From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: Bisexual idenity and community (was Re: A hug request and ...)
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:38:04 GMT

In article <C0rprC.Kou@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:

>Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

>>I think bisexual identity is important to community building. At the same
>>time, I see the long term goal of a sexual liberation movement as trying
>>to make sexual identities built around sexual orientation obsolete except
>>as purely discriptive terms. Bisexuals need to organize as a group, 
>>but ultimately the most revolutionary act will be to change the idea 
>>of "normal" to encompass us all; not to build higher walls around a 
>>queer or bi ghetto.

>Yes, but though I broadly agree, "normal" becoming all-encompassing will
>not obsolete the urge to form sub-groups, and because of this I doubt
>sexual orientation will be no more than a matter of clinical description.
>And while I agree that we should not seek to make a ghetto of the bi
>*community*, indeed the opposite, that does not negate the value of the
>*personal* bisexual identity.

Instead of changing the idea of "normal" to encompass us all (the word
would lose any meaning, maybe no great loss), how about encouraging
everyone to think of themselves as "queer" in some way?  The fallacy
in both of these is the idea that "normal" or "queer" are value-
judgements.  The terminology or concept doesn't need changing -- but
the feeling does.

I also see a false dichotomy -- "being normal" vs.  "building ghetto
walls higher".  Why is there a forced choice?  I might never be
normal, by everyone's definition.  Does that mean I have to have
higher walls?

I'd like to see some distinctions drawn:

	community
	network
	movement

To me, movements require networks, separate communities are usually
connected by various networks, and communities might or might not be
a part of movements.  But above all, a true community is people
living together.  It's easy to speak of scattered friends as a
"community", but I don't think this is accurate.  A community is
a group of people who are living in close proximity over fairly
long periods of time, withstanding the challenges that neighborhoods
and cohabitation create, and thriving on the advantages of these as
well.  Almost everybody wants this, on some level, but it's hard to
just create it.  It's a lot of work.  It's not always much fun.

Networks and movements can arise without the benefits of community,
but are in perpetual danger without them.  Communities are in
perpetual danger when people don't identify with them enough.
"This is my sexuality, and these other people don't deny it"
doesn't seem like a basis for much more than a network, and
then, for only as long as you feel threatened by others who DO
deny your sexuality.  It might give you safe people to be with,
sometimes, but it doesn't tell you much about how to allocate
precious time and energy in your life, over the long term.

One can argue over the precise meanings of these words in context,
but I think making *some* distinctions might be useful.  Some of
the most alienating social experiences I've been through have
been done in the name of "community", by people who hadn't lived
in one for very long.  It's well worth doing right, and worse than
worthless when done wrong.
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com

Newsgroups: soc.bi