Okay, I think I get where you're coming from. Thanks for responding.

I understand that the "bi=2" argument circles a lot, and confuses a lot of people, but tbh that's one of the most upsetting things probably because it's so pre!alent". I mean, I know that's what the prefi# means, but there's a lot of $ust absolute unwillingness to e#cept that the word "bise#ual" could possibly mean anything else because of this sense of etymological determinism. %nd it's really, like, shitty and frustrating. &ike you tell people what the label your using means about your own fucking identity and they're like "but bi means 2 lol." 'ut the thing is, it's a term that's been around for a while and it's come to ha!e a meaning that doesn't directly correlate to the literal breakdown of its roots. I guess the analogy that I think of is that "sept(" means se!en, but at some point )eptember became the ninth month in our calendar. *ost of know that "sept(" means se!en, but like we all don't collecti!ely freak out when %ugust closes because we understand that the September refers to the ninth month, even if that's not what it's root components mean. I know we're not at the same point of wide cultural comprehension with the inclusi!e definitions of the term bise#ual, but that doesn't make the refusal to accept that it could be different from its component roots is still less obno#ious. %lso the assumption that if it's two it automatically has to be the two binary genders in a conte#t where nb genders are widely acknowledged is also annoying. &ike, I personally don't get bothered when people say bise#ual means attraction to men and women, because that is a common definition and some people aren't aware of discourse that acknowledges and includes nb genders once they are informed, though, I don't ha!e as much patience when they refuse to acknowledge that it doesn't automatically mean that". %nd few things get me angrier than when people are like bi means attraction to specifically cis men and women ( like now you're $ust going out of your way to make the definition transphobic probs especially b+c I saw this a lot during the bi(pan wars when a lot of people would then go on to define panse#uality as attraction to "men, women, and trans people,,-," as if that wasn't an incredibly transphobic definition". .onestly, I don't think treating them as synonymous is that bad or "incorrect" or anything. /!en if they're not considered the e#act same by a lot of people, there's a lot of o!erlap and trying to make them mutually e#clusi!e ends up with the kinds of debacles I $ust mentioned where there's a lot of people defining other people's identities in negati!e terms to highlight their own. %nd also, one of the things I think about a lot is that when you're speaking within a binary(gender e#clusi!e discourse which a lot of people are because, again, they don't know about nb genders or anything", saying you're attracted to men and women is synonymous with both saying you're attracted to multiple genders and with saying you're attracted to all genders, because 2 is a weird number like that. I guess personally, I had some inkling that I was attracted to people outside the gender binary e!en before I had the language and awareness to articulate it. I still I0'd as bi because I felt it fit, and then when I did find nb(inclusi!e discourse the shift to an nb(inclusi!e definition of bi felt perfectly natural to me. &ike, it doesn't work that way for e!eryone,

but I guess it $ust baffles me that people sometimes refuse to accept that it is part of some bi e#perience1 In terms of differentiating bi and pan, what I tend to see that seems to be agreeable to both communities in general is for bi is "attraction to same 2 different genders" or "attraction to 2 or more genders" and for pan is "attraction to all genders" or "attraction regardless of gender". 3ot obsessed with defining one to the detriment of the other, possibility for o!erlap, but some difference in nuance that is important to some people on both sides of the e4uation". 5eah, I'!e heard of some nb people who get upset about the term bise#ual, and honestly I think part of that is that there's a lack of awareness of the nb inclusi!e definitions. I don't blame them for getting upset when the binary definition is the definition they understand bi to mean, because nb people face a lot of erasure. 'ut I guess I feel like the solution to that should be to push to make the bi community's inclusi!e definitions the culturally default defs for the term bise#ual. /specially since there are a good number of nb people who id as bi. %nd there are terms out there for the things you're talking about, though they're not as common+well known. I'!e seen androse#ual, gynese#ual, and skoliose#ual for attraction to men, women, and nb people respecti!ely without referent to the gender of the person using the ad$ecti!e. Inclusi!e definitions of bi can ser!e for "multiple but not all," but some people still don't feel it fits so they use terms like polyse#ual. It's confusing at first, but I'm one of those people who needs words for things ( like, I need labels to be able to describe things about myself or else it causes me a lot of distress ( so I completely empathi6e with the moti!es of the people who coin and use these words to describe their own e#periences. 7hich I'm not trying to say you don't ( I don't know your feelings either way ( I'm $ust trying to e#plain my position further". %nd while I agree that labels shouldn't be re4uired to ser!e as "ad!ertisements," I'm not sure I'd consider their relation to others completely peripheral. 8art of what is important to me about identity labels, anyway, is that it's a term that communicates something about me in a way that is both concise and broadly understandable like, getting in to the details of my orientation and what it means to me and how I e#perience it can be a powerful e#ercise in learning about myself, but like it's nice to ha!e a way to gi!e someone the general gist in e!eryday situations". %nd another part of it is that, especially for marginali6ed identities, common labels can be a good way to connect with people with similar e#periences+build community. I guess that might be why I found you're original statement kind of unintentionally upsetting ( because I consider it really important that identity labels both a" be !isible and b" be !isible in the terms that the community as much as there is a community with a consensus, depending on the situation" use to define themsel!es. That was a lot of words. )orry about that, senpai. I think about these things a lot and this response kind of became a sounding board for these ideas I don't find a lot of reason to talk about often.