Bi radical

Love, Rage and the Occupation: Bisexual Politics in Israel/Palestine

I just got a new article published on Journal of Bisexuality, how exciting ^_^

Click to download: Love, Rage and the Occupation: Bisexual Politics in Israel/Palestine

This text narrates the writer’s story as a bisexual activist and, through it, also the story of the bisexual movement in Israel so far. In addition, the text endeavors to highlight the strands of militarism, violence and racism in Israeli culture, with a focus on the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Palestinian people. This is meant to achieve two things: first, to deconstruct the false separation between the two fields of ‘LGBT rights’ and antiwar activism; and second, to promote the principles of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, encouraging solidarity with the Palestinian people and nonviolent struggle against the Israeli occupation.

Check out the tags for some of the topics covered :)

* If you have any problems with downloading the file, don’t hesitate to email me and ask for a copy: bisexual.revolution(at)gmail.com

arborealmanager: OKAYdifference between pansexuality and...

Reblogged from insomniacslumber

insomniacslumber:

bidyke:

“The bisexual community itself has always defined it as “same and other,” or more than one, not “both.” “

I’m sorry to say, but this is an outright lie. Definitions of bisexuality as “both” and as attraction to “men and women” abound in both past and present, activist and academic bisexual writing. Yes, there have always been people in bi movements which defined bisexuality as “same + different” or as “more than one”, but saying that this is the only way bisexuality has ever been defined by these movements is misleading and has nothing to do with the realities and histories of bisexual movements themselves.

Trying to paint a false image of these realities and histories is not only unfair (in that it is false and misleading), but is also not working in that it’s not fooling anyone, and it makes bisexuals look like wishful thinkers as best and liars at worst.

As bisexual people and activists, we need to be accountable about cissexist and binary language in our communities rather than pretend like it doesn’t exist. Just as we insist that binary definitions have never been the only agreed ones about bisexuality, so we must acknowledge that non-binary definitions have been and still remain contested. Cissexism remains a significant problem within many bisexual communities, and we need to learn how to be accountable and work on that without glossing over the problems on that one hand, and without scapegoating bisexuality and the entire bisexual movement on the other.

I’m sorry, but bidyke, I really do not like how your response seems to imply that being attracted to both men and women but not non-binary people is somehow cissexist. It’s really not. Many bisexuals are only attracted to just men and women - there’s nothing cissexist or binarist about that, just like there’s nothing cissexist and binarist about lesbians being only attracted to women.

Defining bisexual as “being attracted to both men and women” is not binarist or cissexist in any way. It simply states that you’re only attracted to binary genders - not that there are only two genders in existence.

I would like to invite you to read my post here.

There is nothing wrong with only being attracted to binary genders, and it’s biphobic to accuse that orientation of being cissexist.

TL;DR: “Men and women” is not binarist language if you’re stating who you’re attracted to.

Okay, so since you asked:

First of all, I don’t think that being attracted only to cis men and women is overtly transphobic and evil. I don’t think that such people intend to hurt anyone or to practice cis privilege on anyone’s back. However and notwithstanding, I do find that this tendency resonates with cissexist social standards.

People often like to think about attraction as a non-political, inborn, pure, uncontrollable quality which is somehow a given, but in most cases this is not so. More often than not, our attractions are shaped by social standards of beauty and attractiveness - of what/who is “allowed” to be considered attractive, and what/who is not. These standards of beauty are of course deeply political as they are shaped by dominant social beliefs and structures: to name just a few, white people are considered more attractive than people of color, thin people more than fat people, nondisabled people more than disabled people - and transgender/genderqueer people more than cisgender people. In Read My Lips, Ricki Wilchins argues that the reason why transgender people are considered unattractive is that their/our bodies are unintelligible in terms of sexual attraction, to a culture which constructs its sexuality upon cisgender bodies. In order to be considered attractive, one must possess a body that “matches” their gender identity. This means that cisgender bodies are structurally privileged in terms of sexuality and sexual attraction - and we know what structural privileging of cisgender identity is called (that’s rights, cissexism).

