{"id":6394,"date":"2014-10-07T15:47:29","date_gmt":"2014-10-07T15:47:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uncharted-worlds.org\/blog\/?p=1111"},"modified":"2014-10-07T15:47:29","modified_gmt":"2014-10-07T15:47:29","slug":"three-levels-of-bi-erasure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bimedia.org\/blogs\/2014\/10\/three-levels-of-bi-erasure\/","title":{"rendered":"Three levels of bi erasure"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\t\t\tI’m thinking let’s talk more about bi erasure. Here, I attempt to put into everyday language some ideas from Kenji Yoshino’s excellent essay on the subject, The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure<\/a><\/em> (PDF).\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\"Illustration:<\/p>\n

The under-representation of bi people is often spoken of in terms of “bi invisibility”. September 23, International Celebrate Bisexuality Day<\/a>, is also known as Bi Visibility Day<\/a>.1<\/a><\/b><\/sup>\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tBut as Marcus of the Bisexual Index<\/a> said earlier this year in a good rant<\/a>:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tBisexuals are not invisible. We are erased. Invisibility is an active effort – making oneself hide or taking on a disguise. We aren’t doing that. We’re being deleted.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\t\t\tYes! Here I am, all year round. And I’m not misreading myself<\/em> as straight or gay. If I’m not visible as bi, it’s because other<\/em> people are assuming things.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tErasure and stigma connects up with why bi people, on average, do worse on a lot of health & social measures than straight people, and worse even than lesbian & gay people.2<\/a><\/b><\/sup>\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\tMarcus went on to ask:\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tBut what can be done about it?\n\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\t\t\tI’ve been thinking about this.3<\/a><\/b><\/sup>\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tWhat I would like to encourage is: more and more, we phase out talking in terms of “bi invisibility”<\/strong> (except where that really is the only way of putting it which makes sense), and more and more, describe things in terms of “bi erasure” instead<\/strong>.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tI’m not saying that’s The Answer That Will Solve Everything. I just think it’s heading in a good direction. I think it helps to make more visible the processes of erasure… which I suspect is likely to help with challenging and undoing them.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>A key resource<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tA valuable resource in this area is Kenji Yoshino<\/a>‘s paper The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure<\/a><\/em> (PDF).4<\/a><\/b><\/sup> This dates from 2000.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tFor some reason, I never found out about it at the time. And then when I did, I was like “wow, this is excellent, why did I never see it before?!”\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tI suspect probably part of why it’s not more famous is that it’s quite long, and written in academic style. It includes a fair bit of “carefully step by step making the argument watertight”, in keeping with its original legal-research context.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tEver since I first read it, I’ve had in mind that a helpful next move would be: distil out some key bits and put them into more ordinary language. This would help us to start deploying the ideas more often – in bi politics, and potentially also in other areas where erasure is a factor. And that’s what this post is mostly for!<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tBefore I get onto that, a quick tangent: Bi-specific erasure isn’t the only source of bi invisibility. Queerness in general is erased<\/a> at times<\/a> (“the love which dare not speak its name”). There are also social rules limiting all<\/em> discussion of sexuality.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThese other factors are worth thinking about too. But here, I’m focusing on the types of erasure which affect bi people in particular.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>Yoshino’s 3 levels of bi erasure<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tIn Yoshino’s analysis, there are 3 levels of bi erasure<\/strong>. They work in a kind of layered stack, so that if one fails, the next one activates. Putting them into everyday language:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1. \n

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\tThere’s no such thing<\/strong>.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\tOK, then, there is, but you’re<\/em> not one of them<\/strong>.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    \n\t\t\t\t\t\tOK then, you are – and here’s what’s wrong with you and your kind<\/strong>.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    \n\t\t\tYoshino calls these, respectively, “class erasure<\/strong><\/span>”, “individual erasure<\/strong><\/span>” and “delegitimation<\/strong><\/span>”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tYou’ll notice that the third one, “delegitimation”, isn’t exactly a type of erasure in itself. Its main role in the overall system of erasure is to make it less safe for people to challenge the first two.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tMore than one of these “levels” can be operating at the same time. But first I’m going to zoom in on each one separately.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    <\/a>1. Class erasure: There’s no such thing<\/h2>\n

    \n\t\t\tClass erasure can be either explicit (said in words) or implicit (e.g. via words you avoid<\/em> saying).\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tExplicit<\/strong> class erasure is things like “bisexuality doesn’t exist<\/strong>“.\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n

    \n\t\t\t\t\tOh, honey<\/em>. Nobody’s really<\/em> bi. People just say that until they figure things out. So which is it gonna be?\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\t\t\t– gay friend in inadvertentfeminist’s story of growing up bi<\/a>, well worth a read.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \n\t\t\tOther good examples include this set of quotes<\/a>, and some well-known badly-done research about bisexual men<\/a>.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tImplicit<\/strong> class erasure is people repeatedly leaving out<\/strong> the word & idea “bisexual” where it would make sense to include it. “Blah blah gay and straight”, “heterosexual and homosexual”, “gay and lesbian”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tThis way of talking and thinking links up with mistaken logic such as: “Is so-and-so gay?” “No, he’s straight – I know his girlfriend”. Or “Is so-and-so gay?” “Yes – I’ve met his boyfriend”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tUnintentional, unthinking erasure of this implicit<\/strong> kind is very common in present-day mainstream culture. It’s even done by bi people ourselves by accident sometimes. It can take work to unlearn the habit<\/strong>: first, making a conscious decision not to erase \/ forget \/ ignore bi people any more, and then practising and failing, failing and practising, till it becomes more usual to remember.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tThe idea “Bisexuality is fashionable<\/strong>” can arguably also fit into the “class erasure” level, even though it doesn’t erase bisexuality 100%. “Bisexuality is fashionable” says something like: “Bisexuality can exist, but only temporarily<\/em>, so we needn’t count it properly”, or “People in this category are only playing, not for real”. That kind of erasure doesn’t entirely rub out the category; instead, it makes it kind of wobbly and unsatisfactory, in contrast to lesbian, gay and straight which are shown as “real”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n\t\t\tYoshino says about that:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n

    \n\t\t\t\t\tA more subtle strategy of implicit class erasure is the description of bisexuality as “bisexual chic” … As the phrase suggests, bisexuality is here made visible as a phase, fashion, or fad – its appearance is inscribed with its imminent disappearance.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    <\/a>2. Individual erasure: You’re<\/em> not one of them<\/h2>\n

    \n\t\t\tExamples of individual erasure include:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

    \n