#omni erasure

[flyingdumpsterfire]

that moment where omnisexual is so hated on and underrepresented that you just tell people you're bi to stop them trying to correct your sexuality

i have come out to 2 people so far who have responded like this: me: I'm omnisexual, so I like all genders but I have a preference them: so you're bi another one I've heard is: me: i saw this hot guy today but then i also saw this hot girl and i had omni panic

them: why call yourself omni, that's too confusing, just use bi or pan more people understand that

what i'm trying to say is:

stop correcting people's sexualities, it's THEIR decision

Omnisexuality is valid and not biphobic whatever you might think

sToP oMnI eRaSuRe

thank you for coming to my TedTalk

(tagging my omni moot: @xxxsugarcyanidexxx)

[indagonightmare]

As funny as I think those "if being gay was the norm" videos are the complete and total erasure of bi/pan/omni folk really icks me, I understand the point is to make fun of how straight people have treated queer people for a long time but the fact that in those skits they go "*gasp* BUT WHYYYYY" to any straight-passing relationship is kinda icky, queer people can exist in straight relationships too besties, and that's not even getting into straight passing relationships with genderqueer individuals that are also being ignored in these scenarios

[sodomy-enabler]

Honestly the mspec gay/lesbian discourse is so stupid. I'm bi and I don't like being referred to as gay even as a joke, and monosexual q slur taggers loooove to call me and anything/anyone bi gay all the fucking time even after I state this boundary. But suddenly when a couple of bis actually go "wait yeah I am gay and bi, sure why not" (which we have been doing for decades btw) you people react like they're personally trying to put you into conversion therapy

So mspec gays calling themselves that do so because of internalized biphobia, but monosexual gays erasing our bisexuality by constantly calling our explicitly bisexual experiences "gay" ISN'T biphobia? can't have it both ways guys cmon

[oh-my-im-ply]

This is another post which isn't completely ply focused, but I want to take a second to point out the overlap between people who are transmisic and people who exclude/invalidate mspec lesbians.

Last week, I made a post where I mentioned being a polysexual lesbian, and I made a few mspec lesbian pride flags. Yesterday, someone asked if I was polysexual or a lesbian.

On this blog, we have rules for interaction, as well as rules for mods to follow. At the very top, we have a rule against exclusion and invalidation towards good faith identities, and a rule against bigotry and dogwhistles. However, we will answer questions when they may have been asked in good faith.

So, I answered with this:

Both. I'm attracted to many genders, but not binary men, so I find that polysexual and lesbian both describe my orientation well. Other people may identify as a polysexual lesbian for other reasons.

After I answered, the mask came off, and they started being transmisogynistic and nonbinary-exclusionary, and weaponized the existence of bimisia against me. I deleted their comments and blocked them last night, so I can't copy what they said word for word, but I will repeat their key notes under the cut.

CW: bi erasure, exorsexism/nonbinary-erasure, transmisogyny, mentions of genitalia

"This is what people mean when they talk about bi erasure. You're erasing bi people."

This is a complete misunderstanding of what bi erasure even means. Bi erasure is when you ignore (the existence of) bi people, or outright deny their existence. These are some examples of bi erasure:

Erasing or ignoring bi history.

Saying that bi people need to just "pick a side."

Saying that bi people are secretly straight/secretly gay.

Saying that bi is just "a transitional orientation" or "a phase."

Redefining the broad definition of bisexuality without the consent of the bi community, especially with the intent of telling people that they "aren't really bisexual" or replacing the bi label.

Saying that "everyone is a little bit bisexual," especially with the intent of erasing bisexuality as a distinct category. This can also be a form of erasure against people who aren't bisexual.

Note that "identifying as something other than bi" is not a form of bi erasure, even if you might "technically" fit the definition... Because that is a matter of personal identity.

But do you know what is a form of bi erasure? Erasing bi history. Mspec lesbians (particularly bi lesbians), have existed for decades. It is not a new identity, and bi women and enbies have a right to identify their attractions to women as lesbian attraction if they wish to. The exclusion of bi people from the lesbian label began as a form of bi erasure. It happened because of separatism and political lesbianism, and an idea that attraction to men "tainted" people, or was a "betrayal" to feminism. It happened because of bimisia.

