separate communities =/= aphobia

No, genuinely, they are coddled in a way absolutely no one else is.

You make a post criticizing the pan label, how it’s biphobic, transphobic, often homophobic, and how the creator of the flag is a lesbophobe, and all you get is “no panphobia!” “Pansexuals are valid!” “Pansexuals aren’t hurting anyone!” Because somehow pansexual feelings are more important than a label that has harmed the community as a whole.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, I saw a post about US IMPERIALISM get derailed because “op is a panphobe.” I’ve seen posts about how to spot actual terf dogwhistles and how to actually support trans women get derailed because “op is a panphobe.” Because how dare pansexual feelings not be the first priority and given utmost consideration.

i am not complaining about the mcelroys. the mcelroys did not write this article. my beef wrt the word "queer" is not the mcelroys' fault. do not write me a spiel about what good allies the mcelroys are, i do not give a fuck and it is not relevant to the content of this post.

i am aware of "queer" as an established academic term and as a verb. you do not have to explain it to me like im five. "queer" as an academic term IS the thing i am complaining about in this post.

this has nothing to do with "queer is a slur"/"queer has been reclaimed" discourse (queer is a slur, the process of reclamation is an ongoing and active effort, words do not suddenly become not-slurs just because a person or group of people has declared them Reclaimed, the established use of queer as an academic term does not magically erase the trauma of survivors of homophobia - but, again, thats not what this post is about)

if the definition of "queer" has become so nebulous and gentrified that it is now acceptable for it to describe the behavior of, as in the article, cisgender heterosexual men who are monogamously married to cisgender women, it is no longer radical. queer can be EITHER a slur reclaimed for the inherently radical nature of existing outside of cisheteronormativity OR it can be an umbrella term for everyone who commits any form of gender/sexual transgression as minor as being a straight man who paints his nails, but it cannot be both. i am not the sole arbiter of "queer" and, per the article, the "queer culture" at large seems to have settled on the latter.

as a bisexual, i’m so exhausted by this bi/pan discourse, whether discussing it online or with people i know irl, and i hate feeling like i’m screaming into a void so i’d rather just put it into one text post and stop talking about it myself and redirect that energy elsewhere.

first off i have people in my life dear to me who identify as pan, including my own sister who is my best friend, and i don’t automatically hate anyone just for identifying as pan (especially if you’re trans). what i hate is that no amount of logical reasoning, historical evidence, and straight up critical thinking skills is enough to tell people why the label itself has done so much harm to bisexuality. it’s not about how pan people as a whole are the supposed bad guys and bi oppressors or whatever, it’s literally just about the label itself and how it has not only exacerbated already existing negative bi stereotypes but created new ones.

it feels like nobody cares enough to discuss these issues and think about this critically except for bisexuals, and that’s because this is an issue affecting us. the only other support i’ve seen are from gay men and lesbians (particularly trans and nonbinary). everytime someone makes a well-written, well-researched post about the pan community’s biphobia and transphobia, it feels like it’s for nothing because a majority of people will still have this condescending, self-victimizing “pan people are not the reason why society is biphobic, let people identify however they want and stop blaming it on us” attitude that tries to absolve them from any sort of fault.

and then to turn around and claim that bisexuals are being panphobic like ...what is panphobia that isn’t biphobia? is it just people telling you that your label is not valid? i can think of a list of things that people associate with bisexuals (greedy, sluttiness, unfaithful, dirty, indecisive, etc.) and i never see any of that associated with pansexuals. it’s just weird to me to tell bisexuals to shut up and then turn around and claim that you have it worse.

when people and media do portray pansexuals as “hearts not parts” and more progressive, i never see people’s first instinct being “hey that is biphobic and transphobic,” i always see people’s first instinct being “that’s not what pansexual actually means!!” it shows me that you don’t care about solidarity when you’re more concerned about defending the definition of a label that’s constantly changing rather than calling out the prejudice against other groups.

