I dont really care if you use the term bisexual or pansexual, but what i DO care about is that you understand that bisexuality at NO stage in history was EVER trans-exclusionary. Bisexuality has always included trans folks, and non-binary folks, and the entire spectrum of gender between male and female, as well as Definitively Gender and agender. It has ALWAYS meant “attraction to more than one gender.” It has NEVER meant “attraction to cis men and women only.”
So, pan, bi, use whichever label you will. But do NOT buy into the recent-years innacurate concept that bisexuality is attraction to cis men and women only, because thats literally never been the case.
^^ Like. Its literally right there in the middle of the flag.
And by contrast, this is what the pan flag colours mean:
So literally its just……
bi colours = “same gender, opposite gender, and other genders”
pan colours = “men, women, and nb people.”
Those two things are…… not all that different to each other.
The purple has always,literally since the flag was created,meant “more genders.”
And bisexuality included “more genders” in the definition before the bi flag was created, too. Thats why they included the purple bar in the first place,because it was reflective of bisexual people’s attraction to and relationship with gender.
If you feel that pansexual suits you better, or you like the pan flag more, then thats fine – but don’t spread the misconception that bisexuality is remotely exclusionary. Because its literally never been.
Michael Page (the creator of the flag) choose the colours from “the [then] popular “Bi-Angles” symbol of triangles and combined them into a flag”. He used “40% pink (to represent homosexuality), 20% purple (to represent a combination of homosexuality and heterosexuality), and 40% blue (to represent heterosexuality)”.
Essentially,the original flag meaning said that bisexual was a combination of hetero and homo sexual. NOT “same gender, opposite gender, and other genders”.
The meaning of the flag changed overtime, which is a good thing, please don’t let exclusionists rewrite the history of the bisexual community.
Everyone reblogging this should also be aware that they’re falling for panphobe dogwhistles and blatant misinformation. This person didn’t need to bring pansexuals into this post AT ALL, but they choose to, so they could push the exclusionist narrative that pansexuals are the reason some people think bisexuals are transphobic.
“98% of the time, when reading a bi text written before 2010 or so, one would have to deal with overwhelming binarism and casual cissexism. Can we find support for trans and nonbinary people in the margins? Absolutely. However, it is in the margins. Has the bi community historically more supportive of trans people than other cis communities? Absolutely. But the bar is highly a high one. For example, the famous “don’t even assume there are only two genders” from the Bisexual Manifesto is directly preceded by the phrase “both genders”.
Nonbinary definitions of bisexuality started solidifying only in the 2010s, largely as a response to the criticism forwarded by pansexual communities. In fact, pansexuality came into prominence *because* some people were alienated by bisexuality’s binary definitions. The reason why today the most agreed upon definitions of bisexuality are nonbinary is the advent of pansexuality. It challenged bi communities to think about binarism and casual cissexism, and to do better. Without it, the binary definitions would have likely stayed the same.
The 2010s argument that bisexuality isn’t inherently binary has morphed into the myth that bisexuality was never anything else. We need to acknowledge our full history, as it took place in reality, without inventing indulgent myths whose only propose is to rid ourselves of an imagined “taint”. Lying isn’t helping our case, it only makes us less reliable.”
^quote from their tweet
Guys the pansexual community is being attacked by exclusionists, (they’re largely using the same tactics they used/use against asexuals and bisexuals) and they’re hurting the bisexual and non binary community in their attempts to hurt us.
Please be aware that a common panphobe dogwhistle is saying bisexuals aren’t transphobic with the implied idea that pansexuals are. (it’s a dog whistle because of course you know bis aren’t inherently transphobic, so you spread their attack without realising the hidden meaning that only panphobes make a point of saying that because their real intention is always trying to say (wrongfully) that pans are inherently transphobic.)
“In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named for ultrasonic dog whistles used in shepherding.” - Wikipedia
“In politics, to make an innocuous statement which is designed to trigger previously indoctrinated bigotry & hatred without being recognized by outsiders for bigotry or hateful speech.” - urban dictionary
Also just so people know the current most popular differences between the labels. Pansexual means attraction to all genders, and Bisexual means attraction to 2 or more genders. (Some bisexual people are only attracted to 2 genders, some all genders, some 4 genders, some only femme genders, some only masc genders, you get the jist). Bisexual is a fluid identity and not everyone within it experiences attraction the same way. Pan is more static. (disclaimer: some people use slightly different definitions, but these are the most popular so I’m using them).
i absolutely love your reply. it’s about time someone spoke about it.
“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.
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.”
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.
“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” anythingbybeing in spaceswe’vealways been in, or by sharing a bi post because we relate to it.
“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.
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.
