Bi Bloggers

Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

Holly 7:25 pm on May 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Happy What Happens In People’s Pants Is No Concern Of Yours (WHIPPINCOY) Day

Yes, IDAHO is fun for a minute. But it was never going to be a good acronym.

First of all, for something international, don’t name it after something geographical. Every individual place, be it the Potato State or a Swiss canton or a Pacific island about to sink into the anthropogenic sea, pales in comparison to International.

Second of all, the International Day Against HOmophobia has in the few years since I heard about it morphed into the International Day of Trans People Snarking “It’s Pronounced in the French manner, IDAHOT with a silent T.” Now you can tell the clued-in people who get that language matters by the fact that they call it the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

And I can tell that if someone so much as mentions “Biphobia” it’s probably someone I know.

My issue, of course, isn’t that trans people should feel included, but that it shouldn’t stop there. This is a general trend of queer activism in the last several years: everything that had been “lesbian and gay” switched to “LGBT” without changing anything but the name at first. Trans folk have kicked up a massive fuss, very rightly so, and now there’s a lot of recognition that trans people should be explicitly included, listened to, represented, and respected.

But I think, if for no other reason than “it’s getting to be a mouthful to say the names of everything” (“End homophobic bullying in schools” is a snappy campaign; “End homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools” is even more worthy but starts to lose some people by the end; “End homophobic, transphobic and biphobic bullying in schools” is fairest, yes, but it’s also an unwieldy phrase that nobody likes, even if they like the sentiment behind it.

Ditto IDAHOBT. That’s not even an acronym any more; it’s just a bad hand in Scrabble.

I don’t want to disparage trans or gay activists for the hard work they’ve done in getting things as far as they have.

But is this it? Are we done now?

I think some people think that bi people are covered by “homophobia” — after all, when they’re not acting gay, they’re acting straight, right? Whiners!

Of course it’s true that bi people do experience homophobia — if someone shouts abuse at me for holding hands with a girl, I’m not going to stop and carefully tell them I’ve held hands with guys too, and even if I did, I don’t think that would impress them — but biphobia is not just “homophobia when it happens to bis.”

Biphobia is every time bis are called greedy, or indecisive, or cheaters, or the reason straight people can get STDs, or just going through a phase, or gay really, or straight really, or not really queer any more if they’re in a mixed-gender relationship. Biphobia is bi erasure and bi invisibility — every time you talk about “gay” marriage, or tell me all people currently married are straight, every “bi women might hot but there are no bi men” …

This is all distinct from homophobia and transphobia and it would be nice if that were as widely acknowledged. Right now I feel we’re like the state of Idaho: important to the people who live there, but what can anyone else tell you about it?

Reply Cancel reply

Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website
Jen 2:29 pm on May 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Bis at Pride 2012 – Looking Ahead
BiPhoria's pub meet last night in Manchester included a dollop of discussion about upcoming Prides.

The group has quite a selection of banners already: I should probably take and post a series of photos of all our different designs, but they go, in sequence...

1995 banner: for the first Manchester Pride after the group was formed, this one is a simple blue spray paint / old white sheet affair reading "BIPHORIA!" on one side and "Manchester Bisexuals" on the other. Signed by the original banner makers and dated (aww). Where are they now?
1999 banner: a brilliant idea with one small flaw. This is about 10' by 6' of hand-stitched bi flag and infinite bisexuality logo, took ages to make and looks amazing. The only thing is, it doesn't anywhere on it actually say what it means or who we are, so it works better as a backdrop on a stall. As a banner, you have to hand out flyers to the crowd explaining who the heck you are.
2006 banner: "Bisexual Recruitment Army". For our pride theme that year and tied in to the making of the B*R*A website.
2007 banner: "Manchester Bisexuals biphoria.org.uk". Basically a version of the 1995 banner for the intermaweb age. Hand sewn letters on a meshy sort of white fabric.
2008 banner: "Some People Are Bi, Get Over It". The most political banner, both a challenge to mainstream and gay society about their biphobia, and highlighting Stonewall's deliberate bi-erasure.
2010 banner: "Bisexuals Everywhere, Out & Proud". The only professionally printed one, as part of the national Bis@Prides project

However, I think we should make one that is mostly just good for this summer. BiPhoria is 18 this year, and a celebratory banner along the lines of "Challenging 'it's a phase' theory since 1994" would tie in with Manchester Pride's sciencey theme. With a URL, since the internet still hasn't gone away.

