bidyke:

bidyke:

(I’ve been asked this elsewhere and thought others might find it helpful.)

The modern use of the word “monosexual” was invented along with “bisexual” by European scientists in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Back then, “bisexual” meant having a combination of male and female anatomical features, or a lack of sexual differentiation between male and female anatomy. “Monosexual” meant clear differentiation between male and female anatomical traits. Later, when bisexuality came to mean “having masculine and feminine psychological traits” (which is how Freud used it), “monosexuality” meant having the psychological traits of one “sex”. Under that framework, bisexuality also came to be understood as a form of attraction: it was presumed that people who had the anatomical sexual traits of “both sexes” also had “male and female” psychological traits, which meant that they also were attracted to “both sexes”. It was assumed that their “male side” desired females, while their “female side” desired males. Under this definition, “monosexual” meant someone with clear anatomical and psychological “male” or “female” traits, who is attracted to one “sex”. Note that they didn’t at all differentiate between sex, gender and sexuality. These were all considered as one and the same.They also used gender-binary language.

This term also had a particular value judgement: while bisexuality was firmly connected with immaturity, “primitiveness”, non-white/West-European (i.e. “savage”) cultures and with animals, monosexuality was strongly associated with maturity, advancement, “cultured” (i.e. West-European) humanity and whiteness. In this framework, monosexuality was clearly and explicitly superior.

Quite a bit later, in the 1990’s, the bisexual movements in the US and the UK used the word in a similar, but different context. Obviously, the meaning of bisexuality has changed considerably (it meant pretty much the same thing as it does now - referring only to desire rather than “anatomical sex” or “psychological gender”). Bi activists and writers used it to mean people attracted to no more than one gender, as part of a political dialogue about oppression. This is where I took it from and is pretty much how I use it. I will say that even then, the term was met with inner-community criticism, basically on the same grounds as now - that it created an unfair conflation between gay and straight people, and that it created a harmful binary dichotomy (bisexual/monosexual).

While I think that these criticisms have really good points, I also think we can take them into account, and use the term carefully, sensitively and contextually, without necessarily making those same mistakes. I think it’s one hell of a useful term for talking about structural oppression of bi people, so I guess you could say I use it tactically in order to raise those issues.

tearingdownthatfence:

This answers a lot of question.

I actually like the word’s roots in the time when they though sex=gender=sexuality, because then “monosexual” can be taken to mean first and foremost cis straight people.

That’s true! I’ve never thought about it that way!

bidyke:

It appears that not enough people are aware of the existence of academic bisexual theory. As a Facebook friend of mine reported today:

I went to a queer theory website, looking for bisexual queer theory, and this is what I got when I started clicking on links:

“Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”

In fact, bisexual theory is a broad and rich academic field, with a large amount of writing in various disciplines. The reality of bisexual erasure makes it much harder for people to know that these sources exist, and all the harder to be aware of just how much there is to know.

For the benefit of everyone who always wondered whether bisexual theory existed, or how to find it - and for those who never considered it all all - I decided to compile a (very partial) list of bisexual theory (and other) sources. Note that many of them can be found online. Google is your friend. Recommended items are bolded!

Note that these are only the ones that I cited in my book! There are many, many more (for example, BiUK has a broad reference list, under the “REF LISTS” button). If you’re interested in further exploring this amazing field, don’t hesitate to contact me and ask for directions. Good luck!

Books, zines and reports

• Alexander, Jason and Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio. Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges. Routledge, 2011. (Also available as Journal of Bisexuality, Issue 9:3-4)
• Alexander, Jonathan and Karen Yescavage, eds. Bisexuality and Transgenderism: InterSEXions of the Others. Routledge, 2004.
• Baumgardner, Jennifer. Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
• Bi Academic Intervention, eds. The Bisexual Imaginary. Continuum, 1997.
• Bryant, Wayne M. Bisexual Characters in Film: From Anais to Zee. Routledge, 1997.
• Burleson, William E. Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community. Routledge, 2005.
• Chamberlain, Brent. Bisexual People in the Workplace: Practical advice for employers. Stonewall Workplace Guides.
• Forging a Bi-Trans Alliance. Spec. issue of Anything That Moves 17 (1998). Retrieved Tue 9 Oct 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20021020035411/anythingthatmoves.com/ish17/index17.html.
• Garber, Marjorie. Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life. Simon & Schuster, 1995.
• Hemmings, Clare. Bisexual Spaces. Routledge, 2002. THIS IS THE BIBLE! READ THIS!
• Hutchins, Loraine and Lani Ka’ahumanu, eds. Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. Alyson Books, 1991.
• Kinsey, et al. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Indiana University Press, 1948/1998.
• Ochs, Robyn and Sarah Rowley, eds. Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World. 1S ed. Boston: Bisexual Resource Center, 2005.
• Ochs, Robyn and Sarah Rowley, eds. Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World. 2Nd ed. Boston: Bisexual Resource Center, 2009.
• Pramaggiore, Maria and Donald E. Hall, eds. RePresenting Bisexualities: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire. NYU Press, 1996.
• Reba-Weise, Elizabeth, ed. Closer to Home: Women and Bisexuality. Seal Press: 1992.
• San Francisco Human Rights Commission LGBT Advisory Committee. (2011). Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations. San Francisco, California.
• Storr, Merl, ed. Bisexuality: A Critical Reader. Routledge, 1999. Download a free copy here.
  
