[Image Description: A background of diagonal stripes in the bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual colors. A translucent white rectangle with black text over it reads, “We don’t think everyone who is sexually attracted to more than one gender needs to identify as bisexual. We agree that people choose labels and identities for a wide variety of reasons. How would we prefer people to identify? With whatever label they feel best suits, fits, captures, sums up, or empowers them. Why think outside the gay/straight box only to insist there has to be a limit on how many more boxes there is? —The Bisexual Index”. End Description.]

bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all legitimate, necessary, and valuable labels.

(quote source)

pan, ply, omni, and otherwise non-bi mspec folks do not owe an explanation or defense of our identity/label to people who are projecting bad faith onto it and demanding we engage in a debate we didn’t ask for.

Mspec identities have a lot of overlap. Sometimes people identify as more than one, as both bi and pan for example, or sometimes people find that there are multiple mspec identities that fit their experience but have reasons for choosing one over another. You could have two people who feel the same about their experience but one identities as bisexual and the other identifies as polysexual. There is a lot of overlap, but that does not mean that all mspec identities are the same or that it’s ok to misidentify mspec people.

You cannot tell someone who’s pansexual that they’re “essentially bisexual”. They’re not. They’re pan. That is the identity that fits them best and you need to respect that. Furthermore they do not owe you an explanation of why they identify the way they do.

You cannot tell someone who’s omnisexual that they “just fit under the b”. That is deciding for someone else that they are ok with using another identity as an umbrella term and thereby telling them they’re something they’re not. They’re omni. Respect that.

You cannot interrogate someone who’s polysexual about why they identify that way and tell them it’s basically the same as bisexual so there’s no reason to. They’re ply. There is no reason for you to question that.

You cannot tell any mspec person that they’re “really” ______ or “should” identify as ______. You can’t tell people they have to be ok with being seen as bisexual or being told that they “go under the b” or that bi pride/positivity is for them too so they shouldn’t expect their own. You can’t blame biphobia or lack of representation on other mspec people, that is seriously not ok. I don’t care if you’re monosexual or mspec yourself, you do not get to determine someone else’s identity. You do not get to decide that someone else’s identity is “harmful”.

You can either respect people’s identities even if you don’t necessarily “get” them (which, newsflash, you don’t have to) or you can butt out and go far away and leave mspec people alone.

"it's harmful to break our community into smaller pieces and create new labels to express how we're attracted instead of to whom."

(a slightly condensed version of this twitter thread i made recently)

i’m bored of the argument that pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual were created in recent years, not because there’s anything wrong with new labels, but because it crumbles to pieces with the slightest bit of research into queer history.

mspec labels such as pan, ply, and omni are not newly created by ignorant kids on online. they’ve been descriptors for sexual identity for decades, since at least the ‘60 and ‘70s.

labels describing how one is attracted can be useful, because we don’t all conceptualize our attraction in the same way and it’s not harmful for people to use different language to describe and define their own attraction.

that said, pan, ply, and omni do describe who one is attracted to, even when there are specifications on the how, because mspec labels are inherently about being attracted to more than one gender.

this argument (which is also used against aspec identities) is likely about “regardless of gender”, but considering others also use that definition (and go as far as claiming it’s The Only Definition of bi), it doesn’t hold up.

arguments of pan, ply, and omni people breaking the community into smaller pieces, forcing the bi umbrella, and rejecting a label they are somehow obligated to use don’t stand up to queer history.

historical and current bi texts/groups acknowledge, support, and include all mspec labels. the variety in mspec identity is not new. the bi umbrella originated with and is largely used by bi orgs/activists.

there is no need to homogenize the community to fight systemic oppression when there are already existing umbrellas that all queer people come together under. this argument is identity politics.

queer people have always expanded our terms to represent what’s important enough to warrant its own term, because it isn’t acknowledged (enough) in other terms, or we just don’t identify with other terms.

are we going to pretend these arguments against pan, ply, and omni aren’t recycled queerphobia? that they aren’t the same arguments bi, trans, and aspec people heard about their places in the community? obscuring the goal? derailing progress? dividing the community? detrimental to the movement?

are pan/ply/omniphobes really just going to uncritically parrot the same arguments that have been used against other queer people, even against their own identities, and think no one will notice?

i hope every single bisexual, polysexual, and pansexual autistic person has a fantastic day!