Underdark Astronomer

mikroblogolas:

This topic has been discussed to death, and yet it continually comes up in tumblr discussion. So let me establish once and for all (I swear, I will never discuss this again) that “bisexual” is not an oppressive identity.

Bisexual is not binarist.

The argument that it is binarist posits that (1)…

There is a problematic aspect of this argument that always bugs me.

“Bisexual is not binarist” can mean two very different things.

One message it can mean is “bisexual is not an inherently binarist term or identity.”  This is fine.  This is wonderful.  This is true.  This is true if someone’s construction of bisexuality means “attracted to the same and different genders,”  “attracted to more than one gender,” attracted to two particular genders,” or “attracted to men and women,” these are all fine.  But they are not the only definitions.

It can also mean “no constructions of bisexuality used by bisexual people are ever binarist.”  This is not fine.  This is not true.  This is erasing, dismissive, damaging bullshit.  Julia Serano, for example, defines herself as bisexual, as in attracted to males and females, and coercively defines any non-binary people as “really” male or female.  She does this in an article claiming that bisexuality is not binarist.  Some other people define it by “both of the genders/sexes” as though there were only two valid options for either.

Some bisexual people define bisexuality in a way that explicitly tells non-binary people “you are not valid.”   And a lot of the time it seems like calling out those specific situations gets one labeled as biphobic.