Correcting Bisexuality Definitions One at a Time

Via The Bisexual Index on Twitter

[Picture is a series of tweets by The Bisexual Index which read:]

We don’t say “bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders”. We say “bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender”.

If you don’t see a difference then why not use our version?

There is a difference. 1) Saying “It’s not 2, it’s 2 (or more)” doesn’t really get away from the outdated “there’s two” model.

1a) And it footnotes other genders. No need to! 2) And as with our list of points, more than one can include ‘not entirely two’.

But again - if you see genders or your attractions purely as integers then don’t worry: More than one totally includes two.

Part of the @bisexualindex mission statement is to promote “more than one” over “two” or “two+”.

We think it’s more inclusive and reflective of the bisexual community. Other bi orgs disagree and that’s cool. It’s not mandatory.

But when people who don’t use the bisexual label tell you we’re wrong, feel free to tell them we don’t care. Our label, our definition.

This is a very interesting thread and they make some good points as to why “more than one” would be preferable to “two or more”.

I specifically dislike the “same and other genders” definition due to the way it submits to the “bi = 2″ definition and also specifies a particular gender you have to be attracted to and, in The Bisexual Index’s words, “it footnotes the other genders”. (and since the SGA discourse I really don’t trust people who use it for the whole community).

Via The Bisexual Index on Twitter

[Picture is a series of tweets by The Bisexual Index which read:]

We don’t say “bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders”. We say “bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender”.

If you don’t see a difference then why not use our version?

There is a difference. 1) Saying “It’s not 2, it’s 2 (or more)” doesn’t really get away from the outdated “there’s two” model.

1a) And it footnotes other genders. No need to! 2) And as with our list of points, more than one can include ‘not entirely two’.

But again - if you see genders or your attractions purely as integers then don’t worry: More than one totally includes two.

Part of the @bisexualindex mission statement is to promote “more than one” over “two” or “two+”.

We think it’s more inclusive and reflective of the bisexual community. Other bi orgs disagree and that’s cool. It’s not mandatory.

But when people who don’t use the bisexual label tell you we’re wrong, feel free to tell them we don’t care. Our label, our definition.

This is a very interesting thread and they make some good points as to why “more than one” would be preferable to “two or more”.

I specifically dislike the “same and other genders” definition due to the way it submits to the “bi = 2″ definition and also specifies a particular gender you have to be attracted to and, in The Bisexual Index’s words, “it footnotes the other genders”. (and since the SGA discourse I really don’t trust people who use it for the whole community).

Via The Bisexual Index on Twitter

[Picture is a series of tweets by The Bisexual Index which read:]

We don’t say “bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders”. We say “bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender”.

If you don’t see a difference then why not use our version?

There is a difference. 1) Saying “It’s not 2, it’s 2 (or more)” doesn’t really get away from the outdated “there’s two” model.

1a) And it footnotes other genders. No need to! 2) And as with our list of points, more than one can include ‘not entirely two’.

But again - if you see genders or your attractions purely as integers then don’t worry: More than one totally includes two.

Part of the @bisexualindex mission statement is to promote “more than one” over “two” or “two+”.

We think it’s more inclusive and reflective of the bisexual community. Other bi orgs disagree and that’s cool. It’s not mandatory.

But when people who don’t use the bisexual label tell you we’re wrong, feel free to tell them we don’t care. Our label, our definition.

This is a very interesting thread and they make some good points as to why “more than one” would be preferable to “two or more”.

I specifically dislike the “same and other genders” definition due to the way it submits to the “bi = 2″ definition and also specifies a particular gender you have to be attracted to and, in The Bisexual Index’s words, “it footnotes the other genders”. (and since the SGA discourse I really don’t trust people who use it for the whole community).

