Bisexuals have been unfairly accused of reinforcing the notion that there are only two genders and thereby oppressing trans people. But those who make such criticisms of bisexuality are actually the ones doing the marginalizing, writes Julia Serano.
10 October 2010
Increasingly these days, I come across people who are ostensibly bisexual—in that they partner with both women and men—but who refuse to identify with that term.
Now this, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, as words (and especially identity labels) evolve over time and invariably go in and out of fashion.
What does bother me, however, is the explanation that is often given for this lack of identification: That the word bisexual supposedly “reinforces the gender binary,” or “reinforces the notion that there are only two genders.”
As a bisexual-identified trans woman*, I find this argument extremely problematic for a number of reasons.
While there may be an infinite number of potential genders, there are two general types of sexed bodies: female and male. Granted, there is a lot of variation within, and some overlap between, these categories (e.g., intersex people, trans people who physically transition from one sex to the other).
However, this variation and overlap does not automatically invalidate the existence of female and male bodies, but rather it simply means that these categories are far more complex than most people are willing to acknowledge.
In addition to this, we live in a society where all people are automatically (and often nonconsensually) read as either female or male, and where different assumptions, expectations and restrictions are placed on a person based upon which of these two sexes they are perceived to be.
The reason why I identify as bisexual is two-fold.
First, on a physical level, the attraction that I feel toward male-bodied people feels very different to me on a visceral level than the attraction that I feel toward female-bodied people. And having sex with a female partner feels very different to me than having sex with a male partner.
Such feelings are difficult to put into words, and I am not quite sure what the source of this difference is, but presumably it is related to what makes exclusively homosexual or heterosexual people attracted to one sex or the other, but not both.
I know that some people describe themselves as pansexual, which may work well for them, but I personally am not a big fan of that label with regards to my own sexuality, as it erases the way in which my attraction toward women is different from the attraction I experience toward men (and vice versa).
The second, and far more important reason (at least for me), why I embrace the word bisexual is that people perceive me and react to me very differently depending on whether the person I am coupled with is (or appears to be) a woman or a man.
In the hetero-mainstream, when I am paired with a man, I am read as straight; when I am paired with a woman, I am read as queer. In queer settings, when I am paired with a woman, I am read as lesbian/dyke/queer and viewed as a legitimate member of the community.
But when I am paired with a man (especially when the man in question is cisgender), then I am not merely unaccepted and viewed as an outsider, but I may even be accused of buying into or reinforcing the hetero-patriarchy.
So in other words, the “bi” in bisexual does not merely refer to the types of people that I am sexual with, but to the fact that both the straight and queer worlds view me in two very different ways depending upon who I happen to be partnered with at any given moment.
This aspect of the bisexual experience is not captured by the word “pansexual,” nor by the more general word “queer.” In fact, I regularly call myself queer, and when I do, people often are surprised when I mention that I date men (as though in their minds, bisexuality does not truly fall under the queer umbrella).
Anyone who is familiar with the history of the bisexual movement can tell you that the reason why some queer people began outwardly identifying as bisexual rather than as gay or lesbian (the two predominant queer identities throughout the ’70s and ’80s) is precisely because of this insider/outsider issue.
So long as a bisexual woman was only sexual with women and called herself a lesbian, she was accepted. But as soon as she admitted to, or acted upon, her attraction to men, she would be ostracized and accused of being a part of the problem rather than the solution.
This is why the label bisexual came into prominence—as a way to gain visibility within the queer community and to fight against exclusion.
Back in the ’50s and ’60s, all LGBT people were simply called “homosexual.” We were all present during the first queer uprisings and the early days of what was simply called “gay liberation.”
But as the movement picked up momentum, bisexuals and trans folks were both thrown under the bus, albeit for slightly different reasons. In a world where the straight mainstream assumed that gay men wanted to be women and lesbians wanted to be men, it is not surprising that many lesbians and gays felt uneasy about the presence of trans people in their movement.
And in a world where the straight mainstream insisted homosexuals could become heterosexual if they simply set their minds to it, it is not surprising that many lesbians and gays felt uneasy about the existence of bisexuals.
While the reasons for bisexual and transgender exclusion from lesbian and gay communities during the ’70s and ’80s may be somewhat different, the rhetoric used to cast us away was eerily similar: We, in one way or another, were supposedly “buying into” and “reinforcing” heteronormativity.