• Suresha, Ron Jackson and Pete Chvany. Bi Men: Coming Out Every Which Way. Routledge, 2005.
• The Open University Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance and Faculty of Health and Social Care. (2012). The Bisexuality Report: Bisexual inclusion in LGBT equality and diversity. London, U.K.: Meg Barker, Christina Richards, Rebecca Jones, Helen Bowes-Catton & Tracey Plowman with Jen Yockney and Marcus Morgan.
• Tucker, Naomi, ed. Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and Visions. Routledge, 1995.

Articles and book chapters

• Ault, Amber. “Ambiguous Identity in an Unambiguous Sex/Gender Structure: The Case of Bisexual Women.” The Sociological Quarterly, 37:3 (1996): 449-463.
• Ault, Amber. “Hegemonic Discourse in an Oppositional Community: Lesbian Feminists and Bisexuality”. Critical Sociology, 20 (1994): 107-122.
• Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Trans. Keith Cohen and Paula Cohen. Signs, 1:4 (1976): 875-893.
• Diamond, Lisa. “Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study”. Developmental Psychology 44.1 (2008): 5-14.
• Eadie, Joe. “Activating Bisexuality: Towards a Bi/Sexual Politics.” Activating Theory: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Politics. Joseph Bristow and Anglia R. Wilson, eds. Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., 1994. 139-165.
• Eisner, Shiri. “Love, Rage and the Occupation: Bisexual Politics in Israel/Palestine.” Journal of Bisexuality 12:1 (2012): 80-137.
• Farrimond, Katherine. “‘Stay Still So We Can See Who You Are’: Anxiety and Bisexual Activity in the Contemporary Femme Fatale Film.” Journal of Bisexuality 12:1 (2012): 138-154.
• Fox, Ron C. “Bisexual Identities”. Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences. 2Nd ed. Garnets, Linda and Douglas Kimmel, eds. Columbia University Press, 2002.
• Hemmings, Clare, “A Feminist Methodology of the Personal: Bisexual Experience and Feminist Post-Structuralist Epistemology.” Feminist Methodology: Gender Theory, Feminist Epistemology, Sex and Gender, Cross-Cultural Feminist Ethics, Politics of Gender, Ethnography of Gender. Channa Subhadra, ed. Cosmo, 2006.
• Hemmings, Clare. “Resituating the Bisexual Body: From Identity to Difference.” Activating Theory: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Politics. Joseph Bristow and Anglia R. Wilson, eds. Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., 1994. 118-138.
• Hemmings, Clare. “What’s in a Name? Bisexuality, Transnational Sexuality Studies and Western Colonial Legacies.” The International Journal of Human Rights 11:1-2 (2007): 13-32.
• Herek, Gregory M. “Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Bisexual Men and Women in the United States.” The Journal of Sex Research 39:4 (2002), 264-274.
• Jeffreys, Shiela. “Bisexual politics: A superior form of feminism?”. Women’s Studies International Forum 22:3 (1999): 273–285. [Trigger warning: highly biphobic]
• Ku, Chung-Hao. “The Kid Is All the Rage: (Bi) Sexuality, Temporality and Triangular Desire in Leslie Marmon Silko’s Almanac of the Dead”. Journal of Bisexuality 10:3 (2010), 309-349.
• MacDowall, Lachlan. “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality, 9:1 (2009), 3-15.
• Obradors-Campos, Miguel. “Deconstructing Biphobia.” Journal of Bisexuality, 11:2-3 (2010): 207-226.
• Ochs, Robyn. “Biphobia: It Goes More Than Two Ways.” Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority. Ed. Beth A. Firestein. Sage, 1996. 217-239.
• Ochs, Robyn. “What’s in a Name? Why Women Embrace or Resist Bisexual Identity.” Becoming Visible: Counseling Bisexuals Across the Lifespan. Beth A. Firestein (Ed.) Columbia University Press, 2007.
• Prosser, Jay and Merl Storr. “Transsexuality and Bisexuality.” Sexology Uncensored: The Documents of Sexual Science. Lucy Bland and Laura Doan, eds. University Of Chicago Press, 1999. 75-77.
• Rieger, Gerulf, Meredith L. Chivers and J. Michael Bailey. “Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men.” Psychological Science 16:8 (2005): 579-584. [Trigger warning: biphobia, denial of bisexuality]
• Rosenthal, A.M., D. Sylva, A. Safron, and J.M. Bailey. “Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual men revisited.” Biological Psychology 88 (2011): 112-115. [Trigger warning: biphobia]
• Rust, Paula C. “Two Many and Not Enough.” Journal of Bisexuality 1:1 (2000): 31-68.
• Steinman, Erich. “Interpreting the Invisibility of Male Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 1:2-3 (2000): 15-45.
• Sweeney, Syreeta J. Normative Monosexism, Biphobia, and the Experience of Bisexual Women: A Content Analysis of an Online Community. MA thesis. University of Texas, 2011. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web. 15 Oct 2012.
• Yoshino, Kenji. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure”. Standford Law Review 52.2 (2000): 353-461. Download a free copy here.
  

