BAB’s (battle axe bisexuals) always claim that pansexuals have hurt bisexuals. Or that pansexuals have held back bisexual rights.
The problem is they can’t actually explain to me how pansexuals have ever hurt the bisexual community in any meaningful way. They assume that pansexuals are trying to somehow invalidate the identity of bisexuals.
This is just straight up wrong. As someone who identifies as bisexual I refuse to remain silent on pansexual erasure within the lgbt community. The amount of panphobia I see on tumblr needs to stop. This discourse gets us no where and we are literally just punching ourselves. Pansexuals are friends to bisexuals not enemies.
Just thinking about exclus people, and what weirds me out especially about them at the moment is that they come up with little phrases for the people they don’t like that are very clearly intended to be slurs, and yet that somehow doesn’t get them to consider that they’re the baddies. Like they don’t stop to consider that maybe coming up with slurs isn’t something good people do.
Anyways TERFs, SWERFs, biphobes, panphobes, aphobes, battle axe bis, homophobes of all kinds, and any other bitches I’m forgetting should fuck off.
hello there! we don’t usually answer discourse-related questions, but we realize that it may be necessary to elaborate on our previous post about bigoted bisexuals not being welcome on our blog.
if you’d like to learn more, please see the explanation under the cut. thank you for reading, and have a nice day 💗💜💙
sadly, the term ‘battleaxe bisexual’ has been co-opted by TERFs, transmedicalists, and other exclusionists who believe that unlike bisexuality, pansexuality, omnisexuality, polysexuality, and other more obscure m-spec identities are unnecessary. (some even believe that bisexuality should only ever be defined as “the attraction to both sexes” and thus “is the only multi-attracted label that’s based in reality, whereas none of the others have a right to exist.”)
many ‘battleaxe bisexual’ co-opters believe that any and all microlabels can and should be debated, and eventually negotiated out of existence. their main talking points generally focus on attempts to prove that anyone who is attracted to multiple genders but does not call themselves bisexual (or *solely* bisexual) has internalized biphobia, and that “if they weren’t biphobic, they’d realize ‘bisexual’ is the only label they need to describe their orientation.”
we here at bisexualpositivity want to make it clear that we, in no uncertain terms, denounce support of any transphobic, anti m-spec, racist, etc. bigots who also happen to be bi.
basicallty their argument is: "synonyms and more specific words are bad, also some pansexuals said biphobic shit, therefore they all believe that stuff."
like wow. just bc some pansexuals said "hearts not parts" and "pan = men, women, and trans" doesn't mean they all believe that. I mean goddamn this is shit-tier stereotype level logic my god. like why u bringing up decade-old shit to prove your argument?
damn.
ok look. bisexual = attracted to both sexes, or multiple sexes/genders. pansexual = attracted to all genders, often without a preference. obviously pansexual is a subset of bi, but damn, some people just wanna be specific. I mean I get it. how else u gonna subtly let ppl know u available? since bi is more vague since some bi ppl are not pansexual. (yes some ppl speciifcaly are attracted only to men & women & not nonbinary people & wouldn't fit the definition of pansexual).
BABs telling non-bi mspecs we're chronically online and "need to get off [our] phones" is so funny, baby girl how do you think you learned your exclusionism? caring so much about the labels other people use is the chronically online behaviour, meanwhile our labels are found within queer theory from the mid-late 20th century