There's only three months left to make it in. That slogan needs honing :)
Marcus Morgan 11:35 am on May 14, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Nonmonosexuality
Recently I was up in Sheffield delivering some bisexuality awareness training at the university there. I tried out a new exercise I'd only just thought up.

One of the problems with explaining bisexuality to people who aren't bisexual is that to a bisexual person their sexuality most likely seems simple and uncomplicated, and the reasons why it is confusing to others don't seem to make sense. I'd started to think that maybe bisexuality isn't about who you're attracted to, so much as heterosexuality and homosexuality are about who you are not attracted to.

I divided the page of the flipchart into two columns, one topped with a tick and one with a cross. What things, I asked, turned people on or off about others? Not you personally, of course - that'd be awfully intrusive, but what things in general, or what things your friends have told you that they (and of course not you) find positive and negative about others.

I started the chart off with a few suggestions, like "good teeth" and "snoring" and as the columns filled some things went in both columns, like "arrogance" and "sense of humour". When we got to the bottom of the sheet I turned to the room, and asked if they could tell me what was missing?

Blank looks.

What, I said with a grin, given the subject of this session and the undoubtedly ulterior motives I have for asking the question of what goes in which column, might be missing?

I could see a couple of people's eyes widen and heads tilt, but no-one would say it aloud. So I wrote "gender" on the sheet, at the bottom.

In the "negatives" column.

Isn't it interesting, I said slowly, that in a room of mostly gay and straight people, no-one has said that a person's gender is a reason they wouldn't fancy them?

Someone protested. I was being unfair, after all I'd asked for qualities or attributes about people that others might find attractive or not attractive and gender wasn't one of those it was um, er, ah, oh....

I thanked them and said, yes exactly! Gender, to people who are only attracted to one, is such a big turn off that it's hard to spot. It's too close to the observer and so it's like it's out of focus. By the time you find out that Lee is into football and tickling and martinis it's too late - the fact that within seconds of meeting Lee your brain categorised them as male means they were out of the running. This is why society finds androgyny a threat - some people don't want to start fancying the lead singer of Hansen and then only later find out he's not female. Slipping past the big exclusion startles people.

A straight guy, or a lesbian woman wouldn't find all women attractive. A gay guy or a straight woman wouldn't find all men attractive. Of course not - they'll all have some things that turn them on and other things they don't care about. But having a gender turn-off is perhaps what makes them not bisexual. Bisexuality isn't about what we find attractive, because that's going to be different with every bisexual person (and sometimes will be based on preferences around anatomy or gender presentation, sure) but perhaps it is about not having a blanket turn-off based on the big two genders.

Bisexuals don't find everyone attractive. Have you met everyone? They're just not that attractive! But although you see Chloe leaving her girlfriend for a man, she sees herself as going from one person who shares her interests to another, possibly another who isn't cheating on her.

Heads were nodding and clues were being taken in, and the rest of the session went very well, especially when they realised that I really did mean it about answering absolutely any questions. I got to recount my coming-out-to-my-parents story (recently reprised for the recording of a show on Radio 4) and other useful anecdotes. It's handy not to need to preface with "some people have said that when they..." because a lot of it has happened to me personally.

Sheffield was a lot of train travel for only a short workshop in terms of time, but I think we all learned a valuable lesson. They got clued up about bisexuality and I found another way to rearrange the explanation to help people get it, and came home feeling very rewarded by the smiles, thank yous and eurekas.