Lisa Millbank of A Radical TransFeminist writes very elloquently about how people need to challenge themselves in terms of sexual attraction to include people of marginalized groups, whom society teaches us to find unattractive: Significant Othering: Attraction Down The Privilege Gradient.

Second of all - I feel that you’re shifting the terms of the discussion from the practical level (which I was referring to) to the symbolic level (which I didn’t). So just to clarify - when I said that the mainstream bisexual movement is imbued with cissexist language, this is what I meant: Cissexism and transphobia in bisexual communities.

(Source: bellypebbles)

arborealmanager: OKAYdifference between pansexuality and...

Reblogged from bialogue-group

bialogue-group:

arborealmanager:

OKAY

CLICK HERE for some thoughts on the difference between pansexuality and bisexuality

bisexuality is defined as people who ♥ people of same gender as themselves + ♥ people of different genders/gender presentations from themselves when someone is physically attracted to both males and females. heteroromantic relationships and homoromantic relationships are no difference to them, they love the person for who they are. using the term in the least offensive way possible, yes, they have no problem dingling their dangle with any fangle that jangles. HOWEVER, that does not necessarily mean that bisexuals are more sexually active/have lower morals about sex than you or i. they’re just fine with both sides of the spectrum. people in general

pansexuality is a more spiritual way of looking at things. they view the person ONLY for their personality and who they are. their significant other’s fangle doesn’t make a dang dongle difference to them. which means that one who is pansexual may have romantic and/or sexual relations with one who is male, female, transexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, etcetera etcetera. their relationships are based solely on gender-blind based chemistry.

Okay? Okay.

Pardon My Sarcasm…:

Addendum - bisexuals can have romantic and/or sexual relations with one who is male, female, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, etc etc. Not just “physically attracted to both males and females.”

The bisexual community itself has always defined it as “same and other,” or more than one, not “both.” Everyone People who are not actually bisexual themselves has their own have made up their own wildly fanciful definition or interpretations, (many of them not very flattering). However, since the beginning of modern LGBTQ+ movement the bisexual community itself has consistently used a more formal definition as follows. :

Bisexuals are people with the (some include “inborn” or “innate”) capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, (some include “spiritual”) and/or emotional attractions to:

(1) those of the same gender as themselves
(2) those of a different genders/gender presentations from themselves.

There may be an individual attraction for one gender or gender presentation which can also be fluid and changeable over time.

Bisexuality is not synonymous with being polyamorous (some include “or promiscuous”). Individual bisexual people may be celibate, asexual, monogamous or non-monogamous just as individual straight, lesbian or gay people can be.

It is certainly unfortunate that for reasons that are not at all clear bisexual people are not listened to when the describe themselves. After all, in this day and age no one would say that gay men are predators and pedophiles; or that lesbians are just women who are to ugly to catch a husband; or that transfolk are just men in dresses. Instead most people listen with respect to how they self identify. Hopefully the day is coming soon when the bisexual community is treated with the same respect.

please avoid posting or reblogging fake and misleading informations, it’s not useful or funny and it hurst people feelings ~~thnx

“The bisexual community itself has always defined it as “same and other,” or more than one, not “both.” “

I’m sorry to say, but this is an outright lie. Definitions of bisexuality as “both” and as attraction to “men and women” abound in both past and present, activist and academic bisexual writing. Yes, there have always been people in bi movements which defined bisexuality as “same + different” or as “more than one”, but saying that this is the only way bisexuality has ever been defined by these movements is misleading and has nothing to do with the realities and histories of bisexual movements themselves.

Trying to paint a false image of these realities and histories is not only unfair (in that it is false and misleading), but is also not working in that it’s not fooling anyone, and it makes bisexuals look like wishful thinkers as best and liars at worst.