Which isn’t really a problem with the definitions in and of themselves, but a problem with shitty people being shitty and using the definitions for shitty purposes. (like I have issues with the ‘same and different genders’ and ‘two genders full stop’ definitions in and of themselves, on anything beyond a personal level)

And I don’t entirely agree with the notion that ‘two or more genders’ isn’t a meaningful departure from the ‘there’s two genders’ model… which I know is due to the fact that lately I have pretty much only see the ‘two or more genders’ definition being used in explicit opposition to the bullshit idea that there are only two genders (boys and girls). And by extension of that I’m not really sure I agree with the idea that the definition ‘foot notes other genders’ (because if ‘two’ doesn’t mean ‘boys and girls’ but just ‘any two genders’ what genders exactly are getting foot noted?) But I think it’s worth the note that I have also seen the ‘two genders full stop’ definition being used on a personal level in explicit opposition to the idea that there are only two genders, those genders being boys and girls (stuff like ‘being attracted to two genders doesn’t mean those genders have to be boys and girls’)

Because again, especially when it’s at a personal level, it’s less an issue with the definitions in and of themselves and more an issue with shitty people being shitty. I mean, the ‘same and different genders’ and ‘two genders full stop’ definitions when applied broad scale are an issue because they are leaving a bunch of bi people out but on an ‘individual describing themself’ level I don’t think it’s inherently a problem.

And the connotations matter, absolutely. The cultural/historical/whatever context words are being used in matters. Just *helpless have wave* I dunno…. I had those thoughts.

What I really like about the ‘more than one gender’ definition is the space it leaves for ‘not entirely two’. I think that is really awesome and a really good thing. That, I think, is the main difference (when we’re talking on a broad scale level) between the ‘more than one’ and ‘two or more genders’ definition and I think that difference is meaningful.

@cyberbanditworld in reply to this post

I personally define bisexuality, especially my own as pertaining to biological sex and not socially constructed gender categories, pansexuality seems to explain that better for me.

Biological sex is a scientifically observable objective fact about all sexually dimorphic species, including humans. In humans, it’s determined by the presence or lack of a Y chromosome.

The possible arrangements for female chromosomes are XX, XO, and XXX.

The male chromosome arrangements are XY, XXY, and XYY (Not having an X will kill you, so there is no YO).

Via The Bisexual Index on Twitter

[Picture is a series of tweets by The Bisexual Index which read:]

We don’t say “bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders”. We say “bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender”.

If you don’t see a difference then why not use our version?

There is a difference. 1) Saying “It’s not 2, it’s 2 (or more)” doesn’t really get away from the outdated “there’s two” model.

1a) And it footnotes other genders. No need to! 2) And as with our list of points, more than one can include ‘not entirely two’.

But again - if you see genders or your attractions purely as integers then don’t worry: More than one totally includes two.

Part of the @bisexualindex mission statement is to promote “more than one” over “two” or “two+”.

We think it’s more inclusive and reflective of the bisexual community. Other bi orgs disagree and that’s cool. It’s not mandatory.

But when people who don’t use the bisexual label tell you we’re wrong, feel free to tell them we don’t care. Our label, our definition.

This is a very interesting thread and they make some good points as to why “more than one” would be preferable to “two or more”.

I specifically dislike the “same and other genders” definition due to the way it submits to the “bi = 2″ definition and also specifies a particular gender you have to be attracted to and, in The Bisexual Index’s words, “it footnotes the other genders”. (and since the SGA discourse I really don’t trust people who use it for the whole community).

@cyberbanditworld in reply to this post

I personally define bisexuality, especially my own as pertaining to biological sex and not socially constructed gender categories, pansexuality seems to explain that better for me.

I just want to start by saying that yes biological sex is a social construct, I’ve read the lingual maze that is Butler as well. However, sex was constructed for discourses around the physical realities of the body, something Butler and a lot of other queer theorists are acutely aware of and do not attach sexuality or gender based phobias during the own ponderings on sex characteristic epistemes.

Anyway, I’m not really concerned with debating gender and sex theories, I’m more concerned with your knee jerk reaction to ascribe the #transphobia and #biphobia to my own personal embodiment of bisexuality I shared, something that requires a person to make themselves vulnerable to share in the first place, but I suppose this is the internet after all. I can see how you could misconstrue and infer that I’m transphobic and/or biphobic from my comment. But surely this is only possible within the confines of presumptuous inferences you have layered in an odd sensitivity to potential phobics lurking everywhere? I use biological sex to describe my own experiences and embodiment of bisexuality because I am attracted to sex characteristics such as the penis and vagina without the need of lumping qualities of gender (masculine, feminine, man, woman, trans or otherwise) upon them, simple, yeah? No idea how that harms anyone with biphobia and transphobia that simply does not exist in my sexual ontology.