Even if we wanted to (and I don't personally), I think it's too late to rename our sexuality. But I'm definitely going to re-use this exercise, and I heartily recommend it if you find yourself struggling to explain just how amazingly simple bisexuality really is.
Holly 11:29 pm on May 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Response to google searches

bisexual and never been with someone my own gender

You are not alone, O searcher of the internets! (Though you’d do better searching The Bisexual Index than my blog; which explicitly mentions this issue, as well as many many others.)

Take heart; being bi doesn’t have these kinds of hurdles to clear — while I too once wondered whether I was “bi enough” to “count” as bisexual, as I like to say now, it’s not a fairground ride sign with a line on it, saying “you have to be at least this queer.” Bi events don’t have a guy and a girl (or people of any other genders) standing either side of the door demanding you snog them both before you’re allowed to enter.

At least, not the ones I’ve been to!

While people who haven’t yet had a date or a shag or anything are believed if they say they’re gay, and if they don’t everyone assumes they’re straight, somehow with bisexuality there is a lot of pressure — both internal and external — to “prove” it, that you can’t really know until you’ve “tried both” (or more than one at least) genders.

I think this is especially true for people who come at bisexuality from a straight identity (maybe just because that’s what I did!). When you’ve been trundling along fitting more or less into society’s expectations of what your partners should be like, it’s a little intimidating to think that might not be all there is to your attractions. But how do you go about finding out? The bars or clubs you go to and the groups or circles of friends you’re a part of probably don’t give you a ton of exposure to contexts where you can act on that same-gender attraction…or if you go to gay clubs, they may not like your “straight”-seeming history.

Plus you could be, like me, a fancier of girls who’s still utterly rubbish at pulling them. This is a non-trivial concern: all the attraction in the world doesn’t get you anywhere without someone reciprocating!

how to tell if a bisexual man fanceys you

The same way you can tell if anyone else fancies you, I suppose: ask them? look for subtle clues? spy on their social media updates? quiz their friends? be nice, look interested and see what happens?

Being bisexual doesn’t change the rules of stuff like this. We don’t have a secret signal or anything. (Or if there is one, no one’s told me about it! And I’m a card-carrying bisexual and everything! Man, it’d be awesome if there was a secret signal. I’m what we call flirt-blind. But anyway, I digress!)

This blog supports the radical notion that bis are people too, so the rules you’re used to probably apply to us too. Probably. Some of us are contrary just for the sake of it. But we still want to know if you fancy us.

do bi people get married

Yes! Bi people do get married. I’m a married bi person.

Some can’t marry the people they’d like to, because of marriage inequality, but some of those would like to get married…and some wouldn’t. Same as any other kind of people.

wat does council wombat feel in the story

I have no idea what this means. I just think it has a lovely dadaist quality to it somehow.
Holly 8:37 pm on May 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

We notice

“Did you enjoy Rule 34?” my husband asked when he saw it on the kitchen table. I’d been unpacking from a holiday for which that book had been my main reading material.

“I’m only halfway through it, but I am really enjoying it, yeah,” I said.

“Did you notice how all the characters are LGBT?” he asked.

I nodded. “Well, I don’t know about all of them, but I’m only halfway through the book. I did notice it right away about a couple of them, though.”

“I didn’t, until Stross said so on his blog.” * Rule 34 is set in the near-future, and I really appreciated that he’d made a point of not making a big deal of the queers (though I was a little chagrined that he’d referred to a civil partnership as if his readers would assume that was a same-sex relationship, then all the more chagrined when I realized I’d immediately made that assumption myself! bad equal-marriage activist, no biscuit! still it’s the only time I can remember reading about a civil partnership referred to so casually in a piece of fiction; admittedly they haven’t been around very long, but still they’re just about novel enough that if they’re mentioned at all, it’s not in this deliciously offhand and normal way).

