Bisexual Politics

Theories, Queries, and Visions

Naomi S Tucker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781560249504
• eBook ISBN: 9781317712459
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This anthology presents a vivid collection of essays that explore the history, strategies, philosophy, and diversity of bisexual politics and theory in the United States.The 33 contributors develop a multifaceted approach to defining bisexual politics. Through these voices, the book seeks to understand the contexts in which the bisexual movement has evolved. The authors analyze different organizing strategies, formulate new bisexual political theory, provide a vision of future directions for redefining sexuality and gender, and educate activists and allies about current issues pertinent to the bisexual community.This book is the first of its kind. To date, it is the only book that documents and analyzes bisexual politics and theory. While existing literature on bisexuality has focused on identity, coming out, and forming communities, Bisexual Politics takes the vital next step into bisexual political theory and activism. The many subjects and subthemes addressed in Bisexual Politics appeal to a multitude of readers from activists to academics, from friends and family of bisexuals, to those who have struggled with bisexuality. It is a sourcebook for those seeking to locate bisexuality in the schema of other social justice movements. It is a tool to build alliances with other progressive groups, and build coalitions with both lesbian/gay and heterosexual communities. It is a primer for anyone interested in bisexual activism and theory.

Reflections
A Look
in the Mirror

---

OVERVIEW

---

Susanna Trnka with Naomi Tucker

Spirituality which inspires activism and, similarly, politics which move the spirit—which draw from the deep-seated place of our greatest longings for freedom—give meaning to our lives.

—Cherríe Moraga, 1983

Wandering through a bookstore the other day, I came across a book that chronicles images of “life rituals” from around the world. Overflowing with photographs of various “rites of passage” —births, deaths, weddings, and even a few divorces—it included a single shot of a “gay wedding”: two young white men kissing on the steps of San Francisco’s City Hall. Obviously these two men don’t represent homosexuality; many other images could do just as well or better. But this photo is at least recognizable as a “gay couple.”

Could the photographer have captured a “bisexual wedding” on film? A “bisexual family,” or a “bisexual political movement”? Or is bisexuality too young an identity to elicit such cultural images? Perhaps bisexuality is simply too complex to be portrayed by a single image? Bisexuality challenges our monosexual culture’s assumption that sexuality can be identified by appearance, or by the gender of one’s partners. So what kinds of images can we create for ourselves?

We begin our exploration of bisexual politics with reflections on the history and present state of bisexual organizing, known collectively as “the bisexual movement.” This first section of the book contains both critical self-examination and proud recognition of our accomplishments, offering various explanations for where we have come from and assessments of where we are today. We celebrate milestones in bisexual visibility, remember the things we have done well, learn from our mistakes, hopefully develop new strategies and insights. These essays are a cross section of what we have done and what we have yet to accomplish.

Reflections is divided into two sections, the first documenting selections of bisexual history and the second analyzing the bisexual movement today.

A TASTE OF HISTORY

A complete history of bisexual politics would inevitably require its own volume. We have selected the work of four pioneering bi activists as samples, each chosen with particular intent: the first for its concise overview of our political roots; the next two for their unique personal stories from a mostly forgotten period of bi history; and the last for its historical importance in propelling bisexual visibility into a new era in the 1990s.

Anthropology and history document centuries of bisexual behavior across different cultures. Rather than attempting to resurrect the experiences of people long gone and define their identities in a context that is not theirs, we begin this story of bisexual politics in the U.S. from the perspective of the first bisexuals who organized around their identity as distinct from heterosexual and homosexual identities.

The roots of bisexual politics can be traced to feminism, lesbian activism, the Black Civil Rights movement, and the sexual liberation movement, as documented by the work of Amanda Udis-Kessler. The personal chronicles of Stephen Donaldson and David Lourea vividly reinforce that history, recounting the development of bisexual communities in the 1960s and 1970s on the East and West Coasts, respectively.

