Yesterday, a new acquaintance of mine who was newly out as bisexual asked me what has perhaps become almost an iconic question in bi* community organizing: "What is the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality?" As a person who identifies very strongly as a bisexual activist who has had past relationships with people who have identified as male, female, genderqueer, and transgender, this question really emotionally challenged me on a personal level. On an organizing level, however, I knew that it was incredibly important to answer my new friend's question in as much of an informed, authentic, and positive manner that I could. I remembered that when I was coming out, it was a huge challenge for me to try to figure out what bisexuality meant. When I was coming out -- not only as a bisexual, but as a bisexual activist -- I desperately needed to know for my own empowerment and self-understanding if I could adopt the word "bisexual" to describe my individual sexual identity with pride.
In February 2012, Meg Barker and colleagues published what has come to be my personal favorite definition of bisexuality in The Bisexuality Report, from the Open University in the UK. Here it is:
"Bisexuality generally refers to having attraction to more than one gender. It is a broad term which may include the following groups and more:
●● People who see themselves as attracted to ‘both men and women’.
●● People who are mostly attracted to one gender but recognize this is not exclusive.
●● People who experience their sexual identities as fluid and changeable over time.
●● People who see their attraction as ‘regardless of gender’ (other aspects are more important in determining who they are attracted to).
●● People who dispute the idea that there are only two genders and that people are attracted to one, the other, or both.
Not everybody who is attracted to more than one gender describes themselves as bisexual. There are many reasons for this including: common prejudices against bisexuality, different cultural understandings of sexuality, and a desire to fit in with lesbian, gay or heterosexual communities."
This set of definitions from Barker and colleagues -- especially the last paragraph -- tends to imply that the reasons why people would use a label other than "bisexual" to describe themselves, even if they would likely fall under one of the five definition types listed above, is biphobia. While I do think that a lot of people avoid the word, "bi" to try to avoid the negative connotations about bisexual people it can bring up, I don't think that entirely captures the story, either. (And... to list a few of those negative connotations, I often hear... "it's just a phase; you are greedy; you are confused; you just can't make up your mind; you are looking for attention; you are a cheater; you can't be trusted; you will leave me for someone of a different gender" or -- probably the worst one I hear on a regular basis among queer activists, "I am really bisexual, but I am afraid if I did come out as bi to my GLBTQ friends, they would reject me and I would lose their respect as an activist.").
More recently, a lot of people have started using words like, "pansexual," "omnisexual," "ambisexual," "persexual," "sapiosexual," etc. etc. because they believe that identifying as "bisexual" implies that there are only two genders and that this implication is offensive, because it excludes attractions to gender non-conforming, transgender, and genderqueer communities. So... they try to use these other identity labels to avoid this implied perceived prejudice to these communities.
Here is where it gets tricky for me... Trying to use a different identity label to avoid harming another oppressed community, I don't entirely see as biphobia... In fact, I can see how this would potentially fall under the category of "being an advocate for trans* communities." But -- I do see it as biphobic when people who use the word "pansexual" in the way I use "bisexual" tell me that my attractions cannot include trans/genderqueer/gender non-conforming communities, because I am not using the "right" identity label. To me -- that feels just as bad as the people out there telling me I cannot call myself bisexual, because bisexuality does not exist. This is because I again am experiencing a denial of my own identity. Having one's identity denied is a very disempowering experience.
As an activist, I find such denial to be a defining component of all types of GLBTQA oppression -- but especially of biphobia. Identity denial shuts people down, and puts them on the defensive. Denial and/or "correction," of identity is what enemies of queer communities do to oppress us all. So -- while the intention of using the word "pansexual" instead of "bisexual" is positive... attacking people for using "the wrong word" (i.e. "bisexual") to label themselves is inherently oppressive -- and biphobic. Importantly, I want to call out that it is also oppressive for bisexual people to attack pansexual (or other non-monosexually labeled people) for using the "wrong word," too. Attacking people for their labels is a form of identity policing that will only cause us to engage in painful in-fighting that will distract our communities from building a stronger, more welcoming bi* movement.
But -- back to the word "bisexual." In terms of putting the so-called "label debate" in a historical context of bisexual organizing in the last 35 years... Many older bi activists and bi historians have responded that bisexuality has always been understood as being inclusive of love/attraction/desire of people of all genders (see definition 5, above, for example) -- and that only recently have these attacks started that bisexuality is exclusive of non cisgendered people. Many bisexual activists -- especially those who have been around for a while -- see this newer trans* critique of bi*sexuality as just another way of suppressing the visibility and empowerment of bisexual identities and community building. They see it as moving our progress towards bi inclusion backwards.
