Very well-written and convincing. I still have not experienced anyone who self-identifies as *exclusively* pan and not bi attack those who are bi as being lesser or more limited in some sort of projection of sexual acceptance superiority, but I can definitely imagine such a thing happening. Being pan -- is that really so cishet cool? Guess so! That seems indicative of a lot of insecurity on the part of the accuser.

As someone who is a bit of a stickler for the accuracy of Latin and Greek prefixes, I do find the various hand-waving away of that argument as pretty weak. All that is necessary, to me, is the recognition that sex is bimodal which implies that gender is at least bimodal along a spectrum. Bisexuality then includes potentially all along that spectrum and all of its various crossing axes. The prefix bi does and will mean two. But it's not necessary to fight that to establish that bisexuality can and does include attraction to those who are non-binary and, of course, trans (since *any* sexuality can include those who are trans).

I suppose I still find this conflict between who uses which label, bi or pan, as problematic. Regardless of which label one prefers we should be seeking to band together in solidarity (still!). If, as you assert, the history of the pansexual label is one of seeking to invalidate/weaken that solidarity, that is a damning argument in my eyes.

It seems that the main issue here are the gatekeepers. Telling someone that their self-applied identity label of sexuality does not include who they are attracted to in this context seems like a power play and high school politics.