You canât erase a sexuality that shouldnât exist to begin with. Pansexuality has always erased bisexuality and is a damaging identity. If you could give me one, singularly ONE, definition of pansexuality that wasnât biphobic, homophobic, or transphobic, I might believe that pansexuality is different. But you literally canât, because their isnât one.ďżź
âHearts Not Partsâ is assuming any LGB person is just out to date someone for their genitalia.
âAttracted to personality and not genderâ is just assuming that people are just going seeing the first person of a gender they are attracted to and are immediately thinking of sleeping with them or dating them without getting to know the person. It also assumes no one has standards but you.
âWell we would date trans peopleâ. If a man is still straight if he dates a trans woman, and a woman is still straight if she dates a trans man, why are bi people automatically pan for being willing to date trans people?
âWell, we would date non-binary peopleâ. So would straight people, gay people, and lesbians. There is no sign above peopleâs heads saying they are non-binary.
âWe donât have gender preferences thoughâ. That was already covered in so many bisexual sources itâs not even fucking funny at this point. Please check out @cowardly-bisexual if you need more proof, they have all the fucking sources you could ask for.
âWe just donât see gender thoughâ. Thatâs such a fucking lie. Everyone sees gender. You see gender. I see gender, everyone sees gender.
âBut bi means twoâ. Listen, pansexuality meant you would fuck âallâ. And all meant everyone and EVERYTHING. Including animals, children, and inanimate objects. Letâs not start with roots right now because youâll lose.
And if you really want to try to bring up âpansexual sourcesâ, one of the oldest sources of âpansexualityâ was a bi woman who would date interacially. She was called pan strictly because she would date black people.
Now please. Give me a definition of pansexuality that isnât one of these.