and to see celebrities like miley cyrus straight up saying “i hate the word bisexual because it’s putting me in a box.” kehlani saying “i’m not bi, i like everyone including trans and nonbinary, i’m pan.” lauren jauregui saying “i used to be bi but i found being pan so much more liberating.” rina sawayama saying “i realized i’m pan because i’m also attracted to nonbinary.” is all just disappointing especially because i’ve looked up to all of these women at one point or another. i’m not claiming any of them are biphobic but their statements further stigamatize bi people and i have seen people only praise them for it. also not all of these were said verbatim but that was the general jist of their coming out. plus there has been a lot more offensive coming outs but i wont get into those because i don’t care enough about those celebrities.

and lastly it really sucks to see that lgbt spaces, organizations and companies have just kind of went with this. seeing all these pride merchandise for unnecessary “mga” labels like polysexual/omnisexual. inaccurately redefining bisexual to validate these other identities is what kills me the most. bisexuality by definition has never excluded trans and nonbinary people. i constantly see the definition of pansexuality changing and i still don’t know any clear definition that is both not biphobic and different from bisexual. some people say it’s a microlabel, some people say it’s completely different, but it’s all inconsistent and often offensive.

i have no interest in discussing queer politics with people who still use the original biphobic/transphobic definitions of pan. people who go through verbal and mental gymnastics to differentiate between bi and pan. people who have no interest in changing their biphobia. people who take any criticism of the term pansexuality as a personal attack.

i probably have a lot more to say but i’m getting tired of writing all that out, there have been so many people who have said everything i did but better and more elaborate. i have zero interest in engaging any further with this discourse, i will probably still reblog posts by other bisexuals. but unless you have real critical thinking skills, ability to take criticism, and an open mind, i have zero interest in discussing this. if anyone new or already following me wanted to know how i feel about this then this is the furthest i will go.

if anyone cared enough to read through this whole thing i really seriously appreciate it a lot. i love my fellow bisexuals and also everyone supportive of our voices, especially lesbians who i’ve noticed have been our strongest allies. my new years wish is that people will stop dismissing biphobia. that people will care about uplifting and suppporting bisexuality. here’s a great tweet by joshua rush to end this post. happy 2021 💗💜💙

@cyprinodont Bisexuality has literally always meant attraction to all genders. It’s our history. Being Bilingual doesn’t mean you only speak two languages, are you saying Pansexuality was born out of people “mistaking” bi for only meaning two genders and not bothering to do research into bisexual history that shows no need for another label to say “attraction to all genders?”

“…the very wealth and humanity of bisexuality itself: for to exclude from one’s love any entire group of human beings because of class, age, or race or religion, or sex, is surely to be poorer — deeply and systematically poorer.”

— Kate Miller (1974)

“It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders…”

— Martin Duberman (1974)

“Margaret Mead in her Redbook magazine column wrote an article titled ‘Bisexuality: What’s It All About?’ in which she cited examples of bisexuality from the distant past as well as recent times, commenting that writers, artists, and musicians especially ‘cultivated bisexuality out of a delight with personality, regardless of race or class or sex.’” — Janet Bode, “From Myth to Maturation,” View From Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women (1976)

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.”
— Janet Bode, “The Pressure Cooker,” View From Another Closet (1976)

“[John] reacted emotionally to both sexes with equal intensity. ‘I love people, regardless of their gender,’ he told me.”

— Charlotte Wolff, “Early Influences,” Bisexuality, a Study (1979)

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”

— Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women (1985)

“I believe that people fall in love with individuals, not with a sex… I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.” — Ruth Hubbard, “There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality, Bi Women (1986)

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.” — Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives (1988)

“We made signs and slashes. My favorite read, ‘When it’s love in all its splendor, it doesn’t matter what the gender.’”

— Beth Reba Weise, “Being There and Being Bi: The National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights,” Bi Women (1988)

“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. 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.”

