Bi-Sexuality 101

I attended a "Bi-Sexuality 101" panel discussion last night that was oodles of interesting for me. Apparently January is Bi-Sexuality Awareness Month AND, to boot, apparently Bi Utah are the chumps who came up with it - meaning that Utah is the first state in the nation to have a Bi-Sexuality Awareness Month.

That's pretty dern' spiffy if I do say so myself.

A significant portion of the panel addressed a list of Bi-Sexuality Myths, like the myth that all bi-sexuals are promiscuous, or that if a bi-sexual is with a male they will inevitably leave them for a female at some point or have to be with both at the same time and yada yada, so on and so forth.

Various panel members shared their experiences with discrimination, with feeling "invisible", being misunderstood by people within and outside of the LGBQT community, with feeling disconnected from a sense of community or unwelcome altogether, etc.

I was most interested, of course, in the whole gender component. Being a tranny n' all, I just can't help myself! I ended up floating around quite a bit in my own noggin pondering over how gender relates to sexual orientation and how both relate to my perspectives on the world as a whole.

As I've rambled on about in previous posts, since I believe that there are almost as many genders as there are people in the world and I'm technically a gender AND sex separate from "cisgender male" or "cisgender woman", I think that the way all sexual orientations are traditionally defined in a gender-specific fashion doesn't, well... always work. And will work less and less over time.

I mean, with my own gender I am not a woman but the body I possess has many female-bodied aspects to it. Am I a man? In my own view, yes. A dashing, smooth mofo trans man!

But I don't assume that I can share all experiences that women experience, or men. And the same goes for traditionally gendered people. Like how I'm highly doubting that Pamela Anderson's gender is exactly the same as Rosie O' Donnell's; or Jason Alexander, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or RuPaul (all "men"). Stupid analogies in an attempt to illustrate a point. Trying. It hurts. Or hey! Not to mention that there are a whole slew of women who are more "masculine" than I am (in traditional terms), but there are a slew of men who are more "feminine", and relate to their bodies in a vast variety of ways, biologically, intrinsically, socially, etc.




As Julie Waters phrased it back in an article she wrote in 1992 called 'On Gender and Sexual Orientation',

So what am I? To classify me as "in-between" indicates that my gender is relevant only in terms that relate to more traditionally gendered people. I am not gendered in the same manner as anyone I know and I have to say that it has been my experience that this disturbs a great many people. The same way that people who are not heterosexual are seen and perceived as a threat by many people who are, those of us who are not gendered in a traditional mold may represent some great danger to those of us who are.

... What about people who have shown sexual interest specifically in me? If a lesbian is interested in a woman who has a penis is she still a lesbian? If a gay male is interested in a woman who wants to exchange her penis for a vagina is he still a gay male? Are we interested in the person behind the sex organs or are the sex organs our primary motivating force in determining to whom we are attracted? Do I, to be at a particular point on the Kinsey scale, have to demonstrate my interest in people in terms of how their appearance, actions and attitudes relate to their perceived gender? Their biological gender? Is sexual orientation constructed in a manner which even allows for such perspectives as my own?

So where is the room for she-males, hermaphrodites, drag queens, non-op transsexuals, transgenderists, crossdressers and all other forms of gender-benders, blenders and breakers in our "spectrum" of sexual orientation? Am I bisexual because I am interested both in men and women or am I bisexual because I am interested in the person behind the gender? Or is it some combination of the two? Does gender play a role but not one to the point where I would not be attracted to someone based specifically on their gender?

And that was in 1992! Talk about a progressive, super hot tranny babe! I love it! So here I come, bumbling along in 2009, almost 20 years later harping on down a similar path.

Bear with me while I think "out loud" with an idea here. It will be inarticulate. It will be ugly. It will be confusing. But you have been warned. Into the rocket ship I go.

Blast off!

SO, first off, why is sexual orientation defined ONLY by gender in the first place, for the most part, even though all of us, traditionally gendered or not, are much more than that? I mean, let's say that I tell you I'm "attracted to women". Okay, fine. But is that actually my criteria? So then someone approaches me, and my criteria is "woman", and therefore, "Ooo, you're a woman. Criteria met! Let's date!"

Nope, uh, doesn't quite go that way. That's silly. Not for me, anyway. Actually, it seems more accurate to say that gender is a "component" of my overall, complex sexual orientation via a consistent pattern. That my own, particular sexual orientation is a combination of various "components", all equally important.

For example, I'd say that this may be more accurate: femininity would be a component. Mannerisms, also. Certain aesthetic characteristics. Beliefs, big time. Voice, even. Interests.

Why aren't those all just as legitimate as an individual's sex? Or gender?

So instead of, "You are woman.", check! Done deal! Let's be together forever! Instead it's, "Let's get to know one another, because YES, your gender expression does seem to play a PART, but there's much more to it than that."

Is it possible that there are people who have sexual orientations where gender isn't even a component of their particular sexual orientation? Why wouldn't it be? Or maybe gender is, but it isn't sex-dependent, or exclusive of any particular gender identity.

I'm not surprised that the infamous Kinsey Scale determined that the overwhelming majority of the thousands of people who participated in the study were technically "bi-sexual". I wonder what that really, genuinely means about the variation that exists in our pluralistic wonderland.

It was later asked why those on the panel who were careful not to say "both genders" and instead "all genders" identified as "bi", which implies there are only two genders, even though they may actually, technically be pansexual. Some responded that it was for political reasons, because "bi-sexual" has been an abused, misunderstood term for quite some time and it's much more prevalent in the world of language than "pansexual", which would just be confusing and foreign to most.

Or, for others, they explained additionally that "bi-sexual" can be an all-encompassing term, one that DOES include all expressions of gender.

Makes sense. I dig.

I will now crash land the rocket ship and stop my convoluted ranting and raving.

Wait! No! I lied! I know, for now, that I'm MUCH more comfortable with saying "queer" in terms of sexual orientation because it isn't gender-dependent, like saying "straight" (reflecting gender on both sides - I am a man attracted to woman, or vice versa). It's just, really uncomfortable and weird for me to go from being seen as a flaming homo to "straight" just because my appearance is changing. My sexual orientation hasn't changed OR my gender identity (trans guy, genderqueer), I'm just hairier and stinkier.

Okay, now the rocket ship has actually landed.