#my bi and pan kings need to be fed from

[inklore]

the lack of oliver quick fics makes me want to dust off my google docs and cook up some filth.

[musclesandhammering]

Spn Opinions That’ll Have Me Burned at the Stake Pt. 2: Electric Boogaloo

I’m back and bitchier than ever. For reference, here’s part 1.

• Season 5 wasn’t that great.

• D*stiel isn’t real, it’s a sucky ship, and that confession scene was just the writers pandering to the rabid deancas fans cause they knew they were the only ones still watching the show lol. And they left it ambiguous enough that they could still say it was meant platonically if they needed to.

• I hate how they watered down both angels and demons post-season 5ish.

• I liked Ruby 1.0 better than Ruby 2.0.

• I hate Honey!Cas. They just did that cause they didn’t know where to take his story from there, needed him out of the way, and thought it would be funny. It was insulting.

• Jack should’ve been played by an actual child so everyone’s abuse of him would resonate with the audience for what it was (casual fans are brain dead and need to be spoon fed).

• Victor Henrikson deserved more time on the show.

• I said it in the last post, but Alex is way more interesting than Claire and should’ve been given the lead role in the wayward sisters storyline instead.

• Dean is canonically straight and for Christ sake if you guys wanted bi rep, there’s about a thousand other characters that are strongly coded or implied to be bisexual (including Sam!) but y’all didn’t focus on them because it wasn’t actually about representation, it was about making it more plausible for your dumb fetishised gay ship to actually happen (spoiler: it didn’t).

• Season 3 and Season 6 were some of the best ones, you guys just don’t have any taste.

• Claire is not Castiel’s daughter and saying she is erases Jimmy and insults her, and even Cas himself acknowledged that on the show.

• Castiel is canonically NOT gay and Misha constantly saying he is is annoying and airheaded. He’s been attracted to women IN THE SHOW and he’s not even really male, so calling him a Gay Man is reductive and just plain wrong. Also, it’s veeery sus that- given how bi/pan folks are even more underrepresented than gay people- that one of the rare times where the bi/pan label actually fits a character BETTER in CANON��…. the allies and monosexuals adamantly reject it. Hm.

• “Curing” vampires or werewolves or demons shouldn’t have been a thing.

• The Winchesters cause most of the bad shit that happens and then they just force supernatural beings to fix it for them- tell me again how they’re Super Special Heroes.

• It shouldn’t be possible to make angels human by removing their grace, because (unlike demons, werewolves, etc) they were never human to start with. If you drained me of all my blood, I wouldn’t magically transform into another species, I’d fucking die.

• Making Billie go crazy was dumb.

• Rowena was one of the most interesting and charismatic characters on the whole show- they just didn’t know what to do with her character.

• The archangels, Lilith, and Azazel should’ve been the biggest threats on the show. No other knights of hell, no god and his sister, no Cain, nothing like that. Having every villain just get progressively more overpowered made the show unbelievable and repetitive and annoying.

• The kernel sanders king of hell guy was hot.

• Dean is misogynistic as HELL, homophobic, likes racist porn, is a narcissist, pervs on teen girls, & thinks all non-human people should be exterminated… and that is all CANON.

• Most of John Winchester’s abuse is fanon.

• Fans portraying Cas as a smol bby who colours in colouring books and has a bee plushie is so fucking annoying.

• Instead of having so many gigantic cosmic storylines with god and his sister and alternate dimensions and even the angel and demon tablets, they should’ve just scrapped those and made the stein family and the bmol and the alpha vampire storylines way bigger than they were. Less cosmic stuff, more earth-based stuff.

• They ruined Lucifer’s character post-season 5. Before that, he was more sympathetic and reasonable than Michael. After, he was a spoiled child hurting people for fun.

• Everything from season 7 on is garbage. All of it. There’s bits of goodness here and there but overall seasons 7-15 are trash.

• How the fuck are there actual people who are deangirls and hate Sam?? The space where your brain should be is empty, I swear to god.

