Irrelevant

we need to, instead, think critically about why new sexualities are popping up. instead of seeking for validity, ask yourself, does my sexuality fit under the definition of another existing sexuality? it’s almost impossible to negatively respond to that. furthermore, if you do fit under another sexuality, ask yourself, why do i need a special sexuality just for myself?

the sexualities in the LGBT community are lesbian, gay, and bi, with the added identity of trans. there is no need for microlabels–because the LGBT community exists as a way to push back against oppression and as a place for support, not as a cool kids club. microlabels, and using LGBT as “umbrella” terms, divides the community. it puts each other at odds because inevitably, most of those microlabels are incredibly harmful. some are even inherently harmful because of their lesbophobic, homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic roots. these chasms between members of the community make it so much easier for oppression to seep in, and for real activism to never happen. you can’t change the world outside the community if there are people inside the community that are tearing it apart–whether they’re doing it actively, or whether it’s just a byproduct of their embracing of microlabels. 

lesbians, gay men, bis, and trans people are not a hivemind. they are all independent people with independent thoughts and actions and experiences. just because you don’t fit with tumblr’s “aesthetic” of one of these does not mean you’re a different sexuality altogether. it just means that you are different than the stereotype. which, honestly, is good. refusing to engage in stereotypes, refuting stereotypes, and being your own person is good, especially because many of those stereotypes exist as a result of negative outside influences.

so instead of thinking of sexualities in terms of validity, please try to ask yourself other questions such as: why am i so attached to a (probably harmful) microlabel? what stereotypes do i believe that are causing me to try to distance myself from an “umbrella” term? are there prejudices, even internalized ones, that are preventing me from using an “umbrella” term? is my microlabel more important than the community’s ability to band together to fight oppression? is my microlabel more important than the “umbrella” terms that are beginning to be destroyed because of those microlabels? how much help is my microlabel lending to the LGBT community? how much harm is it causing?

saying that a microlabel is valid means nothing. it helps no one, and after so many years of blind inclusion, is now actively harming many, many people. there’s nothing shameful in setting aside a microlabel to join the community in full. in fact, we’re here to welcome you in with open arms. we’re a community, and the more we band together into one cohesive unit, the more good we will be able to accomplish. 

The most common definitions of pansexuality are:

1. “Attraction to men, women and trans people”

2. “Attraction to men, women and NB people”

3. “Attraction to all genders”

4. “Attraction regardless of gender”

5. “Attraction to people’s personalities”

First definition: transphobic as shit, full stop. Trans people are either men or women, acting as if they are a third gender that only pansexuals can be attracted to is gross.

Second definition: biphobic and nonsensical. Its biphobic because bisexuality never, ever excluded nonbinary people and it takes two seconds to look at bi history to understand that.

There’s also the fact that everyone can be attracted to nonbinary people. Yes, even straights. Wanna know why?

Because nonbinary people don’t have a set of physical characteristics that immediately tells you that they’re nonbinary. They look exactly like any other binary man or woman. Yes, some of them may be androgynous, but there are plenty of non androgynous nonbinary people and plenty of androgynous binary people.

So if they look exactly like men and women, how am I supposed to not feel any attraction to them? How am I supposed to exclude from my attraction a whole group of people that look wildly different from one another? Hell, how am I supposed to even recognize a nonbinary person without them telling me?

It just doesn’t work like that. Liam Hemsworth is not suddenly pansexual because he dated Miley Cyrus who is nonbinary but looks exactly like a woman.

Third definition: “Attraction to all genders” that is literally included in the definition of bisexuality. Historically, bisexuality always rejected the gender binary and always included all genders.

Fourth definition: “Attraction regardless of genders” thats not how it works. 

By definition, sexual orientation is what genders you’re attracted to, not how you are attracted to those genders. 

Bisexuals and pansexuals are attracted to the exact same genders and many bisexuals don’t take gender in consideration when looking for a partner. 