The word "lesbian" has served as an umbrella term synonymous to "sapphic" for over half a century. You want sources? Here you go.

Miller, Trish. Lavender Woman, Vol. 2, No. 5. Lavender Woman Magazine, 1973. "What is a lesbian? To me, a lesbian is a woman-oriented woman; bisexuals can be lesbians. A lesbian does not have to be exclusively woman-oriented, she does not have to prove herself in bed, she does not have to hate men, she does not have to be sexually active at all times, she does not have to be a radical feminist." Ferguson, Ann. Patriarchy, Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1981. "Lesbian is a woman who has sexual and erotic-emotional ties primarily with women or who sees herself as centrally involved with a community of self-identified lesbians whose sexual and erotic-emotional ties are primarily with women; and who is herself a self-identified lesbian."....."[My definition] defines both bisexual and celibate women as lesbians as long as they identify themselves as such and have their primary emotional identification with a community of self-defined lesbians." Kafele, Dajenya Shoshanna (1991). Bisexual Lesbian. Archived from the original on July 25, 2022. Queen, Carol A.. Strangers at Home: Bisexuals in the queer movement,. 1992. "A great many bisexual women, particularly those who are feminist and lesbian-identified, have felt both personally and politically rejected and judged by the separatist sisters." Kafele, Dajenya Shoshanna. "Which Part of Me Deserves to Be Free?". Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions. New York : Haworth Press, 1995. ISBN 9781560249504. "Personally, I am unable to separate out the various ways that I am oppressed (as a woman, as an African American, as a bisexual lesbian, as an impoverished single mother) and say that one oppression is worse than the other, or that I desire one form of liberation more than another." Wyeth, Amy. "Don't Assume Anything". Bi Women: The Newsletter of the Boston Bisexual Women's Network. Vol. 5, No. 2, 1995. "Unfortunately, many of my experiences as a lesbian-identified bisexual woman have said to me that having an appearance or demeanor that diverges from the expected means I will not be accepted as truly belonging in the lesbian community. Despite my attendance at gay pride parades, dollars spent at gay resorts and in support of gay causes, and numerous attempts to participate in gay and/or lesbian groups and volunteer events, I have often felt unaccepted by this community." Holleb, Morgan Lev Edward. The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2019. ISBN 9781784506636. "LESBIAN — A woman who is sexually or romantically attracted to women. Lesbian can mean women who are attracted exclusively to other women, but it is also a broader term for women and femmes who are attracted to other women and femmes. This includes bisexual and pansexual women, asexual women who are romantically attracted to women, and non-binary people who identify with womanhood." Lesbian. The Trans Language Primer. Archived from the original on October 22, 2021.

Does this mean bi people have to identify as lesbians, or "aren't actually" bi, or can't just identify as bi? Obviously not, and I never said that was the case. That would be bi erasure, because that's policing bi people's identities and forcing them under labels that they may not want to be included under. But in the circumstance that a bi person also identifies as a lesbian, they have every right to do so. Bi-inclusive definitions of lesbianism have existed for at least 51 years, and still exist today.

"Attraction to men, binary or not, means you're not a lesbian."

See above for why the lesbian identity is not always dependent on a lack of attraction to men, binary or not. But lets focus on the nonbinary part specifically:

Nonbinary people can people included in lesbianism and lesbian attraction if they want to be. Yes, that includes all nonbinary genders. Even if attraction to men inherently disqualified a person from lesbianism, nonbinary genders cannot be confined to binary gender rules (even when they're aligned with binary genders) because they're nonbinary. Treating nonbinary genders like they're "functionally the same as binary genders" is a form of nonbinary erasure, regardless of gender alignment.

Whether nonbinary people are included in lesbianism or not is entirely up to each individual nonbinary person regarding their own identity. It is not dependent on the gender label used; it is dependent on how each nonbinary person feels about it on an individual level.

The implication that manhood inherently dominates and erases the rest of a person's identity is also troubling. If you accept that nonbinary people can be included in lesbianism, you must also accept that nonbinary men can be included in lesbianism. A nonbinary man is still nonbinary; their manhood doesn't erase that.

