Bi invisibility & biphobia on "Grey's Anatomy"

Cross posted on "The Feminist Review."

Bi characters have thankfully been gaining a bit of visibility on television lately. On the latest episode of ABC's medical drama "Grey's Anatomy," a bi woman named Callie exchanges flirtation with Arizona, a woman who kissed her out of the blue in a previous episode. This female-female kiss was nothing new for "Grey's" as Callie only recently divorced her husband and then dated a woman for the first time in her life. Amidst the rest of the current network hits, "Grey's" is one of the most sexually progressive series.

Not only is "Grey's" depicting a woman who is bi, but one who is still trying out her wings, portraying to young or recently out bi's--and to the rest of the world, for that matter--that questioning one's orientation, being uncertain and making mistakes along the way, is acceptable and doesn't always lead to venereal disease. As in real life, biphobia rears its ugly head more than once, and Callie, like many bi's, is without support or context for her identity, and knows no way of handling it well.

In one episode, Callie's first-ever woman partner breaks up with her by way of an anti-bi slur. Callie is powerless to respond as the woman she cares for tells her, "You can't be a pretend lesbian." Ouch. I don't know if the show writers knew they were treading into the fog of biphobia and bi-invisibility, but it stung to watch. It would have been helpful for Callie to be able to deal in a healthy way with such slander, but all she can do in her situation is hope that her next relationship will be healthy, and that it arrive quickly.

Queer bloggers have referred to Callie as bi far more than entertainment writers, who make the monosexist mistake of calling it lesbianism because, after all, bisexuality can't really exist, right? I watch the show regularly, but am not certain that the word "bisexual" has been used in the show, but neither has Callie been labeled a lesbian. For good or for ill, she's just Callie. Bi-visibility is still a hurdle yet to be jumped, both on "Grey's" an in tv programs in general.

There is one way that bi (and lesbian) women have become visible on tv--in an inside-joke/tongue-in-cheek sort of way--the leather jacket. AfterEllen points out,

Callie is wearing her black leather jacket outside the hospital, which is a time-honored way for TV costume designers to signal that a woman is gay or bisexual

Now the next step is to make it a little more plain, and frankly, less stereotypical.

There's no code to know who's bi in the real world. You either come out or you don't. If "Grey's" wants to respectfully portray bi people, then bi characters must come out to the audience. While ambiguity and the not-knowing is surely part of being bi, so too is refusing to be told, "You can't be a pretend lesbian," or, "You can't be a pretend straight woman." Bisexuality is not pretend anything. It is very real, and very much exists. "Grey's" and other programs are certainly to be commended, even thanked, for increasing bi visibility following the rise of gays and lesbians on tv in the 90's. At the same time, care must be taken to portray bi men and women honestly and accurately. Bring us out of the biphobic shadows of secret codes. Reveal to the world the fullness of our experiences. It will make better tv; it will build a better world.

Are bisexual men feminists?

Even though Alfred Kinsey's research found that the majority of people (at least as far as Kinsey's research can be applied universally) fall somewhere within the range between completely straight and completely gay or lesbian, bisexuals have long been a sexual minority. (This was not always the case, with pederasty among males being predominant in antiquity and later, but since modern times, the sexual agenda has been set by those who are straight.) Numbers have nothing to do with minority status. Women outnumber men worldwide, and nonwhites outnumber whites, but neither of these groups have been able to enter wholly into the culture and privilege of those (straight white men) who determine how the rest of the world operates. Queer people in general are in the sexual minority, but even within that community, monosexual lesbian women and gay men continue to set the standard and hold the power. Those who are neither straight or gay/lesbian are left out of typical monosexual discourse, with bi people getting either lumped in with gays/lesbians or glossed over entirely (and either treatment can come from either monosexual community). For reasons not completely known, bi women tend to dominate the discourse within the bi community. Either bi men are less apt to speak from their experience, or it is more acceptable for women to be, or at least discuss being bi than it is for men. Bi women have found acceptance within feminist and lesbian communities (though they also find much resistance at certain times) and more acceptance by straight culture as well. I have not experienced or read much about how well bi men have been accepted by the gay male community, so I cannot speak to that. What I do know, however, is there is no movement as widespread as feminism in which men, straight or queer, work to dismantle patriarchy. It makes sense, for it is men who benefit from the system. Overall, bi men seem to be more alone and more ostracized from the queer community and from struggles to end monosexist patriarchy than bi women. If a bi woman is not accepted in the lesbian community, she still has much in common with women as victims of sexual oppression. For men, however, if they are not accepted among gay men, their relationship to patriarchy is more ambiguous. As men, they are part of the ruling majority, but as bisexuals, they are separate from this majority as well.

