Sunday Editorial: Scarecrows in a Field

This Friday, a post I made was circulated a lot in battleaxe bi communities. Their comments and additions represent such a fundamental misunderstanding of the content of the post that it’s almost not worth addressing here. They seem to have skipped over most of the content of the post and instead zeroed in on the list of strawman arguments I provided, caricatures of our community which battleaxe bis invented and make posts about when they want to insult pan people while still maintaining plausible deniability. Having presumably skipped the part where I explain what a strawman is, they assumed these strawmen were views I held, and confidently began to lampast me for being queerphobic.

Panphobia can be illogical seeming. To better understand it, I’d like to go more in depth on the function a strawman serves. I’ll be talking about battleaxe bis in this editorial, but keep in mind these behaviors are exhibited by many groups dedicated to hating or excluding another. You are also not immune to creating your own strawmen. Be mindful of this type of thing in your own communities.

What battleaxe bis have created is a field of scarecrows. The scarecrows all say things like “fetishizes trans people” and “erases bi history”. Panphobes go out into the field, and look around, and believe they are seeing a snapshot of the actual pan community. Perhaps one of the scarecrows looks like someone a battleaxe bi knew once. Maybe they met a pan person who insisted to them that the term “bisexual” meant they had to be attracted to only two genders. So they built a scarecrow that looked like that person, and stuck it in the field for other battleaxe bis to see. That person was once real. They had reasons for thinking what they thought, and the potential to change and become more informed and thoughtful. But all any of the battleaxe bi’s friends see is a 2-dimensional facsimile of this person, with their worst trait written across their chest. As time passes, the scarecrow fades and the straw begins to fall out, making it even flatter and less human-like. But panphobes still point to it and say “Look! Look how awful pannies are! That’s what they look like. That’s what they believe.”

Some scarecrows are not based on real people. They are copies, and copies of copies. They are representations of pan people constructed by panphobes who have learned to hate not from single misinformed people who have had the misfortune of having their effigy erected forever in this field, but from the scarecrows themselves. They are caricatures of pan people created solely from other warped approximations, becoming uglier and more aggravating every iteration, and no longer resembling anything close to a real person. They have extrapolated a grotesque version of what they believe is the pansexual community, and they begin to discuss amongst themselves how ugly all these pansexual people they’ve created are, how harmful the content of the words across their chest is, how monstrous. They have taken the distorted beliefs of a few confused pan people and turned them into a monolith, a field littered with hundreds of thousands of scarecrows stretching from horizon to horizon.

This is why I believe that battleaxe bis assumed my post supported the arguments I listed. When they see a pan person clearly describing their scarecrows and calling them what they are, strawmen, it doesn’t compute. How can a pan person not believe these things? All of the pan “people” they’ve seen in the field do. So they cross their eyes, and ignore the content, and refuse to see anything but another scarecrow.

What can we as the true pan community do about this field? Not much. The scarecrows are flimsy and have no real substance, but the field is vast, and more are being built every day by dedicated panphobes. Each time we destroy a scarecrow, there’s another one for battleaxe bis to point to. The best we can hope for is to build our own community, far away from the field. We know we look nothing like the strawmen, so let’s have our own field, filled with wonderful, real pan people and our allies. Let’s enjoy our vibrance and diversity and life, while battleaxe bis throw rocks at their faded bundles of sticks and mud.

~Editor Luxe

Sunday Editorial: Definitions by Opposition

If you’re multi-attracted (particularly a minority m-spec identity such as pan, ply, or omni) and spend enough time on Tumblr, you’ve probably seen this meme:

Though this image is often posted on m-spec solidarity posts as a show of support, it is not without its detractors. The most common criticism I’ve seen of it (besides the usual exclusionist rhetoric, of course) is that while it is a nice sentiment, it doesn’t do anything to actually explain what the differences between these identities ARE.

I’m not here to talk about that particular criticism today, though I do think it has some merit. I’m here to talk about an issue I feel this criticism is a microcosm of: the obsession with defining m-spec identities in opposition to each other.

Let me explain what I mean. A common theme among wrong (or at least highly controversial) definitions of pansexuality, is the idea that pansexuality must be fundamentally distinct from bisexuality in some way for it to be a valid orientation. “It’s like bisexuality, BUT I’m attracted to enbies”; “It’s like bisexuality, BUT I don’t have a preference”. These definitions not only grossly misrepresent bisexuality, they also can be exclusionary to people in our community. A similar impulse occurs within the omnisexual community; the most common definition of omnisexuality is “like pansexual, BUT you can have a preference”. (As I’ve covered in another editorial, this is a misrepresentation of pansexuality; pansexual people can and do have preferences).

