This post on tumblr

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.

Sources:

• MacDowall, Lachlan. “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality, 9:1 (2009), 3-15. Download PDF.
• Rapoport, Esther. “Bisexuality in Psychoanalytic Theory: Interpreting the Resistance.” Journal of Bisexuality 9:3-4 (2009): 279-295. Download PDF.
  
• Storr, Merl. “The Sexual Reproduction of Race: Sexuality, History and Racialization.” The Bisexual Imaginary. Bi Academic Intervention, ed. Continuum, 1997. 73-88.

I think acceptance and tolerance are important, and I also support the idea of addressing material oppression of bis. However, I also differ somewhat in my views, since I like thinking about bisexual politics in the most expanse way that I can.

When asked, I always define the goal of the bi movement (that I want/promote) on three levels:

The first level is the one you all addressed here (from a different perspective, though) – liberation of bi people (I use “bi” here as an umbrella term). By this I don’t mean acceptance and tolerance – these terms imply that we are asking to be accepted and tolerated (presumably by straight people), which is problematic because it seems to be deferring to an existing power rather than challenging it. So when I say “liberation of bi people”, I mean attacking all of the structures that help maintain the oppression of bis – challenging and tearing down monosexism as part of a struggle to free ourselves of biphobic/monosexist oppression.

The second level is tearing down hierarchical binaries of sex, gender and sexuality – which is a full-on onslaught on the entire system that constructs human desire as it’s currently perceived. So, this means attacking heteronormativity, heterosexism, sexism and homonormativity. Subverting the binaries of male/female, man/woman and heterosexual/homosexual – because these binaries are the ones responsible for all gender and sexuality-related oppression.

The third level is the tearing down of *all* oppressive binaries – anything from race, age, class, ability, and any other axis you can think of. It’s also interesting to look at how each of these types of oppressive binaries intersects with bisexuality, and how we can use bisexuality in order to offer a unique point of view, challenge or deconstruction.

These three levels to me are related to bisexuality because bisexuality is *about* subverting and destroying binaries. And it means for me that bisexuality can be used as a revolutionary identity and as a tool in fucking up social order and making a world that is truly ours, rather than trying to fit in the existing mold. Basically, this is what my book is all about.

Introduction

The introduction gives background about the book, about me and my reasons for writing. It also includes important background material for reading the book, such as the difference between liberal and radical, the relation I see between theory and activism, an explanation about trigger warning, and other things you should keep in mind while reading.

Chapter 1: What is bisexuality?

This chapter explores various meanings and definitions of bisexuality. First, I review some of the historical development of the term “bisexuality”, tracing its roots as well as changes in its meaning. In the second section, I try to define bisexuality on three axes: desire, community and politics. Under desire, I take up the definitions of “more than one”, and “similar and different”, and explore them in depth. Under community, I suggest and explore the idea of the bisexual umbrella, as well as the history of the U.S bi movement. Under politics (my favorite section!), I explore the radical political potential of bisexuality as derived from biphobic stereotypes (an elaboration on this post). The fourth section explains why the “bi is binary” allegation is bullshit :)

Excerpts:

• The myth of myth-busting – YouTube video
• Words, binary and biphobia, or: why “bi” is binary but “FTM” is not

Chapter 2: Monosexism and biphobia

This chapter is about biphobia and monosexism as broad social structures. In the first section, I review and critique dominant views regarding biphobia in bisexual writings, and suggest a shift in attitude: While biphobia is usually viewed as a form of personal mistreatment, I argue that oppression of bisexuals is not anecdotal, but systemic. This is why I suggest using the term “monosexism”, which implies a broad system of oppression. In order to explain my argument and show how it works, I use three sources, which are the basic columns of this chapter. First, Kenji Yoshino’s theory of the epistemic contract of bisexual erasure. Second, Miguel Obradors-Campos’s theory of the nine faces of biphobia. Third, I use statistical data from the SFHRC Bisexual Invisibility Report as evidence. The final section deals with the ways in which monosexism affects monosexual people, which I do through two aspects: privilege and oppression.

