Ok there’s some stuff floating around about this piece and @BiDotOrg’s commentary on it and I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS TO SAY.

Let’s start with this framework: we critique systems and leaders, BUT NOT THE INDIVIDUAL FOLKS STRUGGLING DAY TO DAY

https://www.culturalconsent.com/vol1-no1/bi-is-enough

So the article pretty much says: arguments for the label “pansexual” are rooted in biphobia, so let’s throw the whole thing in the trash.

Oh. My. Goodness.

Ok.

First of all: everything is rooted in biphobia. But we don’t argue that we should throw out “straight” or “gay.”

Second of all, so what?? Biphobia is incredibly painful. It haunts my entire working life.

If someone wants to avoid that horrible pain and also describe themselves as having the potential for attraction to more than one gender, who the fuck am I to force them into more pain.

I don’t actually argue that the label pansexual has biphobia connotations, or that some people who identify as pansexual share biphobia rhetoric.

But holy shit people, if mis-information about bi+ folks led to biphobia, the way to correct it is not to slam pansexuality.

Pan is important to people.

Bi is important to other people.

Most people from either label love each other and everyone else under the big nonmonosexual umbrella.

PLUS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ID AS PAN AND BI!!!

(Personal side note: bi+ is NOT my personal label. Mine is queer. Bisexual is my community label. But no one has come at me for biphobia, even though I’ve heard queer folks saying the same thing about bi = 2. )

So in my view, there are two related problems:

1) bi v. pan perceived rivalry

2) biphobia + panphobia

My answer to the perceived rivalry: literally don’t let it happen.

Say bi and pan all the time. Talk about the history of biphobia. Talk about access to internet influencing labels. Talk about how nonmonosexuals use like a million labels because the SYSTEM is flawed, not us.

My answer to biphobia and panphobia:

Focus your outrage outwards. Focus on the roots of biphobia and panphobia and their impacts on our community. Talk talk talk to monosexuals.

Focus your support inwards. Give love and care and money to bi+pan people.

Ok, now here’s the second part of this discussion: what @BiDotOrg said in its discourse around the article. In the screenshots below, they say sexual orientation is about your attraction to biological sex.

That is . . . scary and wrong? https://twitter.com/somepaperclips/status/1094799492472340481?s=21

They also say gender is a construct outside of science.

That is also scary and wrong.

Sex, sexual orientation, and gender are all pretty well described by social science and biology.

Sex is generally understood as, like, your “body.” So, when you’re born, your doctor checks your genitals and assigns something.

But there truly are infinite sexes, given the variety in genitals, chromosomes, hormones, sex organs, etc.

(I AM SOOOOOOO OVERSIMPLIFYING HERE SO PLEASE DISREGARD IF UNHELPFUL!!!)

Gender is your feeling of femaleness, maleness, a combination, or something else!

Most folks’ gender matches what they think their sex is. Or what their sex was assigned.

(I say it like that bc most folks haven’t checked all their chromosomes, hormones, organs, etc.)

Sexual orientation is: WHATEVER YOU SAY IT IS!!!

I know that’s a dodge, but truly, it is.

LARGELY, straight people have the ability to be attracted to people of a different gender. LARGELY, that means straight women are attracted to men. But it’s all so complex!!!

LARGELY, gay + lesbian people have the ability to be attracted to people of a similar gender. That means, LARGELY, that lesbian women are attracted to women. And gay men to men.

And the complexity around the infinite sexes and infinite genders inserts itself into every facet of trying to describe sexual orientation.

So NO, sexual orientation ISN’T attraction to biological sex. That makes no scientific sense. Mostly because how do I know someone’s “sex”?

Do I check their genitals, then get a chromosomal test, then asses their hormone levels, and ask them for a sonogram of their organs? And if it all aligns with mine, I’m good to go?

That’s patently absurd.

No. We are attracted to whom were attracted.

Or, in the case of asexual and aromantic folks, we’re not, or it takes us a while.

For most folks being “attracted to whom were attracted” means being attracted to someone who appears to be a different gender. And most of those people probably ARE a different gender, statistically.

And if not, hey! Time to get to know yourself better. And them.

Statistically, the next most common meaning of “attracted to whom you’re attracted” means that gender doesn’t really play into it.

Truth!!

In order of population percentage, we go: straight, nonmonosexual, gay + lesbian.

And then, statistically, being “attracted to whom were attracted” means being attracted to someone who appears to be the same gender. And most of those people probably ARE the same gender, statistically.

And if not, hey! Time to get to know yourself better. And them.

I feel like we’re getting to weeds that need not be gotten into, but I really want to establish that SCIENTIFICALLY, sex and gender are both nearly infinite and impossible to determine with granular specificity without deep interrogation and tests.

And so, your sexual orientation literally is however you define it. And no one else can tell you you’re wrong.

When @BiDotOrg says that sexual orientation is about biological sex, they are dangerously oversimplifying “sex” AND they are falling into a scary rhetorical trap.

This is the same rhetoric used by anti-trans folks who root their advocacy in so-called “feminism.”

(Yeah, I’m talking about TERFs and others.)

To say that “biological sex” defines sexual orientation is to send us down paths of intensely conplicated justification for labels and attraction.

Like: what about the cis lesbian who loves her non-binary trans masculine partner? Is she a lesbian?

What about the non-binary lesbian who is attracted to trans and cis women? Is she as lesbian?

INSTEAD OF DEBATING, JUST SAY “YUP! ‘CAUSE SHE SAYS SHE IS”!!

When @BiDotOrg says that “sexual orientation is about biological sex” they are reducing people to an irreducible concept. They are denying the infinite possibility of human biology. They are ignoring non-binary people.

AND they’re being wicked transphobic.

“Sexual orientation is about biological sex” is what anti-trans so-called feminists say, and in the next breath they accuse trans women of forcing lesbians to love them.

I’m not being rhetorical. I research anti-trans so-called feminists and this is literally what they say.

And to them I say: Um I know SO MANY lesbians (cis and trans lesbians) who love trans women.

And: AS IF A TRANS WOMEN WANTS A TRANSPHOBIC PERSON TO LOVE THEM, YOU SELF-CENTERED ASS.

Back to the beginning, critiquing leaders and rhetoric and not the people struggling day to day:

Shame on you @BiDotOrg for perpetuating these myths.

Shame on the leaders of anti-trans groups who root their advocacy in so-called feminism.

To everyone seduced by their rhetoric, resist. Your sexual orientation is yours. And someone else’s is theirs.

If someone is forcing you to love them, they are a violent asshole, but that’s a problem with the patriarchy and its premium on sexual violence, not with trans folks.

If you’re bi+, awesome. Me too!

If you’re pan, fabulous! Some of my best friends are pan!

If you’re straight, hallelujah! My partner is!

If you’re gay or lesbian, sweet bippy! Some of my best friends are!!

The world is so beautifully complicated! Celebrate it!!

Phew.

If you’re still here, follow my soundcloud.*

*smash the patriarchy and pet a kitty today