Informative Bisexual

Accurate information for the modern Bisexual on-the-go.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Accurate Bisexual info Blog

Welcome to your One Stop Shop for everything Bisexual (as long as it’s information)

OOC: 

This is a blog to post snarky, jokey responses to biphobic ideas and concepts that I commonly see. Sometimes I will post serious posts, if I feel it is important enough for bisexuals.

I’m sorry to say I will not reply to responses to my posts. Opening dialogues is a very good thing, but that’s not what this blog is for. Feel free to discuss in the notes, though.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

I’m taking a break for the rest of today.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

omg wait are you getting called a terf for acknowledging biological sex in attraction now? LOL that's dumb -heshetransmasc

I'm honestly not even sure what they were referring to, because of the lack of explanation.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

the fact that a blog named accurate bisexual information is so openly transphobic is embarassing for our community. please think two seconds about the implications of separating same sex and same gender attraction.

Transgender people, trans men and trans women, are the gender that they are. tTans men are men. Trans women are women. Lesbians (women who like other women) can be attracted to trans women, because trans women are women. Gay men can like trans men because trans men are men.

Some lesbians aren’t attracted to trans women, and some gay men aren’t attracted to trans men. That’s just a fact. Is that a bad thing? Is it a good thing? I am neither gay nor trans, so I am very much unqualified to give any kind of answer to that.

Now, where, exactly, did I separate same sex attraction and same gender attraction? 

What is it about today that made a bunch of people start accusing me of shit without explaining anything?

“Should I tell this person what they said and why I disagree? Nope, you're transphobic, fuck you.”

[accurate-bisexual-info]

If you're including opposite sex attraction in the definition of lesbian, then does this bi blog recognize the validity of homosexuals at all? Is this a homophobic blog which alleges everyone is fluid and bi????? Because lesbians are afabs attracted to afabs. Same sex attracted.

I am not a lesbian, so I try not to talk about what the definition of lesbian is.

I do not believe everyone is "fluid and bi", that's stupid. However, I do believe that trans women are real women and trans men are real men, so lesbians can be into trans women and gay men to trans men

[ghostyghostygo]

hi, i am a lesbian, and anon is right in that lesbianism can be defined as exclusively afab4afab. i’m not going to speak on SGA lesbians bc this isn’t about them, but i know that for me personally i am exclusively SSA and would not be comfortable dating anyone amab. i can’t change this just because of someone’s gender identity, sexuality is innate & not something that inherently invalidates trans people (esp since i’m transmasc).

same sex attraction doesn’t change just because of the labels someone uses. saying that all lesbians can or should date trans women erases SSA lesbians. SSA and SGA can coexist. i hope this makes sense :) /gen

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Again, I'm not a lesbian, so I'm not well versed in talking about lesbian-specific issues.

I agree with you. I specifically said "can be attracted to" to mean that I know that some lesbians aren't attracted to trans women, although in hindsight that wasn't particularly clear.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Sexuality isn't defined by gender preferences it's defined by the sex or sexes we're oriented to. The sex in sexual orientation is not a reference to coitus or intercourse. The etymology is the root word sexus for biological sex. This is really weird and invalidating for you to pretend to care about bi people and then deliberately ignore linguistics, history, sociology, and biology.

I don't know where I've disagreed with... any of those things? I'm not really sure which of my posts has made people write all of these asks.

I sgree that the "sex" in "-sexuality" means biological sex, rather than sexual intercourse. I agree that "bisexuality" refers to the two biological sexes. I do care about bisexual people (of which I am one) which is why I made a blog to attempt to correct bisexual beliefs and arguments. I've never "deliberately ignored" anything.

Maybe, instead of patronising and insulting me, you could explain what I've actually said that is wrong, and explain why you think it's wrong? Then we'd be on the same page and could actually discuss things.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

I'm really concerned you're ignoring the difference between bisexuality and homosexuality and how the word bi was originally defined in the 1920s because we only had words for being attracted to the same (homo) or opposite (hetero) sexes, not both.

I think I agree with what you're saying. I'm currently trying to think of a succinct definition of bisexual that I find satisfies my beliefs on the subject (it's pretty hard TBH).

[accurate-bisexual-info]

If you're including opposite sex attraction in the definition of lesbian, then does this bi blog recognize the validity of homosexuals at all? Is this a homophobic blog which alleges everyone is fluid and bi????? Because lesbians are afabs attracted to afabs. Same sex attracted.