As bisexual people and activists, we need to be accountable about cissexist and binary language in our communities rather than pretend like it doesn’t exist. Just as we insist that binary definitions have never been the only agreed ones about bisexuality, so we must acknowledge that non-binary definitions have been and still remain contested. Cissexism remains a significant problem within many bisexual communities, and we need to learn how to be accountable and work on that without glossing over the problems on that one hand, and without scapegoating bisexuality and the entire bisexual movement on the other.

(Source: bellypebbles)

Words, binary and biphobia, or: why “bi” is binary but “FTM” is not

Reblogged from impromptuonedykedanceparty

impromptuonedykedanceparty:

brynncognito:

bidyke:

[…]

This gave me some food for thought, although I still sometimes can’t help but get uncomfortable when people identify as bisexual because I’ve so often heard it defined in a wonderfully binarist fashion as “attraction towards both genders [or sexes].” And I have a really hard time separating bisexuality from all of the binarism it can entail.

Yyyyyeah. People get very attached to the idea that ‘you can’t disagree with anyone’s identity’ but that’s not actually true because some identities are based in oppressive ideas.

If some cis woman wants to identify as a “natural-born woman,” you better believe I’m going to object, because that’s a term rooted in cissupremacy. Yes, even if she considers trans women natural-born women too! That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a loaded term with a history in oppression, and you can’t just hand-wave that away and decide it doesn’t apply any more.

Bisexuality isn’t inherently oppressive, of course, but it is rooted in that ‘attraction to both genders,’/’attraction to both men and women’ like Brynn said - that’s how the term was coined and defined BY THOSE USING IT for decades. There’s nothing wrong with being attracted to women and men, full stop. 

But when you shoehorn that around and pretend you can use it to mean ‘attraction to people of all genders’ despite its history of meaning ‘attraction to women and men’ and history of erasing people who are included int the former and not the latter, you’re being an oppressive tool.

Because sexual/romantic orientation identities aren’t just about you, they’re also about the gender identities of everyone you’re attracted to (if anyone).

So yeah, if you define yourself as bisexual and acts as though it includes me, I’m going to be triggered as fuck and react as though you’ve harmed me and erased my gender, because you have. I get that there are people who are trying to radically redefine bisexuality: using it to mean attraction to two genders but not necessarily man or woman, using it to mean attraction to people of the same gender and those of other genders, etc.

And honestly, the way the linked posts acts as though bisexuals are suffering one-sidedly at the hands of pansexuals is laughable. I have seen so many bi people attack pansexuals as ‘special snowflakes,’ deride their orientation, erase them, erase nonbinary folks, I’m going to stop now to try and avoid getting angrier. Not that pansexuals are innocent either of course; there’s a lot of shaming anyone else who doesn’t share their orientation (something in common with bisexuals, ~whee, you can relate on that note~), and a lot of obnoxious cissexism and binarism under the guise of recognition.

I guess in short I could’ve summed this up by just saying some identities reflect on others’ identities in oppressive ways.

Words, binary and biphobia, or: why “bi” is binary but “FTM” is not

Original post in my blog

Before I write - a disclaimer: this post contains criticism of the non-bisexual-identified transgender community and discourse. Please be aware that I am writing this criticism not as an outsider, but as a genderqueer person involved in transgender community, and activism. I hope this criticism is taken in the same spirit in which it was written - that of passion and solidarity.

This is a long post. But trust me, it is good. Take your time in reading in, it will be worth it ;)

A(n) (long) introduction

It appears increasingly acceptable of late, in transgender/genderqueer communities and activist discourses, to portray bisexuality as a binary identity, and thus intrinsically transphobic. As the claim classically goes - since the word “bisexuality” has “bi” (literally: two) in it, then it is inherently gender-binary, pointing to only two genders/sexes as its sources of reference - thus erasing non-binary sexes and genders out of existence. Those siding with this approach usually suggest the use of alternative identity categories, such as “pansexual”, “omnisexual”, “queer”, etc. (For the sake of fairness, I need to mention that I, too, once subscribed to these views, to the extent that they are now and forever recorded in a book and unchangeable. But - hey, we all make mistakes…)