— The Bay Area Bisexual Network, “The 1990 Bisexual Manifesto,” Anything That Moves (1990)

“Bisexuality works to subvert the gender system and everything it upholds because it is not based on gender… Bisexuality subverts gender; bisexual liberation also depends on the subversion of gender categories.” — Karin Baker and Helen Harrison, “Letters,” Bi Women (1990)

“I tell them, whether or not I use the word ‘bisexual,’ that I am proud of being able to express my feelings toward a person, regardless of gender, in whatever way I desire.” — Naomi Tucker, “What’s in a Name?”, Bi Any Other Name (1991)

“Some women who call themselves ‘bisexual’ insist that the gender of their lover is irrelevant to them, that they do not choose lovers on the basis of gender.” — Marilyn Murphy, “Thinking About Bisexuality,” Bi Women (1991)

“As bisexuals, we are necessarily prompted to come up with non-binary ways of thinking about sexual orientation. For many of us, this has also prompted a move toward non-binary ways of thinking about sex and gender.”

— Rebecca Kaplan, “Your Fence Is Sitting on Me: The Hazards of Binary Thinking,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“I’m bi. That simply means I can be attracted to a person without consideration of their gender.”

— E. Grace Noonan, “Out on the Job: DEC Open to Bi Concerns,” Bi Women (1996)

@cyprinodont Are you essentially saying that bisexuality, a label people have fought and died over with an actual rich history is essentially becoming redundant because it can literally being replaced with another word for no reason? A word that is in fact the exact same thing as you say? Did you not even read the post you commented on? It matters because pansexuality is spreading massively misconceptions and harmful bullshit about bisexuality and bisexual people that actually affects them IRL. We’re told that we see gender, we’re more likely to prioritise gender and gender roles, that we can’t be genderblind, that bi people “lean” more than pan people do. Celebrities say they pick pansexuality over bisexuality because we’re “too restricive” Hell the online definition for pansexuality is that it’s more inclusive than bisexuality, which our history shows isn’t true:

Id-ing as Pan when you think they are essentially the same thing is pointless and just furthers and aggravates discourse such as this. People WRONGFULLY determining that bi = attraction to 2 genders is erasure of our history that we fought hard to establish. People using that ignorance to create a completely different label that means the exact same thing but wanting to distance themselves from bi stereotypes by claiming that bisexuality isn’t trans inclusive. (Which...all LGB sexualities are trans and nonbinary exclusive. Trans and nonbinary people aren’t some kind of third gender that needs a sexuality that encompasses all)

as a bisexual, i’m so exhausted by this bi/pan discourse, whether discussing it online or with people i know irl, and i hate feeling like i’m screaming into a void so i’d rather just put it into one text post and stop talking about it myself and redirect that energy elsewhere.

first off i have people in my life dear to me who identify as pan, including my own sister who is my best friend, and i don’t automatically hate anyone just for identifying as pan (especially if you’re trans). what i hate is that no amount of logical reasoning, historical evidence, and straight up critical thinking skills is enough to tell people why the label itself has done so much harm to bisexuality. it’s not about how pan people as a whole are the supposed bad guys and bi oppressors or whatever, it’s literally just about the label itself and how it has not only exacerbated already existing negative bi stereotypes but created new ones.

it feels like nobody cares enough to discuss these issues and think about this critically except for bisexuals, and that’s because this is an issue affecting us. the only other support i’ve seen are from gay men and lesbians (particularly trans and nonbinary). everytime someone makes a well-written, well-researched post about the pan community’s biphobia and transphobia, it feels like it’s for nothing because a majority of people will still have this condescending, self-victimizing “pan people are not the reason why society is biphobic, let people identify however they want and stop blaming it on us” attitude that tries to absolve them from any sort of fault.

