Bisexual and Pansexual Identities

Exploring and Challenging Invisibility and Invalidation

Nikki Hayfield

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429875403
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicologia
• Subtopic: Storia e teoria della psicologia

This book explores the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality from the past to the present and is unique in extending the discussion to focus on contemporary and emerging identities. Nikki Hayfield draws on research from psychology and the social sciences to offer a detailed and in-depth exploration of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality.

The book discusses how early sexologists' understood gender and sexuality within a binary model and how this provided the underpinnings of bisexual invisibility. The existing research on biphobia and bisexual marginalisation is synthesised to explore how bisexuality has often been invisible or invalidated. Hayfield then evidences clear examples of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality within education, employment, mainstream mass media, and the wider culture. Throughout the book there is consideration of the impact that this invisibility and invalidation has on people's sense of identity and on their health and wellbeing. It concludes with a discussion of how bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality have become somewhat more visible than in the past and the potential that visibility holds for recognition and representation.

This is fascinating reading for students and academics interested in in bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexual spectrum identities and for those who have a personal interest in bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality.

1

Introduction

Bisexuals cannot begin work on developing a political presence as long as people continue to equate their ontological status with that of unicorns.

(Capulet, 2010, p. 295)

I think at the moment it really is almost invisible. That it is this kind of unicorn identity that nobody takes seriously.

(Eddy, bisexual research participant)

These quotes equate the visibility and validity of bisexuality with the idea of the mythical unicorn and capture a sense of how bisexual identities have often been invisible or invalidated. These are the themes which form the focus of this book. Bisexual activists and academics have commonly discussed the invisibility of bisexuality. They have written of how bisexuality has been omitted, silenced, dismissed, and erased within academia, lesbian and gay communities, and the wider society – both historically and contemporarily. Since the 1990s, authors have published books which have focused on acknowledging and addressing this invisibility, such as Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority (Firestein, 1996); Becoming Visible: Counseling Bisexuals Across the Lifespan (Firestein, 2007); and Bisexuality: Theories, Research, and Recommendations for the Invisible Sexuality (Swan & Habibi, 2018). The notion of bisexual invisibility has often been referred to but has not always been fully explored. This book is novel in offering a contemporary in-depth exploration of the invisibility of bisexuality, using specific examples of how and where in/visibility plays out, and the ways in which in/visibility and in/validity impact on bisexual people’s experiences of their identities. This book is primarily about bisexuality, but is unique in extending the discussion to include recently emerging identities which also relate to attraction to more than one gender – including pansexuality, asexual spectrum identities such as panromantic and biromantic, and other plurisexualities.

To write a book about these identities and their invisibility and invalidation requires evidence. However, the present picture is one of relatively little research. This means that evidence is sometimes minimal and somewhat limited. Research and publications specifically on these identities have gradually been increasing – since the 1970s (see below) in relation to bisexuality, since the 1990s/2000s in relation to pansexual and other plurisexual identities, and since the early 2000s in relation to asexuality. However, asexual spectrum identities and other plurisexualities remain largely invisible within the academic literature (Gray & Moore, 2018). The available academic sources drawn on in the writing of this book inform its primary focus on bisexuality but I include other identities relating to attraction to more than one gender wherever possible to meaningfully do so. In the first part of this introductory chapter, I discuss changing understandings of sexualities and introduce readers to bisexuality, pansexuality and other plurisexualities, and asexuality/asexual spectrum identities. In the second part, I discuss invisibility and provide an overview of the contents of each chapter of this book.

Changing understandings of sexualities

Within Western societies, conceptualisations of sexualities have evolved, particularly over the last century. Early understandings of sexuality were based on a unipolar perspective, where only heterosexuality was understood to be valid or viable. As sexologists began to theorise sexuality, there was a shift to bipolar understandings where “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” were recognised as two distinct identities. During the 1940s and 1950s, Kinsey’s surveys demonstrated the variability and diversity of human sexual behaviour. Critically, Kinsey challenged the binary understandings of heterosexuality and homosexuality which had dominated within psychology and the wider society (Box 1.1) (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). These key researchers’ ideas are explored in more depth in Chapter 2.