Transsexuals, transvestites, drag artists, butches and femmes were accused of apeing heterosexist gender roles. Bisexuals were accused of purposefully seeking out heterosexual privilege and (literally) sleeping with the enemy.
According to many lesbians and gays (both past and present), bisexuals and trans folks are not merely assimilationist, but we don’t even exist! According to this “homo-normative” logic, trans people are really gay men and lesbians who transition in order to pass in the straight world. And bisexuals are really either heterosexuals dabbling in a bit of sexual experimentation, or gays and lesbians who just haven’t fully come out of the closet yet.
It is because of this history of erasure and exclusion that bisexual and trans activists became more outspoken in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and fought for visibility and inclusion within the lesbian/gay/queer umbrella.
While most queer acronyms include Bs and Ts these days, our communities still remain largely invisible and have little voice in the now relatively mainstream LGBT movement. And the rhetoric that has been used against us for decades (i.e. that we are “assimilationist” and “reinforce heterosexism”) can still be heard in gay/lesbian/queer communities to this day.
This is precisely what makes my blood boil when I hear people say that the word bisexual “reinforces the notion that there are only two genders.”
First, it insinuates that self-identified bisexuals somehow oppress trans people. While I’m sure that there are some bisexuals out there who harbor anti-trans attitudes, in general, I have found that bisexuals are exponentially more accepting of trans folks, and way more likely than to consider us to be legitimate romantic and sexual partners, than the exclusively homosexual majority in our community.
So the idea that bisexual-identified people are oppressing trans folks is both wildly inaccurate and ahistorical, as it ignores the decades of marginalization both our communities have faced at the hands of the exclusively homosexual majority.
Second, exclusively homosexual people have been accusing bisexuals of “reinforcing” this or that for decades because of who we sleep with, and now we are supposedly “reinforcing the gender binary” simply by calling ourselves bisexual?
Knowing the long history of homosexual attempts to obliterate bisexuality using the “reinforcing” trope, it is difficult for me to view this as anything other than part of the systematic erasure of bisexuality from queer communities.
And can somebody please tell me how the term “bisexual” somehow reinforces the binary, yet “gay” and “lesbian” supposedly do not?
Most self-identified lesbians use that term to signify that they partner with women, but not men. Most gay men use the term “gay” to signify that they partner with men, but not women. So why are gays and lesbians not accused of “reinforcing the notion that there are only two genders”? Oh, that’s right, because their identities are accepted and seen as legitimate, while bisexual identities are not.
The funny thing about gay/lesbian/queer folks (and this can also be said about many feminists as well) is that often we are just as prejudiced as people in the straight mainstream, we just use different language to express it.
When somebody is transgender, or transsexual, or bisexual, or engages in BDSM, or sex work, and/or expresses themselves in a feminine manner, we almost reflexively accuse them of “buying into the system” or of “reinforcing” heterosexism/patriarchy/the gender binary/capitalism/insert-evil-hegemonic-ideology-of-choice-here.
For me, the word “reinforcing” is a red flag: Whenever somebody utters it, I stop for a moment to ask myself who is being accused of “reinforcing” and who is not. There is almost always some double standard at work behind the scenes.
And given the turbulent history of who gets to be considered inside and outside of the gay/lesbian/queer community, it does not surprise me that the only people who are never accused of “reinforcing” the hetero-patriarchal-gender-binary are non-feminine, cisgender, exclusively homosexual folks.
The word bisexual may not be perfect, but it does have a rich political history, one that involves fighting for visibility and inclusion both within and outside of the queer community.
If the word does not resonate with you personally, then simply do not use it. But if you happen to forgo identifying with the word, don’t dare say that it is because you believe that bisexual “reinforces the notion that there are only two genders,” as that claim goes beyond personal statement, and enters the realm of accusation, as it insinuates that people who openly call themselves bisexual (e.g. me) are at best, naive about gender politics, and at worse, oppressing trans people.
If anything, it is the “reinforcing” trope that has historically been used to undermine both bisexuals and trans folks, and we should learn to stop using the very same language that has been used to marginalize us in the past.
Julia Serano is an Oakland, California-based artist, activist, and author of Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. More about all of her creative endeavors can be found at juliaserano.com.
* In many of my past writings (for example my book Whipping Girl), I have described myself as a lesbian/dyke. What can I say, other than “Things change, people change, hairstyles change...”