and then to turn around and claim that bisexuals are being panphobic like ...what is panphobia that isn’t biphobia? is it just people telling you that your label is not valid? i can think of a list of things that people associate with bisexuals (greedy, sluttiness, unfaithful, dirty, indecisive, etc.) and i never see any of that associated with pansexuals. it’s just weird to me to tell bisexuals to shut up and then turn around and claim that you have it worse.

when people and media do portray pansexuals as “hearts not parts” and more progressive, i never see people’s first instinct being “hey that is biphobic and transphobic,” i always see people’s first instinct being “that’s not what pansexual actually means!!” it shows me that you don’t care about solidarity when you’re more concerned about defending the definition of a label that’s constantly changing rather than calling out the prejudice against other groups.

and to see celebrities like miley cyrus straight up saying “i hate the word bisexual because it’s putting me in a box.” kehlani saying “i’m not bi, i like everyone including trans and nonbinary, i’m pan.” lauren jauregui saying “i used to be bi but i found being pan so much more liberating.” rina sawayama saying “i realized i’m pan because i’m also attracted to nonbinary.” is all just disappointing especially because i’ve looked up to all of these women at one point or another. i’m not claiming any of them are biphobic but their statements further stigamatize bi people and i have seen people only praise them for it. also not all of these were said verbatim but that was the general jist of their coming out. plus there has been a lot more offensive coming outs but i wont get into those because i don’t care enough about those celebrities.

and lastly it really sucks to see that lgbt spaces, organizations and companies have just kind of went with this. seeing all these pride merchandise for unnecessary “mga” labels like polysexual/omnisexual. inaccurately redefining bisexual to validate these other identities is what kills me the most. bisexuality by definition has never excluded trans and nonbinary people. i constantly see the definition of pansexuality changing and i still don’t know any clear definition that is both not biphobic and different from bisexual. some people say it’s a microlabel, some people say it’s completely different, but it’s all inconsistent and often offensive.

i have no interest in discussing queer politics with people who still use the original biphobic/transphobic definitions of pan. people who go through verbal and mental gymnastics to differentiate between bi and pan. people who have no interest in changing their biphobia. people who take any criticism of the term pansexuality as a personal attack.

i probably have a lot more to say but i’m getting tired of writing all that out, there have been so many people who have said everything i did but better and more elaborate. i have zero interest in engaging any further with this discourse, i will probably still reblog posts by other bisexuals. but unless you have real critical thinking skills, ability to take criticism, and an open mind, i have zero interest in discussing this. if anyone new or already following me wanted to know how i feel about this then this is the furthest i will go.

if anyone cared enough to read through this whole thing i really seriously appreciate it a lot. i love my fellow bisexuals and also everyone supportive of our voices, especially lesbians who i’ve noticed have been our strongest allies. my new years wish is that people will stop dismissing biphobia. that people will care about uplifting and suppporting bisexuality. here’s a great tweet by joshua rush to end this post. happy 2021 💗💜💙

Hi so, honestly, there isnt a difference between bi and pan, bi is attraction to all genders, we have two labels that describe the same orientation.

Basically, the pan label was popularised online in the early 2000s. at the time there was a pervasive idea tht bisexuals were only attracted to cis men and women. This is from the first post on the 2002 Livejournal community, I Am Pansexual:

“… [T]his community is for pansexuals, as described in the user info. Pansexuals love people of all genders, male and female, but unlike bisexuals, pansexuals love transgendered, androgynous and gender fluid people, people who don’t fit into the categories of male or female.”

you can find the source for that quote and read more info on the history of pansexuality here. Those who IDed with the pan label back then used pan to mean attraction to cis men, cis women, and trans people. This definition is transphobic, trans men and women arent different genders to cis men and women and therefore, they dont fall under a separate attraction, nonbinary people arent a new third gender that you need a whole new and different sexuality in order to be attracted to. This is generally what people are referring to when they say the pansexual label has transphobic origins, but there have also been several redefinitions of pan that have also been transphobic.