On the other hand is the bisexual side of the debate, arguing to the contrary. I will say that I find these arguments to be nothing but a pile of apologetics, and so I’m going to be relatively brief with it, as they only matter to me here as background to the real core of the discussion:

1. That, similar to “homosexuality” and “lesbianism”, “bisexuality” is a word reclaimed by the bisexual movement from the medical institution. The bi community itself had therefore little to no influence over formation and structure of the word, but has since reclaimed it to mean “potential attraction to more than one sex or gender”.
2. That linguistically - the “two” in “bisexual” might refer to attraction to genders alike to our own (=homosexuality) + attraction to genders different from our own (=heterosexuality).
3. That the bisexual movement has started gaining prime at around the same period as the transgender movement, and that, in its early stages, no language was available for the description of attraction to non-binary sexes and genders. However, throughout the history of the movement, the word has constantly been put to use in attempting to describe same, using terms such as “third gender(s)”, “androgynous people”, “those in between”, etc.
4. That historically, bisexual communities have always been one of the most accepting places towards transgenders and genderqueers, and that the two communities have always shared a strong alliance.
5. That a discussion focusing around bisexuality solely in relation to transgender politics performs structural bisexual erasure, as it prioritizes transgender politics over bisexual politics in a discussion about bisexual identity. Seeing as so far, I’ve only heard myself voicing this argument, I would give it a few more lines just to clarify my intention (quoting myself from a facebook discussion on the topic):

It often feels to me as if bisexuality is never really about our own sexual identity(ies), i.e. - our experiences, our desires, our lives as bisexuals, the oppression we experience as such, the cultural, social and political systems working to shape the experience of bisexual people, institutional oppression experienced by bisexuals, etc. etc. Instead, I feel that my sexual identity (i.e. whether I should identify as bisexual, pansexual, queer, etc.) is expected to be determined according to other people’s gender identity.

The question on whether bisexuality is more or less helpful in reducing gender binarism poses this quite clearly. It implies that bisexual people should determine their identification according to transgender politics as opposed to bisexual politics. Taken from that perspective, then of course the answer would be :”Yes, definitely pan/queer”. But lately I’ve been questioning this very outset as influenced by internalized biphobia. The fact that we (as a movement) have been focusing on this question as a central one implies a political hierarchy that prioritizes transgender issues over bisexual issues.

Interlude

What I need to say around this point is that the great majority of this debate is being perpetuated and developed by bisexual-identified transgenders and genderqueers (Click the link! It’s Julia Serano!), and non-bi-identified transgenders and genderqueers. I need to draw attention to this, as the “binary” side of this debate often likes to frame it as a transgender-cisgender debate, thus locating the “bisexual” side not only as linguistically transphobic, but also as external to transgender community, identities and politics - i.e. privileged.

A painful example of this was a debate between transgender blogger Asher Bauer and myself in the responses section of his post The Trans Power Manifesto. Throughout the debate, my genderqueer identity and position was completely ignored and dismissed in light of my bisexual identification. Bauer even went as far as saying that, “If your concern for trans issues seemed to be equal to your concern that people be allowed to use a word that erases large categories of trans people, I would not have spoken like that” (i.e. addressed me as if I was cisgender), thus insinuating that bisexual identification and politics are inherently transphobic and therefore contradictory to genderqueer and trans identification and politics.

Slippage

As implied through Bauer’s position - bisexuality is no longer critiqued simply as a term in certain transgender discourses, but is rather experiencing a slippage of meaning from the linguistic to the factual - if: bisexuality=transphobic, then: bisexual=transphobic as well. It’s not a huge jump, and I’m both unsurprised and broken-hearted to see it happening. I’ve once had someone argue to me that the “bad binary reputation” bisexuality is increasingly experiencing is due to bisexual people’s transphobia. And indeed, increasingly I’ve been noticing that, notwithstanding bisexual erasure, the only time in which bisexual people and the bisexual movement are mentioned in some transgender writings, is as oppressors of transgenders.