As a pangender lesbian, I've had to deal with the experience of people not only erasing my enbyhood, but my womanhood as well, because they think my manhood is the only relevant aspect of my identity. This is misogynistic and exorsexist, plain and simple, and people use this misogyny/exorsexism to tell me that I'm not a lesbian.

With all of that said, nonbinary people (of any gender alignment) are not always comfortable being included in lesbianism. This is why I describe myself as both polysexual and a lesbian; the polysexual part of my orientation acknowledges that my attraction to enbies can't always be described with my more binary-aligned labels.

And funnily enough, while some people tell me that I can't be a lesbian and can only be polysexual, other people tell me the opposite. So clearly, there isn't a consensus on which label is "correct" for me.

"If it has a dick, you can't be a lesbian."

This is just blatant mask off transmisogyny, and it's the main reason I blocked them. Do I even need to explain what's wrong with this? Even under a strictly monosexual definition of lesbianism, this statement is just false. Being attracted to people with penises does not equal being attracted to men. If a lesbian is exclusively attracted to women, including women with penises, that lesbian is attracted to only one gender and is not bisexual or mspec.

Any gender can have a dick. Lesbians can have dicks. Women can have dicks. The presence of a penis or lack thereof is not a defining trait of lesbianism, nor monosexuality. And for fuck's sake, maybe don't call your hypothetical trans woman "it"??

"Mspec lesbian" does not mean "lesbian who is attracted to vaginas and penises," and if you think that's what it means, you need to educate yourself. Yes, this includes any people who might identify as an mspec lesbian because of that transmisogynistic definition.

This blog is an inclusive space. If you come in here to spew bigoted or exclusionary nonsense, expect to be blocked. Think before you speak, and please read our rules.

[pride-database]

The Multiple-attraction spectrum/M-spec.

Bi flag, by Michael Page:

According to the author, pink represents same-gender attraction, blue opposite-gender attraction, and purple the intersection and overlap of the two.

Meaning of Bi (—often followed by the type of attraction it refers to: sexual→bisexual, romantic→biromantic, and so on):

The most comprehensive definition of this orientation is attraction to 2 or more genders/to more than one gender.

Bi can overlap with other orientations that exist to refer to attraction to multiple genders, such as Pan and Ply (which you can find below). When going by the above definition, Bi can be seen as an umbrella term containing these: some people refer to this as the Bi+ spectrum, which is synonymous with M-spec.

Other definitions of bi in use are:

attraction to both one's same gender and at least one different gender;

attraction to men and women;

attraction to two genders (that can be any two).

These last three definitions don't apply to all bi people, but are nonetheless used by some.

Things you should know about bi people:

Bi people aren't just "confused", or "can't pick a side".

Coming out as bi shouldn't be assumed by other people to be just "a stepping stone towards identifying as gay".

Bi people are not "half gay, half straight". In fact, some may even have a preference for one gender above the others, and it doesn't make them "less bi".

It is also incorrect to refer to them as "straight" when they have a partner of the opposite gender, and "gay" when of the same gender. Bi people are always bi, no matter who they're in a relationship with at the moment.

Not all bi people are duogamous (=having two partners simultaneously, one male and one female). It doesn't make them less valid as bi.

A common misconception is that bi people are "promiscuous", or will cheat on their partner with someone of a different gender; these are harmful stereotypes. Just because bi people have more choice in partners, doesn't mean they get laid more often than people who only like one gender (and even then, there's nothing bad with having an active sex life). And many straight people cheat as well, but no-one goes around saying "straight people are naturally cheaters"!

Additionally, someone's bi identity intersecting with being polyamorous (being in a relationship involving more than one partner, with knowledge and consent from all people involved) shouldn't be a reason for shaming. Bi polyamorous people aren't responsible for creating or perpetuating these negative stereotypes.

A note on "bi" and non-binary exclusion:

Despite what the root bi- (meaning "two" in Greek) would make it seem like, this label has never necessarily implied a gender binary (the belief that there are only 2 genders, male and female).