But... In my experience, trans* activists who are making this critique of bisexuality are not doing it to be actively biphobic or perpetuate bi invisibility... they are trying to dismantle a gender binary that they feel has caused them a lot of trauma and suffering in their own lives -- and that perpetuates other "social wrongs" like sexism. It is hard, I think, because both communities are right. Picking on the word "bi" -- which is the word that we have in all the alphabet soup acronyms -- does lead to bisexual invisibility. However, it is also true that to many people, using the word "bisexual," does seem to reference a false gender binary whose social enforcement has hurt many people -- especially trans* people. (Note, though, while many trans* activists seem to like to pick on the word "bi" for referencing the false gender binary -- gay, lesbian, and straight identity labels all equally do this, too, because they depend on the gender binary for meaning and definition. But -- that is a topic for another day.).
So why does this matter, and what should we do about it?
First, why does it matter, especially to bi* communities?
Within queer activist circles (i.e. the groups of people who make change), the dominance of the label debate is so great, that it alone is often defined as "bisexual activism" in GLBTQA activist/advocacy groups. That is, if you are in a GLBTQA group and discuss the label debate once per year or so, the group perceives itself as doing its part to include bisexuals. If the group is doing really well at including bisexuals, they might also have a separate session asking the epistemological question, "What is bisexuality/pansexuality, etc.?" and/or "What does it mean to be bi/pan/fluid, etc?". And then... the topic of bi inclusion and support is closed.
This lack of other discussion topis and/or actions taken to support bi* communities is harmful, because it makes our own community engage in a lot of infighting (i.e. who is "really right" in the label debate?). It also takes the focus off engaging in the types of activism that could actually improve bi* people's lives.
Take this infighting about labels in contrast to GLBTQA activism, writ large... In my experience, GLBTQA activism is often defined as fighting for things like marriage equality, ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, getting employment protections, ending health disparities, etc. GLBTQA activism and advocacy (which is really often only GL and sometimes T activism and advocacy in practice) is all about improving access to large social institutions and infrastructures like the government, educational systems, employment, etc. It does not really any longer spend time questioning the authenticity of the identities of gay, lesbian, or even sometimes transgender people. Instead, it acknowledges that the law unfairly treats people with these identities and/or knows based on research that people with these identities disproportionately suffer from certain illnesses and tries to remedy this important social problems. Not so for bi* people. Where we are left instead is at the phase before the solutions -- which is to question our identity.
So next -- what should we do about it? I'm afraid folks, that it is getting late. This, too, will have to be a topic for another day. Thank you for reading. I welcome all comments.
In February 2012, Meg Barker and colleagues published what has come to be my personal favorite definition of bisexuality in The Bisexuality Report, from the Open University in the UK. Here it is:
"Bisexuality generally refers to having attraction to more than one gender. It is a broad term which may include the following groups and more:
●● People who see themselves as attracted to ‘both men and women’.
●● People who are mostly attracted to one gender but recognize this is not exclusive.
●● People who experience their sexual identities as fluid and changeable over time.
●● People who see their attraction as ‘regardless of gender’ (other aspects are more important in determining who they are attracted to).
●● People who dispute the idea that there are only two genders and that people are attracted to one, the other, or both.
Not everybody who is attracted to more than one gender describes themselves as bisexual. There are many reasons for this including: common prejudices against bisexuality, different cultural understandings of sexuality, and a desire to fit in with lesbian, gay or heterosexual communities."
This set of definitions from Barker and colleagues -- especially the last paragraph -- tends to imply that the reasons why people would use a label other than "bisexual" to describe themselves, even if they would likely fall under one of the five definition types listed above, is biphobia. While I do think that a lot of people avoid the word, "bi" to try to avoid the negative connotations about bisexual people it can bring up, I don't think that entirely captures the story, either. (And... to list a few of those negative connotations, I often hear... "it's just a phase; you are greedy; you are confused; you just can't make up your mind; you are looking for attention; you are a cheater; you can't be trusted; you will leave me for someone of a different gender" or -- probably the worst one I hear on a regular basis among queer activists, "I am really bisexual, but I am afraid if I did come out as bi to my GLBTQ friends, they would reject me and I would lose their respect as an activist.").
More recently, a lot of people have started using words like, "pansexual," "omnisexual," "ambisexual," "persexual," "sapiosexual," etc. etc. because they believe that identifying as "bisexual" implies that there are only two genders and that this implication is offensive, because it excludes attractions to gender non-conforming, transgender, and genderqueer communities. So... they try to use these other identity labels to avoid this implied perceived prejudice to these communities.