Box 1.1 Key terms: Binary understandings

Binary understandings of sexuality arise from binary understandings of sex and gender. When sex and gender are understood as dichotomous – within what has been termed the heterosexual matrix – sexuality also becomes conceptualised as dichotomous (Butler, 1990/2006). In this either/or model heterosexuality and homosexuality are understood as mutually exclusive and as the only meaningful identity positions. Therefore, binary understandings validate heterosexuality and homosexuality but invalidate and erase bisexuality. Binary understandings have dominated within Western cultures and have underpinned much of the invisibility, marginalisation, and erasure of bisexuality as a viable or valid identity (e.g., Bowes-Catton, 2007; Firestein, 2007; McLean, 2008, 2018; Storr, 1999; see also Chapter 3). This may extend to other identities which involve attraction to more than one gender.

Bisexual identities: a brief history

It was not until the beginning of the 1970s that bisexuality began to emerge more prominently than in the past, as bisexual people began to find each other and form communities, particularly in major cities. This early bisexual movement took place amid the wider context of a cultural turn to free love and sexual liberation within Western culture (see Brennan & Hegarty, 2012; Donaldson, 1995; Udis-Kessler, 1995). Some researchers had previously included bisexuality within their wider studies of lesbian and gay identities, but by the mid-1970s, academics began to specifically focus on bisexuality as a distinct identity (see Brennan & Hegarty, 2012; Taylor, 2018). Others have thoroughly documented the history of academic writing on bisexuality (e.g., Angelides, 2001; Elia, Eliason, & Beemyn, 2018; Fox, 2004; Garber, 1995; Hemmings, 2002; Storr, 1999), and what follows is a brief overview to provide some context for the remainder of the book.

Early pioneering and influential contributors to the early literature included anthropologist Margaret Mead (1975), sociologists Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz (1976a, 1976b, 1977), psychotherapist Charlotte Wolff (1977), and psychiatrist Fred/Fritz Klein (1978; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985). These people were the first to “break the silence” and write affirmatively about bisexual identities and the experiences of bisexual people (see Bowes-Catton, 2007; Brennan & Hegarty, 2012; Storr, 1999; Taylor, 2018, p. 104). Wolff’s observation that “bisexuals are not only less conspicuous but more elusive than homosexuals” (Wolff, 1977, p. 67) captures a sense of the invisibility of bisexuality during this time. These writings were some of the first places in which bisexuality became visible and validated through the existence of these bisexual men and women’s narratives.

During the 1980s, there was somewhat of a backwards step for lesbian and gay politics when the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was first identified and associated with same-sex behaviours between men. This was also a significant setback for bisexual people – men in particular – who were accused of spreading HIV from gay communities to heterosexual society (see Bowes-Catton, 2007; Taylor, 2018). Since the 1970s, bisexual women had been seen as traitors to the feminist cause within some lesbian communities (see Blumstein & Schwartz, 1976b, 1977; Rust, 1995). By the 1980s, bisexual people were also being seen as lacking commitment to the fight for lesbian and gay rights (e.g., Taylor, 2018; Udis-Kessler, 1995). It may partly have been a response to this negativity which mobilised bisexual groups and communities during this era (Taylor, 2018; Udis-Kessler, 1995).

The 1990s and 2000s saw a significant increase in bisexuality being discussed within the academy and the wider culture. From the early 1990s, books reported on the lives and identities of bisexual people, based on interviews or surveys with bisexual men and women (e.g., George, 1993; Klein & Schwartz, 2001; Orndorff, 1999; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). A number of anthologies were published, in which pertinent topics such as bisexual identities, relationships, lives, communities, and wider politics were discussed (e.g., Bisexual Anthology Collective, 1995; Firestein, 1996; Hutchins & Kaahumanu, 1991; The Off Pink Collective, 1996; Tucker, Highleyman, & Kaplan, 1995; Weise, 1992). During the 1990s and early 2000s, academics from various disciplinary backgrounds collated (and critically reviewed) the historical and contemporary literature on bisexuality and engaged in theoretical discussions of bisexual identities (e.g., Angelides, 2001; Firestein, 1996; Garber, 1995; Rust, 2000; Storr, 1999). A common theme was debates about where bisexuality might fit within, and contribute to, psychoanalysis, queer theory, and feminism (Angelides, 2001; Garber, 1995; Hemmings, 2002; Rust, 1995; The Off Pink Collective, 1996; Weise, 1992). In 2000, the Journal of Bisexuality was established, and this continues to provide a dedicated space where academics, activists, and allies can disseminate their research and writing. In the same year, Kenji Yoshino introduced the concept of “bisexual erasure” (Yoshino, 2000; Box 1.2).