• If there was gonna be any lgbt rep in the Wayward Sisters group, it should’ve been Jody and Donna instead of Claire and Kaia. Those two were boring as hell and had zero chemistry or build-up, but Jody/Donna had plenty of chemistry and was very believable.

• Meg has the best and most realistic redemption arc of anyone on the show.

• Chuck was not likeable or charismatic enough to carry off as big of a villain arc as they gave him. Also that whole thing was stupid and WAY too Out There.

• All the angels should’ve been aroace. All the demons should’ve been pan.

• I stanned Cole so hard up until he changed his mind about hating Dean. That was disappointing.

• Sam went through the same shitty childhood Dean did (plus Bonus Abuse on top of it) and he didn’t turn out Like That.

• I cannot think of a single person that was asking for a spin-off about the Winchester family, like that has to be the most boring thing.

[official-queer]

sooo i figured it’d be helpful for me to make a complete post on my thoughts on pansexual as a label. i've answered a few asks about this and then figured i'd covered it enough, but i realize that i covered separate points in each post/ask. 

i'll try to make it as organized as possible, but y'all know i'm the king of run-on sentences and unnecessarily long statements and restatements. so yeah, this is gonna be a long one, fellas

"bi = two, pan = all"

in reality, the bi identity has always included attraction to all genders. i'm sure you'll've heard it time and time again, but the 1995 bisexual manifesto states very clearly that bi people are not duogamous in their attraction. insisting that bisexuality is only for attraction to cis men and cis women paints bisexuality as transphobic, as well.

the pan label became so popular with the rise of awareness of nonbinary identities because people started to find it important to state they were also attracted to nonbinary people. the whole pan- prefix was specifically picked because people were aware that "nonbinary" was merely a category for those who fell outside of the imposed male-female dichotomy, and under which several hundred genders could fall.

so... bisexual includes all these hundreds of genders, and pansexual specifies these hundreds of genders. seems redundant, but what's the issue?

"some people find the distinction important"

this is a sentiment i've heard brought up as an argument to just leave pan people alone. but i don't find it quite so valid an argument, irony not intended. *why* is the distinction so important? how come one can concede that bi people like all genders too, but you *must* let people know you are the type of "m-spec" who is definitely able to be attracted to all genders?

the idea one can id as pan but still agree that bi people can also feel the same way a pan person does is contradictory. you are attempting to label an experience as x and argue that it's a necessary label, when there was already a label for x and y. the very idea of a "distinction" is to point out how something is *different*. it's completely redundant.

so if bi and pan are the same, is there some other reason why someone would prefer pan over bi?

"attraction regardless of gender"/"hearts not parts"

i'm lumping these two together because, despite sounding like different points, they argue the same thing in the end. it's just that one is more subtle.

when the label of pansexual was in it's formative years, some sought to argue that pan *is* different from bi, because pansexuals do not consider gender when they are gauging attraction to someone. there are several problems with this.

this switches pan from a "who" label (correct usage of a sexuality label, denoting to whom you are attracted, referring to gender), to a "how" label (incorrect usage of a sexuality label, denoting in what circumstances one feels attraction, not accounting for gender). with the other definition of pan, the "who" was simple - anyone of any gender. with this definition, the "how" is now involved, that being without regarding gender.

within normal parameters of a sexuality label, as in, a "who" label, it is functionally the same as the previous definition. you are still attracted to any gender.

just as well, it can be used just as well for a bi person attracted to all genders. many bi people have stated this is exactly how they feel, and so you jump back to the distinction argument. but also, many gay and straight people have also expressed that gender plays no part in *how* they feel their attraction. their attraction may only include one or so gender(s), but beyond that, it's not something that factors in.

many trans and specifically nonbinary people have stated distaste at this definition as it is dismissive of gender. one gets the impression that their gender struggles, growth, identity, etc. is not important to the pan who uses this definition.

specifically in regards to "hearts not parts", a very popular quote around the early years of the pan label - this gives the very strong idea that pan people are claiming that only their sexuality involves being attracted to the important parts of someone; their mind, their soul, their identity beyond gender, etc.. this is just... yuck.

just as well, this further pushes the pretty prevalent idea among mogai/inclus that gay, bi, and straight people are driven solely by sexual desire. while the "hearts not parts" phrase is uniquely pansexual in nature, the sentiment is shared by inclus asexual and other people using "how" labels, such as demisexual and other "a-spec" people. this sentiment is considered pretty homophobic, because while the idea seems to be against gay, bi, *and* straight people, it is weaponized frequently in opposition to gay and bi folk, especially lesbians.

