Sunday, February 5, 2012

Bisexuality is not a stepping stone between "straight" and "gay."

Content advisory: use of the word "queer" throughout, in a neutral context.

Were The World Mine
is one of my favorite movies.

Firstly, it's a musical. Secondly, it's about one of my favorite plays (retroactively - this movie is what got me into Shakespeare in the first place). Thirdly, it's about an out queerbro who suffers frustrations but finds happiness in the end. I am an out queerbro who suffers frustrations, so it's good for me.

There's just one line that bugs me.

"Firstly, Shakespeare has never been proven to be a homosexual. Bisexual, perhaps."

The context of this quote is as follows: For some reason, all of the students participating in a school performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream have started falling in love with each other. In an all-boys' school. Parents are freaked out about all the homosex and are claiming that the play is somehow responsible because Shakespeare was - to quote the dialogue - queer. The above line is the play director's rebuttal.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

Bisexual (and pansexual) people are queer, too. We're defined in part by our being attracted to members of the same sex. Just because we also like people of the opposite sex does not mean we somehow lose our queer status. Or our magical queer powers of turning others to our orientation.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Bisexual people in media are often shown encouraging formerly straight characters to explore their queer side.

Without that component to the argument, her "rebuttal" comes across as extremely weak, essentially no more than a matter of semantics, or some nerd's personal pride at making sure that dead, tertiary character's sexual orientations are properly understood. Pointless.

Here's another one:

Earlier today, I read an article listing a few individuals throughout history (all white, natch) who were also gay. One of the names mentioned was Hans Christian Anderson, who while not definitely gay, demonstrated some interest in men based on his correspondences with various men that he new. The article explains this by saying that he was probably "at least bisexual."

In other words, if he wasn't a whole queer, he was at least half queer.

The general theme I'm getting from both of these works is that many people see bi/pansexuality as some sort of "middle ground" between being gay and being straight. Which is not remotely true.

Someone is not "at least" bisexual, because bisexuality is not lesser than homosexuality. Bisexuality, to repeat myself, is a fully fledged sexual orientation in its own right. My own attraction to men and my attraction to women (as well as my attraction to individuals of nonbinary genders) are tied in with each other in such a way as to be inseparable. For example, I have to reconcile my choice of pursuing a woman with my desire to be with a man. My love of men and masculine things causes me to be very attracted to masculine and crossdressing women (without disregarding their womanhood), while my attraction to feminine things is often strongest when attached to a competent, interesting, and strong individual of any sex.

I doubt that this can accurately describe how most bisexual or pansexual people's orientations work, but the point I hope to make is that my sexual orientation is its own beast, different from either gay or straight people. I may be differently queer, but I am not less queer.

We are not "just" bisexual. We are not "at least" bisexual. We are simply bi/pan. Do not talk about us as if we're some kind of transitional form between straight and gay.