I’m currently reading Susan Stryker’s Transgender History, a book summarizing the history of the American transgender movement starting from the 1950’s and up to this day. I’ve recently reached the 90’s. Up until now, only one mention of bisexuality has been made in the book: one sentence at the introduction, explaining the meaning of the word (as “attraction to any gender”). From hereon and until the 90’s, bisexuality and bisexual people fade away from sight and historical attention, and this, despite the fact that gay and lesbian people are mentioned in abundance (both favourably and unfavourably). Just to make this really clear - bisexual people are being erased in the book even from where they were undoubtedly present - demonstrations, the Stonewall rebellion, pride marches, the gay liberation movement, etc. Mentions of the bisexual community resurface, however, when we come to the 90’s - solely in the context of transgender exclusion.

Another example is the acronym “LGB” that some transgender writers use in the same context of transgender exclusion. In his article, “Fighting to Win” from the wonderful anthology That’s Revolting!, transgender activist Dean Spade constantly uses the form “LGB-fake-T” - situating bisexual people not only as oppressors of transgender people, but also as benefactors of assimilationist gay privilege - wrongfully presuming that assimilationist gay campaigns include the needs and the agenda of bisexual people (and do not, in fact, trample all over us on their golden way to heteronormative white privilege).

So where is all this coming from?

I find this entire debate to be incredibly suspicious: if transphobia is truly the matter at hand, then why focus on bisexuality alone? If it’s words we’re concerned with, shouldn’t we first want to address the hetero-homo dichotomy - a far more prevalent and a far more oppressive binary structure? Or if it’s inner-community transphobic approaches that we want to address, shouldn’t we first see the white gay cismen? Or the lesbian movement, with its long-time and long-established exclusionary practices? Why the bisexual community, historically and currently the least transphobic of the three, as well as the one with the least resources from which to exclude transgender and genderqueer people?

To be fair - transphobia is indeed a problem in many bisexual communities, I have experienced this myself when attending BiCon this last August and have a mouthful not only about cissexism, but also about racism and classism within those communities (page 6). However, I feel that the scope given, within this debate, to addressing transphobia in bisexual communities is not only excessive in relation to actual amounts of transphobia (which says a lot, because transphobia is abound everywhere), but also that the content of the arguments fails to address any real problems existing within actual bisexual communities. Simply put, it feels less like community work and more like slander.

I think I know this song…

The argument claiming bisexuality to be binary situates bisexuality as an oppressive identity perpetuating hegemonic ideology. Less academically - to say that bisexuality is binary is to say that bisexuality is an oppressive identity contributing to dominant social order. Now, where have I heard that before?…

Apparently the first people to make this binary claim were not at all trans people, but one gay male and one straight female (gay-male-identified) academics. I mean, of course, Eve Kosofski-Sedgwick and Lee Edelman (separately). I could only find a quote of Edelman. Here is what he says in his 1994 book “Homographies”:

[…] the hetero/homo binarism (a binarism more effectively reinforced, than disrupted by the “third term” of bisexuality)

(I guess we’re not worth more than brackets, huh?)

Sedgwick said something, to the same extent, at around the same time.

So, apparently the transgender community didn’t make this up at all, but took this from the proverbial Academe. I don’t mention this to mock the transgender community, but rather to point out standpoints within this debate. To say that the stance on bisexuality as binary has been initiated, it appears, by an academic gay white cisman and an academic straight white ciswoman is to say that these people had a political and academic interest in the elimination of bisexuality from their theory and studies.

So what does this remind me of?

Claims of bisexuality as an oppressive/privileged identity are not new. As anyone who wanders the world as bisexual knows, we are often accused of bearing heterosexual privilege - especially by, but not limited to, lesbian communities. These accusations - classical by now - rely on the presumption that bisexual people are, in fact, straight, and that by refusing to relinquish our “attachment” to male-identified people we are accepting and perpetuating heteropatriarchal hegemony (in plain English: heterosexual and sexist oppression of women and queers).

