Marriage Equality Could Worsen Bisexual Erasure

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/05/05/marriage-equality-could-worsen-bisexual-erasure

From May, but still relevant. Calling same-sex or same-gender marriage "gay marriage" needs to stop. It's inaccurate, and erases bisexuals from the equation. People in a same-sex or same-gender relationship aren't necessarily gay. When you assume, you can erase someone else's identity.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is ridiculous.

Words generally don't have the sort of surgical precision easily-offended people require them to have. "Americans" only come from one part of the Americas, for example. I think having material benefits is more important than changing a widely-used term so self-proclaimed representatives of bisexuals can feel all important.

And for that matter, a lot of us bisexual people do generally identify with exclusively homosexual people, as part of the same general group. This is a bit of a sore spot for people who like to go on about gay "biphobia" (ha) in their quest to be the Most Special Snowflake and get many many oppression brownie points, but such is life.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have a problem with the word gay before marriage for a different reason. It is marriage....that is term that should be used. Adding a prefix creates a division as if it somehow isn't the same thing and is something special (either positive or negative). As if gay marriage isn't really marriage....and it opens the door for moralization and differentiating value of the act. It still adds hetronormative connotation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I have a problem with the word gay before marriage for a different reason. It is marriage....that is term that should be used.
Of course, but in some contexts, like discussing what's being legalized, same-sex or same-gender marriage is still an accurate term and gay marriage isn't.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think having material benefits is more important than changing a widely-used term so self-proclaimed representatives of bisexuals can feel all important.
It's a widely-used term precisely because so many people, straight and gay, ignore the existence of bisexual people or go as far as to deny bisexuality exists. It has nothing to do with feeling important. I'm not gay, not even if I'm in a relationship with someone of the same gender.

[Quail]

This is ridiculous.

Words generally don't have the sort of surgical precision easily-offended people require them to have. "Americans" only come from one part of the Americas, for example. I think having material benefits is more important than changing a widely-used term so self-proclaimed representatives of bisexuals can feel all important.

And for that matter, a lot of us bisexual people do generally identify with exclusively homosexual people, as part of the same general group. This is a bit of a sore spot for people who like to go on about gay "biphobia" (ha) in their quest to be the Most Special Snowflake and get many many oppression brownie points, but such is life.

I think bisexual people have consistently higher rates of mental illness and poor health, even compared to gay people. There is a lot of distrust (for want of a better word) of bisexuals, especially among some of the lesbians I know. There's an assumption that a bisexual woman would cheat and run off with a man. If bisexuals suffer from both homophobia from straight people and biphobia/exclusion from gay spaces and communities then I can totally see how that would impact them negatively.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think bisexual people have consistently higher rates of mental illness and poor health, even compared to gay people. There is a lot of distrust (for want of a better word) of bisexuals, especially among some of the lesbians I know. There's an assumption that a bisexual woman would cheat and run off with a man. If bisexuals suffer from both homophobia from straight people and biphobia/exclusion from gay spaces and communities then I can totally see how that would impact them negatively.

That has not been my experience at all, even though the overwhelming majority of people I hang out with are lesbians or bisexual women. Of course we live in different places and our social context is not the same, but that just underlines how fiddly it is to generalise from a limited sample. I don't doubt for a moment that some lesbians think bisexuals are likely to cheat (although, again, in my entire life I have received one comment to the effect that I would likely cheat my partner - from an alleged bisexual). Conversely there are bisexuals who think lesbians are "actually" bisexual. Either of those statements can hurt people. Hurting people isn't nice. But it's not a political problem - it's not the same as a lesbian trying to report an assault to police and being beaten by the policeman, which is something that happened here recently.

And sorry, the phrase "gay marriage" is not exclusion. Language is imprecise. It's a cleaver we use to hack away at the world in hopes of cutting it into vaguely useful pieces. It's not this scalpel that some people want it to be, and it can never be such. Sinti are not Roma, for example. This doesn't mean that grouping them together with Roma and talking about anti-Roma sentiment for convenience's sake is anti-Sinti. There are numerous examples like that.

[The Feral Underclass]

I know a fair few gay men who won't have relationships with bisexual men because they believe them to be untrustworthy.