Add to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Cleo, 31 January 2013
written by Molly, 03 December 2012
written by Indi, 17 May 2012
pansexuality v's bisexuality
if bisexuality is valid then so is pansexuality, the difference being that pansexuality may include trans and gender diverse people then bisexuality would apply to a binary trans person. I dont think its erasing per-say I just think the better distinction is pansexuality if you are including some trans, intersex and gender diverse people.
so there I said it, Panseuxlaity is also very valid
written by lm, 28 March 2012
No wonder everyone is confused here: men and women were meant to enjoy sex within a marriage. The rest should abstain. Period. Not my opinion - as I don't have a 'right' to an opinion. It's God's law.
written by shaed, 03 July 2011
Your definition of it is.
Fuck you for thinking you've the right to invalidate my or anyone else's body.
written by Bi Social Network, 23 May 2011
written by Jen, 17 May 2011
written by Ani, 17 May 2011
Lately correcting people has been maddening, but I will continue to do it because we need to speak out. I get that "bi" which means two an is probably the reason why people brush us off as people who only enforce the binary. I've been thinking maybe it would be easier to express bisexuality as being two sexualities. Straight and gay. I'm either one and I am both. If someone who is straight or gay is capable of dating someone who is trans, why is it a far stretch of the imagination for people to see how bisexuals would be able to include them as well?
written by Allison, 29 April 2011
Instead of defining our sexuality on the gender of the people we're sleeping with, we're beginning to refine our definitions to the quality of the attraction itself. I think these subtle moves away from body-specific sexual qualifiers will go a long way to achieve a better lexicon for sex and attraction over the long run.
Kudos and thanks!
written by julia serano, 14 February 2011
Personally, each partner I have been with has been different. I have been with straight & queer-identified women and men, and I have been with trans & genderqueer identified folks as well. To me, every single one of these relationships & people has been different, and are unique in my mind.
But what is consistent is that:
1) people read my partner one way or the other,
2) they assume us to be homo or het, based upon how they read us,
3) they welcome or ostracize us based upon their assumption...
For me, bisexual is about being read as "outside" of both homo & het. it is not any more "binary-reinforcing" than lesbian/dyke/gay identities. Plus it has a rich history that seems to be largely ignored by many folks...
best wishes, -julia
written by Tori Story, 25 January 2011
I think it's totally cool for any individual to be uncomfortable with identifying themselves as "bisexual" because they feel it is too binary, or else just non-descriptive - but it's awesome to read something empowering those of us who DO identify as bisexual. It's generally not cool in safe space arenas to tell someone else who they are or how they should identify themselves, and it really confuses me when bisexuality is considered exempt from that.
written by Anja Flower, 08 December 2010
Since I myself am genderqueer (and like men, women and others), I can't help but feel that the term "bisexual" screams "binary," and thus excludes me. It's not, as it happens, a great big huge deal for me, but I nonetheless prefer "queer," as it manages (however vague it might be) to wrap my sexuality - not just sex- and gender-preference, but kink and other factors besides - and aspects of my gender into one big bundle, and throw in a word on my outlook on the whole thing and a recognition of gender and sexuality's messiness for good measure. If further asked, I will happily elaborate - I feel that "bisexual" allows people to get away with all sorts of inaccurate assumptions and omissions regarding my sexual and romantic attractions and interests. And again, no matter how much I am told that "bisexual" doesn't necessarily mean "binary," my heart/gut (er, my heartgut) screams otherwise.
The "gay men aren't all happy, lesbians aren't all from Lesbos" argument doesn't really hold up, either; "gay" is archaic, and "Lesbian" is obscure and regional, part of current and popular parlance only on and neighboring the island of Lesbos. "Bi-" and "binary" are neither archaic, nor obscure, nor regional. "Bi-" is a basic building block used in many English words used to indicate doubles, twos, binaries, and is likely to remain current and common outside of its sexuality-related use for a long time to come. The difficulty of building up a word into recognition and acceptance aside, "multisexual" would be much more accurate a term for a sexuality defined as orientation towards multiple sexes and genders than "bisexual" - and it's without the implications of "all" or of "gender-blindness" that "pansexual" carries.
Then again, I've seen "multisexual" used as more or less a subsitute for "pansexual" here and there, so I guess you just can't win...