Oh… wait… “perpetuating __________ hegemony”… rings a bell, huh? Let’s make an experiment:

• Bisexuals are a privileged group perpetuating heteropatriarchal hegemony and oppressing gay and lesbian people.
• Bisexuals are a privileged group perpetuating cisgender hegemony and oppressing transgender and genderqueer people.

OMG, I think I got it!!1

What else does this remind me of?

The same arguments were (and in some cases, still are) used against transgender people, too.

Here is what bisexual transgender activist and scholar Jillian Todd Weiss writes about transphobia in her Journal of Bisexuality essay “LG vs. BT”:

Although “male to constructed female” transsexuals claimed to be against the stereotyped gender system by virtue of their escape from stereotypical masculinity, they in fact added force to the binary system by merely escaping from one stereotype to another, or at most mixing together different stereotypes, rather than advocating true gender freedom. They were not political radicals, as they claimed, but reactionaries seeking to preserve a stereotypical gender system that was already dramatically changing due to the political action of 60s and 70s feminists and gays.

Similar claims, of course, have been made throughout the years against FTM transgenders as well, trying to paint them not only as perpetuating the oppressive gender binary, but also as opportunistic seekers of male privilege. And oh my! Doesn’t that sound familiar!

Why this? Why now?

For a brief explanation of this, I’m quoting myself from facebook, again:

Another thought regarding the origin of those allegations, is what Julia Serano calls the masculinism of the transgender movement, which I think comes into play on this issue as well. Serano says, and I agree, that the transgender movement consistently prefers masculine-spectrum viewpoints and ideas, while marginalizing those of feminine-spectrum transpeople and genderqueers. Specifically regarding the issue of increased criticism towards the bi community and relative lack of criticism towards the lesbian community about transphobia, I think this is heavily influenced by the fact that the transgender movement is mostly controlled by FTM’s who emerged and were influenced by lesbian communities (and who experience less transphobia by them by virtue of being “female-bodied”). That is, they don’t criticize lesbians since these are their home communities. However, criticizing bisexuals is very much in keeping with the often-present biphobia of many lesbian communities.

And of course - the transgender movement has a clear interest in the disownment of bisexuality: an acceptance of- alliance with- or association with- bisexuality would, doubtlessly, “drag” the transgender movement even further “down” along with it. Considering both widespread transphobia, and bisexuality’s lack of popularity and huge invisibility within both the GGGG movement and the heterosexual populace - everything is to be gained by a transgender movement dissociating itself from bisexuality, everything to be lost by alliance…

However, what makes it truly necessary for the transgender movement to will itself rid of connection to the bisexual movement is not to be found in any quality intrinsic to trans community or politics themselves. Instead, it seems that for the most part, the gay and lesbian movement makes it out as if there’s “only one spare place” at their proverbial table. Having only three imaginary chairs, where two are marked “gay” and “lesbian” creates the inevitable (and oh-so-convenient) consequence of pitting one invisible/suppressed group against the other, competing for that one extra spot. This is how those in privilege secure their own places, by having us step over each other rather than fighting the ‘real enemy’ together. In this way, the gay and lesbian movement can stop worrying about how to hinder our ways to threatening their positions of power - setting us against one another makes sure that we’ll do that job for them.

A short summary, and suggested solutions

So, to summarize:

1. I’ve been writing this post for three hours now and I’m tired and want to sleep.
2. The allegations of bisexuality being binary are a load of bullshit.
3. The allegations draw not from actual transphobia within bisexual words, communities or bi-identified people, but from wide trends and long histories of biphobia within the gay and lesbian movements.
4. Transgender people have historically (and currently) suffer(ed) from similar allegations by the same sources.

