribe to those either. This is a classic case of you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't mean other people have to go along with it if it's absolutely ridiculous. And if your mental health is resting on your nonsense MOGAI identity, then you are in desperate need of help. I fully believe trans & other dysphoric people deserve to have pronouns and names and genders respected, but neos and xeno genders aren't trans. It's mostly kids who feel the need to be special and differentiate themselves.

To be clear, I don't condone bullying random kids for using neos or xenogenders or whatever because I do absolutely understand that a lot of those kids are struggling in some way, but that doesn't mean that I have to support a bunch of nonsense that's not doing anything good for the LGBT community.

#sorry if this is a bit jumbled #i am a bit out of it today

[homophyte]

it is interesting to me that ive seen lately (n yknow this is subjective and likely not any real social force just what ive seen) many queer people simultaneously talking about taking back and embodying unpalatable and ‘unmarketable’ queerness (the recent return to the terms faggot and transsexual come to mind) which i think is pretty evidently shaped by the conservative moment were in of demonizing queer ppl and especially gnc and trans people as predators--it reads as a return to queer isolationism in the face of external hostility, imo--while at the same time ive seen a lot of rallying around the “original” 6 stripe rainbow flag as opposed to any of the purportedly ‘factional’ flags of different queer identities, with the assumption being different identity flags divide us while the rainbow flag encompasses everyone and its kinda fascinating to me bc the rainbow flag is probably the single most marketable and palatable and uncontroversial symbols of queerness which has been seamlessly uptaken by those who wish to sell it back to us as gets pointed out every pride month with all the cringey pride merch.... i dunno you could maybe take that as a point of hypocrisy and claim the queer community is itself in a conservative moment rn where its returning to a sense of history and historical continuity (perhaps even out of that sense of external threat) or even that the queer community has for some time been in a conservative moment given the like, decade of identity discourse and lashing out at any people deemed to not have a sufficiently established history or however we should categorize the bihets/ace discourse/transtrender-tucute discourse/pan discourse/bi lesbians discourse (because lets be frank its essentially all the same discourse just keeping up its momentum by leapfroging from one target to the next) which i think is, like, SOMEWHAT true but not entirely? its more interesting to me, in any case, as an expression of a conflict the queer community is facing given that current state of affairs RE antitransness and that very recent history. like, the simultaneous need to retreat to a safe sense of community which is welcoming to the very things the outer world is demonizing ie mutable gender, complex or contradictory experiences of gender, gender expression which is hostile to the cis binary, but also the ways in which it has to grapple with those discourses which have largely defined the community infighting for again the past decade. its queer people begging the question ‘how can we make the queer community welcoming to the girlfags and genderfucks and tboys who are being threatened when we have spent so much time making the queer community a hostile place for anyone with a non-conventional or not easily (or even just palatably) sortable sense of queer identity’. and the answer it seems to be grappling with at the moment is like, welcoming all that diversity of experience but being absolutely averse to naming it. yes we love all the fuckery with gender and sexuality never be marketable but like, ew, why are you calling yourself [insert microlabel here]. you can be genderweird but you cant call yourself genderweird. you can only exist as queer in the broadest possible way (the all-inclusive gay pride flag!) but if you try to name the specifics or use those identity labels weve been fighting over for years youre doing it wrong (the progress pride flag is now ugly and cringey and ‘too much’). i think theres something also to the way (at least on this site) transmisogynistic discourses have really taken hold as legitimate (though yknow i wont downplay how much a problem transmisogyny has like. always been in queer spaces no matter what) in the name of protecting n defending trans people. like its just regurgitated transmisogyny but its being mobilized supposedly in the service of helping trans people. idk its definitely getting a little late for me to string this together fully coherently but theres a throughline there, in the ways certain ideas are being consolidated and reified as ‘yes were more progressive now!’ when i think theres definitely something to question there in terms of like...are we? are we actually? are we doing better by the people were trying to help or are we setting strict standards and forcing ppl to adhere to them again?

#myposts #this is long and honestly probably Nothing #i dont even really have a way of proving its the same group of people saying both things except fro anecdotally seeing it #and even thats not proof either is a real social force with like power. i could be entirely wrong on every count here #but i do think theres something to the idea that like #as ive seen said #yknow 'ace discourse never ended you all just accepted ace people didnt deserve support and then moved on w those views internalized' #i think thats more broadly true for like. all those discourses i mentioned. and for the transmisogyny i alluded to #but honestly i dont even want to name the specific phenomenon im talking abt there bc those people. scare me. #but yknow ill say it ive felt way more pressure lately to not call myself pan than i did at the height of pan discourse #before it became cringe to care about it and instead of actively shitting on pan ppl we moved on to passively doing it #ive largely started just. calling myself bi to avoid the arguement. which i predicted i would have to do years ago #and now look at me doing it! not really a fluke that its happening now. i think #which isnt to say were moving 'backwards' per se but that these ideas are not now and never have been really challenged #so weve just internalized their logics--reactionary logics--and its having an interesting effect now that we need a progressive community #for our safety. #now we cant say anything about it because to bring it up is jeopardizing everything weve built and the people were keeping safe! #cause we dont count as people deserving of safety were disruptors who only belong when we dont make noise. idk. or thats how i feel #again i dont really know if this is true at all im more just...thinking through it i think #basically like what im seeing--i think--comes from simultaneously that need to be unmarketable in the face of hostility #coming into conflict with a decade of momentum to make queers solely marketable. and i think thats producing some interesting--but sucky #--discourses in the current moment #last disclaimer that i might and am likely totally wrong! okay lauren out. post send *nervous sweating*

[neurodivergantizzetwitch]

intro post :3

hiii! im [insert name here]: a stereotypical AuDHD trans girl who still hasn't settled on a name yet-- my life isnt... going well rn, but tumblr makes it a bit more bearable and every little bit helps.

im a trans fem, more specifically i like the term demigirl- which feels like it fits me. im also ace(ish), by which i mean im ace but pretty sex favorable- just don't experience sexual attraction. im also very gay and have the best partner in the whole entire universe (they said they were gonna join tumblr soon- so ill at them here once she does.)

