Read on Twitter
Here's a thing I've been thinking about a lot: if a character has relationships with multiple genders, it's immediately classed as 'bi rep', even if that character never identifies as bi. And that's just...not correct, because bi isn't the default m-spec sexuality.
When it comes to m-spec identities, we have this problem where show runners think they're being 'progressive' by refusing to have characters label their m-spec sexuality, but that harks dangerously close to 'the love that dare not speak it's name' for my liking.
If gay characters get to identify, verbally or otherwise, as gay or lesbian, then m-spec characters should be afforded the same. Using words like bisexual, pansexual etc. is what's ACTUALLY progressive.
So, unless a character explicitly identifies as bi, then I'm not claiming it as bi rep. Because a) non-bi m-spec folks shouldn't be erased and b) bi folks deserve better than to be The Great Unspoken Thing. Name it. Say it. That's true progressive representation.
Addition: I'll class them as 'm-spec' rep, but I'll push hard on the writers, show runners etc to make up their damned minds and have that character verbalise it.
(Also, a character only identifying is queer is valid as fuck and isn't included in the previous rant).
(Also, a character only identifying is queer is valid as fuck and isn't included in the previous rant).