"it's just a preference"

preferences are for flavors of ice cream. i highly doubt one is basing their whole identity on the phonetic sounds of "pan" vs. "bi", or a "prettier flag", or what have you. typically, if one dives deeper into what exactly these "preferences" are, they almost all lead back to misconceptions about bi as a label.

differing community

it's no secret that pansexual people have, at an alarming rate, culminated for themselves a unique culture and community. it's also no secret that a lot of this reeks of the era it was born from - 2009-2012 internet culture - but my distaste is my own.

some argue that their preference for the pan label is simply due to this differing community. some... do not argue this, but it's apparent. what either party doesn't consider is this: stating preference for one community, in this situation, is stating a preference to not be included in the other community.

this is why i say that some pan people, while not consciously aware, adhere to this argument. i was one of these people. this is where you'll have to forgive my heavy reliance on personal anecdote, but i believe it applies.

when i id'd as pan, i realized later that a big portion of my preference for this label stemmed from this mystified idea of the bi community. in my head, subconsciously, i viewed bi people as mature but not too mature, sexy, club-going, drug-using, edgy. i thought i couldn't be one of those people because they were too *cool* (these ideas aren't cool in this regard - they're very common biphobic stereotypes). pansexuals, on the other hand, where nerdy, friendly, meme-loving, sex-positive but not promiscuous. so many of the "fandom moms" we all used to admired had pan in their tumblr description, twitter bio, blog header, etc.. i could relate to this! (emphasis on could... i'm a normal human being now)

you can see these internal biases become very apparent when you see pan people insisting that their preference is "valid", or when you try to get them to explain how they're different from bi people at all. this isn't a matter of "one community or another", or even "one community over another", but "one community over the boogeyman of our idea of their community". and it all becomes so silly when you see how self-imposed this is - all these traits are bi culture! you're bi! you are contributing all this to bi culture, and you only need to shed your internalized biphobia and realize this!

fetishization of trans identities

i touched on this in my first point, but i'll go more in depth here. essentially, the idea that there must be a separate identity for those willing to date nb people, and god forbid if you're even more ignorant, trans men and women, is inherently othering and, in many cases, fetishizing of trans identities.

in my experience, the pan person who recognizes that pan is the same as bi, but who claims they are pan due simply to preference, is actually in the minority. for every pan of this sort i've seen, i've seen 20 more who blatantly believe that they must id as pan, since they would date trans and nb people. i believe this is almost directly related to how many cis people id as pan, as well as a mix of trans+nb people who've been fed this narrative and now believe it to be true. those quirky fandom moms i mentioned? all cis, all iding as pan performatively. the label of pan is an act of defiance in their eyes, the ultimate symbol of trans+nb allyship. and it's so, soooo cringey. i'd rather they be honest and id as "chaser" and be done with it.

if you're one of those people, or someone who believes this distinction is valid, hear me when i say this: TRANS PEOPLE DO NOT WANT YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT! binary trans men and women want to be included in your overall binary men and women categories. trans men are men, trans women are women. attraction to men includes trans men by default, attraction to women, the same. nb people adjacent to these binary genders (demi-man, genderfluid, trans masc, agender+masc presenting, etc.) like to be included in these categories of attraction on an individual basis! there are gay men who date masc nb people, and lesbians who identify lesbian attraction as attraction to non-men, and vice versa. how can you rectify iding with an identity solely to point out your attraction to these otherwise unincluded (by your standards) categories, all in the name of being for these peoples' desires, while also ignoring their pleas to just be included and normalized within *all* attractions? can you say that gay, straight, lesbian, and pan people can all be attracted to trans+nb people, but not bi people? that's silly! so, in your attempt to be more inclusive, you've actually insisted on further othering us.