In fact, the 1990 Bisexual Manifesto says «Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders».

Pan flag, by Jasper Varney:

The pink stands for women, the blue for men, and the yellow for non-binary people.

Meaning of Pan (—often followed by the type of attraction it refers to: sexual→pansexual, romantic→panromantic, and so on):

There are two common definitions in use:

1) attraction to all genders

2) attraction to people regardless of gender. In other words, gender does not play a role in the attraction; rather, there are other elements a pan person's attraction focuses on.

Difference with bi:

Whereas bi means "attraction to 2 or more genders"—which practically means bi people can be attracted to from as little as 2, to as many as all genders—pan always means "attraction to all genders". It is less ambiguous, so some people prefer it over bi to specify this.

Also, following the second definition of pan, it usually excludes the possibility of having a gender preference, since pan people often refer to their attraction as "gender-blind". (Note: that does not mean pan people don't see people for what gender they are; it's only in terms of potential attraction).

Things you should know about pan people:

Pan people aren't attracted to "anything that moves"; pan isn't synonymous with paraphilias. The meaning of the Greek root "pan-", which translates to "all", stands for "all genders", nothing else!

Don't refer to the pan orientation as "attraction to men, women, and trans people". Trans men and women aren't a third gender!

Pan people aren't just "bi but trying to feel special". The choice of the label pan over the label bi is purely a personal preference; they also convey slightly different meanings. Some people even use both simultaneously!

Pan people at large don't think bi people are transphobic. This has been a long debate, and hopefully it's been sorted out for good: "pan" is more explicit about there being more than two genders, so some people feel more comfortable with that, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the history of the bi community and how it has always included non-binary people!

For other common misconceptions, refer to the ones about bi people.

Ply (a.k.a. Poly) flag, by Tomlin:

The pink stands for women, the blue for men, and the green for non-binary people.

Note: "Ply" is usually preferred to "Poly" as the shortened version of Polysexual/polyromantic/etc., because poly is usually short for Polynesian.

Meaning of Ply/Poly (polysexual/polyromantic/etc):

Attraction to multiple, but not all, genders.

Not to be confused with polyamory.

Difference with bi:

Ply people, like bi people, are capable of being attracted to more than one gender. However, bi people can like up to all genders, while ply people specify that they don't like all genders, only some.

For example, a ply person might be attracted to men and non-binary people, but not to women. Each ply person's range of possible attraction is different, so it is best to ask.

Omni flag, by Pastelmemer:

The meaning behind the colours weren't explicitly stated, but a common interpretation is that the different shades of pink represent the spectrum of feminine genders, the shades of blue stand for the masculine spectrum, and the dark purple for all other gender identities.

Meaning of Omni (omnisexual/omniromantic/etc):

Attraction to all genders, where gender plays a role in your attraction.

Difference with bi:

Same as the difference between bi and pan.

Difference with pan:

Both pan and omni people are attracted to all genders; however, whereas most who use the label pan are "gender-blind" in terms of attraction, meaning the attraction feels identical for any gender, people who identify as omni feel that gender plays some kind of role in their attraction.

For example, they may feel their attraction is stronger towards certain genders compared to others (also called having a gender preference), and they may want to highlight that by using a term that more unambiguously reflects that possibility in its definition, unlike pan.

The distinction may seem minor, but it matters to some. The choice between pan and omni, like any other label, is based on individual preference and should be respected.

For common misconceptions, see the ones about pan people.

Hopefully this helps clear out the distinction. Shout-out to all my fellow m-specs! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

[littletissueghosts]

"Chidi and Eleanor are my favorite straight ship."

"Eleanor and Chidi go in the heterosexual hall of fame."

"omg this is the only straight dynamic I like: Eleanor x Chidi."

I don't know what version of The Good Place y'all watched with a straight Eleanor, but it definitely wasn't the one I saw. 😭

[posi-pan]

whenever people call canon pan characters like deadpool or wwdits vampires, bisexual... it infuriates me. even if they aren't intentionally doing this, but i feel like it just removes the existence of pansexuality (and other pan identities). whenever a character is hinted to have an attraction to more than one gender... it just seems like bisexuality is the default label they go to. i mean wb demi people or omni people :(

sorry for taking so long to respond, but yeah, i feel ya. it's super frustrating that we're still dealing with kind of erasure, even from within the community. the immediate assumption of bisexuality for any character (or person, for that matter) who isn't gay or straight is no different or less problematic than the immediate assumption that anyone who isn't straight is gay. it's just enforcing a trinary instead of a binary.