Saying that the difference between bisexuals and pansexuals is that for bisexuals gender needs to play a relevant role is just plain false, denies the experiences of many bisexuals and paints us as gender obsessed.

Fifth definition: “Attraction to someone’s personality” now this is just sapiosexual 2.0. 

Saying that the defining experience of your sexuality is being attracted to personalities implies that all other sexualities aren’t. 

Everyone feels attraction to personalities, its not just a pansexual thing. Having a completely separate label for something that everyone experiences is just absurd. And again, its not how sexual orientation works.

So, unless you redefine bisexuality (biphobia) or you misunderstand what a sexual orientation is, bisexuality and pansexuality are the exact same thing.

So why is pansexuality problematic and toxic?

1. Because it never left behind its roots. 

Pansexuality was born because of bisexual stereotypes (that we exclude trans/nonbinary people, that we are attracted to parts and not hearts, that we are gender obsessed freaks) and its still heavily associated to the “hearts not parts” biphobic and transphobic bullshit. If you don’t believe it, check out this document I’ve put together.  Pansexuality is still seen as “more open” and “more progressive” than bisexuality.

2. Because of the biphobia of the pansexual community. 

Like I said above, pansexuals still spread stereotypes about bisexuality to defend pansexuality, such as “bi means two, pan means all”. If people call out biphobia, they get called bigots, panphobes or TERFs and they get told to shut up and not invalidate other labels, no matter the harm it does.

3. Because the rethoric “its fine to be uncomfortable with bisexuality, use this other label that was born out of biphobia and still hasn’t escaped its roots” is extremely problematic.

“The word bisexual makes me cringe at times, but saying I’m heterosexual or a lesbian feels inaccurate - regardless of who I am in a relationship with. So, cringing all the while, I use the label. Because of my relationship to the term feminist, I have learned that cringing is often a sign of unfinished political business: the label bi sounds bad because, at least in some ways, bisexuals are an unliberated, invisible, and disparaged social group.”

- Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics, Jennifer Baumgardner, 2007

In a society where LGBT people are seen as dirty, sinful, immoral and deviants and that makes sure to say that stuff loud and clear its normal that some LGBT people internalize that shit.

The reaction to “hey, calling myself gay makes me uncomfortable” shouldn’t be “valid, lets make up a new word that means the same but in a ~woke~ way”, it should be “lets dismantle and actively fight the system that makes people uncomfortable with those words”. 

And its even worse for bisexuality, cause even in our community is often stigmatized and stereotyped (and while LGT people don’t have the power to oppress us, the biphobia in our community does harm us quite a lot).

Of course people are gonna be uncomfortable with bisexuality. That label has a huge baggage and a huge history of discrimination tied to it. 

Of course people would rather choose to use with a label born to be all inclusive and not with the “transphobic” and “enbyphobic” one. However, that mindset is incredibly damaging to bisexuals and the bisexual community.

Not acknowledging WHY the bisexual label makes you uncomfortable and opting out of the dismantling process of all those things that makes it uncomfortable with a convenient new label does more harm than good to bisexuals.

Actually, it reinforces that! I’ve lost count of how many times i’ve seen posts by pansexuals that really boiled down to “WE are attracted to someone’s soul and personality and we don’t care about gender unlike those bisexuals, who always care about your gender”.

Also, pansexuals are the very last ones that should say “let people identify how they wish!” cause all they’ve done is forcedly redefining bisexuality in order to validate pansexuality. 

Ever wondered why the definition of pansexuality changes every other day? Because they keep inventing a new one every time bisexuals point out that the previous is biphobic. 

They keep twisting the definition of bisexuality and ignoring our history and our voices to accomodate their biphobic label.

And yet, I’ve seen people assert that it’s somehow transphobic to state the simple fact that trans men experience transphobia. I’ve seen people say that trans men “don’t have it hard at all” and every time I see a trans man asking for some positivity or support, he’s swiftly accused of making everything about trans men and ignoring trans women. As though we’re competing, as though we’re not all fighting the same fight.