Bi-Sexuality 101

I attended a "Bi-Sexuality 101" panel discussion last night. Apparently January is Bi-Sexuality Awareness Month. And Utah is the first state in the nation to have a Bi-Sexuality Awareness Month. Neat.

A significant portion of the panel addressed a list of Bi-Sexuality Myths, like the myth that all bi-sexuals are promiscuous; or that if a bi-sexual individual is with a man (s)he will inevitably leave him for a woman at some point. And so on.

Various panel members shared their experiences with discrimination, feelings of being invisible to their communities, being misunderstood by people within and outside of the LGBQT community, and with feeling disconnected from a sense of community or unwelcome altogether.

I was most interested, of course, in the whole gender component. I pondered about how gender relates to sexual orientation and how both relate to my perspectives on the world as a whole.

As I've rambled on about in previous posts, since I believe that there are almost as many genders as there are fingerprints in the world, I recognize that the way we presently conceptualize gender is confined to a gender binary - one is either man or woman, who is attracted to man and/or woman. For instance, I am not a woman even though the body I possess has many female-bodied aspects to it. Am I a man? A transgender man, sure - but not in a cisgender or binary way. In a genderqueer, transmasculine way.

The binary thing is so confusing to me. I don't assume that all men or women have the same gender experience. Or other genders. For instance, Pamela Anderson's gender and gender expression is different than Rosie O' Donnell's. Jason Alexander's gender expression is different than Arnold Schwarzenegger's or RuPaul's. And there are many self-identified women who are more "masculine" than I am (in traditional terms). And many cisgender men who are more "feminine", and relate to their bodies in a vast variety of ways, biologically, intrinsically, socially, etc.




As Julie Waters phrased it back in an article she wrote in 1992 called 'On Gender and Sexual Orientation',

So what am I? To classify me as "in-between" indicates that my gender is relevant only in terms that relate to more traditionally gendered people. I am not gendered in the same manner as anyone I know and I have to say that it has been my experience that this disturbs a great many people. The same way that people who are not heterosexual are seen and perceived as a threat by many people who are, those of us who are not gendered in a traditional mold may represent some great danger to those of us who are.

... What about people who have shown sexual interest specifically in me? If a lesbian is interested in a woman who has a penis is she still a lesbian? If a gay male is interested in a woman who wants to exchange her penis for a vagina is he still a gay male? Are we interested in the person behind the sex organs or are the sex organs our primary motivating force in determining to whom we are attracted? Do I, to be at a particular point on the Kinsey scale, have to demonstrate my interest in people in terms of how their appearance, actions and attitudes relate to their perceived gender? Their biological gender? Is sexual orientation constructed in a manner which even allows for such perspectives as my own?

So where is the room for she-males, hermaphrodites, drag queens, non-op transsexuals, transgenderists, crossdressers and all other forms of gender-benders, blenders and breakers in our "spectrum" of sexual orientation? Am I bisexual because I am interested both in men and women or am I bisexual because I am interested in the person behind the gender? Or is it some combination of the two? Does gender play a role but not one to the point where I would not be attracted to someone based specifically on their gender?

And that was in 1992! So here I am in 2009, almost 20 years later, saying similar things.

Why is sexual orientation defined ONLY by one's own gender and the assumed gender of others? Especially when all of us, traditionally gendered or not, are much more than that? For example, if I were to say that I'm "attracted to women", is that actually my criteria? That I'm attracted to anyone who's "woman"?

No, I'm not. It seems more accurate to say that gender is a "component" of my overall unique and complex sexual orientation. That my own, particular sexual orientation is a combination of various "components", all equally important. Femininity would be a component. Mannerisms, also. Certain aesthetic characteristics. Beliefs. Voice. Ideology. Gender expression.

Why aren't those all just as legitimate as an individual's sex? Or gender?

So it's not, "You are woman.", check! Done deal! Let's be together forever! Instead it's, "Let's get to know one another, because YES, your gender expression does seem to play a PART, but there's much more to it than that."

Is it possible that there are people who have sexual orientations where gender, gender expression, or sex aren't components of their unique sexual orientation? Why wouldn't it be? Or maybe gender is, but it isn't sex-dependent, or exclusive of any particular gender identity.

I'm not surprised that the infamous Kinsey Scale determined that the overwhelming majority of the thousands of people who participated in the study were technically "bi-sexual". I wonder what that really, genuinely means about the variation that exists in our pluralistic wonderland.

During the panel someone asked why the panelists who said "all genders" instead of "both genders" identified as "bi", which implies there are only two genders. Some responded that it was for political reasons, because "bi-sexual" has been misunderstood and it's much more prevalent in the world of language than "pansexual", which would just be confusing and foreign to most.

Or, for others, they explained additionally that "bi-sexual" can be an all-encompassing term, one that DOES include all expressions of gender.

I will now crash land and stop my convoluted ranting and raving.
Wait! No! I lied! I know, for now, that I'm MUCH more comfortable with saying "queer" in terms of sexual orientation because it isn't gender-dependent.