zk_html/diary/2013-02-13-3-bisexuality-an...

53 lines
7.5 KiB
HTML

<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Zk | 2013-02-13-3-bisexuality-and-binaries-revisited</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/style.css" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
<meta charset="utf-8" />
</head>
<body>
<main>
<header>
<h1>Zk | 2013-02-13-3-bisexuality-and-binaries-revisited</h1>
</header>
<article class="content">
<hr />
<p>type: link
link: http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2012/11/bisexuality-and-binaries-revisited.html?spref=tw
title: Bisexuality and Binaries Revisited
date: 2013-02-13
slug: bisexuality-and-binaries-revisited</p>
<hr />
<p>This is the interesting read I&rsquo;ve been working up to all night.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have heard countless [bisexual, multisexual, no-label, omnisexual, pansexual, polysexual, and queer-as-in-sexuality] people ask, &ldquo;Why do we have to label our sexualities?&rdquo; I do agree that we should not be forced to reduce our complex sexual attractions and orientations down to a simple moniker. But as an activist, I would argue that the most persuasive argument for why BMNOPPQ folks should unite around some kind of umbrella label (whether &ldquo;bisexual&rdquo; or otherwise) is to challenge monosexism and bi-invisibility. In this scenario, said label would not blithely detail who we are sexual with, nor claim that we are somehow inherently different from hetero- or homo- or asexual folks (because I do not think we are), but rather point out that we (and we alone) are targeted by a particular sexist double standard, namely, monosexism. Doing this would enable us to raise awareness about, and to challenge, monosexism in our culture.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a long read, but well worth it. It takes a bit of time to plow through all the different aspects of intersectionality inherent with the author&rsquo;s argument: that bisexuality is valid, and not necessarily a reinforcement of a gender binary, that there are valid reasons for choosing the term with no intent to step on any others&rsquo; toes.</p>
<p>Let me start out by saying that I know that, of late, I&rsquo;ve read quite a few posts here about how the term &lsquo;offense&rsquo; should probably just be banned, because it&rsquo;s a good way to hide abdicate one&rsquo;s responsibility - saying &ldquo;we meant no offense&rdquo; or &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t mean to offend anyone&rdquo; is a good way to say something offensive without claiming any responsibility for saying something offensive. Saying &ldquo;we didn&rsquo;t mean to offend anyone&rdquo; when a job posting says that a CTO &ldquo;is almost certainly a man because x, y, and z&rdquo; (I&rsquo;m paraphrasing, but it&rsquo;s a <a href="http://programmersbeingdicks.tumblr.com/post/42926495446/minuscule">thing</a>) is a good way of saying &ldquo;gosh you guys are touchy&rdquo; without saying &ldquo;gosh you guys are touchy&rdquo;, especially if the apology doesn&rsquo;t actually include an honest apology (<a href="http://programmersbeingdicks.tumblr.com/post/43009929961/the-amazings-respond">here</a>, but I digress). Needless to say, I do see the parallels here - saying &ldquo;I&rsquo;m bi, but no offense meant when it comes to gender binaries&rdquo; has plenty of problems going for it.</p>
<p>However, in her post on the matter, the author raises quite a few excellent points on the fact that so many of these groups rely on the existence of a binary for their own existence. That the transgender community relies on, and often rises against the idea of a gender binary is analogous in many ways to the idea that the bisexual community, in all its forms and labels, relies on and rises against the idea of a monosexual binary. It&rsquo;s just one example of the fact that intersectionality isn&rsquo;t simply the case of a four-circle Venn diagram: it often works out to be much more complicated than that implies. </p>
<p>Again, to the author&rsquo;s credit, mentioning that there are uneven vagaries through out the debate, throughout time, and (only vaguely hinted at) throughout locale makes the issue all the more complex. I hadn&rsquo;t really heard of issue, myself, but after digging into the <a href="http://www.thescavenger.net/glb/bisexuality-does-not-reinforce-the-gender-binary-39675-467.html">original article</a> (this article being a counter to the criticisms the author received on an original post), there certainly is an argument going on out there over the language involved in identity, and even identity itself. I hadn&rsquo;t heard of the terms &lsquo;essentialist&rsquo; or &lsquo;binarist&rsquo; used in this context before, even, though to be fair I would hardly consider myself well-read on either matter, being rather new to both circles - gender has only solidified for me recently, and I was part of the no-labels camp for many, many years, and even now, the &lsquo;bi&rsquo; label fits weird for me for various and inarticulate reasons.</p>
<p>I guess it comes down to the fact that, just like all these vague and complicated arguments, it&rsquo;s easy enough to see both sides of the matter, and it&rsquo;s hard enough to choose a side. All that&rsquo;s to be done is to listen and read and learn, and find out where one fits with the matter and maybe even contribute here and there. I know that most of this is pretty waffly, but I&rsquo;ve been reading for most of the evening, and I think I come down more on the side of the author for a few points:</p>
<ul>
<li>There isn&rsquo;t just one binary; the gender binary isn&rsquo;t the only one out there.</li>
<li>Labels are important for more than just simple self-identity - we are not solipsistic, insular creatures, and we have a lot to gain personally through shared identity.</li>
<li>Labels are STILL important for self-identity, and someone&rsquo;s label for themselves is not necessarily an indictment against one&rsquo;s views on a binary (in short, leading with &ldquo;bisexuality is binarity and essentialist&rdquo; denies one the chance to defend their journey toward accepting that label).</li>
<li>Yes, this may all seem pretty small in the long-run, and perhaps even counter-productive, but intersectionality in all its myriad forms adds up and does count for quite a bit for the ways in which people treat each other. We are not just one label at a time, and even if we have a hierarchy of labels within us, we are not each of those labels separately. I am not just a furry*, or just pansexual, or just poly, or just whatever, but all of those things cluster together and mingle to make a me, and I&rsquo;m just a me in society of others who are their own clusters of labels, and sometimes, its those identities that seem to interact, rather than whatever it is we call people.</li>
</ul>
<p>(Pointed out to me by @ForneusLex)</p>
<p>* I mentioned policing boundaries in an earlier post; this is a very pertinent topic for that. Who is and isn&rsquo;t a furry, what makes a furry versus anything else, is a topic that&rsquo;s thorny as all get-out, but holy moly that doesn&rsquo;t stop just about everyone (including me <em>sigh</em>) from trying!</p>
</article>
<footer>
<p>Page generated on 2020-06-24</p>
</footer>
</main>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.querySelectorAll('.tag').forEach(tag => {
let text = tag.innerText;
tag.innerText = '';
tag.innerHTML = `<a href="/tags.html#${text}">${text}</a>`;
});
</script>
</body>
</html>