#op is poly and agender (and sapphic) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lilacbestpurple · 3 years ago

Text

Long post where I talk about bi/pan/omni/polysexuality and trying to figure out who I am via the internet in my early teen years:

I started questioning my sexuality when I was 13/14 and my first resource was the internet, which taught me about ‘bi/pan/omni/polysexual’... and that was so confusing to me. Because where I grew up, as is the case for most people, the binary genders (male and female) are the only genders that are recognised on a large scale. I had little to no experience with non-binary people. But beyond that, being non-binary is meant to be about breaking away from gendered roles and expectations. Which means that there’s no way to actually visualise what the average non-binary person looks like, let alone how you may be attracted to the average agender or genderfluid person.

So I would stress over which label to choose because I was struggling to envision what it would be like to be attracted to a non-binary person. I know someone might ask, “why not just pick a label?” But I love labels! It’s not about being shoved in a box to me, it’s about having something that matches and reflects your experience! And I couldn’t just go with what felt right because none of them felt exactly right! Besides everyone has internalised LGBTQphobia, which leads to people to reject labels that accurately describe them. What if I rejected the right label just because the stereotypes and fearmongering and shame put me off?

(Speaking of which, how come people who say that they don’t like labels are almost always people who can be attracted to any gender? How has society made people so uncomfortable to use labels for this experience?)

After a while, I was getting sceptical and annoyed, frankly. Pansexuality, omnisexuality and polysexuality had universally understood definitions: “pansexual = attracted with gender having no effect”, “omnisexual = attracted to all genders with some nuance”, “polysexual = attracted to multiple but not all genders”.

Bisexuality was more contested: “bi is two and only two”, “bi is at least two”, “bi is all”, “bi is more than one”, “bi is an umbrella term”, “bi is all but you can have a preference”, “bi is plural but not all”, “bi is men and women”, “bi is any two genders”.

I had no idea that bisexuality was something that could apply to me because there was no consistent definition provided. I was also confused by seeing both people who used bi and pan together and people who insisted that they were not interchangeable - anyone can understand why someone can’t be a ‘bi lesbian’, so how could someone simultaneously say they are bi and pan?

I was also critical about pan/omni definitions. While I could understand being attracted to someone of any gender, it didn’t make sense to be ‘genderblind’ (we all understand why it’s wrong to say you’re “raceblind”. Just apply the reasoning). And omnisexuality didn’t seem to have any necessary distinction to pansexuality; bigots don’t care who a woman prefers or if she’s attracted to women in different ways to other genders, they just care that she likes women.

I was slightly leaning towards polysexual but it still didn’t feel right - again, there’s no way to visualise the average agender or genderfluid person. How could I say that I wasn’t attracted to X or Y genders? As a sidenote, ‘poly’ was also being used as an abbreviation by Polynesian and polyamorous communities (though nowadays, polyamorous people will use ‘polyam’ to advise confusion).

The only label that I felt comfortable with at first use was ‘sapphic’, but I had no prior negative experiences with that unless you count watching Cheryl call Tonie a sapphic serpent on Riverdale but I think watching Riverdale in formative periods of my life is negative enough. But that only informs people about my attraction to women. And I’m attracted to men as well.

Eventually I stumbled on a post that felt like a smack in the face: the OP talked about how you shouldn’t just pick a word that feels right or make up a word for your own ‘exclusive’ experience - if you wanted to find the right label, you had to put in the work to get over any misconceptions you had about labels and the people who those labels were meant to represent.

So then I... actually started to learn about bisexual history (which I really should have done from the start). About bisexuals who were attracted to people “regardless of gender” (bearing in mind, bisexual as referring to orientation was coined before the concept of gender as a social structure/not the same as sex, so early bisexuals would have seen their label as inclusive to ‘all genders’). About later bisexuals who supported trans people. About bisexuals who were trans people, who let people know that they shouldn’t assume there were just two genders, let alone that bisexuals could only be attracted to two genders.

I learned about bisexuals whose voices had been written over by the people who tried to limit their label and their attraction, which was then spread on by people who didn’t actually look at bi history - me included.

Not only that, but I realised that early definitions of pansexual (as an orientation - pansexual was originally linked to Freud’s theory that sexual instinct drives all human activity) were often transphobic and offensive to intersex people - they would separate binary trans people from cis people, or clump together non-binary people as if any two non-binary people experienced gender the same way, or clump together intersex people as if any two intersex people experienced their bodies the same way.

Doing this, along with attempting to limit bisexuality with different definitions, is harmful - not only does it rob bisexuality of its definition as given by bisexuals, but it allows transphobic/enbyphobic and intersexphobic bisexuals to justify excluding/being shitty to trans people and intersex people by saying “I’m just not attracted to them - I’m not polysexual/pansexual/omnisexual!”

Anyway. I’m doing better with accepting my own bisexuality now that I have the label - attraction regardless of gender, no matter if my preferences shift or come and go. If I’m honest, I think that I’m pretty lucky in that it’s come fairly easily to me to accept that I have feelings for people of any genders (although it might be my lack of experience with dating...). But that doesn’t change the fact that I had to deal with misinformation on bisexuality from people who don’t identify with the label. It would have been so much better if I had learnt about bisexuality from bisexuals.

I don’t want to say that I hold any hostility to anyone attracted to multiple genders who don’t use the bisexual label - there’s a lot of misinformation and internalised biphobia to deal with and at the end of the day, them using a different (albeit - well, harmful) label to me doesn’t negate the fact that we share the same experience. But I can’t say that I’m comfortable with those labels.

Tldr:

Having other ‘multisexual’ labels at best provides limits or misconceptions to bisexuality and at worst completely misrepresents the spirit of the label. It also allows people to distance themselves from trans and intersex people by saying that they’re just not attracted to them. The way to ensure trans and intersex people are included in a sexuality isn’t by making a new word, it’s by working to provide allyship to trans and intersex people - don’t change the word, change the definition.

Read the Bisexual Manifesto and listen to bisexuals, especially trans/non-binary bisexuals!!!

Sapphic is pretty solid as a label to link wlw together without so many syllables (saying wlw is actually longer than saying women-loving women). It’s not my primary label obviously, but it’s a good word to have around.

Addressing (internalised) bigotry will always be more important than “going with what feels right”.

‘Poly’ has been used as an abbreviation by multiple (online) communities.

4 notes · View notes