{"id":265,"date":"2011-01-27T15:22:44","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T15:22:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com\/490301.html"},"modified":"2011-01-27T15:22:44","modified_gmt":"2011-01-27T15:22:44","slug":"its-more-about-hearts-than-parts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bimedia.org\/blogs\/2011\/01\/its-more-about-hearts-than-parts\/","title":{"rendered":"It’s More About Hearts Than Parts!"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the things we’re constantly trying to do when we talk about combating bisexual invisibility is breaking the rigid mindset that says there’s only two options. There’s more possibilities than just gay and straight.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It’s not always intentional – if you google “both gay and straight”<\/a> you’ll see there’s plenty of people trying to unite us all but not realising that their categories don’t cover everyone. So, when we see that a local initiative wants to appeal to “both gay and straight people” or is aimed at “both gay and straight couples” it’s best to be gentle as we point out to them that there’s other people, and other couples, that they might not realise they’re putting off.<\/p>\n

The usual argument that counters this is that “gay and straight” implies inclusion for bisexuals. But this feels false to me.<\/p>\n

Imagine I’m a greengrocer. Go on, I’ll wait. I’ve got apples, pears and bananas on my stall. If you wander up and say “I’ll have an apple and a pear ” then I’ll put those in a (recyclable) bag for you, and I might say to you “and a banana?” because I don’t think your list has necessarily ended and I may want to sell more bananas (there’s a recession on, let’s say). But if you said “I’ll have both an apple and a pear” then I probably wouldn’t bother – you seem to know your mind. “Both” ends the list at two. It might be that you like or dislike bananas, but you certainly aren’t including them.<\/p>\n

Bananas are about as “inbetween” apples and pears as bisexuals are with “straight” and “gay”. We’re not a mishmash. We’re something else.<\/p>\n

This can be a problem when we define bisexuality as well. When I first started going to BiCons in the early nineties, the standard definition of bisexuality that most bi groups used was “sexually attracted to both men and women”. This has become steadily less popular as the language around gender issues has evolved. Although some individuals may well only be attracted to people of easily categorizable genders, and not to anyone genderqueer, it’s fair to say that describing bisexuality in terms of “men and women” collaborates society’s rigidity on the scope of gender. And “both” is again a list ender.<\/p>\n

Phrasing it with the full scope of gender takes too much time, and becomes highly individual depending on what the person is attracted to (Two I have encountered: “I like men, or women, or trans people who have shaved heads and like leather” and “I like women including trans women, but not trans men or men” [sic]<\/i>) – we need a central definition to be more blanket-like. This is why over at the Bisexual Index, the definition<\/a> that is given for bisexuality is quite brief: Attraction to more than one gender<\/b>¹<\/p>\n

This works well for a number of reasons:<\/p>\n