Shall we give up and go back to 19th-century definitions, under which I suppose I'd be an "invert?"
written by Zanne, 20 October 2010
I have a definition of my identity that goes like this:
I desire masculin and feminin, and in all sorts of mix and variations no matter the biological origin !
written by Brandi, 20 October 2010
And I certainly agree with Ms. Serano that despite the "bi" meaning "two" in "bisexual", the bisexual label does not reinforce gender binaries to the extent that "lesbian" and "gay" labels and identities do, and most bisexuals I know are far more inclusive of trans people than our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and I've known many trans folk who identify as bisexual themselves, as well. I think being bisexual helps create a radical change in how we think about gender in general. I think bisexuality is more queer than being gay or lesbian, and it is precisely so because it rejects the black or white, either/or notion of discrete genders and sexualities. We continue to use the bisexual label, however, because it places us in a community of people like ourselves. It places us within a larger sociopolitical movement. And because it has transcended the original meaning of the word, as "Stephanie" posted in an earlier comment. It may have started as a way to say I date / sleep with / love both men and women, but it has expanded as transgender awareness has expanded to be far more inclusive a word than the original dichotomous meaning. And I think that's something for us to be really proud of as a community, really, because we have the great fortune to see the world through eyes that don't necessarily split the world into strictly male and strictly female, but see the nuances of gender all around us.
written by Bastian Fox Phelan, 18 October 2010
So true.
While there may be an infinite number of potential genders, there are two general types of sexed bodies: female and male. Granted, there is a lot of variation within, and some overlap between, these categories (e.g., intersex people, trans people who physically transition from one sex to the other).
However, this variation and overlap does not automatically invalidate the existence of female and male bodies, but rather it simply means that these categories are far more complex than most people are willing to acknowledge.
I agree with most of your article, particularly the dangers of claiming that certain identities oppress others or reinforce oppressive systems. However I feel very uncomfortable reading your argument that there are two general types of sexed bodies. There are bodies that are male or female (whether you are trans or cis) but there are also a lot of bodies that are intersex or sex diverse that are not just variations or overlaps between what is considered male sex and female sex characteristics. Intersex and sex diverse are valid categories of sex, separate from male or female.
written by Bastian Fox Phelan, 17 October 2010
So true.
While there may be an infinite number of potential genders, there are two general types of sexed bodies: female and male. Granted, there is a lot of variation within, and some overlap between, these categories (e.g., intersex people, trans people who physically transition from one sex to the other).
However, this variation and overlap does not automatically invalidate the existence of female and male bodies, but rather it simply means that these categories are far more complex than most people are willing to acknowledge.
I agree with most of your article, particularly the dangers of claiming that certain identities oppress others or reinforce oppressive systems. However I feel very uncomfortable reading your argument that there are two general types of sexed bodies. There are bodies that are male or female (whether you are trans or cis) but there are also a lot of bodies that are intersex or sex diverse that are not just variations or overlaps between what is considered male sex and female sex characteristics. Intersex and sex diverse are valid categories of sex, separate from male or female.
written by Juba Kalamka, 16 October 2010
Juba
written by Juba Kalamka, 16 October 2010
written by Eleanor , 13 October 2010
Talk about double standards.
It's confusing enough being bisexual, give us a break.
I'm unsure if that was relevant, but I felt this article was a good opportunity for me to say something I've been thinking for a while.
written by Stephanie, 13 October 2010
I cannot do better than to quote from a blog I just read by "Bisexual Wombat":
"Yes I know bicycles have two wheels and biplanes have two sets of wings but that doesn't mean bisexuals have to be hung up on there only being two genders. Just as not all women-who-fancy-women are from a Greek island. Not all men-who-fancy-men are happy. Words have always changed meaning, both through the slow process of language growing and altering (did you know 'silly' meant 'blessed' in the Middle Ages?) and through the intentional process of people choosing what they want their words to mean."
written by Kel, 13 October 2010
written by xyl, 13 October 2010
written by Faith, 12 October 2010
written by xyl, 12 October 2010
However, this variation and overlap does not automatically invalidate the existence of female and male bodies, but rather it simply means that these categories are far more complex than most people are willing to acknowledge."
It is rather problematic to discuss the issue of what does/doesn't reinforce the gender binary and restrict the discussion to talking only about relationships involving people of a binary sex and/or gender. The argument here seems to boil down to 'we should continue categorising people's bodies as either male or female, just do it in a more nuanced way' which totally erases those who define their bodies as being a sex (or combination of sexes) other than male or female.
