“It’s never okay to call someone who uses microlabels bisexual.”
“It’s never okay to call a bisexual one of the microlabels.”
I identify as bisexual and pansexual simultaneously. They’re not mutually exclusive because they’re somewhat arbitrary neologisms with blurry semantic distinctions. No bit of language is rooted in stone, let alone more modern terms used to describe a very personalized matter like sexual orientation. I always say that how personal you are to a label is the best metric to know how adequately it describes you. Do you feel “bisexual” is a relatable term? Congrats, you’re bi. Do you feel “pansexual” is a relatable term? Congrats, you’re pan. And me? I use the terms in a linguistic context that makes them not mutually exclusive and core parts of my sexual identity, so I do want to correct that part (even though I know you didn’t make this). Otherwise, however, I think it’s a good post, and just make sure at the end of the day to emphasize respect and refrain from policing identities like a turd. Anyone who does that should touch grass ASAP.
I always use bisexual/biromantic for myself but see no issue with someone calling me pan, sometimes I even consider using that label for myself, but I also kinda feel like labeling my own sexuality/romantic orientation in any way is going to be inaccurate because I just relate to attraction in a different way than most people seem to. Like, I use “in love with” or “attracted to” as shorthands that I think others will understand, but I am pretty confident that NTs’ red is not the same as my red, metaphorically speaking.
Bisexual/biromantic is a convenient way of conveying the idea of “I can see myself marrying and perhaps starting a family with a person of any gender” or “I could screw someone of any gender given the opportunity” et cetera, but the… “framework” – I guess? – that I prefer is one of “input and output”. Something like, “Because this person is really cute I want to watch a movie with thon and hold thons hand”, instead of, “What I feel towards this person is categorically love.”
That I/O framework is something much more concrete, it takes a lot less guessing of what exactly other people mean by things like “love” or “attraction”, it means that I don’t have to worry about if it’s a burn-and-sizzle crush or long-lasting love. And it’s definitionally a framework where (un)falsifiable labels of who I am or am not exclusively attracted to are irrelevant, where it doesn’t matter whether one categorically was “in love with” him, or if one can really rule out the possibility of ever meeting “her”…
Allow me to speak on these points:
I identify as bisexual and pansexual simultaneously. They’re not mutually exclusive because they’re somewhat arbitrary neologisms with blurry semantic distinctions. No bit of language is rooted in stone, let alone more modern terms used to describe a very personalized matter like sexual orientation. I always say that how personal you are to a label is the best metric to know how adequately it describes you. Do you feel “bisexual” is a relatable term? Congrats, you’re bi. Do you feel “pansexual” is a relatable term? Congrats, you’re pan. And me? I use the terms in a linguistic context that makes them not mutually exclusive and core parts of my sexual identity, so I do want to correct that part (even though I know you didn’t make this). Otherwise, however, I think it’s a good post, and just make sure at the end of the day to emphasize respect and refrain from policing identities like a turd. Anyone who does that should touch grass ASAP.
I always use bisexual/biromantic for myself but see no issue with someone calling me pan, sometimes I even consider using that label for myself, but I also kinda feel like labeling my own sexuality/romantic orientation in any way is going to be inaccurate because I just relate to attraction in a different way than most people seem to. Like, I use “in love with” or “attracted to” as shorthands that I think others will understand, but I am pretty confident that NTs’ red is not the same as my red, metaphorically speaking.
Bisexual/biromantic is a convenient way of conveying the idea of “I can see myself marrying and perhaps starting a family with a person of any gender” or “I could screw someone of any gender given the opportunity” et cetera, but the… “framework” – I guess? – that I prefer is one of “input and output”. Something like, “Because this person is really cute I want to watch a movie with thon and hold thons hand”, instead of, “What I feel towards this person is categorically love.”
That I/O framework is something much more concrete, it takes a lot less guessing of what exactly other people mean by things like “love” or “attraction”, it means that I don’t have to worry about if it’s a burn-and-sizzle crush or long-lasting love. And it’s definitionally a framework where (un)falsifiable labels of who I am or am not exclusively attracted to are irrelevant, where it doesn’t matter whether one categorically was “in love with” him, or if one can really rule out the possibility of ever meeting “her”…
But… I guess labels are kind of convenient, too.