Box 1.2 Key terms: Bisexual erasure

In 2000, law scholar Kenji Yoshino wrote about the social invisibility of bisexuality and introduced the concept of “bisexual erasure”. He noted that bisexual invisibility falls under the invisibility of sexualities more broadly. He argued that there is a desire for sexuality to only be spoken of in euphemistic terms and discussed how same-sex desire is particularly unspeakable (e.g., in “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policies and “no promo homo” law statutes; Yoshino, 2000, p. 357). It is partly this which makes lesbian and gay identities – and bisexuality – invisible. He highlighted that bisexuality is also invisible in other ways, including when it is subsumed with lesbian and gay identities. Yoshino evidenced bisexual invisibility by documenting how infrequently bisexuality was mentioned in popular newspapers and academic publications in comparison with homosexuality. He drew on participant demographics from surveys of sexuality to evidence that there are as many bisexual people as there are lesbian and gay people. He argued that bisexual invisibility cannot therefore be a result of a lack of bisexual people.

Yoshino suggested that bisexuality poses a threat to the privileging of heterosexuality and the stability of sexuality (see also Ochs, 1996). He outlined three forms of bisexual erasure. The first is “class erasure”, where the existence of bisexuality is denied in ways which link back to binary understandings (see Box 1.1). Bisexual people are assumed to be lesbian or gay but in denial, or heterosexual and seeking attention (see Chapter 3). The second is “individual erasure”, where individuals who claim to be bisexual are erased through the suggestion that they are going through a temporary phase. The final form of erasure is “delegitimation”, where bisexuality is acknowledged but stigmatised, hence bisexuality becomes visible but is rapidly erased as a valid form of sexuality (Yoshino, 2000; see also Chapter 3).

Since the mid-1990s and continuing to the present, there has been a considerable body of empirical research on biphobia and bisexual marginalisation, which is discussed in Chapter 3. From the early 2000s, there has also been a focus on bisexuality and mental health, with poor mental health among bisexual people discussed in relation to bisexual invisibility, marginalisation, and erasure (e.g., Eady, Dobinson, & Ross, 2011; Flanders, Dobinson, & Logie, 2015; Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002; Mereish, Katz-Wise, & Woulfe, 2017; Ross, Dobinson, & Eady, 2010; for literature reviews, see Dodge & Sandfort, 2007; Feinstein & Dyar, 2017; Persson & Pfaus, 2015). Most recently, researchers have started to include, or specifically focus on, pansexual and asexual identities (e.g., Belous & Bauman, 2017; Bogaert, 2004; Borgogna, McDermott, Aita, & Kridel, 2018; Callis, 2014; Carrigan, 2011, 2016; Elizabeth, 2016; Flanders, LeBreton, Robinson, Bian, & Caravaca-Morera, 2017; Gonel, 2013; Morandini, Blaszczynski, & Dar-Nimrod, 2017; Sprott & Benoit Hadcock, 2018).

Defining bisexuality

Since bisexuality has been taken up as an identity, definitions have varied, with some researchers highlighting how difficult or elusive a satisfactory definition has been (e.g., Diamond, 2008; Firestein, 1996; Halperin, 2009; Hansen & Evans, 1985; Klein & Wolf, 1985; Rust, 1995; Swan, 2018a). Historically, bisexuality has been understood as a fixed third identity category (sometimes positioned at the midpoint between heterosexuality and homosexuality), involving attraction to, or behaviours with, men and women. Alternatively, it has been positioned as a fluid identity, which offers the capacity for identity not to be limited by gender, and to incorporate changes in attraction and behaviour over time and/or on a wide spectrum or continuum. Since the advent of queer theory, some have understood bisexuality as a revolutionary and radical position which holds the potential to break down all sexual and gender binaries and categories (see Angelides, 2001; Diamond, 2008; Firestein, 2007; Galupo, 2018; Garber, 1995; Hayfield, 2016; Hemmings, 2002).

Bisexuality has been operationalised in terms of attraction, behaviour, and self-identification, or as a combination of these (see Elia et al., 2018; Fox, 1996; Monro, 2015; Yoshino, 2000). In the late 1970s, Klein argued that there could be many dimensions to sexuality (Klein, 1978). He developed the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG), with the aim of measuring identity as a “multi-variable process”. The KSOG included seven distinct variables to be measured in “the past, present, and as an ideal”. These were “attraction, behaviour, fantasy, social an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. A history of bisexual invisibility within sexology and psychology
• 3. Invisible or invalidated: the marginalisation of bisexual identities
• 4. In/visible visual identities
• 5. The erasure and exclusion of bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and plurisexual people within education, employment, and mainstream mass media
• 6. Becoming visible and reflecting on visibility
• Index