oh yeah and my brain is funky. im a peer reviewed (and officially dxed, but im an advocate of self diagnosis) AuDHDer- which informs basically everything i do. i also have a bunch of the mental illness stuff, and have struggled w it a lot. idrk or care what the exact diagnosis is, spend enough time around insane ppl and you learn a lot of the specific labels are pretty arbitrary and a lot of symptoms are shared- i just describe myself as fucked in the head or legitimately insane

also im never consistent w tags- sorry. maybe one day ill try to be but uh... yeah not today. i do tag for potentially triggering content tho- and try my best to be consistent w it, so if you're sensitive to the following and want to follow me for some weird reason id reccomend blocking them:

#cw sex mention, #cw: substance abuse, #cw: abuse #cw: child abuse, #cw: gore, #cw: sh, #cw: si, #cw: disordered eating, #cw: bigotry, #cw: disturbing content,

id also say in accordance w the previous thing i sometimes say things about my life that are "dark" in a way that can cross a line, i don't mean to do this- and i want to respect everyone's boundaries- but accidentally sharing super dark shit is smth i struggle w.

im a committed anarchist, and i will unabashedly post in accordance w those views. i haven't been able to help people as much as id like to bc of the whole being a minor in a fucked up situation with no money energy or time thing, but im trying to do more. If anyone reading this has suggestions- lmk.

i also like a lot of shit. like A LOT of shit- and i get REALLY obsessed w it too, so it is not out of character for me to start posting a bunch about smth i had not known existed until i got obsessed (as mentioned, AuDHDer). what ill post about is just kinda based on what im feeling that day and my interests, but heres some of my favorite things that im enamored w in no particular order:

games:

mtg

minecraft

hermitcraft (which yes is minecraft and no isnt a game but shut up)

hollow knight / skilkskong 🤡

celeste

metroid

nitw

botw

hades

books

cosmere

the locked tomb

percy jackson

the sandman

six of crows

the hunger games

lotr

spec fic, especially non-traditional spec-fic

shows/movies

spiderman across the spiderverse

made in abyss

hazbin hotel

hunter x hunter

the owl house

Pan's Labyrinth (& other Guillermo movies)

miyazaki movies

wes anderson movies

animated movies & shows

cinematic/classic movies (not neccessarily old just like the literary fiction genre of movies)

weird/offbeat movies and shows

music

coheed and cambria

mcr

jhariah

girl in red

will wood

pinkshift

jack off jill

paramore

mother mother

the cure

chloe moriando

bauhaus

cardiacs

dead kennedys

lena raine

siouxsie & the banshees

milk in the microwave

mitski

penelope scott

sungazer

45 grave

other interests/hobbies n shit

drawing

d&d

writing

painting

guitar

bass

drums

singing

music production

game design

coding

animation

character design

video production

poetry

theater (yes im a fucking theater kid did you even have to ask that)

musicals

even though im solidly gen z, i havent really grown up on the internet the same way. some weird combination of my parents' disapproval of it, social anxiety, autism, and not being allowed to use it for years means that ive had this fear of posting stuff on the internet. for so many people like me the internet has been a place to escape and be themself, to me it's more often than not just a reflection of a reality that seems just as scary and ostracizing.

the thing is... i dont have a lot of friends. i dont have a large community really. and i think though there are some ways in which my aversion to social interactions including those on the internet has been helpful, there are other ways it's really isolated me- both from my peers and a broader community of people.

so im trying to put myself out there a little more. this stupidly long intro post is i think just a way for me to commit to that for myself. ive been so scared of doing it all my life, right now i think i just need some sort of outlet to be myself. who knows? maybe i'll even meet some new friends.

#transfem #autistic community #ace #leftist #intro post #mental health #lesbian #mtg #nerdy girls

[faggotslimecicle]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

lmao i wouldnt know because im not a gay man i'd imagine it varies from person to person as sexuality isnt some rigid thing but again i have no way of knowing as i am not a gay man for example i am a lesbian man sooooo again it definately varies from person to person i imagine for some people it is the feminity or masculenity, but what they qualify as either or can vary from person to person or even from culture to culture- but for other people it might be just the identity label of man and yes people will lie but honestly thats a risk you have to take with most things or there might just be a miscommunication (for example i dated someone for a few weeks that i full heartedly believed was a transwoman and it turned out they werent and thats Okay we're still on speaking terms and are friends with eachother it was just a misperception of their identetity) and you saying homo/hetro sexualities existing in other species implies theres attraction in other species based on gender presentation to begin with- the closest they have to that is genitals in which case that implies you associate someones genitals with what gender they are and if thats the case then yikes but if not then whatever and it could just be dependent on ehether or not someone has a dick which is whatever as long as you arent calling ppl that arent self-identified as a man men then who cares its not hurting anyone and it could just be because "gay" is the label that they are most comfortable with which i sure as hell would know alot about as i myself am a lesbian guy mostly bc those are the labels i feel comfortable with and honestly its not hurting anyone so who gives a shit lmao

i personally would love to know what prompted you to send this ask and also what your opinion is on the matter :3 would at the very least like to know who sent this ask in the first place :D

#long post #asks #ask #feel like i should tag this as something bc it really seems like this ask is just bait to try and trap me into a corner and start something #but idrk so #shrug #if anyone has any suggestions lmk

[ranboo5]

Unlabelled discourse is a lot of hay over an extremely simple set of concepts

sometimes multiple terms exist for similar/overlapping concepts and ppl may prefer one or both or neither that's fine (unlabelled, queer) (bi, pan, mspec)

it's neat that there is an unlabeled identity for people to opt into without having to personally or publicly identify the specifics of an identity

it shouldn't be assumed that just bc someone is unlabeled as in just existing as not labeled/officially as not labeled they have opted into the Unlabelled Identity (some unlabeled people might not be unlabeled (identity)), and that's fine and should be respected

what place someone occupies on sexuality and gender spectrums is none of your damn business

what someone chooses to identify as is also not your damn business

what are you a cop

you can literally spell it with one l or two it's fine the concept gets across and prescriptivism is a curse (I didn't see anyone arguing about this but I spelled it both ways in this post)

if you feel the need to be stupid on this post go ahead but if I, as a bisexual aroace nonbinary individual that is neither cis nor trans, have heard your exact argument before in another argument about what labels ppl are allowed to use, then you have to send me $3

