pansexual is good 💗💛💙 bisexual is good 💗💜💙

just respect how people self-identify and resist the urge to assign bad faith assumptions onto why they identify the way they do. we as a community need to be kinder and more understanding with one another. we all have our reasons for the language we use for ourselves and our queerness, and more often than not, there isn’t some bad, harmful reasoning behind our labels.

and of course, some folks identify as both bi and pan. this post is just about how people just assume every bi and pan person who does not use both labels has made a choice between the two labels, or in other words, considered both labels and rejected one for the other. and this is simply not the case.

i can’t speak for anyone but myself, and personally i don’t like when my self-identification is painted in a negative light in comparison to another label; that my pansexuality is a rejection of bisexuality. it isn’t. i have nothing but love and respect for bisexuality, bisexual history, and bisexual people. i’m just simply not bisexual. it isn’t any deeper than that.

and if you’re wondering why it matters if people think this, it’s because language matters. queer people’s experiences with their identity and the language they use for it should be acknowledged and respected, rather than dismissed in favor of creating a uniform narrative, especially one that is negative, that we all neatly fit into.

if people could stop framing the pan/bi thing as “some people choose to identify as bi and some choose to identify as pan” that’d be great.

because that framing makes it seem like all pan and bi people consider both labels as “options” for them.

of course, some people feel they’re interchangeable or similar enough that they could identify as either or both.

but some people feel they aren’t interchangeable or similar enough, and that only one is even considerable.

for me, bi was never an option because I never related to it or felt represented by it, because I’m just not bi. so, no. I didn’t choose pan over bi. I didn’t decide I like pan better for whatever reason. I just am pan. just like some bi people are just bi, and pan isn’t even considerable for them.

along with this is another thing I’d like stopped: people putting emphasis on choosing bi to honor bi history.

because that framing makes it seem like those who don’t identify as bi are insulting or disrespecting or ignoring bi history.

I don’t have to be bi to honor and respect bi history. me not identifying as bi does not mean I’m disrespecting bi and its history and community. it just means I’m not bi. it’s quite literally that simple.

all in all. some people feel they could identify as either bi or pan, but choose one over the other (or both). some people feel it isn’t a choice, they just are bi or just are pan, and the other isn’t even considerable. identifying as one label does mean you’re not honoring or celebrating the history of other labels.

let’s talk about panphobic dogwhistles

A panphobic dogwhistle is coded/subtle to avoid opposition. These statements aren’t inherently panphobic and not everyone who shares them is panphobic.

“You can identify as pan, if… I support you being pan, but…”

This create hoops for pan people to jump through in order to be supported. But support and respect contingent on us internalizing and regurgitating panphobia isn’t genuine. We don’t trade autonomy for a sliver of pseudo acceptance.

“New labels damage the community. It doesn’t matter if a label is valid, it matters if it’s useful, materially different, and serves a political purpose.” And other anti self-identification/individualism statements.

This targets any label that isn’t The Four. Labels are, and always have been, useful if they help someone understand and communicate their feelings, identity, and experiences. We don’t owe our queerness to anyone, and we don’t have to use our queerness as a calculated strategy for anything.

What damages the community is creating an environment where any kind of difference in identity/language/expression or rebellion against norms/status quo/rules is met with hostility, fostering fear and distrust of the people who are supposed to support and nurture that self-discovery and expression.

“All genders/regardless of gender has always been the definition of bi.”

This often perpetuates the counterfactual ideas that pan “stole” The bi definition and isn’t necessary because “bi already means that”. This is also ahistorical biphobia; there’s never been one “true” definition of bi (this isn’t even the common community one) and it erases bi history/people who don’t relate to it.

Using scare quotes around pan.

Putting pan in quotes when it isn’t necessary is often a way of disrespecting its legitimacy, casting doubt/judgement, especially if pan is the only one in quotes.

“Bi has always included trans/nonbinary people.”

This is often used to falsely claim pan was created because “biphobes thought bi didn’t include trans/nonbinary people, so pan doesn’t need to exist”. (Binary bi texts aren’t universal, but there are plenty that speak to a reality that affected people and contributed to the current more inclusive language.)

“Mspec labels overlap but the distinction matters to some and that’s okay.”

I’ve seen this said so many times in response to people asking what bi and pan mean and how they relate to and differ from each other. What good is it to tell people the distinction matters while avoiding explaining what that distinction is? Ultimately this statement discourages any dialogue about mspec labels.

“Bi is an umbrella term that includes pan.”

The bi umbrella was once genuine inclusion of all mspec people, and activists/orgs use it, so most people don’t see it as anything else. But when bi only content has “bi+” slapped onto it, it becomes meaningless and performative. Panphobes also use it to argue pan doesn’t need its own, specific visibility.