[mushroompizza]

Why is it that Revleft can always find ways in which a movement is bad.

"The give every communist a hug movement is dumb because it doesnt support the vanguard theory thus I am angry about collective economics blablabla".

[The Feral Underclass]

Why is it that Revleft can always find ways in which a movement is bad.

"The give every communist a hug movement is dumb because it doesnt support the vanguard theory thus I am angry about collective economics blablabla".

Because we're not children and we don't live in a fantasy world.

[Zoop]

Why is it that Revleft can always find ways in which a movement is bad.

Because they can be flawed, in fairly significant ways*, and so it is necessary to expose those flaws and tackle them.

I'm bisexual, and there's so much confusion and ignorance surrounding it, and that ignorance often stems from supporters of the lgbt movement, or those who identify as lgbt, in some way.

Or maybe they're just jealous, because I get the best of both worlds ;)

*Dancing with cops at a Pride march comes to mind...

[PhoenixAsh]

Why is it that Revleft can always find ways in which a movement is bad.

"The give every communist a hug movement is dumb because it doesnt support the vanguard theory thus I am angry about collective economics blablabla".

That movement is simply bad because I don't want anybody to touch me without my explicit permission....and the ethos you just stated means I would be physically harassed...molested even. Are you in the habit of supporting movements that advocate molesting people?

[PhoenixAsh]

My girlfriend discovered she is bisexuality and is trying to come to terms with it...and still denies she actually likes men sexually (so yeah...There is some cognitive bias and self denial going on there although she did say she doesn't see me as a male....:glare: )...

Either way...

Since we are together she has lost an awful lot of her lesbian and gay friends who feel she betrayed them. She gets a lot of flack for her sexuality bordering and often crossing the line of harassment.

Her girlfriend (there is that too) was always bisexual and when they started those friends told her that bisexual women aren't to be trusted and are actually some sex obsessed sluts....

[Cliff Paul]

Personally, the only sort of biphobia I've encountered from lgbtq culture was in the form of college students in the lgbtq scene who didn't consider bisexuality serious enough to be included in their oppression olympics. Not saying it doesn't exist but personal experiences can only tell you so much.

[Rafiq]

When you assume, you can erase someone else's identity.

That might pertain to personal occasions as an act of impoliteness, but it hardly has any political relevance. Furthermore, how one wants to be addressed is not enough to constitute their "identity", because the reason for it has to be justified.

In calling bisexuals gay, you merely express a lack of consideration for the specifialities of their sexuality. Why is this, on a political level, important? What does a "bisexual" marriage mean exactly to the point where it would warrant use? One can understand the point that bisexuals are not given their due as a separate form of sexuality, in that one is either heterosexual with all the 'normal' connotations or homosexual with all of the refined connotations, but this is not a problem of political correctness. It suggests the deeper reality of the regulation of sexuality systemically.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I've never thought of the term "gay marriage" as referring to the participants' sexual orientation. Rather, I've thought "gay" simply meant "same sex" because the marriage only involves two people of the same sex regardless of whether or not one or both of the participants may or may not be solely attracted to the same sex.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Language is imprecise.
During the two years I edited a quarterly journal, I would not have accepted that logic from any of my writers. :rolleyes:

[consuming negativity]

i mean i don't think it's a big deal but that's exactly why i'd rather just use the more accurate and inclusive "same-sex marriage" terminology

y'all are dumb, sorry

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In calling bisexuals gay, you merely express a lack of consideration for the specifialities of their sexuality. Why is this, on a political level, important?
It actually erases our sexuality and assigns us one we may not want to be assigned. If mononormativity isn't already a word, I'll use it here anyway, i.e. the idea that "normal" is an attraction to a single sex or gender, and that bisexuals are simply confused and need to pick a side. Bisexuals queer up a simple binary for both straight and gay people.


What does a "bisexual" marriage mean exactly to the point where it would warrant use?
Um, no one is asking for the term "bisexual marriage" to be used. Did you even read the article or my own original comments?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...now that we are on the subject...why shouldn't marriage be possible between more than two people? Why should it be two people? Why can't three people marry? Why can't one person be married to two people...who are not married to each other?

And this is not a joke.