#OK2rb

[posi-pan]

hi sorry can i rant a bit? im just seriously so confused. i was on tumblr a lot when i was like 15 which is where i first encountered the term pansexual and it was like i clicked and i finally understood my sexuality. but recently ive been seeing so often, people claiming that being pan is biphobic and transphobic and bi erasure and all this shit, and i feel so bad. i would never purposely align myself with transphobia, but i also know in my heart that pan is the correct label for me. bi has never felt right. and all over the place now i am seeing people saying bi and pan are the same thing or pan is microlabel that is bi erasure and like what???? to my understanding, pansexuality is just a different sexuality. i cant understand how people say that equates to bi erasure. that's like saying iding as bi is lesbian erasure, like that's how nonsensical it is. and km so confused abt the definitions, and people arguing about what either truly means and hardliners tryna tell ppl that they've fucking id'd incorrectly like it's so much... genuinely i thought this community was more accepting than this but it's so much "discourse" and sniping like,,, it's to the point where im wondering if i should stop using pan as my label because if it truly is hurtful to trans people i dont want to use it but i just dont know... like my sexuality has always felt very fluid and stuff and i believed bi meant attraction to two genders only (i was 15 and i assumed the name meant what it sounds like it means sue me) so when i heard pansexual mesnt attraction to *all* genders i was like yes that! but now it's like oh no bi also means that and now ppl say it's based on preference or no preference, or it's about "seeing" genders and i just am wildly confused 😕 sorry about this awful nonsensical rant 😔

can you rant? of course you can rant!!

so pan is zero way transphobic or biphobic. it is not a harmful label. it is not harmful to anyone to identify as pan. pan is a harmless, good faith identity that has existed alongside bi for decades, much longer than the people making these false claims were even alive.

when it comes to definitions, it can get a bit murky because of the overlap and similarities. but bi is broadly defined to encompass pretty much every mspec experience, and pan is more specific. so, bi is two or more. bi can mean all, but it doesn’t for every bi person. it depends on the person.

pan is all, and it’s often specified further as attraction where gender isn’t what determines attraction or isn’t a factor in attraction at all; or “regardless of gender”. the latter definition is how pan is most commonly known.

i tend to explain it as bi can mean anything from two to all and pan always means all.

preferences and “seeing” gender isn’t part of either label’s definition. both bi and pan people can preferences or not, and feel like gender plays a part in their attraction or doesn’t.

but if you feel pan is the right label for you, you have every right to embrace it. you don’t have to explain or justify it to anyone. you don’t have to self-identify according to the opinions and demands of strangers online spreading and encouraging hate about queer people, because nothing they say is ever in good faith or based on any kind of facts.

i hope this helps!

#asks #kazeohiku #pan antagonism #pansexual #panromantic #pansensual #panalterous #panplatonic #panaesthetic #pan or bi #defining pan #bisexual #bisensual #biromantic #bialterous #biaesthetic #biplatonic #long post

[vampireqrow-moved]

um its my birthday so wait until 12:01am pst to block me if u hate this post 🥰🥰

long story short the pansexual label is redudant and actively harmful (its far from the worst problem bisexuals face but it is one issue) and i dont hate anyone who identifies as pan because A) those ppl are bi like me and B) i used to identify as pan myself.

if thats enough for you to block me and make a callout post for me then i cant stop you but pretty please either read this whole thing or just wait a few minutes for my bday to end 🥰🥰

anyways im kicking off this point with some personal experiences bc i love to talk to myself. i got introduced to the pan label at maybe 10ish years old, and started identifying with it pretty much right away. i heard about it before bisexual and it was pitched as attraction to all genders and of course trans people. i was of course a trans ally! i had trans friends! i was trans also but hadnt figured it out yet! the way i had heard of it, there was no bisexual, there was no need for bisexual, and identifying differently was excluding trans people, which I was certainly against. being bisexual was trans exclusionary and why would i exclude trans people? the 'hearts not parts' slogan was thriving around this time and i genuinely said it and meant it.

as i started to become more online, mostly through roleplaying websites and tumblr here, i started hearing of bisexuality. it was supposedly an older term, so older people still used it, but it was common knowledge that pansexual was the better, inclusive label and younger people should adopt the new inclusive language instead of the old and transphobic words like bisexual. /s

and then bi and pan solidarity was all the rage! pansexual wasnt erasing bisexuality, why did anyone ever think that? bi and pan were two separate and complete identities that were valid and had to be respected or youre a mean exclusionist. and an asexual person, hearing people labelled exclusionist always meant they were excluding people from the lgbta community who rightfully belonged, denying peoples lived experiences, and generally telling people theyre wrong about their sexuality because theyre too young. and all of those things were bad and had hurt me, so it would be ridiculous to change labels and support "pan exclusionists" because they were just as bad as ace and aro exclusionists, and they were all the same people. or so it seemed to me at that time.

then, 'hearts not parts' began getting called out for blatant transphobic by insinuating that pansexual was the only identity that loved people for their "hearts" and personalities instead of those gross gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even straights who only saw people for their "parts". (STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE NOT OPPRESSED. I AM MERELY POINTING OUT THAT PANSEXUALITY WAS SHOWN AS ABOVE ALL OTHERS.) many pan people, including myself, began to denounce the slogan and insist pansexuality wasnt transphobic, there had just been a coincidence that a transphobic slogan was everywhere and a huge part of people's explantions of and associations with pansexuality. hint: it wasnt a coincidence.

from my perspective, this is when i began to see people discussing dropping the word pansexual. that seemed to be a huge step from getting rid off a transphobic slogan, and these people were just meanies who hated microlabels. and i like microlabels! as a genderfluid person, and someone who has friends who use specific aro and acespec labels, ive seen how people can use them to name specific experiences while still acknowleging their presence underneath umbrella terms like aromantic, asexual, nonbinary, lgbta, and for some people, queer.

pansexuals dont do that. they dont label pansexuality as a specific set of experiences under the bisexual umbrella, they see themselves as a separate identity, and even if they started to, the history of biphobia and transphobic undeniably linked to the existence of pansexuality in enough to stop being worth using. but i digress. pansexualitys shiny new definition that many people cling to is that pansexual is attraction to all genders. bisexual is two or more genders.

which. frankly? doesnt make any sense. my guess is that its supposed to be inclusive of nonbinary genders and those a part of cultures who historically have not had a binary gender system in the first place. i cannot speak for the latter group, but as a nonbinary person, its not inclusive. anyone can be attracted to nonbinary people. literally anyone. theres no way to know if everyone you meet is nonbinary or not. whether or not a nonbinary person reciprocates those feelings and is interested in pursuing a relationship is completely up to the individual, regardless of the sexualities of the people involved.

