From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:30:47 GMT

In article <Bx8oFL.9Iu@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
>>Elf didn't say that he didn't like androgyny per se (which is his choice
>>in any case), he said he didn't like androgyny as some kind of "correct"
>>face of bisexuality (if I may interpret, slightly).
>
>That wasn't my interpretation. He wasn't attacking "correctness" in general,
>he was attacking a specific group.

Better read it again, then.  MY interpretation is that he was dealing with
a particularly stuffy, mannered sort with which I've become wearily familiar.

>>And what's this "oppression" you're talking about?
>
>When someone comes into bi-space and attacks part of the bisexual community
>(ie new age bisexuals), attacking and seeking to ridicule their beliefs, to
>me that is oppression. I want the bisexual community to be all-inclusive.

Except when you'd rather exclude people who would rather exclude someone
else.  Which would probably turn out to be all of us, if you looked at
it honestly.  (More about this supposed "bisexual community", below.)

>Elf's view seems to be that we should not welcome all bisexuals, only the
>ones he approves of. If I was an androgynous new age bi, I would feel
>oppressed by this.

Insulted, I can understand.  But "oppressed"?  You mean, in the sense that,
"Gosh, this muggy weather is awfully oppressive?"  To me, "oppression"
is something that you fight because it could lead to loss of life, limb
or liberty on your own part.  In Elf's case, the unfortunate consequence
of his supposed "oppression" of New Age androgynous bisexuals is that they
won't have the pleasure of his company.  I'm sure that depresses the hell
out of them.  And him.  But he "oppresses" them?  Gimme a break.

>>  He's just giving his
>>damn opinion.  Is that oppression?
>
>His damn opinion is divisive and negative towards others, so yes.

Wow!  So if you say anything that's divisive and negative about others,
you're oppressing them.  Gosh, so since I don't want to oppress anybody,
I better not say anything at all, since they might find my opinions
negative and divisive.  Nor should anyone else.  Got it.  Thanks.

Personally, I don't think there is a "bisexual community".  There are
bisexual people, there are communities, some of those communities are
accepting of some bisexual people, many of them are not, and there are
some communitIES forming of people who are bisexual or generally
supportive of that persuasion.  But when someone somewhere starts
pretending that they can speak for a whole supposed "community" of
bisexuals when they have never seen, met, or talked to most of the
hundreds of millions of people who fit some definition of "bisexual", I
can't help but be reminded of governments (most of which are thankfully
gone now) who had excellent justifications for infringing on freedom of
expression on behalf of some supposed entity called "The People."

Gary Snyder put it best when he divided the people involved in any 
endeavor into the categories of "community" and "network".  I don't
think of soc.bi as part of some monolithic "community", much less as
"bi-space" (whatever the fuck that is) but rather for what it obviously
is: a network.

To quote one bi friend of mine, who was loudly arguing with another
bi friend of mine: "I wouldn't want to live in your utopia."
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com