I understand where this impulse comes from. We have been told time and time again that labels are “redundant” or “unnecessary” if their description is too similar to another established label. However, this is simply not true. Labels are a form of self expression, not discrete boxes that we must sort people into. Many people choose to identify as more than one label, and that is perfectly okay. By insisting that each label must have no overlap with any other or it is unnecessary, we are depriving people of the ability to pick which labels they feel best describe them, and the ability to feel their identity represents the individual way they experience sexuality. It’s important that we leave people the freedom to interpret each label in their own way, and decide which one, or ones, best represents them.

~Editor Luxe

Recently, my family completed the show Schitt’s Creek. I had not known much about it prior, only hearing that it was good and contained some LGBT+ characters. However, when I actually sat down to watch it, I was shocked. Schitt’s Creek does something I have never seen before in a mainstream piece of media - they explicitly confirmed, with no room for ambiguity, that David Rose is pansexual. 

As someone used to representation being confirmed after the fact in interviews with actors or writers (see: Deadpool, Klaus Hargreeves, and Lando Calrissian), the explicit confirmation in text that David is pan was a welcome surprise. This isn’t just representation made for pan people; it’s also an attempt to educate the general public about what pansexuality means, and legitimizes it as a real orientation that is not only present in online communities. But for many people, there was a problem. The way pansexuality is explained.

While explaining to another character his son’s sexual orientation, David’s father states that David is pansexual because he is attracted to “men, women, men who used to be women…”. This separation of trans men and women from “real” (cis) men and women is a common misstep when non-pan people try to understand pansexuality. It should be noted that the writers of Schitt’s Creek are not pan, so this definition is being peddled by people outside our community. However, some pan people, particularly those who have just discovered they are pan, use it as well. On the pansexual subreddit, I have seen multiple people asking if they are pan because they are attracted to transgender people. This can lead to misconceptions regarding the inclusion of trans people in other sexualities. Anyone who is attracted to binary genders can be attracted to a trans person who identifies as a binary gender, because they ARE that gender. Lesbians can (or at least should) be attracted to trans women. Bi people should be attracted to trans men and women.

However, I am going to do something controversial. I am going to defend the explicit inclusion of trans people in explanations of pansexuality.

It’s no secret that transphobia is present in LGB communities. Lesbian TERFs angrily state they would never date a trans woman, and reduce trans women to their genitals when explaining why. This occurs in gay and even bi communities as well. It’s important that trans and genderqueer people feel safe and accepted by this side of the queer community, and yet they often aren’t. This is why I think it’s important that we make it explicitly clear that we will not tolerate this kind of transphobia in our community. When we explain who we are to people, it is important that we eliminate any possibility of transphobia in our explanations, because that is not and never should be acceptable.

I think the problem with explanations explicitly including trans people in our orientation isn’t the sentiment being expressed, but the way they are worded and structured. A typical explanation goes something like this:

“I am pansexual. That means I’m attracted to everyone. Men, women, enbies, trans people…”

I’m sure you see the problem here. Trans men and women are presented on a list of genders, as though they are another gender separate from cis men and women. I would like to propose a simple solution to this. When explaining who you are attracted to, perhaps word it like this instead:

“I am pansexual. That means I’m attracted to everyone. Men and women, whether cis or trans, enbies…”

You see the difference there? Instead of separating trans men and women from cis men and women, we are including them as one item on the list before specifying we mean ALL men and women, not just cis ones. I think this type of explanation is actually useful for combating transphobia in pan spaces, not harmful. We simply need to be careful HOW we educate people, to ensure our words are not misunderstood.

~Editor Luxe

Note: I am not trans. If you are trans and feel that my proposal is transphobic for a reason I have not thought of, please let me know in the notes or send me an ask and I will post a follow-up.

This is the pluralian flag

The pluralian flag is a beautiful symbol. Based on sapphic, achillean, and similar flags, it represents anyone who loves more than one gender. It applies to multisexual people everywhere. It is a uniting symbol that can be used by all of us, and it is something pan, bi, omni, and ply people often claim as a symbol of their connection and common struggles. It is a way for us to express that, while we are unique, we all share one thing in common: the plurality of our attraction.

However, you might notice something unusual about this flag: the flower in the middle. Most pride flags do not include images and symbols, instead being simply stripes. However, these flags contain flowers, usually symbolic ones. It is the mark of an umbrella flag (a flag designed to encompass all people who experience a specific type of attraction, for example, women who love women). The sapphic flag contains a violet. The achillean flag contains a carnation. Both of these are historic symbols used to identify wlw and mlm.

But the pluralian’s symbol, a lily is special. Unlike most other symbols, which were simply representations of a community, lilies ARE pluralian. They are a part of our community.

All lilies contain the reproductive organs to reproduce with any other lily. Lilies are not restricted by the confines of sex or gender. They love freely.

I think the potential of the lily as an enduring pluralian symbol cannot be understated. These plants are beautiful representations of the pluralian goal: to be able to love anyone freely, without stigma. To be able to see a human we love, and not have to worry about what their gender might be. To have the potential for attraction to anyone.

I am moving soon, and I think I will get a potted lily for my room. They are my kin.

