#non binary antagonism

[posi-pan]

I hope I don't sound rude but I really hate how fandom nowadays (at least on twitter) just absolutely despises m/f ships and how it's "homophobic" to ship a man and a woman together even though they don't have canon sexualities. Like... multisexual people exist, straight trans/nonbinary people exist, straight aspecs exist, non aspec people that use the SAM exist, there are so many instances where a m/f relationship is queer.

preach!!!!

[posi-pan]

I'll never understand how people can misunderstand the concept of non-binary so severely that they say "Non-binary woman/man" (ofc, one non-binary person might they're okay with it, but that still doesn't mean it's okay for all other non-binary people.) cuz like?? The whole concept is there being outside the two binary genders and they are really out here still putting non-binary people into binary roles

i think the person who brought up nonbinary men and nonbinary women were talking specifically about nonbinary people who sometimes or partially identify with a binary gender, like demigender for example. it's a legit way of experiencing gender and self-identification, not forcing nonbinary people into a binary. and technically, nonbinary isn't being outside men or women, it's more so not being completely and always a man or woman.

at least that's how i took it? maybe the anon was assuming all nonbinary people identifying with a binary gender or include themselves in attraction to binary genders (tbh this kinda seems likely since i got another message from them saying they don't get why we need labels that specify attraction to nonbinary people because nonbinary people are already included in attraction to binary genders. ugh).

[posi-pan]

(You don't have to publish this if you don't want, it's lengthy and I guess I'm just looking for some reassurance than I'm not losing my mind...)

Aren't pan people the expert in the experiences we deal with as pan? I think so! People generally agree that talking over others' experiences with their own labels is bad. So that goes for us, too.

Aren't pan people the ones who will catch panphobic dogwhistles the easiest because some of us are aware it's directed at us and it's bad faith? Absolutely!

With all that said... I've come across a post (that I'm sure someone talked to you about it here before, around February) where the gist of it was a prominent bi talked about typical bi things (and there was no mention of pansexuality) but a lot of pan people caught on the dogwhistles right away. Some digging through that person's blog and there we have... *Babs. Then a bunch of bi people became defensive saying stuff like how it's not about pan, and bi people saying "bi is not transphobic etc" is not a dogwhistle... And that shutdown the conversation and didn't address the elephant in the room: a bi person saying "innocent" bi positivity statements that read as panphobic dogwhistles and this same bi person associating with *babs being just a coincidence and not at all related /s.

So then we have a bunch of bi people unwilling to hear pan people (and other non-bi mspec) and call out anti-pan and anti-mspec sentiments in the bi community, and you have a bunch of non-bi mspec people terrified of the (much more visible and bigger) bi community because of *babs, because of being mislabeled as bi... And everyone is unhappy but especially non-bi people get shunned out and silenced (much like in aspec discourse, trans men/transmasc discourse, and so on).

It makes me wonder if people even know what a dogwhistle is... The point is exactly to be stealthy and look like something completely ordinary and inoffensive... it's literally why it's called that. I wouldn't count on bi people understanding panphobic (or any mspecphobic) dogwhistles because these can come disguised as bi positivity! But I would at least expect them to stop and try to listen, see it from our perspective, you know like... in solidarity with their mspec siblings. And I'm glad many of them do! I just wish it was a community-wide effort.

A lot of the time I feel like the "I'm mad when it's not about me" and "read this manifest/book/article/magazine, it's the bible of <identity>, no I don't care about your, actual, real life experiences" and "well, I won't listen/do anything about it because it doesn't affect me personally" and "well, I'm <identity> and I don't think <thing> is that bad, you're overreacting" are things that are so pervasive in the community, especially from mainstream labels and binary people... like... in some kind of hierarchic, oppression olympics, way and people don't even need to say it explicitly like that... And this is why you see so many new labels, mogai, xenogenders, bi lesbians, etc getting so much hatred all the time. Somehow it's threatening to Certified(/s) lesbians, gays, bisexuals, binary trans people, and it's so depressing... I hate exclusionists. I don't really have a solution. I wish I didn't have to be blocking a lot of panphobes/mspecphobes everyday :( thank you! (I don't mean to be antagonist against mainstream labels btw, I believe solidarity and union can make us all much stronger.)

*Babs are not the only panphobic/mspecphobic types out there, but they're pretty public about being assholes. It could be anyone, really. And unironically, *babs also harm fellow bi people because their rhetoric is biphobic too.

just........everything you said. yes. you are not losing your mind. you are spot fucking on.

[posi-pan]

I'm really confused about that anon asking about separate attractions to non-binary people. Like can't you use that same argument against people who are exclusively attracted to men or exclusively attracted to women? The existence of non-binary men and women would mean that some non-binary people are going to be included under the umbrella term of "men" or "women" and that's not even getting into attraction to someone before you actually know their gender identity. All descriptions of attraction are best if they're understood not to be 100% accurate all the time but to just be a way of communicating a person's experience.

Idk I guess it just bothers me that that person was singling out nb attraction as if that makes any less sense than attraction to a specific binary gender.

yes!!!! all of this!!! especially this bit: "all descriptions of attraction are best if they're understood not to be 100% accurate all the time but to just be a way of communicating a person's experience."

