From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bi-wariness
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:05:27 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

[This is a response to two articles at once, one by Roy and one by James.
Summary: I think they are both right, and both wrong, in different ways]

seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
>rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>>seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
>>->Deconstruct that idea.  Like someone else has said.  ask them why.
>>->Show them the inherent oppresive nature of what they are doing
>>->compare it to the way that lesbians and gays are treated in society.
>>->If they believe in equality and reempowerment then they will
>>->surely reevaluate their stance.  This has always worked when I have
>>->found any GL bigots.  
>>
>>Hmm ... I think I missed the point here.
>>How is refusing to date someone because of their orientation inherently
>>oppressive? How is it oppressive on the same level that lesbians and gays
>>are being discriminated against?  

It is oppressive because it is discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. That's the point: it's the same thing. It's "on the same
level" in terms of discrimination (though not in terms of consequences, in
cases where people lose their jobs or are physically abused because of their
orientation - but intent and consequences are not comparable).

>For me it invalidates my orientation/preference.  It doesn't give me
>respect because I am attracted to both sexes.  I am told through such
>an action that I am unimportant and not legitamate.  I think that GL
>people are invalidated by heterosexism.  I think that bi people are 
>invalidated by biphobia and lesgay centrism.  

Hmm, I don't quite go with that word "invalidated". [It sounds too much like
a secret-service speak euphemism for death... I can't help being reminded of
the scene in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" where Tuttle is recorded by various
different departments as "deleted", "rescinded", "revoked" and so on. Sorry,
I don't normally digress like this... it must be due to this bottle of wine
I was given for christmas and listening to Jon Anderson belt out "You know
we've got the power..."]

Anyway. My problem with anyone (lesbian, gay or straight) refusing to consider
a relationship with a bisexual purely for that reason, is not because it's
"invalidating", but because it's discrimination. I agree that discrimination
is a form of oppression, and that lack of respect can make one very
uncomfortable. This discrimination is probably mainly due to ignorance, a
point which Roy mentions later.

>>It's an issue of rights and privileges, IMHO.  
>>
>>You have a right to seek employment.
>>You have a right to look for a place to live.
>>
>>IMHO, it is unjust and oppressive for someone to deny you these on the basis
>>of your orientation.  Equal protection and so on.

This is another digression, but a serious one: I disagree that it is your
right to seek employment etc. Employment, and in most cases finding
somewhere to live, involve interaction with society, and it is society's
collective *responsibility* to find everyone a place to live and ideally a
job. [The politically aware will have worked out my political orientation
by this point.]  Roy invokes "equality" - but equality is not a right, it is
something accorded by society. I agree that it is unjust and oppressive to
deny someone a home and job on the basis of orientation because everyone should
be equal - but because I believe members of a society should be equal, not
because they have individual rights. In a sense, this is a way of looking at
the same thing in a different way (individual rights or collective
responsibility). But, philosophically, it's an important difference.

>>It is _not_ your right to date whoever you wish to date (in other words, A
>>does not have a right to date B until B consents ; A does not have a right
>>for B's consent).  

No, but I believe B has a *responsibility* to evaluate A on his/her merits
in a case like this where discrimination may damage him/her.

>>Lesbians have no obligation, no duty to date you.

Agreed.

>>  They can use whatever
>>criteria they want to reject you, and to the lesbians you talked with, being
>>bisexual is something they definitely don't wish for in a person.  This is
>>their right.

This is where the argument of people having "rights" is reductio ad absurdum.
The right not to date bisexuals... the right not to date pratts... the right
not to go to bed at 10pm at the weekend. If you tried to list these rights the
list is infinite. In my view, a "right not to" is the absence of a
responsibility.

>>  It is hardly oppressive to not date someone because of _any_
>>reason.  You being bi is just as valid or invalid a criteria for not dating
>>you as my being a computer science person is.  

I don't think that's a fair comparison, because I think not wanting to date
someone who is bi is only a valid criterion if based on personal grounds. If
it is done on the basis of lesbian/feminist politics, it's oppression. Whereas
I don't know of any political objection to computer scientists (phew!:-)

>I see your point.  But if the situation arose, and the response was
>"I refuse to date you because you are African-American."  Is that not
>invalidating and marginalizing.  Sure they have a right to that view.
>I wouldn't want to start quotas in dating decisions:).  but I think
>that it continues to perpetuate a rascist system.  In this case
>a biphobic-gayles centric position.  I may be reading too much into
>the situation at hand.  Maybe they didn't want to date a bi because
>they have had bad experiences in the past.  I read it that they have some
>philosophical objection to bisexuals and thus are invalidating it.

I agree... philosophical (well, political) objections to bisexual amount to
oppression, personal reasons are valid. (Which is what I was trying to say
above).

>>Yeah, you might want to 'educate' them ... I suspect they're missing out on
>>a lot, because quite a few of the bifems I know are wonderful people.  But
>>certainly it is not their obligation/duty to listen, or to even care.
>I sort of think that if they believe in equality on the basis of sexual orien-
>tation they do have a duty to consistency to listen and care.

I'm not sure. Education is always a good thing. Whether people have an
obligation to accept education is something I'm not so sure about. Certainly
I wish everybody wanted to be educated :-)

>Hugs and thanks for the opportunity to elaborate and wax.
>I am taking a course called "Politics of sexual identity"

Sounds fascinating. I have plans to read up on the subject myself... but I
mustn't let myself just yet because of the P** Th****. I will content myself
with the disclaimer that the political philosophy above is the product of a
total amateur.

["Soon, oh soon" sings Jon Anderson and I disappear off into the night]


/jon (looking forward to being better educated himself)

   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_    And they covered up the sun        //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /   until the birds had flown away...  // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/___________________________________///////////  //