Suggestion solutions:

1. Solidarity
2. Love
3. The revolution
4. Sleep

After a night’s sleep, and a day’s work: of solidarity

We are all we have. Isolated in a cruel world. We survive, separately and together - which is better? Which would you choose? We imagine ourselves in foreign worlds when we are surrounded by friends. Our friends - who surround us with comfort, love, solidarity and pride. Who pick us off the floor when we’ve forgotten our own footing. We go outside and we fight together, we bring down barriers and dismantle hierarchies. We tear apart their order while imagining and creating the world that is ours: from our communities and our families of choice and into the streets. We invade society. We disrupt order. Where society will kick us down, we will fight back, together.

What we need is to support each other. Understand me when I say this: we are all we have. To love, to struggle, to stand shoulder to shoulder with. We survive each other.

None of us are free until all of us are free.

No off Switch: yeahitsokay replied to your post: yeahitsokay replied to your post: ok...

Reblogged from bialogue-group

bialogue-group:

bidyke:

bialogue-group:

nooffswitch:

yeahitsokay replied to your post: yeahitsokay replied to your post: ok stop.Just…

I’ve had pansexuals tell me I should call myself pan because bi is so tainted by negative stereotypes. While they perpetuate and create new stereotypes. Sigh.

I get that a lot too.

Also in doing so they are creating a stereotype of themselves that is kinda way worse then “bi’s can only date cis people”

the stereotype that they are all a bunch of pretentious assholes who ride shot gun in the identity police squad car.

I think that is a worse stereotype then any I have to deal with as bi so far.It’s gotten to bad esp here on tumblr any time I see some one say “I’m pansexual” I immediately think “oh man better write down the identity police badge number and squad car plates cause here we fuckin go.”

It is unfortunate, but the backlash has made me worry about what I post here and on facebook now. For example I feel I must be careful about where I put Ronete Cohen’s essay “Trust Me, You’re Bisexual” becasue of this one line: “Bisexuality means a million different things to a million different people. It includes terms like pansexual, bi-curious, heteroflexible and fluid”.

Now I understand that she is from an different generation than most on here, that she writing for an older less politically aware audience and also that she is in Holland writing for an English-language publication. However the hours of screaming back-lash that I would have to cope with from the identity police if the “wrong” people should see that means that I’m just not going to put the article out there as much as I might have in the past.

This has been bothering me a bit for the past few days.

First off, I’m bothered by this automatic connection made here between older people and lack of political awareness. Ronete isn’t very much older than me, nor are many other people from a wide spectrum of political opinions in the bisexual movement. I’ve seen younger bi people write outrageous things, even here on tumblr (for example, that pansexuality isn’t real because there aren’t actually more than two genders). On the other hand, some of the awesome politically-aware people in the bi movement are older than most here on tumblr (for example, Robyn Ochs). So why make age the issue rather than ideology and awareness?

Secondly - and this is something that I’ve really been wondering about since I’ve read this - why is advocating the use of “bisexuality” an as umbrella term problematic? It is only fear of backlash? In which case, maybe it’s worth raising this issue more on tumblr, not less, and on our terms (for example, clarifying that it only includes those who want to be included in it, or making up new terms such as BPQ [Bi, Pan, Queer]). Personally, I really like the umbrella use of “bisexual” (or “bisexual*”). But maybe there are problems with it that I can’t see?

Thoughts?

Very respectfully there was no implication at all that “older” means “lack of political awareness”. All it is referring to is “dealing with other issues”, such as the rights of those who are still coming out in a hostile world to define themselves as straight until such time (which might be never) as they feel more comfortable with some other identity.

As accurately noted by then BiNet USA president Wendy Curry who came from a distinctly very disadvantaged proletariat background when the craze for renaming plain old boring bisexual to something newer and hipper first began to gain traction in 2006, “the far majority of the folks discussing the evil bi label are college educated, white, and folks who like to discuss the utopian version of the world”.

It was just whining and complaining about all the silly but time-consuming and sometimes painful and painfully ignorant anti-bi-ness which has currently turned into such a fad in some quarters. Disbanding the pity-party now and getting back to work. Nose to the grindstone and all that.

Hmm? I was referring to this: “an older less politically aware audience”. The connection is pretty sound…

No off Switch: yeahitsokay replied to your post: yeahitsokay replied to your post: ok...