Excerpts:

• The bisexual invisibility report
• The monosexual privilege checklist

Chapter 3: Bisexuality, privilege and passing

This chapter explores the various implications of bisexual passing (being taken for a member of the dominant group). It begins with a review of the existing research and political writing about bisexuality and privilege, and suggests a shift in terms and attitude. Instead of talking about bisexuality and privilege, I suggest we start talking about bisexuality and passing. I then examine the concept of passing in depth from an historical and an epistemological perspective (i.e. accompanied cultural meanings of passing). I suggest that passing is bisexual is character, and that being bisexual is impossible without passing. I then use this these various meanings to think about how we fuck up hierarchies and systems of dominance (through feminist and women of color theories).

Excerpt:

• Bisexual passing

Chapter 4: Bisexuality, feminism and women

This chapter is about how feminism relates to bi women (including bi trans women), and how female bisexuality relates to feminism. The chapter opens with a brief introduction to feminism. It then divides up into two main sections: the first is about the subversive potential of female bisexuality against patriarchy, the second is about how sexual violence against bisexual women is generated and perpetuated. In the first part, I explore three ways in which female bisexuality can subvert patriarchy, those being: gender subversion (how female bisexuality can fuck up gender norms), bisexual choice (how the perception that bi women can choose whether or not to be with men is threatening to men and masculinity), and multiplicity (how female bisexuality – and bisexuality in general – is socially connoted with multiplicity, and how that subverts patriarchal values). In the second part, I try to explain the frighteningly high levels of sexual violence against bi women through representations in mainstream media and pornography. I then look into – and critique – bi movements’ response to these things, and suggest that instead of using “myth busting” and slut shaming (i.e. “we are not like that”), we should name sexual violence as sexual violence, and validate bi women’s right to be sexual (or not to be sexual) without fearing sexual violence or shaming.

Excerpt:

• Feminism 101: Patriarchy and the single standard
• Hot sexy bi babes: media depictions of bisexual women

Chapter 5: Bisexuality, feminism and men

This chapter is about how feminism relates to bi men (including bi trans men*), and how male bisexuality relates to feminism. It begins by describing male privilege, and continues by explaining how the ways in which men are hurt by the patriarchy are intimately related to those privileges. I then turn to male bisexuality in particular, and discuss the erasure and denial of it in popular culture. I do this by using my bifurious femininja superpowers to shatter Bailey’s Straight, Gay or Lying study into teeny bits of vomit, glass and rainbow. I do this by referring in particular to the pathologization, sexualization and denial of male bisexuality. Then there was a really smart bit about bi men of color, racism and AIDS, which I had to cut because the chapter was too long :( (I really hope it would get published in this upcoming book, though). I then take some time to review and critique how bi men have been talking and writing about their own invisibility. I suggest that instead of constantly comparing between bi male and female in/visibility (as they have), they should start talking about male bisexuality in particular, and in relation to their masculinity as a gender (a constantly missing piece). I then show how (pro)feminist bisexual men have actually done so, and use what they say to talk about how a (pro)feminist male bisexuality can help in smashing patriarchy.

* Though unfortunately, due to the scantness of available material, most references to them are along the lines of “look how they’re erased here”, “see, they’re erased here, too”, etc.

Chapter 6: Bi and trans

This chapter is about the connections and intersections between bisexuality and transgender*. Following from the previous chapter, this chapter starts by making a connection between feminism and transgender politics, and arguing that the two are beneficial for each other (without erasing feminist cissexism/transphobia). I then go on to explain the basics of transgender sex/gender theory using Asher Bauer’s blog post Not Your Mom’s Trans 101. Afterwards, I explore some connections between bisexuality and transgender, and suggest that the bi and trans movements share enormous potential for a strong alliance. I then explain exactly how and why this isn’t happening – focusing first on transphobia and cissexism in bisexual communities (an elaboration on this post), and then on biphobia in trans communities (remembering that two wrongs don’t make a right, making the point that both movements should start working on those problems). After this, I demonstrate how a bi-trans community can work, using the example of my local community in Israel/Occupied Palestine.

* Why, yes you can use “transgender” as a noun!