“I noticed,” I said. “Especially because so many of them seem to be bi.” (Behaviorally, if nothing else; none of the characters have labeled their sexuality as anything as far as I can remember.) Yes, I notice that particularly…but these matter-of-fact representations of bisexuality are still so remarkable.

I notice these things. We notice these things. I wasn’t surprised when a commenter to this blog, Ste, said I find myself thinking “yes, thank you”, whenever I hear or read someone refer to “same sex marriage”.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who recognizes that little flash of excitement, gratitude or relief when someone gets the language right. Yes, maybe it shouldn’t be a big deal, but for now it still is.

Ste also noted that the BBC news had referred to it as both “gay” and “same-sex” and found it a little odd that the one station (radio 2) veered between using gay and same-sex. obviously, i was pleased when they called it same-sex marriage, but maybe it just goes to show that for some (many) people, the two are interchangeable. which sort of spoils the fact that they got it right at all, if they don’t understand the difference in the first place.

I think a lot of people. probably including those who wrote these BBC news snippets (or write about marriage equality for the Guardian or Channel 4 or any other news source), would be surprised if they knew how much their word-choice matters. It’s not just a matter of accuracy and fairness, it’s about giving people that little moment of thankfulness and relief in being understood, in feeling someone’s “on our side” a bit if they say “same-sex” rather than “gay”…and how quickly that good feeling can be lost if these are treated as meaning the same thing, when they don’t. Not to us, because we notice.

To those still getting it wrong, or getting it right only intermittently, I can only say: Take notice. Because we sure do.

* From here: Yes, all the main protagonists in the book are LGBT, or are somewhere on the Kinsey scale other than a 1, with the exception of the Toymaker. Yes, I was trying to make a point. There are a lot of cliches in fictional depictions of LGBT folk (or, to be fully inclusive, QUILTBAG people). Cliche #1 is the novel with the single token gay protagonist whose sexuality, if it is visible at all (rather than merely being flagged by the author) is purely stereotypical and there to flag how open-minded and inclusive the author is. Cliche #2 is for the STGP to fill in for the magical negro, and come to a similar sticky end. Cliche #3 is the bisexual female who, after a night of passionate hetero sex, comes to see that she doesn’t feel attracted to women any more … well, fuck that shit. You will spot some of these cliches in “Rule 34″ as photographic negatives. “Rule 34″ is written from a perspective of queer normativity rather than closeted invisibility.
TSB 1:56 pm on May 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Parenting Experiences of Bisexual People

Few studies exist that look at the parenting experiences of bi people, so this is worth a look. It’s downloadable for a hefty fee, but I’ll share the précis here:

“I Don't Want to Turn Totally Invisible”: Mental Health, Stressors, and Supports among Bisexual Women during the Perinatal Period” | Journal of GLBT Family Studies | Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012

Almost no research has examined the parenting experiences of bisexual people. In this mixed-methods study, sexual minority women (N = 64) who were currently trying to conceive, pregnant, or parenting an infant completed standardized questionnaires to assess mental health, social support, and other variables. Fourteen participants identified as bisexual, and 14 reported sexual activity with men in the past 5 years (there was incomplete overlap between these groups). Twenty women (5 bisexual-identified) also completed a qualitative interview. Bisexual women reported poorer scores on assessments of mental health, substance use, social support, and experiences of perceived discrimination, relative to other women in the sample. Differences were particularly pronounced for women who reported sexual activity with men in the past 5 years compared to women who did not. Qualitative analyses highlighted experiences of invisibility and exclusion. It may be particularly challenging for bisexual women to negotiate the invisibility associated with a bisexual identity during the perinatal period, as a result of the implicit assumption that mothers are heterosexual. This invisibility may be linked with a multitude of poor outcomes that could have implications for the mother, baby, and family.
TSB 12:22 pm on May 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Anna Paquin ‘defends’ bisexuality

The headline of the NY Post reads: Anna Paquin defends bisexual label despite being married, pregnant.

Despite?