The writer then goes on to talk about her experiences of attraction to male and female partners. At no point does she bother to even give a passing mention of the situation where somebody is attracted to somebody who isn't male or female!
written by bialogue, 12 October 2010
Contrary to current myth, bisexual has ALWAYS meant "same and different". IMHO this recent push to pretend that it only means "boys and girls" thing seems to be more a product of the ultra-PC "Gay/Lesbian Purity" wing of the greater Queer movement that is simply another way to both belittle people who will not fit into the current fashionable orthodoxy as well as to try to drive a wedge between the "B" and the "T" in LGBT.
written by Jack, 12 October 2010
written by tathra, 10 October 2010
I identify as a queer female, trans positive, polyamourist and technically bisexual, although my female partner and I celebrate our 5th anniversary next week and I haven't been with a male sexually for nearly 10 years. I could split hairs and get more technical but i get tired of all the lines drawn in the sand. I both appreciate and abhor sexual identity politics. Yes, it's a reality but at times i just want to love who i love because of who they are. True, i'm attracted more to masculine women and on occasion, feminine men, yet at the heart of it we're all human beings, and I aim to live my life in a way that supports the expansion of acceptance of people as they are, loving who they love.
It pains me to see so much suffering of my trans friends with the narrow definition of gender. I love seeing the pockets of acceptance in places like non-gender specific toilets in public places, and universities, electronic forms that offer more than two options for gender or sex. And i wish the acceptance would accelerate, so that my partner could feel comfortable in her skin, and not feel like she needs to put on a feminine image at her sisters wedding, and stop being questioned about which toilet she's in and that the kids she teaches wouldn't feel like it's ok to harass her about her masculinity. My heart breaks and I don't even want to face it.
But back to being bi, I agree that getting rid of the binary isn't the solution, I'd like to see a greater acceptance of a gender continuum but even that feels too linear at times. It's great to see this kind of discussion as someone who identifies as bi and fully supports trans folk. Keep it coming! We need more bi & trans allies, to focus on our differences does nothing to reduce discrimination or support the end of homophobia, transphobia and the suicides among our young people.
I prefer to stand together.
written by Del LaGrace Volcano, 10 October 2010
I'm not quite sure where it is but there is a but there and I'm not just sitting on it. I was an active, out bisexual activist from the age of 17 and although intersex was perceived as a cisgender female, until I adjusted my gender more than 15 years ago. I sincerely believe that it is not possible or productive to seek to abolish the binary, but as Jennifer Blessing has said, it is possible to trouble it in pleasurable ways. When I find the 'but' I'll comment again.
written by [url]http://maxattitude.wordpress.com[/url] , 10 October 2010
I actually find that the hierarchy has shifted in terms of what 'queer' means - and that being bi and/or trans are seen as the 'queerest' identities, with gay and lesbian seen as a bit old hat, limited/ing. But this does certainly remain a problem: "According to many lesbians and gays (both past and present), bisexuals and trans folks are not merely assimilationist, but we don’t even exist! "
'Bisexual' certainly does reinforce binary ideas of gender and, as you note, so does 'gay' and 'lesbian'. (Steven Angelides makes this point in his book A History of Bisexuality, 2001).
"gay/lesbian/queer folks (and this can also be said about many feminists as well) is that often we are just as prejudiced as people in the straight mainstream, we just use different language to express it."
Absolutely. And not only a different language or way of thinking, but through actions which so problematically purport to be subversive.
I like 'bisexual' because I think it says that trans people can be men and women just like anyone else - I think what's wrong with saying that 'bisexual' is oppressive to trans people is that it assumes we can't be, maybe something like this (http://maxattitude.wordpress.c...sing-lies/).
(Just to bring it back to vampire fiction, as all good things can be) I like that vampires are default bisexual - it makes so much sense. Like, they outgrow their limiting human desires as well as bodies/lives. Because of the ways that sex and drinking blood are - maybe not conflated but certainly - seen as overlapping in terms of desire, it makes little sense for a vampire to only drink blood from one sex, and sexual desires are considered likewise. Indeed, it tends to be the brooding, resentful, uptight vampires (Bill from True Blood, Angel from Buffy, Edward from Twilight) who prove the exceptions to this rule. And they are the ones obsessed with humans/their humanity.
Huge bi-pride/envy,
http://maxattitude.wordpress.com