I am not a lesbian, so I try not to talk about what the definition of lesbian is.

I do not believe everyone is "fluid and bi", that's stupid. However, I do believe that trans women are real women and trans men are real men, so lesbians can be into trans women and gay men to trans men

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Bi has always included all genders, even before the 70s. Bisexual has always meant attraction to both sexes.

I agree.

To my knowledge, there a lack of pretty much any documentation about bisexuality, by bisexuals, from before around the '70s (Gee, I wonder why.) But I do agree that bisexuals have almost definitely been open to any/all genders since before the documentation kind of jump-started.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Hi! I just wanna say thank you for being really clear on your stand on the whole pan omni bi debate. All of your points are totally valid.

This being said, I know someone who identifies as Omni, and I'm really close with this person. I figured it would be better of me as a friend to accept them for who they were and support this, if this is how they really felt. Overall, I feel this might be a better approach...

so yes, you are correct, but do you think we just should be supportive? These things don't always have to be biphobic or transphobic or anything, this is just the label that they feel most comfortable with. The distinction matters to some people, and even if it doesn't make sense, maybe we should try to respect that???

idk, just my personal thoughts... :) I hope u have a nice day and don't take offense to this, that wasn't the intention I swear. Bi-Bye!!! :3 <3

First, I'm glad you find my explanations of my thoughts clear. Also, I don't take offense to what you're saying at all, I understand what you mean; however, I think you're making a dichotomy where there isn't one.

On this blog I argue against (what I see as) biphobic claims and arguments, and that includes various "pro m-spec" definitions. But, I don't think you should ambush all pan/omni people with arguments against their sexuality, or be unsupportive and hostile towards them.

However, I think there is a difference between supporting someone and affirming biphobic viewpoints. I won't confront people about their labels at inappropriate situations, but I refuse to respect people's views when they're insulting me. And, to be clear, every time I see people someone try to explain why they use their label over bisexual, or present some form of distinction between an "m-spec identity" and bisexuality, its always been biphobic.=

This is only tangentially related to this ask, but I want to make it clear that I don't think all pan/omni/poly/etc. people are actively biphobic, but I have yet to see pro m-spec reasonings that aren't clearly based on biphobic rhetoric. At the end of the day, a lot of these people are themselves victims of biphobia, which often contributes to their distancing themselves from bisexuality.

TL;DR: I think you can support someone without supporting offensive ideals. I hope my reasoning makes sense

[accurate-bisexual-info]

Hello! I’ve been looking for a blog like this to ask this question For a while, but all of the other battleaxe bi blogs Ive found have been seemed a little too…is dogmatic the word? this blog seems the most likely to give an actual answer and without just having a pile on. Im new to the lgbtq+ community, and one of the first labels that I found that I thought fit me was pansexual, as I am attracted to non-binary, male and female people. I don’t believe that being bi is transphobic in any way and don’t understand how someone could have That take, but from what I’ve seen being bisexual means being attracted to male and female, but not non binary people. This doesn’t mean bisexuals don’t fall in love with personalities or any of that other horse shit biphobes spout, but it seems like there’s a difference and that pan and bi people, or mspec people in general, should just coexist. Is this opinion valid, or am I wildly incorrect?

(Same anon as before) realized I forgot to put this in my first ask, but the whole “hearts not parts” thing does Not apply to me as I think that enby people can be sexually attractive in a way that male or female people aren’t, so ig it’s hearts and parts for me.

I'm happy you felt comfortable asking me this.

In the nicest way possible, you're just wrong. It makes sense, you're new to all this and pansexuality is a particularly front-of-view label. The big problem is that bisexuality has a long-ass history which most pro-pansexuals dismiss and mischaracterise.

Bisexuality has been specifically inclusive of all genders since around the '70s. Before the Pride movement was called "the Pride movement", bisexual activists noted that, despite the "bi" prefix, bisexuality is not a strict, exclusive label, but rather an inclusive and fluid one.

Pansexuality as a label has a very odd history, but it's use to mean a sexuality started around the late 2000s (ish). It specifically started out meaning attraction to men, women and trans people (not a great start) and then moved slowly to the current common definition "attraction regardless of gender" (a definition used by bisexuals for decades.)

So, yeah, bisexuality has been inclusive of Non-binary people for a long time, and the concept that it isn't is a new, biphobic idea. (Although, to be clear, i don't think you're a biphobe. You've just been given bad information).