i'll add more points if/when they're brought up, or if i remember anything else later. i just got back from work and am quite tired, so.. :,)

[seagreenflowers]

for your consideration this pride month:

A non-binary, bisexuals probably homophobic opinions on gender and sexuality

for starters, i’d like to say this is just my personal opinion and i don’t expect anyone to actually read this other than maybe one friend i have on tumblr and people i specifically send it to, but in the event that this blows up because ya know, it’s the internet: I’m not trying to invalidate anyone’s gender expression, sexuality, person opinions, labels, or thoughts on the community. this is just how i personally view everything concerning LGBT from my lived experiences.

to begin, i think that there are two main opinions from people in and outside the community over the number of labels we use and they generally fall into these categories either: “we have too many, these fucking snowflakes” and “i don’t really care, you do you” there are very, very few actually “”snowflakes”” that use the terminology we’ve all seen and had opinions about. therefore, why is it still in use? why do they have their own pride days in the month? well, from what i can see, my best guess is the definitions of everything are very muddled and the minute differences are expanded upon in ways that simply do not make sense to me.

for example, the sheer number of words we have for an attraction to multiple genders, while they all have their own differences, why can there not just be an umbrella term and people describe their individual sexual desires to the people they need to define it to. just to make my case here’s the words i’ve found:

bisexual

pansexual

omnisexual

polysexual

queer

all of these words have a basic meaning of attraction to more than one gender that it is inconceivable to me why we need all of them. if there’s discourse around how bisexual doesn’t just mean two, then why does poly exist? and if there’s discussion about bisexuals not always have a gender preference then why do pan and omni have distinctions? to me personally, in a perfect world, we need zero labels, but how we live today, we need the labels. if straights and gays aren’t equal and we take away the distinctions, they’ll never be equal. but stemming from that, i have qualms with words like this that feel like preferences over an actual distinction in sexuality. because the argument from the community (which i 100% agree with) is that you don’t Choose sexuality, things that feel like Choosing demean the entire system. things like bi where you see gender feel to me like “when looking for a partner, i Choose based on gender” definitionally and maybe that’s a misinterpretation of the word choice because in dating and sex everyone has to experience choice, that’s consent, but really you fall in and out of want instead of saying “i’m looking for a 5’4 blonde girl that has freckles” because as much as you can have a wish list it will never be fulfilled in the way you intend because people don’t bend to specifications. and maybe that thought process of not looking for a gender or a set of attributes makes me pan, but that’s not how i identify, so this is where we get to the point. if people don’t identify with the words that most describe how they actually feel because there’s another word that explains them, why do the words exist in the first place!

this is why it took me 4 years to actually come to the conclusion that i was bi. 1. because of the sheer number of words to describe how i was feeling but 2. if bisexuals can have any split between male and female attraction (doesn’t have to just be male and female but for examples sake) if i am not split 50/50 that would fall into the realm of poly and omni. and 3. girls are cute but are girls like date cute or are girls just like delicate cute (but that’s beside the point)

now i think i continue to beat a dead horse if i go into discussions about asexuality and all of its subgroups 1. because i’ve proven my point with multiple gendered love and 2. that’s not my community i would get something wrong and that’s not my intention. but GENDER!! FUN!!

so anyway that i go into this is going to sound offensive and it will get kind of rude but it’s out of pure inability to comprehend most of this. if someone wants to educate me, go right ahead.

NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION

gender identity is the gender you feel. the sex. male, female, non-binary.

gender Expression is how you interpret that label. things like demi girl and gender fluid feel in this category to me because you Cannot in any case change gender day to day. period.

you are allowed to dress more masculine and feel more comfortable masculine one day and feel more comfortable feminine another. that’s not your gender changing!!!!! that’s just PREFERENCES!!!!!!! that’s Choice!!!!!!

what i’ve always understood in my heart the way to tell if you’re feeling a shift in expression or in identity is these 3 categories: perception, privates, personality. the three Ps (i did just come up with this)

are you worried or uncomfortable with someone using a certain name or set of language that hints to gender (such as queen v king) [the pronoun discussion is for later i don’t find it appropriate to include it here] this is perception

do you dislike something being a part of your body, not because you find it ugly, uncomfortable, or unnecessary but because you Want the Parts of Another Sex. for example there’s a difference in “oh i wish i didn’t have a uterus because i hate periods” and “i wish i didn’t have a uterus because the thought of that being a part of my body makes me feel sick because i want *male anatomy*” that is privates

and finally, personality. just because you’re a tomboy doesnt make you trans. just because you like dresses or skirts as a boy, doesn’t make you trans. everyone’s personality and individualism is what makes this difficult. you’re allowed to have interests that are “of the opposite gender” that don’t make you trans.

and something that i feel is an important distinction and will lead us into the pronouns portion, and this sounds rude but it’s not, it’s the truth. there are a lot more people that claim ftm than mtf. there just simply are, and the problem with that arises with a lot of women are upset about the condition of being a woman in today’s society, with all the pressures, expectations, lack of rights, etc etc that they would rather be perceived as a man. they would rather be a man to avoid the constant taunting of women and as much as that’s relatable, being fed up with the human condition of womanhood DOES NOT MAKE YOU TRANS. all of the “she/they non-binaries” that arise today that have no problems with being identified as a woman in public, that have no want to change their physical bodies because they want the ones of the opposite sex, and act Like A Woman *are not really trans* because that demeans every aspect of what it Actually means to be trans and honestly it’s kind of insulting to be someone that experiences extreme gender dysphoria to just see people with the desire to be less of a woman out of, here’s this again, Choice, when really they’re mad about society. and oh boy is it completely valid to be mad about the conditions of women, and it is valid to identify as she/they or he/they. it’s just, the distinction between people that actually experience gender dysphoria and the ones that don’t like the way that boobs make the world interact with them.

ALSO WHAT THE FUCK ARE NEOPRONOUNS????? i don’t get it. i’ve never understood it and i don’t think i ever will but like, bold claim, furries and otherkins aren’t Part of the lgbt community???? and i might be mislead on what neopronouns actually are but the only time i’ve seen them actually used are in cases with otherkins and the like wanting to be referred to as pronouns that correspond with their *preferred species* which is a whole other can of snowflake worms that i don’t have time to get into today but like,,,in my humble opinion, i feel as tho he she and they kinda cover the spectrum. you’re fem identifying, she/her. boom, solved. ur masc identifying he/him. lovely, awesome. you feel in between, they/them. great. excellent. you have kinship with both femininity and androgyny she/they (or vice versa he/they) but like IM NOT CALLING SOMEONE LIKE “”BUNSELF”” CAUSE YOURE A BUNNY. THATS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS???? this is only a phenomenon of the english language because most latin languages DONT EVEN HAVE A THEY/THEM FOR EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONS. and we have the AUDACITY to come up with this stuff???? i don’t- i don’t get it. like i speak spanish (i’m not a native, i’m still learning so don’t roast me if i say something incorrect) and it’s nearly impossible to find a way to refer to yourself as a they/them because the words simply don’t exist. i’m lucky enough to be okay with he/him pronouns but in languages and cultures were every single thing you interact with is labeled with a gender there’s simply no time to come up with and incorporate things like Neopronouns when we can’t even find a way to express the basics in another language... and the whole point of the LGBT community is to be inclusive to everyone no matter their sexuality, gender, race, ethnic background etc etc but this is something that quite blatantly leaves out most of the World.

anyway, these are some of my opinions. feel free to ask questions and ignore typos. once again i’m open to education, but this has been my ted talk.