I reccomend watching this youtube video which addresses the narrative that bi activism has a history of ‘rampant transphobia’.

Since 2002 the label has gone through several changes in definition, but the most common one lately seems to be that pan is attraction to all genders (regardless of gender); while bi is attraction to 2 or more (gender is a factor in attraction).

But if we look back at bi history, we can see that bisexuality has never been limited by gender, bisexuals were never fixated on the bi = 2 definition. its also useful to know that when people first started iding as bisexual (Stephen Donaldson, also known as Donny the Punk, was one of the first people to id as bisexual in around 1966 and the label gained popularity in the 70s), it meant something similar to unisex.

Bisexuals have been describing their bisexuality as attraction regardless of gender since the 70s;

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender”

Janet Bode, The Pressure Cooker, View From Another Closet (1976)

“I am bisexual because I am drawn to particular people regardless of gender. It doesn’t make me wishy-washy, confused, untrustworthy, or more sexually liberated. It makes me a bisexual.”

The Bisexual Community: Are We Visible Yet?, By Lani Ka’ahumanu (1987)

and The 1990 Bisexual Manifesto:

“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. 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.”

evidences that bisexuals were aknowledging nonbinary genders (although they would have used genderqu**r or genderfuck instead of nonbinary as nonbinary was coined as a gender term more recently than the 90s) and including them in their bisexuality a decade before the I Am Pansexual community even existed. This is one of the many reasons why the pan label is also biphobic, because it trys to redefine bisexuality against bisexuals will, so that pan can mean attraction to all genders instead of bisexual.

If you want to read more about how different definitions of pansexual are based in biphobia i reccomend this article.

Here is the current defintion of bisexuality, as used by the American Institute of Bisexuality, and the Journal of Bisexuality. from the bi.org website:

"There are as many ways to be bi as there are bi people. No one word can fully capture the nuances of personality, culture, beliefs, or personal preference; no word should try to. The term bisexuality makes no such pretense—  it is a general and inclusive term that encompasses everyone; all sexes and all genders. That does not mean that bi people are attracted to everyone, merely that bi people’s attractions aren’t limited by sex or gender."

“Please also note that attraction to both same and different means attraction to all. Bisexuality is inherently inclusive of everyone, regardless of sex or gender.“

If you want to read more about bi history then this article; The Bisexual History They Don’t Want You to Know by @mediumkravitz is a good place to start. Kravtiz has also written; Does Liking a Nonbinary Person Make You Bi or Pan? Not Necessarily. which might clear up any confusion on where attraction to nonbinary genders fits into sexuality.

I’m massively bored and massively annoyed at people circulating images of radfems to support their arguments. So here’s another ace discourse post. 

A fringe argument in ace discourse has been “Asexuals have always been considered LGBT!” even though there has never been any noted reference to cisgender, straight aces in LGBT spaces prior to like… 2010. And the LGBT spaces prior to 2010 that let in cisgender, straight aces were just GSAs (which already let in cishets) in high schools or colleges.

And there is a reason for it.

Part of the reason is the changing definition of asexual. The AVEN triangle is based on the Kinsey “Group X” definition where Group X meant just… not having sex. Kinsey (who should not be cited with adoration for coming up with asexuality, as he was an awful person) did not create the “scale” to address who is or is not LGBT.

Then, radical feminists (ie also not an LGBT group) defined asexuality as viewing sex as nonessential to relationships. This bore an iconic image used to defend aces as LGBT to this day:

The image is from “off our backs” which is a radical feminist publication. This particular group was “Lesbians Activists at Barnard (College).” This was not listing LGBT identities (thus why straight was up there) but was listing identities you could have as a radical feminist. Similarly, the “Asexual Manifesto” was published by radical feminist Lisa Orlando who published it through New York Radical Feminists. And talks about asexuality being a choice, not an identity.