Reblogged from bialogue-group

bialogue-group:

nooffswitch:

yeahitsokay replied to your post: yeahitsokay replied to your post: ok stop.Just…

I’ve had pansexuals tell me I should call myself pan because bi is so tainted by negative stereotypes. While they perpetuate and create new stereotypes. Sigh.

I get that a lot too.

Also in doing so they are creating a stereotype of themselves that is kinda way worse then “bi’s can only date cis people”

the stereotype that they are all a bunch of pretentious assholes who ride shot gun in the identity police squad car.

I think that is a worse stereotype then any I have to deal with as bi so far.It’s gotten to bad esp here on tumblr any time I see some one say “I’m pansexual” I immediately think “oh man better write down the identity police badge number and squad car plates cause here we fuckin go.”

It is unfortunate, but the backlash has made me worry about what I post here and on facebook now. For example I feel I must be careful about where I put Ronete Cohen’s essay “Trust Me, You’re Bisexual” becasue of this one line: “Bisexuality means a million different things to a million different people. It includes terms like pansexual, bi-curious, heteroflexible and fluid”.

Now I understand that she is from an different generation than most on here, that she writing for an older less politically aware audience and also that she is in Holland writing for an English-language publication. However the hours of screaming back-lash that I would have to cope with from the identity police if the “wrong” people should see that means that I’m just not going to put the article out there as much as I might have in the past.

This has been bothering me a bit for the past few days.

First off, I’m bothered by this automatic connection made here between older people and lack of political awareness. Ronete isn’t very much older than me, nor are many other people from a wide spectrum of political opinions in the bisexual movement. I’ve seen younger bi people write outrageous things, even here on tumblr (for example, that pansexuality isn’t real because there aren’t actually more than two genders). On the other hand, some of the awesome politically-aware people in the bi movement are older than most here on tumblr (for example, Robyn Ochs). So why make age the issue rather than ideology and awareness?

Secondly - and this is something that I’ve really been wondering about since I’ve read this - why is advocating the use of “bisexuality” an as umbrella term problematic? It is only fear of backlash? In which case, maybe it’s worth raising this issue more on tumblr, not less, and on our terms (for example, clarifying that it only includes those who want to be included in it, or making up new terms such as BPQ [Bi, Pan, Queer]). Personally, I really like the umbrella use of “bisexual” (or “bisexual*”). But maybe there are problems with it that I can’t see?

Thoughts?

O my heart

Reblogged from 24hoursremain-deactivated201204

yeahitsokay:

Sarcastic answer: Pan = all, therefore pansexuals are attracted to literally everything

Informed answer: The word “bisexual” had meanings prior to its current use referring to a particular sexual identity. To pin the false conclusions one draws based out of an ignorance of the origins of the word on bisexuals themselves is pretty fucking offensive.

If you’re going to be literal about it and follow the etymology of the word, a truly “bisexual” person is what we would now call intersex. Because it used to mean things that possessed characteristics of two sexes. It was only applied to people when it was thought that non-monosexual people had “androgynous” brains, just as it was believed homosexual men had “female” brains, and vice versa.

It’s not like the word came about just to spite nonbinary people, and I would like to remind everyone that I am genderqueer and bisexual, so I’ve thought a lot about this. It also ignores the fact that the only people who have the right to define what bisexuality is and is not are bisexuals, period. And the American Institute of Bisexuality and several founders of the modern bisexual movement use the same definition of bisexual as I do: attraction to more than one gender. So it’s not like a new thing we came up with to provide ourselves an “out” where the binarism accusation is concerned. This definition has been around a long time.

Also, bisexuals are not a monolith, and we don’t all identify the same or for the same reasons. Some people call themselves that because they are only attracted to binary genders (or, more rarely, only to two genders), but we don’t all. And it’s not exactly fair or social justice-y to blame an entire group of people for the binarism of some.

I love it when smart bi’s talk dirty :D

(Source: basedmcgoats)