It is easy to understand why some bi men who have found homes in or near the feminist community, and that some bi men may even label themselves feminist. But is it really possible for men, even men of a sexual minority, to be feminist? Can feminism be defined broadly enough to include those beyond the female gender without stifling the voice of women themselves? Do bi men, or even queer men in general, share enough with women of any sexual identity to be included in the feminist milieu?

These questions and more, in the next post.

The View from the Fence: Bisexuals, Ominsexuals, Pansexuals on the Range

Defining bisexuality is not a simple endeavor. It involves more than sex, and in many cases, more than two genders. Many who do not fit within the monosexual mold of either straight or gay choose not to identify as bisexual. Those for whom the primary identifying factor is not sex have sometimes used the term bisensual, broadening the terminology to include emotional and romantic attraction. But this is not enough for those who relate emotionally, romantically and sexually to those of genders other than male and female--which is itself a patriarchally enforced dichotomy, and therefore not inclusive of all human experience. Some who fall into this second, beyond bi, category have taken monikers for themselves such as pansexual or omnisexual, pan- and omni- meaning all. And still others --bi, pan and omni sexual alike--choose the broadest identity, queer, which simply implies beyond the monosexual norm. Queer can mean gay and lesbian, bi, pan, and omni sexual. It can also include SM, transgender, gender queer, questioning, polyamorous, autosexual, and asexual.

The ambiguity of bisexual, bisensual, pansexual, omnisexual and queer leaves unresolved the lack of an identity that encompasses the full specturm of experiences among bisexuals, pansexuals and omnisexuals. I have read in some places, and discussed face to face in others, of the possibility of bi, pan and omni existing as a more or less unified identity. When I realized I was bisexual, the realization with the deepest impact was the possibility that I could be attracted to men in addition to women. My sexuality went beyond monosexual straightness, and in that I felt that I understood, in a still limited way yet more deeply than before, the identity of a close friend I'll call Z who, while she could be called omnisexual or pansexual, identifies as queer. We share the experiences of lives beyond monosexual norms. I have not felt attraction towards those beyond male or female as Z has, but I do not rule out the possibility. What matters most is the personality of the individual in question, not their gender. For this reason, I have considered identifying as queer--but then the ambiguity gets confusing. Further, queer and bi both don't mean very much. They're mostly labels, implying, in my mind very little action, or at least unclear action. Bisexual makes me feel like I'm just a sexual being, which is not the case. Bi, without the sexual, feels better, but it still implies the gender dichotomy established and enforced by monosexist patriarchy. Queer at least feels radical and world-changing--but in what way, precisely? The word inspires me only so far--to go beyond straight. But now that I'm there, what it my task? I find myself sitting on the fence.

Bisexuals have long been accused of fence sitting, unable to decide which "side" to belong to--either straight or gay. Fence sitting has gained a place of dishonor as a slur thrown around by monosexists. Perhaps straight and gay people believe that they can coerce us to jump down from the fence, but the truth of the matter is,

1. we can choose no other place, for the liminal space between the two ends of the spectrum is the only place we can truly claim--anything else would be dishonest and ultimately destructive; and


2. in reality, the fence was not built by us (bi, pan and omnisexuals), but by monosexuals, to do what fences do: contain all people like livestock, free to move only to a certain point. To cross the fence is to enter the turf of the fence-builder's competitor.

The only option we have is to dismantle the fence we sit atop, working toward the opening of the range. The range is the unfenced world. It is the space between limits. It is Kinsey's scale where 0=straight and 6=gay, with everything else in between is bisexual. The range will ultimately be open for all, with no restriction of travel or interaction based on gender. Bisexual, omnisexual and pansexual all will dwell in the range together, wandering in freedom and safety, the very same freedom and safety that we desire for gay and straight, which many of us once were or thought we were, but now are free to step into the unseen land that once was forbidden. We are fence sitters, tearing down the barriers. We are rangers, and we will forever walk the length and breadth of what is possible.