bottom line is that you cant number the amounts of genders someone can be attracted to, thus rendering those definitions pointless. people can be attracted to all kinds of people regardless of gender, even if they are gay, a lesbian, or straight. all people can date thousands of nonbinary genders if all people involved are interested and comfortable with it. numbering the genders you can be attracted to diminishes the post of nonbinary, as it is not a third gender, it simply any experience not fitting within the western concept of the gender binary (if the person so chooses to identify as such. if you cant tell already, the nonbinary experience is varied between every single nonbinary person.) important to note also that no widely accepted bisexual text defines bisexual as attracted to exclusively two genders or even the "two or more genders". i know this is used a lot but please read the bisexual manifesto. its free online i promise.

some people also claim pansexuals experience "genderblind" attraction while bisexuals feel differently attracted to different genders. this is very nitpicky for whats supposed to be two unconnected idenities, but thats only part of the problem. this definition is also not in any widely accepted bisexual texts, and bisexuality has never excluded those who experience genderblind attraction. i am in fact a bi person who experiences genderblind attraction. this does not mean i am not bisexual. it simply means i experience bisexuality differently than other bisexuals, and thats wonderful! no broad communities like bisexuality are expected to all share the same experience. we are all so different and its amazing were able to come together under the bisexual flag.

last definition, or justification i should say, is that yes these definitions are redundant and theyre the same sexuality, but people prefer different labels and thats okay. i agree in principle. people can define themselves as many things like homosexuals or gays or lesbians or queers or even other reclaimed slurs, while still not labelling themselves under the most "common" or "accurate" labels.

but pansexuality isnt the same as bisexuality, which may sound silly but hear me out. it has been continually used as a way to further divide bisexuals, who are already subject to large amounts of lgbta discrimination. "pansexuality was started by trans people who were upset with transphobia within the bisexual community! it cant be transphobic OR biphobic!" except of course that it can and it is. to say that trans people cant be transphobic is absurd. transmedicalism is right there, but thats not what im getting at. all minorities can have internal and sometimes external biases against people who are the same minority as them.

pansexuality was started as a way to be trans inclusive at the expense of labelling bisexuality as transphobic when its not. transphobia is everywhere, and bisexuals are not exempt. instead of working on the transphobia within the community, the creators of pansexuality decided to remove themselves from it to create a better and less tainted word and community, and the fact that pansexuality is intended to replace bisexuality or leave it for the transphobes goes to show a few things. pansexuality and bisexuality are inherently linked because the pan label is in response to the bi label. due to its origins, it is inherently competing with bisexuality and it cant be "reclaimed" from its biphobic roots. pansexuality is not a whole, separate, and valid label. its a biphobic response to issues within the bisexual community.

to top off this post, heres something a full grown adult once said to me. in person. she was my roommate. "i feel like im pan because im attracted to trans people. trans women, trans men, i could definitely date them. but not nonbinary people because thats gross and weird." she saw pan as trans inclusive and defined herself that way as opposed to bi which is shitty!

also a little extra tidbit about my experiences identifying as pan. i saw myself as better than every bi person. all of them. even my trans and bi friends. whenever they brought up being bisexual i would think to myself "why dont you identify as pansexual? its better and shows people you support trans people." because i was made to believe bisexuality didnt and was therefore inferior. thats the mindset that emerged from my time in the pansexual community. i am so sorry to all of my bisexual friends even if they never noticed. i love you all and hope you have a great day. this also goes to any bisexuals or people who identify as bi in anyway, such as biromantic or simply bi. love you all.

ummm yeah heres some extra reading i found helpful and relevant. here and here. also noooo dont disagree with me and unfollow me im so sexy 🥴🥴🥴

#if u have follow up questions ill probably answer them 2morrow #if u ask something just be nice its my birthday 🙄🙄 #anyways time to tag this lol ! #pansexuality #biphobia #transphobia #q slur #long post #my post #ask to tag maybe??

[quarkcore]

ok i have an incredibly lukewarm take on pan discourse and its that its unnecessarily painful to everyone i see involved and often based on presumption of universal definitions wrt labels which do not exist. like imagine person 1, is part of LGBT community A. where they are, most bi people do not include trans/nonbinary people in who they are attracted to (or at least not *all* trans/nonbinary people). instead, the label pan is typically used for that. so they realise that theyre actually pan. but then person 2 who is in lgbt community B, where bi is typically assumed to include attraction to all genders, sees this and is hurt bc it implies that bisexuality excludes certain groups. both of these ppl are using those labels in a way that makes sense. in the place they are in, it communicates what needs to be communicated. 

it would be fucking great if bisexuality didnt ever mean “only attracted to cis ppl”, but i KNOW that in some places, most ppl would not consider dating trans ppl and trans women especially. like i have heard it from the source. and even if its shit that that situation even exists, it makes sense that ppl would make words to make who theyre attracted to super clear. now theres a whole series of convos u can have abt that and the impact it can have. but its going to happen until attraction to trans people (and not just as a fetish!) is mainstream. i promise you that. the other side of that is that of course, a lot of pan ppl will make generalising statements based upon their own experience of what bi and pan have meant, which may not apply elsewhere/to other ppl. and thats deeply hurtful to say the least, esp when bi ppl as a community are so often misunderstood and stereotyped.

but i think the only way to resolve this rn is to stop presuming that what bi or pan means to you is what it must mean everywhere. once we do that we can stop trying to insist that being part of a certain group means you hold certain values etc, and instead we can focus on the important matters at hand: fighting for the rights of lgbt ppl and esp in this case trans ppl and everyone whos attracted to multiple genders. we can ask ppl to think abt what it means to be attracted to a certain gender. we can ask what preconceptions ppl have abt what a trans person looks like, what a trans person acts like, and what a relationship with a trans person would look like. we can talk abt the idea that ‘trans woman’ and ‘cis woman’ (for example) are different genders and its implications, both in terms of relationships, and in terms of the way trans ppl are treated in society more generally. bc i think that those are the questions that sit at the heart of the whole pan discourse thing and they get left unaddressed bc we get caught up on labels instead.

also leaving that aside like... i think theres legitimate things that pan might mean outside of bi (clearly including trans ppl). like it can mean sexuality without gender preference, as opposed to bi, which can mean attraction to multiple genders, with a preference. it can mean more generally that things like gender and gender presentation dont affect the way you feel attraction. and a lot of this is splitting hairs i know but like if ppl find meaning in those things, they will use the label. and if they dont, theyll stop and itll fizzle out. clearly the label pan is doing something important for a lot of ppl and communicating something bi does not for them.