~Editor Luxe

This Monday I received a submission from a 15 year old named Rei, which got me thinking about what the phrase “regardless of gender” actually means. Rei struck me as a confident panromantic person not afraid to speak up about her romantic and sexual orientations, and I am proud that at 15 she is so sure of her identity and voice. In Rei’s post, she defends pan people with preferences and states that while she feels more comfortable interacting with girls and forming close relationships with them, once she is attracted to a person, it is not determined by their gender. 

There are as many definitions of pansexuality and panromanticism as there are pan people. I have seen many pan people state that they are genderblind, and yet pan people who have preferences for certain genders are strong and vocal members of our community. It is obviously wrong to gatekeep people who are indeed attracted to all genders simply because they have preferences. The most commonly used definition of pansexuality, “regardless of gender”, says nothing about being genderblind or having no preferences: it simply states that gender does not decide if you are attracted to a given person or not. Another common definition “attraction not determined by gender” (the one I like to use), makes a similar statement.

Someone’s frequency of attraction to certain genders might differ for a multitude of reasons without gender itself determining their attraction. For example, Rei stated she felt more comfortable being around and talking to women. This is something I find a lot of women and fem-aligned people feel, no matter their sexual orientation. People socialized as women have been taught to be cautious around strange men, so it makes sense that some pan women would feel more comfortable dating other women. I am of course not sure why exactly Rei feels more comfortable with women, this is just a common scenario that many women face. It seems unfair to exclude people with similar experiences simply for not being “genderblind”.

The pan community is as diverse and varied as any other LGBTQ+ space. As I said earlier, there are as many definitions of pan as there are pan people. This was not an exaggeration. While many of us may have similar experiences with our sexuality, each person’s understanding of their own attraction is not quite the same as anyone else’s. If someone feels the label pan best describes their sexual or romantic orientation, it is not up to anyone else to deny them that freedom. It is their orientation. It is their label. They can have all the preferences they want.

~Editor Luxe

Read Rei’s Submission Here

I used to be bisexual.

When I was 15, I discovered the label pansexual for the first time, and it opened my eyes. I think it won’t be surprising to many pansexual people that my discovery that I was genderqueer was tied heavily to pansexuality, and to the idea that nonbinary gender identities weren’t just an afterthought or something to be folded into the binary when discussing attraction, but worthy of consideration on their own, worthy of a label to specify you were attracted to everyone, because some people might not be. It’s a story I’ve heard many times from many genderqueer pan people.

I called myself bisexual before that, because it was the only word I knew to describe attraction to multiple genders. I knew there were more than two, and I knew that bisexuality encompassed attraction to more than two, but there’s a unique kind of radicality to pansexual, the way it openly defied bigots’ expectations, the way I’ve had exorsexists try to tell me I can’t be pansexual because my label’s etymology itself fundamentally disagrees with their entire world view.

That is what drew me to the label when I was 15. And it is partially what’s kept me here. I do still technically fit the definition of bisexual, and I always have fit it, but I am fundamentally no longer bisexual. There are people who are simultaneously bi and pan, but I am not one of those people. My experience of being queer, especially as a pansexual person, is completely irreconciliable with the concept of me being bisexual.

Author’s note: It’s worth noting before I go into this bit that this is by no means a blanket statement about all bisexual people. The bi community is full of many lovely and supportive people who uplift other mspecs. This section is not about them. While it’s unfortunate that a few bigots have ruined an entire label and community for me, that does not mean the label or community itself is bad, just that I cannot see myself identifying with it.

That being said, I have never felt any sense of belonging to the bi community, or support from it. Maybe if I had lived in an era where pansexual and bisexual communities were considered one, where pansexual people were explicitly included in bi activism and bi organizations, I might have felt differently. Maybe I would have also identified as bi, or considered myself part of the “bi umbrella”. But when I have spent my entire time in the queer community being told I am taking bi resources, that I am not free to celebrate bi awareness days and weeks or I am “invading” bi spaces or bi positivity does not extend to me, it is impossible to feel that way. The bi community does not want me, and I do not want it. I have gotten hate and threats from people with bi flags in their profile pictures and “battleaxe bi” in their bios, and I have never felt safe around bi people and in bi spaces, even inclusive ones, because there’s always the thought in the back of my mind that someone hates me, or wants me dead, or has friends who feel that way and sees no problem with it. This isn’t just a difference of opinion. It’s a matter of safety. I can’t be in bi spaces, because there are people there who see no problem with suicide baiting or threatening violence against me and my community.

There is so much focus in queer spaces on reassuring bi people that their identity is whole and complete, and they should not feel less queer than monosexual gay men and lesbians. But I think less focus is given to assuring pan folks of this fact, and of assuring them that they do not have to be bi to fit into the broader community. So I am here to tell you exactly that. If you are pansexual, you are complete. You do not need to use any labels you do not want to. You do not need to call yourself bisexual if you don’t want to. You have a community, and you have a culture, and you have your own history. You’re enough.