Even though Paquin spoke intelligently and openly to the reporter of Zooey magaine (which the Post is citing), it appears the Post writer either didn’t get what she was trying to say, or didn’t care and went with a headline that only reinforced the stereotype that a bi person cannot be happy with one person and, thereby, cannot be a good parent. And thrown in for spice is the stereotype that bisexuality is merely a faddish set of behaviours rather than a sexual orientation.

Anyway, from the article:

Paquin tells Zooey magazine in a new interview. "For me, it’s not really an issue because I’m someone who believes being bisexual is actually a thing. It’s not made up. It’s not a lack of decision. It’s not being greedy or numerous other ignorant things I’ve heard at this point. For a bisexual, it’s not about gender. That’s not the deciding factor for who they’re attracted to."
TSB 7:01 pm on April 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Stonewall report reiterates sad statistics on LGBT/Bi suicidal ideation

From the Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health Survey:
"In the last year, 27 per cent of gay men thought about taking their own life even if they would not do it. This increases to 38 per cent for bisexual men (p. 9)
"One in five (21 per cent) gay and bisexual men aged 16 to 19 have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year. One in six (15 per cent) gay and bisexual men aged 16 to 24 have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year. Seven per cent of men in general aged 16 to 24 have ever deliberately harmed themselves.
“Rates of self-harm are also higher among bisexual men; eleven per cent of bisexual men have self-harmed in the last year." (p. 11)
Jen 10:29 am on April 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply

Bisexual men health stats from Gay & Bi Men’s Health Report

Stonewall have a chunky new bi & gay men's health report newly out, which seems to be the counterpart to the pale-blue bi & lesbian women's report you may remember from about 4 years ago.

There's lots of good stuff in there, by which I mean lots of quite bad stuff but important data to have available for NHS planning and so forth.

Mostly it combines bi and gay data together, however two snippets:
"In the last year, 27 per cent of gay men thought about taking their own life even if they would not do it. This increases to 38 per cent for bisexual men" (p9)

That's a bit of a jump - what, about a third higher?
"One in five (21 per cent) gay and bisexual men aged 16 to 19 have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year. One in six (15 per cent) gay and bisexual men aged 16 to 24 have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year. Seven per cent of men in general aged 16 to 24 have ever deliberately harmed themselves.
"Rates of self-harm are also higher among bisexual men; eleven per cent of bisexual men have self-harmed in the last year." (p11)
That one feels like one of those simultaneous equations lessons in maths when I was at school - we don't know how many gay men they have or how many bisexual men but the scores are 7%, 11% and 15%, solve for x and y... but it makes for about 50% higher rates of self-harm among bi men than among the male population as a whole. A sobering thought.

www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/stonewall_gay_mens_health_final.pdf
TSB 10:32 am on April 24, 2012 Permalink | Reply

The Radical Bi on “Cynthia Nixon and Bisexual Choice”

I wanted to write about this subject myself, but this new article by the Radical Bi covers things well. Please have a read, share your own opinions and join in the debate.

“Cynthia Nixon’s recent comments about homosexuality and bisexuality created a full-on outburst within LGBT communities in the US and around the world. How dare this woman, asked the opposers, claim that being LGBT can be a choice? The audacity! It seems that Nixon’s words shocked the community so immensely that Nixon herself was obliged to “clarify” her remarks, saying that most people “Cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships. ….

“More than anything else, what this story demonstrates is the subversive force of bisexuality, such that is able to deconstruct binary sexual identities, as well as the entire binary division on which the system of Western sexuality is based. Whether or not bisexuality itself is a choice, the idea of a choice is inextricably connected to it: Bisexual people are always considered as being able to choose between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Many times this notion serves as a weapon against bisexuals, in order to erase the existence of bisexuality as an existing identity or as a viable option. Nevertheless, the very use of this notion as a weapon can insinuate how threatening this idea – and bisexual identity itself – might be for monosexual identities….”

-- Radical Bi @ http://radicalbi.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/cynthia-nixon-and-bisexual-choice/