(disclaimer: i identify as neither bi nor pan and therefore actually dont have a horse in this race and may be talking out of my ass. thats for u to decide. also like im not overly attached to this viewpoint its just what im settled on rn after having seen this whole argument play out like 20 times over.)

#this is like non discourse discourse really like #im not overly invested bc i just dont think its a worthwhile fight #and im v live and let live on labels

[flodaya]

what would u say to ppl who claim that the entirety of skam esp and every one of their viewers are panphobic?

honestly, this whole topic is starting to get on my nerves. it’s american influenced places like tumblr/twitter that don’t give a single fuck about the lgbt history outside the usa. guess what, spain has a very different - and very rich for that matter - lgbt history, their history is just as important as any other and if people cared to educate themselves they would know. for their cultural context they didn’t say anything offensive, nora didn’t say pansexuality doesn’t exist at all, she simply said it’s the same as bisexuality. which imo is a discussion that isn’t too unreasonable or ignorant and I feel many people often forget to consider. the label “pan” exists now and I wouldn’t tell people to change how they label themselves, but at the same time I’d argue that we need to be mindful of 1) where the label came from and 2) how some of the definitions are hurtful to different parts of the lgbt community. again, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist or pansexualtiy isn’t a label you can indentify with, just think why you distance yourself from bisexuality and how the definition you use could be offensive to other people in the lgbt+ community

for some reason biphobia is overlooked in this fandom a lot, and I get it, a lot of people in the skam fandom identify as pan because of Even. but the biphobia here is so strong sometimes, both from within the community and also in the remakes itself but y’all choose to cancel skam españa? the remake who has three canon lgb characters played by lgb actors. but you’re still stanning druck after the way they handled mia being bisexual? or the blatant biphobia in wtfock’s coming out scene? not saying either of these remakes need to be cancelled but the biphobia in both instances is brushed aside so easily, overlooked in favour of still sTaNniNg your favourite remake. no one calls all druck or wtfock fans biphobic, but everyone who dares to watch skam españa hates pansexuals? the double standard cant be lost on them

anyway, for the time irene posted that offensive selfie, I don’t support that at all, she definitely fucked up big time, but somehow ppl don’t come for eskam for that which imo is a way more reasonable reason not to support skam españa, everyone is still hung up on the “panphobic” comment. I wish all of you would defend bisexuality as hard as you defend pansexuality. that’s not me saying don’t defend pan, just don’t excuse biphobia in order to support pansexuality, and don’t overlook biphobia in other remakes when you apparently care so much about validating every label/sexuality

#ask #sometimes i have controversial opinions that will get everyone mad #skam españa

[andersfels]

okay like. as someone who put a LOT of time and effort into bi activism as a self identified bi person for many, many years...the turn bi activism has taken has a whopping negative when it really doesn't need it.

like i AM glad we are working on some of the stereotypes commonly associated with bisexuality, undoing misconceptions about the inclusitivity of it, etc. and letting people know there is nothing that needs to hold them back from identifying as bi.

but i am utterly fucking disgusted at how that immediately gets turned around on pan people, because in doing so it actually ends up hurting some bi people.

like it's one thing to address how pan definitions like "hearts not parts" or "trans inclusive" are very damaging, but then saying "pan and bi are the same thing and you can't use pan at all without being biphobic or transphobic" and like???? no?????

incorrect usage doesn't change the fact that there are bi and pan people out there with clear distinctions. most who are educated denote them by preferences - bi folks can have preferences, whereas pan ppl don't.

and it's not anywhere near the fucking realm of "biphobic" to use a label that specifically communicates a lack of preference.

which is a particularly important thing with the rise of certain things in online bi culture, like the endless jokes about loving all women but barely liking men at all, etc. which are problematic on their own but also create an environment that's clearly more comfortable for bi ppl (women specifically) and not pan ppl.

but this also hurts bi people because claiming there is no difference between bi and pan just because YOU personally don't experience a difference in your bisexuality doesn't make this the case for everyone. and bi ppl NEED to know they are allowed to have preferences.

and i honest to god think this discourse is affecting the "bi lesbian" discourse...because a lot of ppl claiming that label are just bi women with a preference, but they've been convinced that bisexuality exists only as an equal split of attractions because of the constant insistence that it's exactly the same as pan. they genuinely don't realize that you can be bi and strongly prefer women/nb people, and y'all are NOT helping by insisting there's no usefulness to "pan" and no difference between it and bisexuality.

simply put, bisexuality has variances and it's a broad label that covers a lot of people. pan is a more specific label under the bi umbrella that's important to many to make a distinction of a certain experience. it's not that they can't be bi - many ID as both even - it's that it's literally more useful and communicative to use pan for a certain experience.

acting like the very specific multisexual experience of having no preferences is one that is equal to ALL bi people's experience hurts a lot of people. and acknowledging that there are differences between the experiences people have with preferences means you can't really argue about why people might use a different label.

it's another thing to say "i don't think we need specific labels for specific experiences if they all fit under one bigger one." i won't agree with you but at least you won't be coming from a place of incorrect information or definitions.

but it's literally an undeniable fact that multisexual people have different experiences, particularly with preference, and you cannot claim that they're all the same. they're not, and pan is a specific descriptor of one of those multisexual experiences. that's an inarguable fact. anything you want to talk about - bi activism or even anti-pan discourse, needs to come from a place where you have acknowledged that fact first. otherwise you're contributing harm to people based on perceptions over facts.

[armath-the-wise]

Okay so Ive been on a bit of à harry potter fan theory bender.

Now I'm considering an alternate version of the story that's a lot more queer.

-The youngest Weasley brother who opened the chamber of secrets in their first year (Harry's second) and was sorted into Slytherin comes out as trans and places a Fidelius charm on her deadname / the fact she isn't a cis girl (this is Ginny)

-at some point she chooses to dispel that Fidelius charm because she doesn't feel like it's genuine to hide her transness

-thus genuinely confusing some ppl when it is dispelled

-also Molly is still fiercely Molly and is totally onboard with the trans thing

-Arthur and maybe one or two of the eldest brothers try but don't quite get it, but they really do try

-Harry is bi or pan (not decided, maybe he never labels it in the series)

-Ron is straight, still

-Draco asks Ron to the yule ball in year 4

-Ron refuses because (in order) 1 it's Malfoy, 2 he asked pretty early and ron is certain he can find a girl to go with.