It is in fact a normativity which looks down upon or frowns at people who have non traditional non monogamous relationship.

I have my girlfriend. She also has a girlfriend. She loves us both. Me and her girlfriend are friends...for the most part...

Tell people this...and they won't take it serious. They will joke about it. They will frown. They will make negative comments. And those are the nice ones.

I understand that...I do...I mean...lets say it isn't the easiest way to live...
But it gets old, stale and tiresome.

She can't even officially select to be in a relationship with me and with her girlfriend at the same time on most social websites...like for example facebook...

Now...that may seem trivial...but it isn't. It kind of erases a part of your life, of who you are, from your social network which dictates that you have to do it one way...and that is their way. Otherwise...tough fucking luck. This may not sound important but it gives all kinds of social problems as well as frustration of continuously having to explain.

And that normativity is indeed a problem.

So when Bisexual people talk about erasure of their identity...that does strike a cord with me. Because that identity is part of who you are and part of what you represent. Especially in normative societies that identity becomes very important.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well...now that we are on the subject...why shouldn't marriage be possible between more than two people? Why should it be two people? Why can't three people marry? Why can't one person be married to two people...who are not married to each other?

And this is not a joke.


Hell yes, and of course it shouldn't be a joke, but in the context of stuff I've read on the Supreme Court decision (not that much) and anectodal stuff I've heard about the so called bisexual erasure (yeah, I know, it is anectodal)...Danielle might be onto something here.

By and large, the LGBT community here responded to the news with complete implicit stance that only homosexual people have a stake in this; I'm not familiar with the prominent associations to speak of a connection with bi erasure, but surely this makes one think about the possibility, doesn't it?

[Rafiq]

Its not a moral question. We seek to destroy marriage all together and likewise gender itself. It is true that we also oppose standards of normative sexuality in bourgeois society. But this isn't a point of controversy. The point is that political correctness will not do away with it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its not a moral question. We seek to destroy marriage all together and likewise gender itself. It is true that we also oppose standards of normative sexuality in bourgeois society. But this isn't a point of controversy. The point is that political correctness will not do away with it.
Yes, that's my attitude as well - political correctness in the very specific term of language monitoring and correction of language won'0t and can't do anything substantial about human relations.

I remember the old geezer (ageism!? he was a very nice old man) teaching sociolinguistics to us young folks and saying something to the effect of yes, language does matter insofar as it is a mirror (or could be considered as such) of the attitudes prevalent in regional and social groups.

But that's the thing, you don't do away with the thing being mirrored by smashing the mirror.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well...now that we are on the subject...why shouldn't marriage be possible between more than two people? Why should it be two people? Why can't three people marry? Why can't one person be married to two people...who are not married to each other?
Exactly. We may have marriage equality in terms of same-sex couples, but only for couples. Straight, gay, and bi people who are polyamorous are still limited to one spouse. And there's a lot of social prejudice against poly people.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The point is that political correctness will not do away with it.
Is it "political correctness" to use a more neutral and accurate term, and one that challenges mononormative assumptions?

[Rafiq]

Yeah

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yeah
A one word reply? What have you done with the real Rafiq?

[PhoenixAsh]

...

I am stumped here too...is your account hacked?

... :lol:


But the mirror analogy, which I like, also means that what is mirrored is reflected back and reinforces. And while it is infinitely more important to change social attitudes by changing social structures and society itself...language is an immensely important factor how we communicate our attitudes and how we instill them on others.

[Thirsty Crow]

...

I am stumped here too...is your account hacked?

... :lol:


But the mirror analogy, which I like, also means that what is mirrored is reflected back and reinforces. And while it is infinitely more important to change social attitudes by changing social structures and society itself...language is an immensely important factor how we communicate our attitudes and how we instill them on others.
Sure and to be open we covered the issue of oppressive language (impressive a topic to purse for a 70+ man IMO), the fact remains that language can a) be used as a cloaking device so to speak (them pesky Romulans I tell you) and b) even if there is good amount of success in getting rid of a particular language use, you still can't be sure that the prejudice and discrimination is eliminated.

[Sea]

Well...now that we are on the subject...why shouldn't marriage be possible between more than two people? Why should it be two people? Why can't three people marry? Why can't one person be married to two people...who are not married to each other?