Also, just in case you’re unaware, some bi-folk are only into cis-men and women, some only dig trans-men and women while others don’t bother with distinctions like that at all. The possible definitions and embodiments of sexuality are seriously as infinite as gender itself. Pansexual, polysexual, sexually fluid and bisexual people alike share this quality of infinitely possible variations. Far be it from either of us to denigrate or question people’s bisexual preferences, choices and experiences via ludicrously labeling them as bi/transphobic or otherwise. It’s honestly perplexing I have to elaborate upon the existence of eclectic ontologies pertaining to bisexuality at all to a bisexual tumblr blog.

However, clearly you’d rather attach what appears to be your personal perceptions and aspirations pertaining to the embodiment and experience of my bisexuality without so much as a passing thought about the diversity of attraction within my sexuality. Much easier to think that mine is a phobic definition than one which is equally as valid as yours and others.

To be blunt with you, my own perceptions of your character is that of a person who expects someone’s sexuality to fit into your comfortable definitions/requirements of it. And to that I say… don’t ever fucking presume to know why or how an individual’s bisexual embodiment operates with stupid accusations such as the insulting dribble you directed at me in regards to myself having phobias towards groups of people I cherish and fight for. There’s already enough conflict in the LGBT community being created by similar pettiness. I love and accept your definition, you don’t need to denigrate mine or anybody else’s through the silly desire to label those that are different and harmless (because we know there are truly harmful ones out there) to lay bare the authenticity of yours.

P.S

You calling me transphobic/biphobic is in itself situating you as biphobic.

Any form of attraction that splits trans and cis women or trans and cis men into different categories as if they are different genders is transphobic. Trans women are women and so if you are attracted to the gender “women” that means cis and trans women.

Defining people by their genitals is also transphobic (and shitty to everyone really)

@cyberbanditworld in reply to this post

I personally define bisexuality, especially my own as pertaining to biological sex and not socially constructed gender categories, pansexuality seems to explain that better for me.

Biological sex is a scientifically observable objective fact about all sexually dimorphic species, including humans. In humans, it’s determined by the presence or lack of a Y chromosome.

The possible arrangements for female chromosomes are XX, XO, and XXX.

The male chromosome arrangements are XY, XXY, and XYY (Not having an X will kill you, so there is no YO).

Via The Bisexual Index on Twitter

[Picture is a series of tweets by The Bisexual Index which read:]

We don’t say “bisexuality is attraction to two or more genders”. We say “bisexuality is attraction to more than one gender”.

If you don’t see a difference then why not use our version?

There is a difference. 1) Saying “It’s not 2, it’s 2 (or more)” doesn’t really get away from the outdated “there’s two” model.

1a) And it footnotes other genders. No need to! 2) And as with our list of points, more than one can include ‘not entirely two’.

But again - if you see genders or your attractions purely as integers then don’t worry: More than one totally includes two.

Part of the @bisexualindex mission statement is to promote “more than one” over “two” or “two+”.

We think it’s more inclusive and reflective of the bisexual community. Other bi orgs disagree and that’s cool. It’s not mandatory.

But when people who don’t use the bisexual label tell you we’re wrong, feel free to tell them we don’t care. Our label, our definition.

This is a very interesting thread and they make some good points as to why “more than one” would be preferable to “two or more”.

I specifically dislike the “same and other genders” definition due to the way it submits to the “bi = 2″ definition and also specifies a particular gender you have to be attracted to and, in The Bisexual Index’s words, “it footnotes the other genders”. (and since the SGA discourse I really don’t trust people who use it for the whole community).

I have seen this biphobic and transphobic gotcha trotted out repeatedly by trolls who can’t accept that there are more than two genders and that bi doesn’t mean two.

also its not “biphobic” or “transphobic” to say that