-the pavarti twins are both gay in this version so Harry and Ron end up going together (Ron's idea so he doesn't have to go alone but like he's not gay so it doesnt lead anywhere but harry is left wondering)

-malfoy ends up with Longbottom, because of course

-theres more clear corruption at the ministry because people bring up the fact that they should be using veritaserum and/or something like the pensieve to see the truth.

-theres more than just the book 3 use of time turners because that's such an interesting mechanic to destroy, especially since the whole 'if you go back you've already been back and any repercussions are already being felt' so you can't actually change the past

-dont forget Ginny experimenting with polyjuice to try to fight dysphoria

-oh and Cho has a different name and is less problematically written (for starters there's more diversity than just the 1 Asian kid who's in the smarty pants house)

-ron still ends up with Hermione but idk for some reason it's not weird because harry falling for a Slytherin seems so much more compelling

-plus it can't just be Malfoy BC 1 there's already a lot of that content out there and 2 putting Ginny in Slytherin just seems fitting for more than just harry marrying her. She's the outcast Weasley (as trans and as only girl and as Slytherin), the outcast Slytherin (Weasley, being the only Slytherin we as readers know of who isn't considered a bad guy at any point in the story, maybe being trans but I want that to be a non-issue tbh), has this connection to Voldy's diary which would be easier for the gang to miss if she wasn't sharing a dorm with them

-Trelawney isn't framed like such an idiot because genuinely all her prophecies (not just the ones where she goes all weird and doesn't remember them) come true (this is true in the original material but it's hard to notice)

-at first she is because she makes prediction about the Weasley sister who noone believes to exist BC Ginny hasn't come out yet but once that's a thing people start realizing Trelawny actually knows what she's doing mostly?

-Snape being at the resurrection stone thing where harry talked to Sirius and his parents and Lupin.

Also putting Fred there.

Actually maybe Snape survives somehow and thus can have a reunion with potter after the Battle of Hogwarts

-The 7 potters plan having even more potters because time turners? This is kinda shaky

-some reason why the ministry didn't or couldn't protect against polyjuice when the trio broke in

-an explanation or demonstration of why potion masters aren't constantly trying to brew like 9000 batches of liquid luck

-at least one of Dumbledore's Army become unregistered animagi (I wanna say either Ginny or Harry if not both, maybe they get more screentime together this way)

-Why was none of Harry's classmates (Hermione, who researched the crap out of Hogwarts, Ron who is like the 9474th in his direct family to come through the school) as first years aware of the sorting hat ahead of time but harry could tell his kid before he got sorted? Explanation! Fidelius charm, broken during the battle of Hogwarts.

-more talk about Muggle technology (this time Harry's first year is around 2010) and muggleborns like Hermione encouraging the use of it (instead of using ministry trackable means of communication, just send texts)

-also some demonstration of wireless tech not working properly at super magical places such as Hogwarts or the quidditch world cup or the ministry of magic, places with antimuggle charms on them. Not getting service at the Weasley's place.

-Oh and we really need some neurodiversity in there. Maybe Harry with some ADHD stuff?

-Neville definitely autistic I mean he already comes across as not doing well in school other than his special interest in herbology, despite later turning out to be a really good wizard.

-And let's give some background characters stuff too. McGonagall casting charms on a wheelchair so a student can levitate it up the staircases and get to classes

-A deaf or mute character struggling in class until they get the hang of silent casting like more powerful casters are able to

-Changing Witch and Wizard from being a gender thing to more of fields of study. Using a wand? That's wizardry. Not using a wand? Now it's witchcraft.

[kae-karo]

hi! me again! i understand that bi/pan people with a preference would never be considered lesbians but i had it presented to me as being like bisexual homoromantic which would be as valid as being ace and homoromantic right? and i don't understand how A's id could affect or imply anything about B's id? like the acknowledgment of demigirls doesn't affects girls being fully girls? as far as pronouns isn't the whole point that they ARE gendered, otherwise we would all just be they/them? (1/2)

non queer people very much understand pronouns to indicate gender. so why is language malleable when it comes to redefining gender and pronouns but not when it comes to using orientation labels differently? also i read that carrd and want to clarify i would never make the argument that trans people aren't "really" the gender they id as. also, i'm sorry for asking so much but i'm just trying to understand.

--

hi dear! for context (x) and please don’t apologize for asking questions! there are so many people who would rather shut down and not try to understand, i will always greatly appreciate people who are actively trying to learn

also sorry this got wAY too long lmao i have a lot of thoughts, apparently...

as for the way the term bi/pan lesbian was presented to you, that’s totally understandable! and again, per my lil caveat, the idea of expressing a difference in romantic and sexual attraction with a single term (like being bi/pansexual but lesbian in terms of romantic attraction) is totally chill but i think the part that starts to come into question is the large movement of people who were using bi/pan lesbian in the way i described in my other post (ie as a way to express that they are “lesbian but with some attraction to men, still”)

in terms of how person A identifies and how that affects person B, the point is less about an individual interaction - no, how a stranger chooses to identify themself does not directly affect my identity. to your notion of demigirls and the fact that they don’t negate the identity of women, that’s totally true! it’s not so much that a person’s identity negates another’s, more that the words a person uses to identify themself can affect others, because we tie certain terms with certain experiences. by a group of people commandeering terminology that already has an experience tied to it, the people who already use that terminology (because they have that experience) can start to feel as though their experience and identity are being called into question

okay, so if bi/pan lesbians become a standard terminology to describe ppl who would id as lesbians if not for some attraction to men, that could start to bring into question whether all or any lesbians could be attracted to men (as the person in the tweet mentioned). now (certain) men may start to believe that any person who ids as a lesbian might still be attracted to men, so these certain men may think that they have a chance with that lesbian even though the man ids as a man! this could lead to harassment, or the lesbian in question may already be prone to some internalized homophobia. now they’re starting to wonder if their attraction should include men because they id as a lesbian (and apparently, lesbian could include attraction to men), or if they’ve just been ‘confused’, as people may have told them before, and they start to doubt their own identity and whether ‘lesbian’ is the right reflection of their experiences (which it is, except that the term has been hijacked and presented as including experiences that actually belong in the bi/pan community)

and, once again, the way the terminology is structured (a ‘bi/pan lesbian’) seems to imply that the person in question doesn’t want to be attracted to men. if they did, why not use an umbrella term like bi or pan as their identity? the only distinguishing feature here is that one is inclusive while the other says ‘i’m attracted to women primarily and would like to identify as a lesbian, except for that pesky bit of me that’s attracted to men too...’ again, this is a harmful ideology to let grow, not only for those already identifying as bi/pan but for baby queers who may not fully understand their own identities yet! or for people outside the community who are trying to understand to the best of their abilities as allies!