[samble-moved]

Sayaka is Biyaka (or, a Lesbian Tries to Disprove the "Sayaka is a Lesbian With Comphet" Bi Erasure Theory)

For some reason, there's a loooot of belief in the PMMM fandom (this was especially bad in the mid 2010s) that Sayaka isn't bi (despite her canon, on screen romantic interested in both Kyosuke, a guy, and Kyoko, a girl), she's "just" a lesbian struggling with compulsive heterosexuality.

While many lesbians do struggle with comphet, erasing Sayaka's status as bi/pan/omni/mspec to claim she's a lesbian is...not great!

Usual signs of comphet include, but are not limited to:

Only attraction to guys involves ones who are entirely unobtainable (ex. a celebrity, fictional, etc)

Any man you fantasize about is faceless/nameless

Interest in men in theory, but not practice

"Choosing" a man to have a crush on to seem "normal", or because it's expected

Attraction based on logic, not actual emotion (ex. because your parents would approve)

Liking a guy until they return the interest

Being attracted to certain guys just because of something like a talent

(...and more examples here!)

However, Sayaka's attraction to Kyosuke doesn't seem based on any of these, but seems more to be genuine attraction/interest.

For one, Sayaka has been close to Kyosuke ever since she was a child. They're described and shown as childhood friends, and he isn't a guy Sayaka "just met" and "chose" to be into.

Sayaka also just isn't into Kyosuke at a surface level. If she held no true attraction towards him, why would she willingly trade her relatively safe, happy life for his happiness? Her wish was to heal his hand. While this was the stated wish, it's outright shown that Sayaka didn't just want that. It's outright shown canonically that, while not fully said, Sayaka wants Kyosuke's appreciation and recognition for this. She wants him to know the miracle was her doing, and wants him to love her for doing it.

The various interpretions of this won't be majorly touched here, as whether or not Sayaka's thinking there is "selfish" isn't important. What is important is that Sayaka shows a true level of attraction to Kyosuke, and wishes it was reciprocated.

It's not that she "just" likes him for his skills (she still visits him in the hospital, even during a time where it's implied that he won't be able to play his violin again). It's not that he's a guy out of reach — he's a childhood friend. She's not being pressured into liking guys. She literally jokes about Madoka being her wife in front of Hitomi, publicly.

Her feelings are obvious and genuine enough that Hitomi tells Sayaka that, if she wants, she will give Sayaka a day to confess to Kyosuke before Hitomi does.

A bisexual person who ends up later liking someone of the same gender later on isn't "actually gay" instead. A bisexual person with a preference isn't "choosing a side". Erasing a canon bisexual character's identity to claim "ummm, akshully, 🤓 they're Really X sexuality instead" is biphobic!

I'm probably not the best person to make this post, as I am a lesbian, not bisexual. However, people erasing a bi character's sexuality to call them a lesbian instead is not okay, and it wouldn't be okay the other way around either. It's not "progressive" to insist a bi character can't possibly be bi, they have to be gay. Sayaka shows no sign of comphet, no sign of "just" likely Kyosuke because she feels it's "right". She shows actual, real interest in him and Kyoko, and that doesn't make her "actually a lesbian". She's bisexual. A character being bi isn't some stepping stone to them being "really" gay later on, and it isn't a dirty word to call them bi! It's an identity like any other.

Most fans ignore Kyosuke. This isn't something I think is a major issue, as Sayaka seems to lose interest in him after Rebellion (saying Hitomi deserves better). He's probably not the best guy. But that's not an excuse to erase Sayaka's identity, because she liked a not-so-great dude. A lesbian with a shitty ex isn't suddenly not a lesbian, and a bisexual person with a less than stellar former crush isn't suddenly not bisexual due to it.

