Here& #39;s a thing I& #39;ve been thinking about a lot: if a character has relationships with multiple genders, it& #39;s immediately classed as & #39;bi rep& #39;, even if that character never identifies as bi. And that& #39;s just...not correct, because bi isn& #39;t the default m-spec sexuality.

When it comes to m-spec identities, we have this problem where show runners think they& #39;re being & #39;progressive& #39; by refusing to have characters label their m-spec sexuality, but that harks dangerously close to & #39;the love that dare not speak it& #39;s name& #39; 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& #39;s ACTUALLY progressive.

So, unless a character explicitly identifies as bi, then I& #39;m not claiming it as bi rep. Because a) non-bi m-spec folks shouldn& #39;t be erased and b) bi folks deserve better than to be The Great Unspoken Thing. Name it. Say it. That& #39;s true progressive representation.

Addition: I& #39;ll class them as & #39;m-spec& #39; rep, but I& #39;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& #39;t included in the previous rant).