Pansexuals and queer women said that bisexuality is binary and means attraction to cis men and women and they also “felt that claiming a bisexual identity indicated an outdated, offensive belief that there are only two genders”.

whereas actual bisexuals defined bisexuality as broad and inclusive of all genders.

It’s also interesting that all the people claiming bisexuality was transphobic were cis whereas the trans people interviewed didn’t have a problem with the bisexual label.

In addition, bisexuals expressed that they found the debates around whether bisexuality is inclusive very upsetting and it made them consider hiding their bisexuality or changing their label.

1. it displays that you have no understanding of basic research concepts such as the difference between quantitative and qualitative research, what they’re used for and what kind of sample sizes are viable for them

2. trying to dunk on peer reviewed research with a snappy one liner because the findings make you feel bad or clash with your pre-existing beliefs

1. people saying you cant generalize this to mean all pansexuals are biphobic because the small sample size and qualitative nature of this study means it doesnt represent larger trends: sure, maybe. but what it does prove is that it exists. there are pansexual people whose understanding of bisexuality are biphobic and differ from the definitions of bisexuals AND that this difference causes tension and distress to those who do identify as bisexual. it may not be representative of every pan or bi person, but it does prove the existence and lived experiences of relevant people. (as an example, i would not discredit a qualitative study that interviewed 20~ single mothers about their experiences with the available social structures on their city and their effectiveness in supporting single mothers, simply because the sample size is small. their opinions are still reflective of real life issues that real life people experience, and that is worth acknowledging and considering.) so if you’re saying this isn’t generalizable, you’re right! but it wasn’t meant to be and doesnt have to be. if you’re saying it is useless and social sciences are bad as a result, i need you to consider that even the most niche group of people need their struggles considered and validated in the social sciences. small as the sample size is, if its a problem that exists, it deserves to be documented and discussed and if possible fixed. if there are 10 separate single mothers saying social services suck and theyre living in poverty, we need to acknowledge that this is a real issue. the same goes for these bisexual people saying that they experience tensions as a result of biphobic understandings of bisexuality by pan people.

2. people saying “but i’ve never met a biphobic pan person” or “X person in my life is pansexual and i love them, vice versa”: good for you! thats genuinely great and i don’t want anyone to experience biphobia either, so im glad to hear it. at the same time, this isn’t (necessarily/always) a critique of pansexuals as individuals. this is a critique of the label that functions exactly the same as ‘bisexual’ but constantly aims to distance itself from bisexuality. in doing so, the meaning of bisexuality keeps getting muddied because people who are, essentially, bisexual keep trying to define themselves differently. this is how biphobic and tranpshobic definitions of bisexuality come about. and so i have to ask: if bi and pan are the same, why do some people prefer to identify as pansexuality? to say “it just feels right” ignores the element of social influences that people often subconsciously act upon (in the same way some women will say they get plastic surgery to feel confident, but if you asked them why they get the specific procedures that they do, or why they felt unconfident before, you find that the root cause is the social influence of the existing beauty standards that make them dislike how they looked while also making them want to look a certain way).

we do not exist in a vacuum - our choices are often influenced by the views of society, even when we think they aren’t. it makes sense to want to distance oneself from bisexuality when the label is so vilified. but distancing yourself doesnt allow you to challenge the stigma attached to bisexuality, instead allowing it to perpetuating while the people who do allow themselves to identify as bisexual are further villainized. to concretize this idea, consider the stereotype of bi people being exclusive of trans/nonbinary people. if i were to be someone attracted to all genders, i may feel like bisexuality doesnt fit me as well as pansexuality does. and i may feel this way subconsciously, without even realizing that it’s because i don’t identify with the stereotype associated with bisexuality. and so i decide to identify as pan, and when people ask why, i just say “it feels right”. and so i never question whether or not the stereotype is true, and i never challenge it because i don’t have to, now that I’ve decided to identify as the newer label that i feel is “better”, all without ever questioning why it is i feel that way. and if i, subconsciously, judge bisexual people as being transphobic in the future, well then so be it, i guess. and so when someone asks me whats so different between pan and bi, i come up with something that furthers the misunserstandimg of bisexuality, like “i care about hearts, not parts”, or “i dont just like 2 genders”, which erases the lived experience of decades of people who have called themselve bisexual all while miseducating others on what bisexuality means and furthering the stigma.

hell yeah.

men crave all the things we also want them to have, they just either dont realize its possible, or they believe they have seek it from an outside source.

but like...it’s only misgendering if you assume entitlement to people’s bodies is exclusive to men, which it’s not

in fact, almost every cis woman i’ve talked to as an open trans man has shown in some way that they feel entitled to our bodies BECAUSE they’re women — in their minds, it’s literally their womanhood that makes them feel entitled to us in the first place!

you don’t have to be someone’s oppressor to act like you’re entitled to their body, and you also don’t have to be their oppressor for that entitlement to help normalize the oppression others perpetrate against them

hiding behind “that’s misgendering” when talking about a shitty behavior anyone can exhibit just exposes the gender essentialism you buy into, and that kind of essentialism hurts literally all trans people, so the course of action here should be to work on dropping that essentialism instead of hiding behind the illusion of its objectivity to avoid responsibility

The one non-demonic source of asexuality pre-1997 is a piece about trans liberation, a cut out article removed from context, that talks about how trans liberation must include all trans people—gay, straight, bisexual, or asexual. Which doesn’t say asexuals were LGBT if they weren’t L G B or T but rather that no trans people should be left out of trans liberation. No one argues all straight people are LGBT despite it being listed there.

The fact of the matter is asexuality meant wildly different things before the early 2000s when AVEN came into existence, where there was an entire debate about asexuality should mean (and it was then decided it could mean whatever people want). And that since the early 2000s, the ONLY sources for ace activism and movements is AVEN... the antisemitic, homophobic, racist, bigoted cesspool. So your entire ace history is just “bigoted shit pre-2000” and “bigoted shit, likely lifted from tumblr, post-2000”

not to mention there is no actual... activism attached to any of this to cite. just opinion pieces cause all the ace community seems to do is opine and whine. there’s no tangible activism tied to ending rape culture. just about being considered “queer enough” or adding to “anti-sexual” rhetoric

Having problematic organizations/movements in your past doesn’t invalidate your current existence, the LGBT community has more than its fair share of those, BUT you can’t use them to make points defending yourself in the present. That’s it!

But that’s hard for aces because there is no real ace past before AVEN.

Asexual as a term meaning non-sexual and what we now call aroace existed before AVEN and was used in a variety of ways BUT it did not exist as a COMMUNITY until AVEN. And no one wants to claim AVEN because... well... it’s AVEN.

The solution to “What the fuck is ace activism if I can’t cite SWERFs, TERFs, and “Oh, Did I cite pedophiles without calling the cops on them??? OOPSY!” Kinsey” is to look to the future rather than the past. Rather than creating ahistorical takes like “Aces were at Stonewall” (they weren’t), talk about what aces CAN be doing RIGHT NOW and in the future.

Talk about what goals you want to have in ending rape culture and how you’ll achieve that. Talk about how those goals mean ALLYING with LGBT AND feminist movements makes sense, cause it DOES make sense to ALLY together. Talk about how the mistakes of AVEN and Zoe O’Reilly can be used to learn to do better in the now.