Chapter 7: Bisexuality and racialization

This chapter is about connections and intersections between bisexuality and racialized people. It begins with an explanation of the word “racialization” (as the process in which certain groups of people come to be understood as a “race”), and then focuses on one specific racialized identity: Mizrahi (i.e. Arabic Jews). This section starts with a review of the history and oppression of Mizrahis in Israel/Occupied Palestine, and then goes on to explore intersections and connections between bisexuality and Mizrahiness. After this, I take a while to introduce Israeli scholar Vicky Shiran’s theory about Mizrahi feminist identity, and suggest using the same ideas in building our bi identities. I then turn to the topic of bisexuality and whiteness, critiquing various bisexual movements (including my local community) for being white-centered and largely white-dominated. I close the chapter by making several suggestions on how bi communities can be more inclusive of people of color.

Chapter 8: Bisexuality and the GGGG movement

While the previous chapters explored bisexuality from internal or intersectional perspectives, this chapter takes a step back and looks at the mainstream bi movement from “outside” – at how it does activism, its reasons, and its goals. I start by introducing the term “bi assimilationism”, explaining the term as an attempt by bisexual movements to assimilate into the assimilationist gay community (otherwise known as the GGGG community – Gay, Gay, Gay and Gay). I go on by explaining what’s so wrong about the GGGG movement, and I do that by focusing on the fight for “equal marriage”, and DADT. I then proceed to demonstrate bi assimilationist notions using two recent bisexual campaigns. After this, I suggest a radical alternative for bi politics and activism, using understandings from all the chapters in the book.

Excerpt:

• Fuck marriage, fuck equality

(What is this about?)

This is really upsetting. It appears that the idea that biphobia originates from gay and lesbian communities is so deeply ingrained in bisexual* communities many people are incapable of thinking outside it.

To make myself clear: THE IDEA OF MONOSEXISM MEANS THAT IT’S A WIDESPREAD STRUCTURE. IT MEANS IT DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITIES. GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE NOT OUR OPPRESSORS (though they may well cooperate with this structure).

Here’s a snippet from my book to help explain. It is part of a much longer criticism of this idea (some parts bolded for emphasis):

The stance that bisexuals are only oppressed as a result of homophobia and lesbophobia erases the need for a unique bisexual liberation struggle and places bisexuals as mere “halfway” appendages to the gay and lesbian movement.

[. . .]

Considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of biphobia and monosexism originates not from gay and lesbian communities, but from heterosexual structures, it seems like the bisexual movement, as a whole, is all-too-focused on the wrong aspect. This overwhelming focus on gay and lesbian biphobia creates a false impression that, as a commentator recently put on my blog, “[bisexuals are] perfectly justified saying we get worse treatment in the gay community [than in straight ones]”. In turn, this notion contributes to the belief that bisexuals do not, in fact, experience (as much?) oppression by the heterosexual society, as well as sprouting the belief that our “real problem” lies with not within heteropatriarchy, but within gay and lesbian communities (that is, scapegoating).

Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution

Book Description

You might notice that most of the writers of these texts are white and cisgender, and that they all write from North American and Western European perspectives. This unfortunate fact reflects an existing set of power relations in academic contexts, and in particular in queer theory and LGBT studies. These fields are both often centered around the experience of white, cisgender, and “western” people, and are written by people from these contexts. Albeit that they have written some awesome shiny theory, this fact should not be ignored and we, as bisexual scholars, should seek to acknowledge and work against it. Much more bisexual research is needed in order to fill in these gaps, and I encourage my readers to join me in doing that.

Also: nothing by Clare Hemmings is on this list and therefore it is flawed. Hemmings wrote the bible and you should read it right now (if you have access to it in any way).

Enjoy!

Kenji Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure” (2000)

This article was published in 2000 by Kenji Yoshino, an American legal scholar. In it, Yoshino offers a comprehensive theory for understanding bisexual erasure. He claims that the reason why bisexual erasure happens is that both structures of heterosexuality and homosexuality have a stake in making bisexuality disappear. This article is quite long, but very readable, clear and accessible.

Download PDF here

Michael du Plessis, “Blatantly Bisexual; or, Unthinking Queer Theory” (1996)

This article appeared in RePresenting Bisexualities, one of the first academic anthologies about bisexuality published in the US. This is a wonderful introductory text for bisexual theory (and has much to offer even to those who are familiar with the field). In it, du Plessis describes the erasure of bisexuality from queer theory, and positions bisexuality and bi theory in relation/opposition to it. It should be noted that this is also one of the sexiest academic texts I have ever read (OMG hot).