And this is not a joke.

It is in fact a normativity which looks down upon or frowns at people who have non traditional non monogamous relationship.

I have my girlfriend. She also has a girlfriend. She loves us both. Me and her girlfriend are friends...for the most part...

Tell people this...and they won't take it serious. They will joke about it. They will frown. They will make negative comments. And those are the nice ones.

I understand that...I do...I mean...lets say it isn't the easiest way to live...
But it gets old, stale and tiresome.

She can't even officially select to be in a relationship with me and with her girlfriend at the same time on most social websites...like for example facebook...

Now...that may seem trivial...but it isn't. It kind of erases a part of your life, of who you are, from your social network which dictates that you have to do it one way...and that is their way. Otherwise...tough fucking luck. This may not sound important but it gives all kinds of social problems as well as frustration of continuously having to explain.

And that normativity is indeed a problem.

So when Bisexual people talk about erasure of their identity...that does strike a cord with me. Because that identity is part of who you are and part of what you represent. Especially in normative societies that identity becomes very important.As we well know here marriage is socially defined, there's nothing sacred about it or anything ever, so there's no reason that it couldn't be this or that. Marriage has only legal value. Only those who have been brainwashed to think it's sacred would care about it for their own relationship. Of course it is also politically useful perhaps in allowing gay marriage as a subversive thing against the bigoted notion of relationships in general, as most such bigots are Christians who think marriage is sacred. It is an absurdity to think that any relationship, no matter how healthy and long lasting, would benefit from making it a legal struggle and pain in the ass to exit should either partner so choose. The reason I have been following the gay marriage debate is for what I outlined above.

Marriage itself is absolute bullshit no matter who is in it, but that caveat notwithstanding I agree with you completely.

Regarding the facebook thing, that is a legitimate concern, and is clearly a reflection of the mode of production we are living in. I'm sure you've heard that Marx quote about the ideology of the masses being the ideology of the ruling class. This applies to the programmers facebook hires just as much as it does to any factory worker. Still, it is a reflection of our epoch, not the other way around.

You have run up against an instance of the intolerance of capitalist society, but that instance is not the cause of the problem any more than any other that you may find every day. It is therefore misguided to campaign for a specific singular instance of the issue when gajillions of others all share a common cause.


Also absolutely nothing in this thread concerns marriage equality. Way to make a shitty sensationalist title to get people to click on your (the author of the article, not Danielle) link for dat sweet juicy ad revenue! It's all about a specific term, not about equality in the slightest.

And for the record bi persons in heterosexual relationships have always been able to marry. Homosexuals therefore were the only group *not* allowed to marry at all, which is why conservatives flipping their shit about "gays being allowed to marry. The answer to this whole silly debate is just that - the "gay" in "gay marriage" is about the relationship's orientation, not the people in it. It's marriage of a couple who are in a homosexual relationship; nobody said it's only homosexuals in the relationship. Don't assume otherwise just because that's the demographic you hear the most about on the news. Y'all missing the point.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The answer to this whole silly debate is just that - the "gay" in "gay marriage" is about the relationship's orientation, not the people in it.
You're not exactly refuting the easy logic of just calling them same-sex or same-gender marriages.

[Sea]

You're not exactly refuting the easy logic of just calling them same-sex or same-gender marriages.
Same-sex/gender means the same as gay in informal conversation. That's effectively what we're doing.

It may not be technically correct (which is why if you look at the supreme court ruling here is little mention of gayness) but that is beside the point. The point still stands that when one speaks of gay marriage the 'gay' a qualifier for the word 'marriage' not for the people being married.

You're not exactly giving any clue how marriage equality could have a negative effect in any way whatsoever, on anybody bi gay straight or otherwise.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Same-sex/gender means the same as gay in informal conversation. That's effectively what we're doing.
If so, then that just proves what I'm saying about bisexual invisibility and erasure. There is an assumption that if two people of the same sex or gender are in a relationship, they must be gay. The first example in the article is about a bisexual woman who was labeled a lesbian by a newspaper when she married a woman. All of that aside, that's still sloppy writing and sloppy editing.