Lesbians Are Not the Architects of Systemic Bisexual and Pansexual Erasure

How an Imaginary Lesbian Town Became a Case Study in Bi/Pan Erasure

Throwing out an imaginary lesbian-only town was never supposed to be a manifesto. It started as a joke in a TikTok video about a group of white supremacists attempting to build an all-white town in the United States and almost no one cared. They had to pay for press coverage because systemic racism is so normalized that white separatism barely registers as shocking.

So I added a throwaway thought experiment:

“Can you imagine if lesbians tried to build a lesbian-only town? No way in hell.”

That sentence did not spark outrage about white supremacy like I thought it would. Instead, it summoned the pearl clutchers who had beef with lesbian boundaries. Honestly, that reaction tells us everything we need to know.

What Is Bisexual and Pansexual Erasure?

Bisexual and pansexual erasure is the persistent social pattern of denying, minimizing, or flattening bi/pan identities.

It shows up as:

• “You’re just confused.”

• “Pick a side.”

• “You’re basically straight/gay depending on who you’re dating.”

• “Bi people don’t need their own spaces.”

Bi/pan erasure happens:

• in straight society

• in queer spaces

• in media representation

• in community infrastructure

It is real. It is harmful. And it is structural, not interpersonal.

How Bi/Pan Erasure Shows Up in Society (Including Queer Communities)

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: The system does not invest in bisexual or pansexual culture the way it does in gay male culture (or even lesbian culture, limited as that support already is).

As a result:

• Bi/pan spaces are rare, underfunded, or treated as temporary

• Bi/pan people are pushed toward lesbian or gay spaces for community

• Attraction to multiple genders is treated as instability instead of identity

This isn’t because lesbians are hoarding space. The system depends on bisexual invisibility.

The Projection Problem: When Systemic Erasure Gets Redirected at Lesbians

Here’s where things went sideways.

When I clarified that a hypothetical lesbian-only town would be for cis, trans, nonbinary, and intersex lesbians only, the backlash escalated.

I was accused of:

• biphobia

• exclusion

• segregation

• being a TERF

• “acting like a white woman oppressed”

But notice what didn’t happen?

Almost no one asked:

• Why don’t bisexual and pansexual people have more spaces?

• Why does the system fail to support bi-centered culture?

• Why are lesbians expected to accommodate everyone?

Instead, the anger landed on the lesbian with the imagination. Classic projection.

Assumed Inclusion Is Not the Same as Belonging

One of the most telling patterns was the assumption of inclusion. When a lesbian-only space was imagined, many bi/pan commenters immediately placed themselves inside it without asking, listening, or reflecting.

And let's be clear, the assumption isn’t malicious. It’s learned.

When the system gives you no space of your own, you are taught to seek belonging through access to someone else’s. But when lesbians clarify boundaries, that reflex gets interpreted as rejection, even though the boundary isn’t personal.

This creates a false narrative:

“Lesbians are excluding us.”

When the real story is:

“The system never built space for us.”

Why Lesbian Spaces Trigger Backlash (and Gay Male Spaces Don’t)

Here’s the gendered reality that rarely gets named: Patriarchy depends on lesbians more than it depends on gay men.

Lesbians are:

• women

• expected to be nurturing

• expected to accommodate

• expected to share

• expected to soften boundaries

Gay male spaces, by contrast, are:

• more numerous

• more economically viable

• allowed to be exclusive without moral panic

When lesbians assert orientation-centered space, it’s treated as aggression. But when gay men do it, it’s treated as culture. That double standard is not accidental.

The Impact of Bi/Pan Erasure When It’s Misdirected

When bi/pan erasure gets redirected at lesbians, everyone loses.

Bi/pan people are taught:

• to see lesbians as gatekeepers instead of allies

• to internalize shame for wanting space

• to fight sideways instead of upward

Lesbians are vilified for:

• naming their orientation

• protecting specificity

• refusing to dissolve into umbrellas

And the system? It stays untouched.

Why Focusing on an Imaginary Town Misses the Point

The fixation on a fictional lesbian town instead of a real all-white town is the most telling part of this entire discourse. One is a material expression of white supremacy, while the other is a thought experiment about autonomy.

And yet, the imagined lesbian space triggered more outrage than real racism. That’s not because lesbian spaces are dangerous. It’s because lesbian autonomy is still treated as suspect.

The Real Problem Isn’t Lesbian Specificity — It’s Systemic Failure

Let me be explicit.

I want bisexual and pansexual people to have:

• spaces that center their culture

• community without justification

• belonging without dilution

And I refuse to accept the lie that the way to get there is by blaming lesbians. Lesbian specificity is not the cause of bi/pan erasure.

Where the Anger Actually Belongs

The anger is valid, but it's aimed at the wrong thing.

The focus should be:

• a system that erases bi/pan identities

• capitalism that won’t fund non-binary sexuality

• patriarchy that pits women against each other

• structures that tolerate white supremacy more easily than lesbian autonomy

An imaginary town and lesbian boundaries aren't the real problem; we're just a subset of a very large, systemic issue.

Final Word

Bisexual and pansexual erasure is real, as is lesbian erasure. Neither is solved by demanding that lesbians dissolve ourselves to compensate for a system that refuses to build anything better.

We don’t need fewer boundaries. We need more spaces built alongside each other, not on top of one another. That starts by naming the real enemy, and it’s not lesbians.