Tl;dr:

[yourfancyclamwithdapoileinside]

Me: I don’t like it when people take a character that’s canonically interested in the opposite gender and headcanons them as gay. It’s bi/pan/omni erasure.

Also me: Sarah Jacobs doesn’t count.

[the-delta-quadrant]

i hate what mspec gay discourse did to our community.

we have shitty REGs claiming that mspecness cannot and does not overlap with lesbianism and veldianism, which is obviously shifty.

but then we have the other side completely overcorrecting this myth and going to the other extreme, saying stuff like "being mspec is inherently lesbian/veldian".

and like, can we not do either?

can we just go back to 5 years ago where it was clear that you don't just call a random mspec person lesbian or veldian or gay without knowing they use those terms, but if an mspec person chooses to use those terms it's fine?

exclusionists trying to take away any nuance from mspec identity doesn't mean that inclusive people have to do the same thing but as the other extreme.

all the shared history between mspecs and mono gays doesn't mean that those will be inherently our identities.

there are so many mspecs who simply identify as bi or pan or omni or something else and specifically do not call themselves gay, lesbian, veldian or similar terms. there used to be a consensus that just labelling all mspec people as some kind of gay is mspec erasure and that hasn't changed.

also, "being mspec is inherently lesbian/veldian" does not go together with so many nonbinary people. call me a lesbian and you're misgendering me. call me a veldian and you're misgendering me.

not only does this weird overcorrection statement erase mspec people but it puts nonbinary people into a binary again.

just because historically there were mspec nonbinary people who were included in and identified with lesbianism and veldianism doesn't mean that every single mspec nonbinary person identifies that way. just because there are mspec nonbinary people who also identify as lesbian or veldian now doesn't mean that all mspec nonbinary people identify that way.

you all love to say that someone else's identify doesn't affect other people and yet use mspec gays as some sort of template and apply it to all mspecs, including those who very much do not identify that way.

to say that all mspecness is inherently lesbian/veldian is to say that i'm somehow inherently male/female. which is not it. i don't subscribe to this bullshit idea that we all have masculine and feminine parts or whatever. that goes against the very nature of my gender.

mspec people deserve more nuance. we're allowed to identify as gay. we're allowed to not identify as gay. we're allowed to not identify as gay but identify with the gay community. we're allowed to call our relationships gay but not our orientations. some mspec people consider themselves to be gay in all directions. others consider themselves straight in all directions. others just use an mspec label and don't define it further. we deserve nuance, and neither "mspecsness is never gay" nor "mspecness is always gay" are true.

mspec liberation will not be brought upon us by gatekeeping labels from us or forcing them onto us.

[lastoneout]

I gotta tell you. You are out here fighting god's biggest battles with reminding people that James Somerton was POINTEDLY BIPHOBIC. CANNOT thank you enough for it. the irony of people forgetting biphobia while dunking on James for his queer erasure is... sure a thing that's happening! Not here to dunk on those people forgetting, i'm sure it's not intentional, not worth infighting about when we've got the james somertons of the world to deal with, but... Bisexuals see and appreciate you for speaking up about it!

I am more than glad to fight the battle bcs ngl the Becky Albertalli thing was bad enough(tbh I'm still fucking mad about the way she got treated over Love, Simon) but just hearing him call Valkyrie a lesbian made me want to rip a building apart with my bare fucking hands. I could chew glass. And like I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt when I got to that part of Todd's video bcs I'm a fool and I get that he clearly does less than 0 research for anything but like I KNOW explicitly erasing her sexuality is a Choice He Made On Purpose bcs I fucking checked and every single article and fanwiki page and shit that I could find calls her bisexual. It is impossible to look up information about this character without her bisexuality coming up front and center. So either he stole from someone who did that on purpose(which is bad bcs stealing and also not fact-checking) or he did it on purpose bcs he has really fucking weird opinions about bisexual women. Maybe both!

Anyway, I am just one angry bisexual but I will not stop pointing this out bcs I know how tempting it is for the queer community to act like bi people are only hated for being gay lite or w/e and I'm not gonna sit by and let it keep happening. Biphobia, or like bigotry against multisexual people in general bcs pan and omni people are in the same boat as us here, is real and it's fucking insidious and we MUST combat it when we see it.