[accurate-bisexual-info]

What’s your take on queer as a sexuality? I’m a cis woman who is attracted to men, women, and non-binary people, both cis and trans (everyone). Bisexual/pansexual/omnisexual just don’t feel right to me. I’m not biphobic, and I’ve seen the pan/omni discourse and mostly agree with it. Maybe it’s just me but saying I’m queer feels so much more comfortable.

First, this is all opinions and subjective, so don't base your identity on what I think or anything.

Queer as a label just means anyone who isn't both cis and straight, so I think "queer" as a sexuality doesn't really make sense. It's kind of like identifying as "LGBT+" and nothing else. It doesn't mean anything. It's like a menu listing "food" as a meal. Although, if you feel so uncomfortable with other labels that you can't use them, that's a different (and much more complex) situation.

The definition of bisexuality is kind of a tough subject, only because of the various opinions on the specific wording, but attraction to all genders is definitely included. Bisexuality has been inclusive of all genders, gender expressions, and gender experiences since... forever? Since the '70s at least, bisexual advocates and activists have made a point that bisexuality isn't restrictive or binary, and is fluid and inclusive.

I really don't want to be mean here, but you're giving basically the same reasoning people give to identify as pan.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

💕💜🐬

I don't know what this means, but I assume it's good.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

I really appreciate the sort of... more mature and nuanced way that you navigate the discourse on this blog? I feel like a lot of the people who blog about this issue are very childish about it and kind of just try to dunk on people instead of having a productive discussion about it. You explain your position well

Thank you.

In the end, I just want people to understand each other. I make posts explaining my view of common points (which I feel are biphobic). I also want to understand what people who disagree with me think. Even if it ends up with both sides still disagreeing, at least we understand what we actually disagree on.

Although, I do tend to word my posts in a sort of "dunk-ish" way, to try to get my point across.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

to add onto that one anon, a lot of lesbians first identify as bi/pan as a way to acknowledge their attraction to women without "excluding" men (which is scary to come to terms with). during that phase, a lot of us felt pushed toward pansexuality because it's presented as more open, "inclusive", which is what they may wish they were.

this delays coming to terms with lesbianism, since they've come to associate it with "excluding" people, which by pansexual standards is bad. this is why i feel that the idea of pan people being open and everyone else being close-minded definitely intersects with different sexualities.

also, lesbians often get told they're really pan-/omni-/whatever-sexual when they express their attraction to nonbinary people and trans women, which is also a result of this mindset (& transphobia).

This is a great ask, sorry I can't think of anything to add.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

ive never understood when people identify as omnisexual as opposed to bisexuality (or pansexuality even) bc its attraction to every gender but recognizing their genders and having a preference? isnt that how pansexuals try to redefine bisexuality? they cant even keep their own labels consistent its fucking crazy.

To be honest, I originally heard omnisexual defined as attraction inclusive of aliens and stuff, in the context of comic books and TV shows featuring various non-human entities, generally those that have alternate sexual organs or categories (Specifically Torchwood and Deadpool comics).

I was actually surprised to see people using it in other ways, outside of weird hypothetical Sci-fi discussion.

It's especially weird, since the prefixes omni- and pan- are synonymous.

The definitions of all "m-spec identities" are just completely garbled and contradictory. There are no sub-categories for gay or straight, but there are for bi. Except it's not bi, it's m-spec, except they all fall under the "umbrella" of bi, except they're all completely distinct, except you need to include pan in bi visibility, except, except, except...

It's all completely unintuitive. None of it fits together at all.

[accurate-bisexual-info]

hi, im not bisexual but i really appreciate the information you put on this blog. my girlfriend just came out as bi a few months ago so having info like this available is really great. i also used to id as pan before discovering i was a lesbian and i hope its ok to mention this here but i feel like even not being bi, the pan identity cause so many problems for me because i only did it for the idea that "only pan people can love openly" and that if you weren't pan you were being narrow minded.. it feels like this might be similar for bi people too?

I'm happy for you and your girlfriend.

Of course you're welcome to share your story here. I'd never actually considered your experience before. It makes sense though.

Although I'm not a lesbian, I am aware that there's a lot of discourse around the label, and a lot of (often contradictory) stereotypes around being a lesbian. From what I can tell, it definitely makes sense that people may feel pushed away, or redirected towards other labels. Not too different from bisexuality, I suppose.