Here is where it gets tricky for me... Trying to use a different identity label to avoid harming another oppressed community, I don't entirely see as biphobia... In fact, I can see how this would potentially fall under the category of "being an advocate for trans* communities." But -- I do see it as biphobic when people who use the word "pansexual" in the way I use "bisexual" tell me that my attractions cannot include trans/genderqueer/gender non-conforming communities, because I am not using the "right" identity label. To me -- that feels just as bad as the people out there telling me I cannot call myself bisexual, because bisexuality does not exist. This is because I again am experiencing a denial of my own identity. Having one's identity denied is a very disempowering experience.
As an activist, I find such denial to be a defining component of all types of GLBTQA oppression -- but especially of biphobia. Identity denial shuts people down, and puts them on the defensive. Denial and/or "correction," of identity is what enemies of queer communities do to oppress us all. So -- while the intention of using the word "pansexual" instead of "bisexual" is positive... attacking people for using "the wrong word" (i.e. "bisexual") to label themselves is inherently oppressive -- and biphobic. Importantly, I want to call out that it is also oppressive for bisexual people to attack pansexual (or other non-monosexually labeled people) for using the "wrong word," too. Attacking people for their labels is a form of identity policing that will only cause us to engage in painful in-fighting that will distract our communities from building a stronger, more welcoming bi* movement.
But -- back to the word "bisexual." In terms of putting the so-called "label debate" in a historical context of bisexual organizing in the last 35 years... Many older bi activists and bi historians have responded that bisexuality has always been understood as being inclusive of love/attraction/desire of people of all genders (see definition 5, above, for example) -- and that only recently have these attacks started that bisexuality is exclusive of non cisgendered people. Many bisexual activists -- especially those who have been around for a while -- see this newer trans* critique of bi*sexuality as just another way of suppressing the visibility and empowerment of bisexual identities and community building. They see it as moving our progress towards bi inclusion backwards.
But... In my experience, trans* activists who are making this critique of bisexuality are not doing it to be actively biphobic or perpetuate bi invisibility... they are trying to dismantle a gender binary that they feel has caused them a lot of trauma and suffering in their own lives -- and that perpetuates other "social wrongs" like sexism. It is hard, I think, because both communities are right. Picking on the word "bi" -- which is the word that we have in all the alphabet soup acronyms -- does lead to bisexual invisibility. However, it is also true that to many people, using the word "bisexual," does seem to reference a false gender binary whose social enforcement has hurt many people -- especially trans* people. (Note, though, while many trans* activists seem to like to pick on the word "bi" for referencing the false gender binary -- gay, lesbian, and straight identity labels all equally do this, too, because they depend on the gender binary for meaning and definition. But -- that is a topic for another day.).
So why does this matter, and what should we do about it?
First, why does it matter, especially to bi* communities?
Within queer activist circles (i.e. the groups of people who make change), the dominance of the label debate is so great, that it alone is often defined as "bisexual activism" in GLBTQA activist/advocacy groups. That is, if you are in a GLBTQA group and discuss the label debate once per year or so, the group perceives itself as doing its part to include bisexuals. If the group is doing really well at including bisexuals, they might also have a separate session asking the epistemological question, "What is bisexuality/pansexuality, etc.?" and/or "What does it mean to be bi/pan/fluid, etc?". And then... the topic of bi inclusion and support is closed.
This lack of other discussion topis and/or actions taken to support bi* communities is harmful, because it makes our own community engage in a lot of infighting (i.e. who is "really right" in the label debate?). It also takes the focus off engaging in the types of activism that could actually improve bi* people's lives.
Take this infighting about labels in contrast to GLBTQA activism, writ large... In my experience, GLBTQA activism is often defined as fighting for things like marriage equality, ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, getting employment protections, ending health disparities, etc. GLBTQA activism and advocacy (which is really often only GL and sometimes T activism and advocacy in practice) is all about improving access to large social institutions and infrastructures like the government, educational systems, employment, etc. It does not really any longer spend time questioning the authenticity of the identities of gay, lesbian, or even sometimes transgender people. Instead, it acknowledges that the law unfairly treats people with these identities and/or knows based on research that people with these identities disproportionately suffer from certain illnesses and tries to remedy this important social problems. Not so for bi* people. Where we are left instead is at the phase before the solutions -- which is to question our identity.
So next -- what should we do about it? I'm afraid folks, that it is getting late. This, too, will have to be a topic for another day. Thank you for reading. I welcome all comments.
RSS Feed