[perfect-bi-paradise]

I say this as a bi trans person that bi and pan can't "co-exist" because pansexualities entire purpose has been for the last 20 years and still is to this day the erasure of bisexuality and the othering of trans and nonbinary people like myself. Hell the term "skoliosexual" was invented by trans chasing pansexuals to further justify their gross fetishizing of trans people.🤮🤮 Since coming out as trans in 2020 I learned very quickly that pansexuals and also a lot of Omnisexuals (they deserve to be called out too) are big time trans chasers because they don't consider trans people to be human beings.

There is no "bi umbrella" that is a load of garbage made up by biphobic pannies, omnis, poly's etc... on Tumblr in 2012 so they could side step and hide from the much deserved criticism of their biphobic and transphobic bigotry their labels are built on.

Here's the truth.

Pansexuality isn't a sexuality it's a Fruedian term defined as the perversion of all emotional and sexual conduct. It's a paraphilia based on satisfaction of any and all sexual urges that includes sex with animals, plants, inanimate objects, kids, and dead bodies. That's the real reason pansexuality has the prefix of "all".

"Omnisexual" isn't a sexuality either. Omnisexual was a term used by Walt Whittmen as an allegory to homosexuality in his writings. Since the 90's to now it's been bastardised as a label for bigotry against bisexuals and to perversely use trans people as objects for supposed moral superiority when talking about bisexuality.

Polysexual (not to be confused with polyamory) is a stolen polygamy term that has nothing to do with one's sexuality but with how many sexual partners they would have in what we would today call a polycule.

Micro labels are based on ignorance and biphobia, nothing else. If you experience both homosexual attractions and heterosexual attractions (Same and different) than you are bisexual regardless of any personal preferences or lack there of. Have no prefrences? Bisexual. Do have a particular preference. Bisexual. Find yourself having fluid or shifting preferences? Bisexual.

There is only one true word to describe fluid multiple sexual attractions and whether you like it or not, whether you wanna accept it or not, that word is Bisexuality.

[the-nya-anon]

Is this thing on?

Yeah, I think it is.

Cool.

Yasu from the Partheno Region! We are Team Tau Delta (yesiknowthatthatsoundslikeafraternitybutwhatever), comprising of Tom (a.k.a. me) and my partner-in-technology-erasure, Diana

Yasu!

We're talking to you with our Makrin-powered video call thingimajig! If you don't know what a Makrin is, lemme just pull out our Rotomdex...

Makrin, The Distance Pokémon - Its fins are omni-info-dynamical, meaning that they can send any information traveling really far, up to 10000 km (6213.71 miles) to be specific.

There. So, who are you, dear conversation partner?

-@team-tau-delta

Wow, colours! This is so roleplaycore.

I'm Turtle! I'm not normally here but while I am I strive to be as annoying, cryptic, and potentially mentally scarring as possible!

[bi-dykes]

ah then, i must’ve accidentally recalled some misinformation from that infamous lesbophobe on twitter who constantly “headcanons” vi as bi to spite people 😭😭😭 although i do have to say, there’s an unfortunate history of official art/promos using lesbian flags and not knowing about the sapphic flag or what the difference is 🙄 i still believe they’re actual lesbians and take their word for it so don’t worry but these days it’s (generally speaking) hard to tell what’s truly meant to be conveyed; hell i’ve even seen sapphics on twitter do the same thing and it’s really frustrating 💔

you indirectly make a good point though, despite talking about something else! there’s a similarity in how confirmed bisexual characters may or may not actually be pan/poly/omni instead despite being said to be bi. or maybe they’re just bi and what was said was meant. i don’t have any specific examples but the idea probably exists, or will. erasure is common in all forms of queer, unfortunately.

btw also — believe me, i HAVE seen a radfem blog call bow a GNC female before 🫣 it… happens. so. yeah. it’s bad.

+ thanks for the sources!!