Download PDF here

Ann Kaloski, “Bisexuals Making Out with Cyborgs: Politics, Pleasure, Con/fusion” (1997)

This article was published in the Journal of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Identity in the late 1990s, as part of a(n unfortunately temporary) blossoming of bisexual theory in the UK. Along with several other influential bi theorists, Ann Kaloski was part of a research group called Bi Academic Intervention, who pioneered epistemological and politically radical bisexual research. In this article, Kaloski takes on the idea of Donna Haraway’s cyborg and connects it with bisexuality. It is also on the list of sexiest articles ever :p

Download PDF here

April S. Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory” (2009)

This article first appeared in the Journal of Bisexuality, Issue 9:3-4, which later came out as the US anthology Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges. This is the first published collection since the 1990s that is dedicated to bisexual theory and epistemology (as opposed to sociological/psychological bisexual studies). In this article, April S. Callis takes on Judith Butler’s and Michel Foucault’s theories of (homo)sexuality, and demonstrates how they might benefit by the inclusion of bisexuality. She also gives a wonderful introduction to bisexual theory, for whoever wants a quick and painless starter :)

Download PDF here

Lisa Diamond, “Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study” (2008)

In this article, Lisa Diamond describes the results from her groundbreaking study of sexual fluidity in women. Diamond interviewed and followed up on 75 lesbian, bisexual and unlabeled women over the course of 13 years, and documented the changes in their sexual identities and behaviour. This article was published after 10 years of study and it describes the results concerning bisexuality from 79 women. An important discovery made here by Diamond is that over time, more women adopt a bisexual or unlabeled identity than relinquish it.

Download PDF here

Lachlan MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality” (2009)

This article, written by Australian scholar Lachlan MacDowall, was published in the Journal of Bisexuality in 2009. In this article, MacDowall details the early history of the word “bisexuality”, as it was used in the emerging scientific fields of the 19th century. It provides a really great contextualization of the word along with historical and social perspective.

Download PDF here

Esther Rapoport, “Bisexuality in Psychoanalytic Theory: Interpreting the Resistance” (2009)

This article was published in the same mythological Journal of Bisexuality, Issue 9:3-4. In it, my friend and Israeli researcher Esther Rapoport describes the concept of bisexuality in psychoanalytic theory (especially Freud’s) and points out the problems that arise from it. This article gives a very broad background for understanding the roots of bisexuality as an idea, as well as their many influences on current discourses on bisexuality.

Download PDF here

Jo Eadie, “Activating Bisexuality: Towards a Bi/Sexual Politics” (1993)

One of the earliest articles concerning bisexual epistemology, this was published in the UK anthology Activating Theory: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Politics in 1993. The anthology itself followed an academic conference by the same name, infamous in UK bisexual writings for the multiple occurrences of biphobia in it. In the article, Jo Eadie discusses bisexual erasure and marginalization in LGBT contexts, and suggests ways of using bisexuality as a method for the deconstruction of sexual – and other – binaries. This is also one of those really sexy articles that make you want to go out and create a revolution.

Download PDF here

Amber Ault, “Hegemonic Discourse in an Oppositional Community: Lesbian Feminists and Bisexuality” (1994)

This article, by American sociologist Amber Ault, is a study of lesbian feminist attitudes towards bisexuality – and in particular bisexual women. It reveals some of the ways in which bisexual women have been portrayed by lesbian feminists, and does a very good job at deconstructing and criticizing them. It’s also a wonderful example of accountability, seeing as Ault, as a lesbian feminist, chose to engage with this subject and offer a criticism from within.

Download PDF here

Sunfrog, “Pansies Against Patriarchy: Gender Blur, Bisexual Men,and Queer Liberation” (1995)

This article was published in the excellent 1995 US anthology, Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions. In this article, Sunfrog, a bisexual feminist male crossdresser, presents a revolutionary vision for bisexuality, sex and gender. Since I first read it and to this day, it remains one of the most awesome, powerful and passionate political texts I have ever read – not only in the field of bisexuality, but also in general. It is also one of the best texts about male pro-feminism that I have had the pleasure to read.

Download PDF here

Language is Hebrew, with ENGLISH and HEBREW SUBTITLES. (To view the subtitles, make sure you have them on by pressing on the leftmost button on the lower right hand corner of the video).

Enjoy! :)