bialogue-group:

bidyke:

radtransfem:

I can’t believe I haven’t posted this yet. Click the link above to read it.

Tumblr, I know you like to raise certain objections when you read this list. I think many of them are unfortunate and miss the point. Of course, my followers are excellent and won’t make any of those mistakes, but just in case, here are some things to think about before responding:

• Don’t say that monosexism doesn’t exist. In fact, why not read about a report which points out that, however oppressed a monosexual is, add “bisexuality” and they get to be oppressed more! Yey!

• Don’t say that, because you as a monosexual don’t get a particular privilege or set of privileges, that those privileges aren’t linked to monosexuality. This is a list of privileges that, for some person or group of monosexuals, would generally go away if they had otherwise identical characteristics but were bisexual instead. No one monosexual has all of them.

• Don’t say that, because some bisexuals may be able to sometimes access some of these privileges, that these privileges aren’t linked to monosexuality. This is a list more about general trends than an analytic proof which inevitably describes the condition of every individual. If you want to think about individuals (which I’d suggest is missing the point), instead consider whether an individual’s access to that privilege exists in any tension to their bisexuality, is based in any way on how others see their bisexuality, or in how they express their bisexuality.

• Do remember that, in general, the less other privileges you have, the less likely you are to have a privilege on this list. Likewise, the more other privileges you have, the more likely you are to have access to these.

• Don’t say “these are just straight privileges”. It shows that you haven’t read the checklist and the notes.

• Do actually read the notes around the checklist and the discussions in the comments. Chances are they have covered any objections you might have.

All that said, I’m broadly monosexual, so while what I’m trying to do here is to stop other monosexual people messing up, I’m not immune to messing up myself. If any bi people working from within a similar framework to bidyke want to correct me on the above points, just say the word and it’s edited.

All that said: here’s the checklist!

<3 This is the one of the best commentaries I received on this post, ever ^_^

for those who have not read it yet (and REMEMBER to Read the Notes & Clarifications so you don’t end up make yourself look foolish in the comments)

bialogue-group:

bidyke:

timelordtimeshare:

So lemme get this straight, you’re in the monosexism and biphobia tags saying that monosexism doesn’t exist and is homophobic and biphobia isn’t a big deal etc, and your big defense is: you’re bisexual… 

 Well, I’m bisexual too jackass and I’m of the opposite opinion, do we cancel each other out or what? 

Or are you just privilegeing your thoughts, analysis and experiences over everyone else’s because you’re one of the “good bisexuals” and not one of those mean old bi tumblr social justice warriors that rock the boat with statistics and critical thinking?

Literally the worst argument ever, try again, or don’t.

I think the bisexual biphobes phenomenon is disturbing, but also makes sense.

First - people who have only heard about the monosexual privilege checklist second hand, or who have read it without reading the disclaimers and clarifications around it - don’t actually know what it’s about.

I think that most people who have heard about it, heard about it on this level. Especially on tumblr, where like +90% is read-a-single-post-and-reblog. These people have no real reason to assume that the list is about anything other than gay and lesbian people, because biphobia is widely considered as an inner-community type of “inconvenience”. Very few people actually know about the terrible statistics and more structural forms of oppression working against bi people.

When people think about biphobia, they think “Oh, it’s the stereotypes/nasty attitudes we get from gays and lesbians”. Without a framework to think about this concept, people will fall to whatever they do know. They have no way of knowing that the list means something else completely.

Second - bi people have an interest in being on gays and lesbians’ “good side”. They do, in fact, get cookies for it. Their opinions are validated and supported by gay and lesbian people and communities, they are well received, and allow them to get ally cookies. Stepping down on bisexuals as a group is one of the quickest ways to get validation and support in gay and lesbian contexts, whether liberal or radical. It does and will get you points. So there’s the benefit in that - I think it’s a survival technique which allows some bi people to step into gay and lesbian communities on the backs of all bi people and communities.

Symptom of something that has been observed to happen all the time to many different groups who are under the thumb of a higher-status group, think popular tropes about Bitchy Female Bosses i.e. in “Working Girl”, “The Devil Wears Prada”, et. al. And this can happen even if the person/group themselves are Also Put-Upon, (see Julie Bindel for example). As has frequently been observed, “being a member of a despised minority group has not yet been shown to make anyone into a saint”.