[posi-pan]

i want to talk about panphobes saying bi is and always was "attraction to all genders" for a second.

this is erasure of bi people and history. while you can find historical (and current) instances of bi people defining their bisexuality as "all genders", it was never (and is not) a universal definition, so you will also find historical (and current) instances of bi people defining their bisexuality in different ways, believing bisexuality defies definition due to the variety of bi experiences, acknowledging that every bisexual will have their own definition, and discussing the harm it does to try to force one definition instead of celebrating the variety. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x]

it's erasure of how the bi community at large currently defines bisexuality. even if bisexuality had been universally defined as "all" decades ago, that doesn't mean it would always have to be defined that way. most organizations/groups use different definitions than "all", or a combination of various definitions. the bisexual research group asked international bi+ researchers how they defined bisexuality and all the definitions given were "more than one" and "multiple genders". the most common definition among bi people is "more than one/two or more", with "more than one" more often used by activists and organizations, and "two or more" more often used by other bi people. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x]

it also feels like the goal post was moved. i very distinctly remember 4-6 years ago, there were posts left and right all the time from bi people about how the bi community has been defining bi as "two or more" for decades. and the only (rare) criticism of it stemmed from wanting to move away from "two" being in the definition at all, and preferring "more than one" for that reason. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x]

then in the past 2-3 years, "bi is/always meant all" started popping up, along with the false accusation of pansexuals forcing the “two or more/more than one” definition. and if i'm being honest, it coincides with the rise in people sharing the screenshot of an excerpt of the bisexual manifesto that was shared on a bi group's tumblr. people misuse it as a source for bisexuality always having been defined as "all", despite it never once giving any definition, and outright stating not to expect a clear cut definition because bisexuals define bisexuality in ways unique to them individually. [x] [x] [x]

"bisexuality is a whole fluid identity", "don't assume bisexuality is binary", and "don't assume there are only two genders" (which first appear in ATM #3, along with "[many of us] find the word 'bisexual' to be inadequate and too limiting") does not equal "bisexuality is and always has been attraction to all genders". fluid doesn't mean all, it means subject to change. binary in this context is clarified in the same sentence as meaning "having two sides" not "only men and women". and acknowledging there are more than two genders is not declaring all bisexuals have to be attracted to all genders. [x] [x] [x] [x]

i often see “bi is/always has been all” alongside "nonbinary isn't a third gender". panphobes misuse the latter statement, claiming it's impossible to be attracted to more than two but not all genders. their reasoning is you can’t differentiate attraction to nonbinary genders (or count them in the number of genders you’re attracted to) because they don’t look a certain way. to them, nonbinary genders aren’t genders of their own, they’re just men and women add-ons. this argument usually ends at "attraction is based on sex, not gender". so. false, nonbinary-phobic, and transphobic. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x]

as always, panphobes erase every bit of nuance and complication and diversity queerness has, because they want to be able to shove everyone and everything into easy, clear cut boxes and categories and simple, universal explanations. they hate that pansexuals use a different label so much that they will even police and gatekeep bisexuality and erase and twist bisexual history (things they accuse us of doing) if they think it means a slam dunk on pansexuality.

talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[posi-pan]

I agree with how enbyphobic some panphobes are, part of why I identify as pan is because of being nonbinary and the fact that enby people are so often an afterthought or categorised as the same as attraction to men and/or women. I'm not either of those, that's a big part of my identity, and assuming all enby people are okay with being included with that when that's just not how it works is just. not good

i feel like this is something that doesn't get enough acknowledgment tbh. people write off panphobia as not being serious, even though it often goes hand in hand with biphobia and transphobia and nonbinary-phobia. (not that it needs to affect others in order to be serious, it's serious all on its own, just that by dismissing it, they're enabling the forms of queerphobia that they do think are serious.)

[posi-pan]

I’m sorry, but I really can’t get over how enby-phobic panphobes are. Do they really not see how trying to box all enbies into male and female attraction is just wrong in so many ways? Not only just wrong and dumb in so many ways, but also potentially dysphoria-triggering for people who do not identify with a female or a male attraction. This ironically also makes *them* the ones who identify bi as only being attracted to men and women, because apparently the bi brain only sees people as male or female based on superficial characteristics. Anyway, I’m a bi enby who’s sick of their shit.

yeah i see lots of that kind of stuff from panphobes. it's like...who is transphobic again?

[posi-pan]

I'm the anon that was talking about terms of attraction being best understood as just a description of someone's experience.

I can't speak for the other anons but when I said "non-binary men and non-binary women" I was referring to people who self identify as non-binary men or non-binary women.

I'm non-binary myself and people always assume I'm a woman but that doesn't make me a non-binary woman. I'd only be a non-binary woman if that was how I identified.

Basically I think that if someone who was only attracted to women was attracted to me that wouldn't mean they had to change the way they defined their sexuality, but it also wouldn't mean that my gender identity was wrong either.

Tbh I think it's actually pretty dangerous to act like someone else's gender identity can change your (general) sexuality. You can find plenty of instances of cis men becoming violent when their partner comes out as a trans man because they think their partner's identity has made them gay.

I'm not really explaining this very well, but I hope you understand what I mean. -☕

yeah that's how i took it, even from the other anon originally (who was the one i was talking about sending other messages and kinda seeming nonbinary-phobic).

people often say things like "so, what? if you're attracted to someone you think someone is a woman but find out they're not, you're just no longer attracted to them?" as if it's absurd, but that happens? like, the attraction might remain and the person might or might not adjust how they identify, or the attraction might fade and no harm no foul. attraction isn't set in stone, so i never understood this argument.

i agree with what you said about someone only attracted to women being attracted to you doesn't negate their sexuality or your gender. and i also agree with the other nonbinary people i've seen express discomfort with people who are only attracted to women (for example) being attracted to them. like you said, it's personal.

it's not true across the board for everyone, and that doesn't mean anyone is wrong. as long as people realize and accept that how they feel about this stuff can't be universally applied to everyone or be forced as a homogeneous understanding, then who really cares how people conceptualize and categorize themselves? is that really something to argue over when it doesn't affect or concern you?

thank you for clarifying what you meant though, i think you did a great job of explaining it! 😊