The early 1970s saw the first public claiming of the bisexual label to promote acceptance and visibility of bisexuals. In 1972 the National Bisexual Liberation Group was founded in New York City; Chicago and San Francisco followed with bi groups founded in the mid- to late-1970s. The focus of this early activism ranged from challenging society’s sexual stereotypes and combatting homophobia, to creating bisexual social spaces and fighting for recognition in the gay/lesbian community. In the late 1980s bisexual activism blossomed, with hundreds of new groups springing up in major cities and on college campuses everywhere.

Several key national events propelled bisexual organizing and visibility to new heights. The 1987 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights motivated bisexual activists in Boston and San Francisco to create a national network. With the idea of holding a meeting to solidify the National Bisexual Network (later to become BiNet USA), BiPOL in San Francisco then organized the first national conference in 1990.

The conference mobilized 454 bisexuals nationwide to come out in pride. Participants took the energy inspired by the conference back to their local groups, which resulted in the formation of regional networks and a multitude of bisexual groups. Today there are bisexual gatherings for every interest under the sun, from specific ethnic, age, spiritual, recovery, professional, or political affiliations to bisexual ballroom dancers, science fiction fans, parents, and performance artists. It is significant to note that the bicoastal bias of bisexual organizing shifted in the late 1980s to early 1990s with the visibility and recognition of groups between the coasts, in states as diverse as Colorado, Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.

Bisexuals were instrumental in planning both the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation, and the 1994 “Stonewall 25” celebration, the events in New York City commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion. The 1993 March was a major milestone in bi history for several reasons: the inclusion of “bi” in the title, the ways our struggle for inclusion fostered friendships and alliances with lesbian and gay activists, the subsequent national visibility of bisexuality, the numbers of bisexual people who marched because they felt included for the first time, and the outreach to heterosexually-identified bisexuals. And we had a bisexual speaker on the main stage—Lani Ka’ahumanu—whose passionate call to unity we include in this book.

A vital seed of bisexual organizing has come from college and university campuses, with strong lesbian/bi/gay coalitions as well as specifically bi-focused organizations and social groups. The resources, small community size, atmosphere of tolerance, and relatively privileged status of college communities all make bisexual organizing—both independently and in coalition with lesbian/gay groups—easier on campus than off.

Campus organizing has been pivotal to our movement in many ways. As Stephen Donaldson notes, student groups initiated some of the earliest bi activism. Campuses have bred a new generation of bisexual activists; they have brought bi groups to rural areas. Inside the classroom bisexuals are taking charge of defining their own experience, introducing bisexuality into academia. To date three universities have offered courses on bisexuality, with more in the planning stages.¹

Far exceeding the pace of bisexual inclusion in the queer community at large, campus activism—along with other youth organizing—has opened doors for bisexual visibility nationwide. So-called “gay” student unions have experienced a relatively quick but often painful facelift, realigning with their lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning members. Increasing numbers of campus queer organizations and youth groups now include bisexual in their names or have names which do not list specific words, such as “Alternative Sexualities at Swarthmore [AS IS].” This proliferation of inclusive groups is popularizing the “b” word, decreasing the lesbian/gay community’s discomfort with the word itself as well as with the idea of bisexuality. In many parts of the country, campuses host the only bi or bi-inclusive group in the area. Most important, college campus and youth activism have created environments in which young people can come out—as bisexual, lesbian, gay, transgendered, or however they may define themselves—into a community of support that embraces, validates, and mirrors their experience.

ASSESSING THE STATE OF OUR MOVEMENT

As our movement expands exponentially, bisexuals are taking a necessary look at the institutions we develop and how they may or may not represent us. Liz Highleyman begins with a survey of bisexual organizing strategies, analyzing different strands of our movement. Laura Perez and Loraine Hutchins focus on mainstream bi organizing, examining ways to make those groups and their leadership more reflective of bisexual diversity.

In addition to specifically bi-focused agendas, bisexual activists have always been involved in broader political struggles. We have taken to the streets to protest homophobic legislation, government ignorance of AIDS, the reproductive rights backlash, U.S. military intervention abroad, and many other issues. Many of the essays underscore this progressive history, and point to ways in which bisexuals can direct their activism. For instance, Sharon Gonsalves and Elias Farajajé-Jones press the imperative of HIV/AIDS education and prevention. Tamara Bower argues for bisexual women to steer clear of possible political cooptation in coalitions with bisexual and gay men, refocusing instead on feminist politics.