“When a character ‘just likes people’ or is ‘attracted to all genders or regardless of gender’ they aren’t automatically pan instead of bi.”

I’ve experienced this from panphobes who simply assume pan interpretations of pan definitions/common pan explanations must be because of biphobia. But it’s a big, false, and purposely bad faith leap of logic to fuel the panphobic narrative that pan people are always misrepresenting bi.

“Pan people need to let bi people have something and stop making everything about themselves.”

This might seem like advocating for bi only content/events for the sake of bi visibility/community, but it’s often malicious exclusion of pan people who’ve always been included. We aren’t “invading” or “derailing” anything by being in spaces we’ve always been in, or by sharing a bi post because we relate to it.

“Read the Bi Manifesto.”

A lot of the time, people say this because they think the manifesto states the true definition of bi and proves pan is unnecessary/biphobic. However, the full text explicitly states there isn’t one true definition of bi and the group who published it explicitly supports all mspec people and identities.

“People identify as pan due to internalized biphobia.”

This masks panphobia with concern for internalized biphobia. Pan is being written off as a product of biphobia under the guise of wanting bi people to embrace being bi. Pan people are being equated to bi folks who just haven’t unlearned biphobia enough to embrace being bi, when that isn’t the case.

“All pan people are bi, but not all bi people are pan.”

This appears to be an easy explanation of bi/pan, borrowing from “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”. But queerness isn’t geometry and doesn’t work like that. The only pan people who are bi are the ones who also identify as bi. We can’t box queerness into simple, universal categories.

“Analyze why you’re uncomfortable with being associated with bi people or being called bi.”

Of course, pan and bi are associated, but it’s never mere association these people are referring to. Pan people are vilified and wrongly painted as biphobic for criticizing the erasure and mislabeling of our identity.

“Bi and pan people need to stop fighting each other, both are valid and neither is -phobic.”

This implies the “fighting” is equal. But there are popular bi accounts dedicated to panphobia, “battleaxe bi” was coopted for panphobia, a major bi org spreads panphobia, panphobic bi authors/activists are praised, and researchers subsume pan data into bi data. Biphobia from pan people just is not on the same scale as panphobia from bi people.

This is not to disregard/downplay biphobia from pan people. It’s just important to acknowledge the reality, severity, and disparity of the situation. Erasing that by saying or implying it’s just a silly mutual argument about which word is better is disingenuous at best, and malicious misrepresentation at worst.

“I’ve never seen a definition of pan that isn’t biphobic/transphobic.”

Panphobes involved in bi/pan “discourse” saying this aren’t hoping to learn the actual (read: non bigoted) definitions of pan, they’re saying there aren’t any definitions of pan that aren’t biphobic or transphobic, because they believe pan is inherently biphobic and transphobic.

“Behaviorally/scientifically bi.”

“Behaviorally” and “scientifically” bi are used to categorize people based on so-called innate, universal indicators of being bi. Both say pan people are actually bi, hiding identity policing/erasure behind science. Funnily enough, researchers have said it’s hard to determine who is “actually bi” because “individuals determine this for themselves”. In other words, there aren’t innate or universal indicators, we simply are who we say we are.

So. I’m sure there are plenty more examples I’ve missed, and if you have any please send them my way! (I tried to make this as short as possible, so if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these, let me know and I’ll happily do so!)

But I hope this will encourage you to think a bit deeper about the things people say and the possible intent behind it before sharing, as well as be more invested in supporting pan people and trusting us when we tell you something is being said to spread panphobia.

i really need people to stop talking about identifying as pan like it’s inherently a matter of choosing pan over bi, a preference between the two, that every pan person feels they could identify as bi.

because that erases experiences. that erases MY experience.

i don’t identify as pan because i like it better than bi, or because i relate to it more than i relate to bi, or because it came down to pan and bi and pan just happened to win.

i identify as pan because it’s the only personal label i identify with and relate to. it’s the only label that specifically described the feelings i had but didn’t think were definable. it felt like me, and i felt seen.

i never thought i was bi. it was never a label i considered for myself. i never related or felt connected to it. i knew it was not my label before i had even heard of what ended up being my label.

i didn’t identify as bi until i learned about pan. i knew about bi and identified as nothing until i learned about pan. there was never any consideration or decision or preference about which label is right for me.

and this might not matter to some people, but this is my experience with my sexuality and my relationship with my label. i deserve to have that acknowledged and respected.

i do not deserve to have it erased for the sake of a simplified explanation of two labels that are too personal and nuanced for that kind of simplicity.

pan psa yo