Bi doesn't [always] mean "attracted to people of the same or a different gender"

So, Natalie Reed seems like an admirable blogger and all I know about her is her blog header and this one post that I am nitpicking against, but, really, I have to laugh in kind of a derisive counterstrike, intentionally offending due to feeling offended, when she says

Just like “bisexual” only means “has the dangerous connotation of “only into cis men and cis women and nothing else”, and the “bi” in “bisexual” only refers to a “male/female” binary rather than a “same gender/other gender” duality, BECAUSE WE TREATED IT THAT WAY AND BEGAN ENCOURAGING EVERY TRANS/GQ-FRIENDLY PERSON TO USE PANSEXUAL INSTEAD. We *created* the meanings and definitions we opposed, by opposing them.

 Now, I've heard this definition of bisexual once before and have no idea where it came from [1], but I spoke out against it then and I will do so now.

My complaint is pretty simple: What the fuck does "same gender" or "other gender" mean to someone like me?

I don't feel like a gender. I have some elements of feeling bigendered androgynous or genderless androgynous or male or female or geek-as-gender and I'd describe both my presentation and gender experience as genderfluid. I feel a little bit like and a little bit not like most every gender I've come across. If I use the word "pansexual," it's probably to include myself.

I use bisexual as well. I adopted it as an identity first, for one thing, and I'm deeply satisfied with it as part of my history. It's also nice because it's an older and more common word, so it literally includes more people who identify as part of the bi community. My community. I also hear pansexual used by people who are actually monosexual or mostly monosexual, who explain pansexual as meaning being attracted to someone's soul, not their gender. Bi doesn't have that layer of meaning/ambiguity.

To me, "bi" doesn't have to imply a binary. It can mean flexibility, ambiguity, ambidexterity. "Ambidexterity" here summoning an image of exploration and simultaneous movement, of looking from side to side to take in a four-dimensional world, the opposite of focusing in one factor and asking whether it's a one or a zero. "Ambiguity" I guess could be offensive, but my gender is definitely ambiguous, not because there's some big mystery or I'm hiding anything, but because the question was phrased in such a way that it can't get a clear answer on its terms. And my attractions to others, who I'll be attracted to for what reason, the lines between physical attraction and sexual attraction and emotional attraction and romantic attraction, platonic vs non-platonic, all fall in misty, ambiguous territory. "Ambiguous" can mean wild, untamed, uncodifiable, and to me both my sexuality and gender fall easily into this territory. I bring up gender because the way "straight," "gay," and "lesbian" are defined make sexual orientation inseparable from gender identity. I feel happy and free to be bisexual because, in its normal connotation, it frees the bearer from the burden (for people like me at least) of defining and disclosing a gender identity just to explain who they're attracted to. The framing Reed favors takes that away from me, and I'm not about to give it up.

Another Reed quote on the bi/pan issue from that post:

 a problematic pattern one can also note in things like people insisting “pansexual” is more inclusive than “bisexual” (and thereby that trans men, and trans women and non-binary-identified individuals require some special and exceptional acknowledgment and consideration in people’s sexuality)

This one I do partially agree with. Why on earth would people attracted to binary trans people need a new label? On the other hand, if we're saying that the gender of people someone's attracted to is a crucial issue, and that is what almost our entire society has been saying for at least decades, then why on earth wouldn't people of previously overlooked gender experiences not need acknowledgment?

I don't take our current constructions of sexual orientation and gender too personally, so I don't feel left out if someone dating me doesn't identity as androgynophile or pansexual or queer or any of the other identities that would explicitly include people like me. I actually find the term "pansexual" kind of uncomfortable at times, both for the "attraction to souls" definition I mentioned earlier and because of another formulation that says it's attraction to people of all genders without their gender playing a role. I can't meet that bar, even though I have been attracted to people of about as many genders as I've encountered. There are specific patterns of attraction that I am much more likely to have for people of certain genders, and I'm generally attracted to some gendered feature of a person I'm attracted to.

Sexual orientation labels are by their nature going to be over simplifications. I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool is with someone insisting that this definition of bisexual gets rid of all the problems and doesn't erase anyone and is totally cool when that's just not true. You are GENDERING me if you say bi means "same gender/other gender duality," and I don't feel good when people gender me. Language is fuzzy, words have multiple definitions and ranges of connotations, and people are going to prefer different labels for what's basically the same thing. That's a lot better than someone insisting their own words are the only true ones.

[1] Edit: I think the original person I heard say this attributed it to Kinsey. Didn't find a source on a quick Google, but was reminded of the Kinsey scale, which could be its own primary source.

[2] Added [always] to title, since I don't want to police other people's definitions. Phrasing things inclusively is hard.