Politics are inherently personal. As Indigo Som notes, we each craft our self-identity and choose words to describe ourselves according to our cultural and personal histories. The bisexual community, she writes, should be a safe haven that honors the fluidity of sexual identity. A place where people can choose the labels that fit them best—or choose no labels at all—without fear of losing the community they call home.

Bisexual politics is not just about the formation of bi organizations, classes, and conferences. It is also the history of conversations and longing glances; of sex, love, speeches, and demonstrations. Ultimately, we will each find our home in the place where we see our own reflection, mirrored in the very faces that challenge and embrace us.

NOTE

1. For syllabi and other information on university courses on bisexuality, contact either the Bisexual Resource Center, P.O. Box 639, Cambridge, MA 02140; or Robyn Ochs, P.O. Box 391611, Cambridge, MA 02139.

---

Part A

---

A Taste of History

… And the time came when the risk of remaining closed in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.

—Anaïs Nin, 1903-1977

Identity/Politics: A History of the Bisexual Movement

Amanda Udis-Kessler

One muggy Spring evening in 1988, I sat in an Oberlin College Lesbian/Gay Union meeting and wondered why we were arguing over changing the name and the charter of the LGU to include bisexuals.¹ I had been a fairly active member of the LGU throughout my time at Oberlin, arranging a homophobia conference, serving as one of the first round of HIV test counselors, and helping to organize the Oberlin contingent for the 1987 March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Rights. I had gotten arrested at the following Supreme Court civil disobedience with three other Obies, two of whom had at one point also identified as bisexual. Half of the regular LGU members in the room during this argument were bisexual. I was surprised and disheartened by the anger, fear, and resentment I heard on the part of some lesbians and gay men. The change finally did go through, leaving bitter feelings in its wake.

Today, I wonder about different questions. Instead of asking why the charter and name change was so difficult for lesbians and gay men, I have come to ask why the change was so important for those of us in the room who were bisexual. Or rather, I ask how lesbian/gay resistance and bisexual insistence are related to each other, and to larger social trends. The debate that Spring evening turned out to be merely a microcosm of a much larger set of trends affecting not just bisexuals in college lesbian/gay groups, but lesbian and gay communities around the country, feminism, sexual values, and even progressive political strategies. My goal in this essay is to situate the bisexual movement in its proper context, to locate it within this set of trends, and to understand how we arrived at our current status.

Part of my job as a sociologist is to refuse to take things for granted, and that must include both my own sexual identity and the movement which I have come to call my own. There is no obvious reason why the bisexual movement and the bisexual identity that fuels it should exist now at this point in history, or why it should be so important to some of us. Post-Stonewall lesbian and gay groups got along fine for more than a decade without bisexuals insisting on inclusion, and bisexuals presumably got along fine during that period without seeking it. What has happened in the past five years, ten years, twenty years that caused some of us to become so invested, not just in our bisexual identity, but in the process of politicizing it? Given that the bisexual movement clearly owes its existence to lesbian/gay liberation and to feminism, we need to ask what shifts in the social institutions, psychic lives, and systems of meaning within the lesbian and gay communities made our identity and our movement not only possible but necessary. And we cannot ignore the matrix of feminism within which lesbians and bisexual women have come to differentiate ourselves from each other and to contest the meaning of “real” woman-loving-woman identification. Ironically, we will see that a number of the strategies later used by bisexuals to the annoyance of lesbians and gay men were derived from lesbian-feminism or from choices made by the gay community.

The story I want to relate here is, like a good soap opera, grounded in drama, basic social dilemmas, and, as C. Wright Mill...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Editor
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Section I—Reflections: A Look in the Mirror
• Section II—Connections: can We Work Together?
• Section III—Directions: Our Visionary Voices
• Appendices
• References
• Index