The ONLY thing I could get from that is that it rhymes. And as a bi woman who loves Vi, I’m a visexual lolololol

Yeahhhh ppl who “headcannon” Vi and Caitlyn and Catra and Adora as bi or pan stink. I don’t see it as often as ppl “headcannoning” Ivy and Harley and Korra and Asami (and somehow even Bowlover Boykisser Glimmer- I have no idea how ppl see her as a lesbian) as lesbians but like. Headcannoning any characters other than cisallohet characters as any other identity is so invalidating and callous istg.

FR. Ppl LOVE to throw the lesbian flag up in group sapphic edits that include Luz and Bubbline and Harlivy and Korrasami. It sucks. And like, the sapphic flag is so pretty! Why not use it <\3

Haha that’s not the point I was going for but thank you anyways chase! Within the context of a piece of media or said by a writer, if a character is bisexual, they’re bisexual. Not pan, not omni, not poly. Bc if they’re using specific terminology, they did that for a reason. Even if bi is an umbrella term, it’s also a specific identity as it’s own (you already know that tho lmao, I’m just restating it.)

Now, if a character shows interest in more than one gender, they’re most likely bisexual, but there’s a chance they could be pan, omni, poly, etc. like Charlie Morningstar from Hazbin Hotel. I’m like sure she’s bi, and the writers have never said anything otherwise or said that she’s pan or whatnot. So it’s clear to say that Charlie is canonically bisexual. Now, if within the show, or if the writer were to state she’s pan or omni or poly, then her already canon bisexual just got a lot more specific, and we’d say she’s canon this or that instead.

That’s SILLY (derogatory), I literally don’t see how someone can see Bow get glitter eyes looking at Sea Hawk and go “yeah that’s a lesbian.” 💀

Here, have a meme while you’re here :)

I had posted this months ago and got 1k likes and then my clumsy fingers accidentally deleted it 😅

Have a nice day Chase, thx for the ask 💝🫡

[bilesproblems]

now we will translate the dumbest thing we heard from russian-speaking exclusionists (twitter is doing incredible things to them.)

"hi this is the explanation for labels like mspec mono.

what is this anyway?

mspec-mono labels are labels of orientations based on the split attraction model, which assume that a person experiences one type of attraction to several genders and another to one.

examples:

• biromantic lesbians (bi-lesbians);

• panqueerplatonic gay men (pan-gay);

• omnisexual heteroromantic (omni-straight).

what's the problem?

wow, there are a lot of problems here. Let's look at the problem of definition point by point:

• appropriation of the split attraction model (aphobia)

• erasure of lesbian experience

• erasing the experience of mspec people

• erasure of gay experience"

/quote. we laughed a few times while we read it. there is an argument like “well......... lesbianism never included men and returning to the old meaning will harm lesbians, mspecs and gays". what a bullshit.

Not only do they misunderstand the labels (not all are SAM users) but also how is it erasing gay/lesbian and mspec experiences to experience both? It doesn't work that way.

Also, it's important to say that we're not going to return the whole lesbian label to it's original meaning. Some INDIVIDUALS want to reclaim it.

[fervency-if]

You wrote that it can be damned if you do and damned if you don't as an author because people have various strong opinions, so you just do what suits you since we can't please everyone and that's ok, I will try to think that often?? Because when I write I get bogged down kinda?? If we take what the ask was about (bi/pan characters) I read it's bi erasure if we make them playersexual and unrealistic if we make them all bi/pan/omni and not inclusive if we have some gay some bi/pan some straight... And then I just feel but what am I supposed to do??? Yeah I will try to think that --- people have opinions and that's ok, it's ok not to please everyone. :)

Yes, everyone is allowed their opinion - and that includes authors. If one feels the need to take everything to heart, it would get daunting - opinions and preferences are often contradictory, after all. I hope I didn't sound discouraging and negative when I worded it as 'damned if you do, damned if you don't,' though - I didn't mean that in the 'whatever you do, people will get angry at you'-sense, but rather 'I'm seeing a quite dismissive tone towards me right now, and I'm all too used seeing people (not in regards to me, but overall) being very combative with it comes to harmless opinions, as if it was a matter of right and wrong, and with that trying to prove that others are wrong, instead of seeing it as a matter of personal preferences.'