At the same time, asexual was referenced by a trans liberation mag, as we can see from ANOTHER image used by inclusionists:

This is an image just saying that all trans people should be liberated no matter if they are straight, gay, or anything else. It should be noted that since this was published in 1970, it was functioning under the same understanding of asexual as used by the radical feminists who defined asexual as seeing “ sex as nonessential to a satisfying relationship.” Not at all our modern definition of asexual.

So, we’re into 1970 and no one is considering ace to be LGBT. And yet it exists as DISTINCT from bisexual, so all of you fuckers can stop with the “actual cishet aces were considered to be bisexual” cause… no they weren’t.

Skip to the first proto ace community as listed by aven itself, Zoe O’Reilly’s “My Life as an Amoeba.” Which speaks of envy towards LGBT people, boasts of asexuality being about not fucking or dating and how that makes them better than teen moms, and defines asexuality how we would aroace. So, different ace definition than today… still not considered LGBT.

AVEN’s creation is messy as fuck and struggles to define asexuality but decides that basically any person who relates to non-sexuality belongs there. Neato.

May 2003 on AVEN: “Let’s change LGBT to LGBTA.” David Jay, founder of AVEN, says, actually, he’s already done so by making his universitys acronym “ LGBTTQQPFAGIBDSM “ (spot the slur, look hard at the inclusion of BDSM). People make “LOL SO MANY LETTERS” jokes that homophobes make about LGBT to this day. Then:

“The ace is for ally bro” and Aven guy says, “Actually, allies are queer.”

So, 2003… aces aren’t LGBT. And David Jay is a fucking freak. Also, someone brought the thread back 8 yaers later to say “Ew aces aren’t LGBT like those sinners.” Oops.

In 2010, aces decided to make their own flag. Some like stripes because it’s “Very LGBT” and well… here are some responses:

So, already an acknowledgment that they might not be LGBT. But calls LGBt people “Alternate sexualities” which… die.

“The gays get a lot of guff, right? Because of their rainbow flag” not OUR rainbow flag, lol. Also, wtf and then someone else points out the a is for ally anyways

In 2010.

In 2015, aces started the #GiveItBack campaign after GLAAD (and then HRC in 2016) said the A is for Ally. You can go on twitter and see aces tweeting about the #GiveItBack campaign if you don’t believe me, lol.

So, if aces want to claim that aces have always been LGBT… I gotta say… history is not on your side and, “No, no, I swear they were actually considered bisexual” doesn’t work because your own images include people listing out bisexual and asexual as separate identities.

Anyways, this post is long as fuck but only took 20 minutes. And will ONLY take me 20 minutes because I’m not arguing with people who want to defend an image of a radfem, an out of context image about trans liberation, or Kinsey lmao. Anyone who wants to argue will be laughed at and/or blocked.

it literally never once needed to expand beyond lgbt

There are more gender and sexuality combos than just lesbian gay bisexual transgender

and now gatekeeping means not wanting to fucking be called queer or mogai or quiltbag or qtipal or whatever the new fucking acronym of the week is

gatekeeping is now something to call trans women for not having the right opinions on ace discourse or some shit

this has got to be the most insulting ask i’ve ever received because you’re essentially implying that i do not know anything and have put no thought into it. how do you know i haven’t educated myself? how do you know that i haven’t spoken with other lesbians, other trans people, other bi people, and discussed how this label is kind of regressive and harmful?

you want proof? let’s walk through the logic of it right here, right now, together. we have the label bisexual; meaning capable of attraction to more than one gender (bi here being a latin root used in the label to denote ‘more than one’). this is the definition of the label many of my bi friends have told me they use.