to that end, it also propagates that harmful rhetoric of ‘oof, doesn’t it suck to be attracted to men lmao’ like MAN that’s really hurtful to guys??? and that rhetoric already exists. notions like this (where a wonderful umbrella term is turned into something that seeks to minimize attraction to men/male-aligned genders) can be so harmful not only to cis men and transmasc/trans men who are a part of the community but men outside the community as well

okay with regards to pronouns: i think this is where we start to get into the deconstruction of gender as a social construct. i feel like the most apt analogy here is the one i provided in the other post: names. names have, throughout history, been gendered (for the most part). sally was a girl, timmy was a boy. but we’ve started to deconstruct that as we’ve started to recognize that there are more than 2 genders (as a societal whole, i’m aware that this hasn’t been news in a while for people in the queer community). you have names like alex, sam, riley, names that you can’t look at and go ‘ah, they are [certain] gender!’ which is awesome for everyone! esp for people who are sensitive about their gender identity and for whom it is bothersome, upsetting, or even triggering to be misgendered!

pronouns are grammatically just a substitute for a noun, they take the place of the noun for the sake of ease of speech/writing. so the first question here is why, if we’ve extrapolated and separated the idea of someone’s name from their gender and acknowledged that the thing that we refer to them by is just...a noise they like, then why is it necessary for pronouns (another thing that is just a noise the person likes) to be inherently tied to a gender? a gender is a representation of an experience, but people who use the same pronouns may have nothing in common in terms of their gender experience!

now, you could argue that people who use they/them pronouns may be able to rally around a shared experience/frustration with getting others to use and accept those pronouns, but they likely aren’t all going to share a gender - maybe some are fem-aligned, or masc-aligned, or genderfluid or agender or any other gender on the massive spectrum of possible gender identities. but the way that they ask others to refer to themselves purely as an individual does not help give any insight into their experiences or community! 

you stated that ‘as far as pronouns isn't the whole point that they ARE gendered?’, so my question here is what purpose do pronouns actually serve? they allow you to refer to a person without using their name, right? so if we’re talking outside the world of grammar, i would argue that a person’s pronouns are an extension of their name: the purpose of a name and/or pronouns is to ensure that they make the user of said name/pronouns comfortable in their identity when being referred to. they are whatever gender they are (if any at all) - they may choose a name and pronouns to help them feel more comfortable in who they are. in fact, they may choose a name and pronouns that they didn’t use from birth simply because they do not feel comfortable with them for non-gender-related reasons, too!

and i can hear you thinking ‘okay, so why can’t we do that with labels like sexuality and just let people use whatever feels okay?’ and this is sort of the way i think about it: there are certain words we have defined with clarity in order to help us as a community understand ourselves and each other. we all agree that cis = you are the gender you were assigned at birth, trans = you are not the gender you were assigned at birth. lesbian means attraction to women/fem-aligned genders, ace means feeling no sexual attraction, bi and pan are siblings of each other that define attraction to all genders (which may or may not include preferences). male and female as genders have clear enough meanings that we use them in our other definitions, and nonbinary is a lovely catch-all umbrella that can encompass anything outside ‘male’ and ‘female’, even though there are also more specific identities that fall under that umbrella

(quick aside - fwiw i don’t think gender definitions are necessarily malleable in the same way pronoun ‘definitions’ are, i think there are gender experiences that we have not yet given formal terms to and that people may switch around between existing gender identifying terms as they look for ones that get close to their own and i think there’s still a question of what it even means to be a certain gender without reference to other genders, but as it stands, people who identify with certain gender terms do so because of a set of shared experiences that fall underneath that gender term)

what we have not done is defined an individual’s right to their experiences. if someone feels attraction to all genders with a preference for men, there’s a word to express that! if a person feels like they might shift between a variety of genders on a regular basis, there’s a word for that! if a person does not feel romantic attraction, there’s a word for that! and the reason we use these words with pre-defined definitions is so that we can identify people who share our experiences - if someone identifies as a lesbian, they can seek out other lesbians and know that they are among a group that understands what they have been through or are going through. if someone experiences attraction to all genders with a female/fem-aligned preference, they are likely not going to find a community that understands their experiences if they look for people who identify as lesbian

but if a person decides that hey, i feel most myself when people call me ‘emma’ even though that wasn’t my assigned birth name, that is when we step back and say ‘yes, that’s awesome! you do you!’ because there is no pre-defined definition of that name - yes, there’s a societal gender often associated with it, but it doesn’t provide anyone any benefit to assign a definition of an experience to that name. nobody is out there going ‘where are all the ‘emmas’, the ‘emmas’ understand my experience and i want to find them so that i can feel as though i’m part of the ‘emma’ community’

now, idk about you, but if i hear that someone uses she/her pronouns, that means....almost nothing to me, except that i know that they prefer those pronouns! in the same way that someone saying ‘oh, my name is emma’ means nothing to me except that their name is emma! whereas if someone says to me, ‘i’m asexual’, i know from their choice of identifier that they fall under the ace umbrella and awesome, this person might understand how i feel about certain subjects! (obviously ace is a huge spectrum in itself, but you get the idea)

in summary:

an orientation or a gender relates to an individual’s experiences, and the general definitions we have assigned to certain orientations and genders should remain somewhat clearly-defined in order to provide a sense of community for those that fall under the orientation/gender in question. that is not to say that new orientations/gender terms can’t arise to describe new experiences that do not already have a definition. the irritation with the ‘bi/pan lesbian’ discourse is that the experience described (attraction to all genders with fem-aligned preference) already has a defined term (bi or pan) that is contradictory to the term ‘lesbian’

the reason pronouns don’t need to fall under a clear definition is that they are not a signal to indicate a uniting experience - their purpose and function is equivalent to that of a name: it’s a way to refer to a person that makes that person feel comfortable, and it’s perfectly fine not to have a rigid definition for pronouns in the same way that you wouldn’t assign a name to have a rigid experience or definition associated with it

i know it’s a long read, but i hope that helps clarify my thoughts on the matter!

