The Heat™

That said, there's actually a connection between religious leadership in womanhood in a few precolonial cultures in what is now known as the Philippines. If you wanted to be a religious leader, you had to be a woman. Babaylan or asog are the terms I know of.

Whether you were "born a woman" was much more flexible. Many transwomen existed and acted as religious leaders, even marrying men and for all intents and purposes seen as women by society.

There's little evidence to suggest Filipinos have a precolonial history of gay or lesbian attraction (that we know of), but there was widely recorded evidence of transwomen (though nothing of transmen that we know of). This is why, to this day, the identities of transwomen and gay men in the Philippines are still sometimes mixed.

On the subject of a matriarchal culture, it is true that women had religious power, whereas men had military and political power. Women also had economic power, which is why in some cultures in precolonial Philippines, the eldest child inherited the most regardless of gender. For leaders like datu, it's suggested that while the eldest son is chosen as the datu's successor, if the datu has no sons his eldest daughter would be chosen.

Reproductive health like abortion was also fairly common, due to concerns with inheritance and distaste of some women in being "treated like livestock birthing too many children".

✨agender folks who use neopronouns are amazing

✨agender people who use they/them pronouns are very cool

✨agender people who use gendered pronouns are wonderful

While you can still comment of the sample size, it's more important to find out how the researchers found their sample (eg, convenience population, simple random, etc). It's likely the article reporting on the study is disingenuous as most headlines are for these things.

TMR The Death Cure - Gally

TDC Glader Aesthetics

@brassmama exactly.

^^ 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.

The original meaning of the bisexual flag can be found here: https://www.queerarthistory.com/uncategorized/michael-page-bisexual-pride-flag-1998/

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.

Here’s a link to a bi researcher and activist talking about how panphobe lies to rewrite bisexual history also hurts the bisexual community: https://mobile.twitter.com/shirieisner/status/1401861891308376064

“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