now, there are three manners by which i have seen people define the term ‘bisexual lesbian’:

the first one is fairly old, it’s the manner by which transmisogynists have been super shitty to lesbians in relationships with trans women; calling them ‘bi lesbians’ or ‘dick-loving lesbians’ in a pretty straightforward attempt to strip them of their lesbianism and imply that their attraction to trans women makes them bisexual. obviously this is 1. deeply transmisogynistic and 2. not really how gender works. but i’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that this isn’t the definition you want to use, because if you were a garden variety transphobe this anon you’ve sent me would just be some milquetoast jab at my appearance instead of some incoherently high-horsed nonsense.

so let’s go with definition #2: ‘bisexual lesbians’ as a nonbinary-inclusive identity. basically meaning ‘bisexual means attraction to more than one gender, and bisexual lesbians are lesbians attracted to women AND nonbinary people.’ which is not like, how nonbinary people work. you can’t fit all nonbinary people into one concrete ‘third gender’ because it’s an *umbrella term* that encompasses lots of people, some of whom do in fact identify with ‘man’ or ‘woman’ in a sense outside of the strict binary (you’ll see this like 'men or man-aligned people dni’ or stuff like that when it comes to nuanced gender terminology). so there are nonbinary men, nonbinary women, bigender people, agender people, and etc. etc. etc. which means that you can’t fit all nonbinary people into one gender category, it’s a term that includes a lot of different relationships to gender.

here’s what i have to say to that: lesbian was already a nonbinary-inclusive identity to the extent that it included nonbinary people *who are okay with lesbian attraction*. there is a long history of nonbinary people within the lesbian community and those who aren’t comfortable with lesbian attraction aren’t going to be much more comfortable just because you slapped the word 'bisexual’ on to it.

like, this isn’t how attraction works! take for, instance, this twink i had a small interaction with years ago at a target once: i’m waiting in line at target, right? and i have my back to the store. and i’m in full 'eyes over the shoulder because i’m a butch in public and america is terrifying’ mode. i notice this twink guy walk by, stop and give me the up-down. and so my natural reaction is to turn toward the man behind me, right? and he sees the front of me and has this look on his face of 'oh shit that’s a woman i just eyed up’ and so he flashes my partner and i a thumbs-up, we have a brief moment of like 'gnc gay people in public hell yeah.’

now did this guy stop and figure out if i was nonbinary or whatever? did he get my pronouns? no! he saw a big back and nice haircut and was down, and when he saw the full picture he readjusted and respectfully bowed out. because, and this is important, when you put the phone down and meet people in the world, sometimes you’re going to be fleetingly attracted to people who won’t reciprocate. and you readjust. you don’t get everyone’s name label and pronouns right out of the gate; people aren’t pokemon. like, sometimes i’ll see nonbinary people who i’m into but when i learn they wouldn’t be comfortable with a lesbian being into them, i readjust. i don’t hysterically tinker with my identity until it includes them so i was Unproblematic All Along, i grow up and move on.

point blank- lesbian attraction is going to include some nonbinary people and not some others, and if you feel the need to fix that you do not understand nonbinary people.

so let’s move on to definition #3, 'bisexual lesbian’ as a term for a bisexual woman/woman-aligned person (did you see what i did there?) who is capable of attraction to more than one gender, but is 'sworn off of’ men or whatever or has a 'preference for women.’ so you’re adding lesbian onto bisexual to like, 'fix’ attraction to men? in this case you’re tacking lesbian onto bisexual in order to be like, i’m bi BUT WAIT i’m with a woman not a man so i’m an Actual Wlw.

we have a term for bisexual wlw who prefer to be with women/women-aligned people. ready for it? it’s bisexual. the term 'bisexual’ doesn’t need fixing and the things you’d try to fix by affixing 'lesbian’ on it are super telling. like, creating this new label isn’t helping. you know what would help? if we didn’t treat bi wlw who are in relationships with men like they’re less wlw than lesbians. if we didn’t make bi wlw feel the need to apologize for their bisexuality. if we didn’t project our insecurities around men onto bi wlw, if we didn’t say 'oh you’re with a man so it serves you right if he’s less good to you than a woman would be’. if we stopped defining bi women by men.