#anon #ask

[eskamtrash]

1. you’re right, im not going to watch what is a seemingly perfect remake because of something an actor said. it doesn’t matter if pansexuality “doesn’t exist” in spain, it does where im from, and i am pan, and it fucking hurts to see people disregard your own sexuality especially from a community that was supposed to respect you in the first place. im not pan because im attracted to trans people and i don’t think that bi ppl are transphobic. im pan because it was a label that fit me best and

2. and because when i feel attracted to people the first thing that registers is the person’s appearance and not their gender. it’s not a “fancy word for bisexual,” it’s who i am. and it sucks that i can’t enjoy a remake because the remake doesn’t believe in it. it hurts so fucking much. so yeah, im sorry that i can’t get into skam españa and enjoy the first skam wlw season because it’s a remake that disrespects my existence as a whole, and im so tired of dealing with it.

Okay, but i want you to think by yourself for a moment, and not just vomit words that tumblr has taught you

You feel the same thing every person feels when they're attracted to someone, whether they're straight or gay. You are not special for feeling attraction to certain appearances........ because thats what attraction is. Theres literally no difference between what you think being pansexual is, and bisexuality.

I know nobody has told you this but you are not special for liking people because of how they look, or their personality. That's just being human

#ask #skam españa #look you dont have to like the remake seriously #if it makes you feel bsd #but i beg you to start thinking for yourself and trying to understand why you don't like bisexual as a label #anti pansexual

[littlebabycrybtch]

idk alls i gotta say is as a nonbinary and pan person, the anti pan rhetoric is literally becoming biphobic and transphobic. like. the ugly ‘hearts not parts’ thing was baddd and ppl Need to learn their lgbt+ history but. there are just some really flawed ideas being spun around here that are literally falling under the Same problematic ideas that started the debate in the first place lmao. 

first off, the concept of pan is Not just the default ‘good way to do sexuality’, so please stop saying every other orientation already ‘inherently’ includes nonbinary genders. they can include nonbinary. they dont have to for each person, which is why the distinction can be important, and why pan as a label should Also exist. ‘nonbinary’ is a Gigantic gender spectrum and is separate from male and female, so to be blunt about it ig, Stop reducing attraction to our identities to ally points. treating it like its different from attraction to male or female (ie smth you can choose) isnt progressive. stop saying that pans bad bc if somebody wouldnt date us bc of their sexuality they’re a transphobe. you literally dont have to find my gender expression personally attractive to support my human rights lmfao. rejection towards trans people and the violence of it is definitely a bigger problem imho, but im not just gonna,,, brush off and ignore how its downright dehumanizing and fetishy that people keep trying to push the Opposing idea where you have to like us too or your sexuality isnt valid tm like??? clarifying that bi and pan are interchangeable is fine, but yall Need to remember to support bi ppl when it really DOES mean ‘two’ for them, or you’re biphobic and literally feeding into the demonizing bi = transphobe propaganda. if you believe people attracted to ‘’’’just’’’’ male and female are being bad bisexuals that should ~open their mind~ to include me, ik you have good intentions for us but you’re furthering biphobia for the sake of ‘trans activism’, which is actually just. invalidating and equating nonbinary to sexy androgyny or a different flavor of male or female so its universally attractive or w/e, which is extremely harmful for us. all you’re doing is throwing many bi people under the bus AND treating nonbinary ppl like sex dolls when you say things like ‘pan is wrong bc bi people are already Supposed to be into nonbinary people!! >:(’ like. this is perpetuating the arguments you all claim to find offensive from pans. who are you trying to help here

#like. being attracted to us as androgynous males/females is harmful. its transphobic. its viewing us as smth we're not. #you need to see nonbinary as its own thing you need to stop using attraction to us as a moral compass #i hear some of you unironically be like. ‘you dont HAVE to date trans people jeez! you just have to want to’ and its so skjfk;sdl;fsdfsd #‘but you need to be openminded’ EVERYONE SHOULD BE OPENMINDED WITH THEIR SEXUALITY... IT DOESNT CHANGE #/THE ROOT/ OF THEIR SEXUALITY #PPL STILL HAVE PREFERENCES.... #ik ik i get it firsthand that the rejection hurts but its harmful to respond to that by telling people #they HAVE TO be attracted to us or theyre bad like.... ok you want ppl to pity date me for trans rights ??? #yikes hard pass

[autisticmight]

not trying to be rude but don't say bi is attraction to same and other genders bc nonbinary ppl exist and some don't have a same gender to be attracted to and also same gender attracted comes from mormon conversion therapy so a lot of ppl don't like saying same gender attracted or same sex attracted for the same reasons

also saying that pan ppl are attracted the same ways to everyone isn't true either bc pan ppl can have preferences. the definition most bi ppl use is attraction to two or more genders, ply ppl use attraction to three or more and pan is attraction to all genders. so bi and ply can mean all genders are included but pan always means all and that's why ppl choose diff labels

also i'm really trying to not be rude or upset you or anything so i'm really sorry if that came off that way. i 'm sorry if it sounded rude or mean, this is something that hits reall close to home so that's why i got into it in the first place i'm sorry

Bi is 2+, ply is most but not all 

okay, as an enby, i should have been more clear and stated “or lack thereof” in my statement last evening, and i apologise for that

however, i did not specifically use the term of “same-gender attraction” which has its origins in homophobia. it is those two phrases that are specifically rooted in homophobia, “same-gender/same-sex attraction”, while “attracted to the same gender” is literally just a definition of an individual’s sexuality without using a precise label or pronouns. i could have said “boys who like boys and girls who like girls” and therefore erased nb people, or i could have said “people who experience same-gender attraction” and actually use the phrase you’re telling me not to use

i checked with my favourite bisexual, and she says it’s two or more, so i will accept that my previous source was incorrect. i will dismiss what i learnt from it, and what i have been repeating. i apologise for my errors

#asks #helen stfu