Background: Please see the following link for the story about Newark, Delaware City Councilman Ezra Temko’s courageous decision to come out as a bisexual, and to fight for LGBTQ rights, [USA]: Delaware City Councilman Ezra Temko Comes Out as Bi
However, as noted in the Bialogue post, instead of drawing praise for fighting for LGBTQ rights, Mr. Temko has been attacked for being bisexual, sadly from within the LGBTQ community.
This has happened before. For example in 2007 when Micah Kellner, also an out bisexual won a NY State Assembly Seat with the active support of the Victory Fund, read thru the comments that were made to this post in a highly regarded LGBT Blog: JoeMyGod: Bisexual Wins Seat In NY State Assembly.
When during a discussion on Local Bi Group Leaders about Ezra Temko and the biphobic reaction his coming out was drawing from a portion of the greater LGBTQ Community, I made this somewhat jocular post about the naïve comments:
“I loved the comment ‘It’s funny (well, sad actually) to see all these ‘gay men’ on here who admit they are attracted to women but won’t accept that bisexual men actually exist. Quit worrying about all the biphobes and come out of the closet!’
Jung talks about the shadow, how we hate the most in others what we can’t stand in ourselves. The comments say over and over ‘just sleeping with women doesn’t make you bi.’
Well, if having sex with both men and women doesn’t make you bi, what on earth does!?!?!?
Sounds like the classic definition of bisexuality to me .”
Thomas Leavitt responded with this very thought-provoking essay, cross-posted here with his permission:
Well, this is a yes and no issue . . . there are plenty of people who legitimately self-identify as gay, lesbian or straight, who have had (even continue to have) same-sex sexual encounters. It’s no one’s business to tell someone how to identify.
On the other hand, there’s a legitimate point to be argued that there are a lot of people out there who seem to be deliberately avoiding the bisexual label, very specifically within the queer community, and not for reasons related to the gender-binary paradigm. That’s a separate and distinct issue from the much larger (at least that’s my sense) group of folks in the “straight” community who are totally in the closet about their same-sex attractions.
We need to be able to respect where people are at, while working to remove lingering stigmas associated with bisexuality, and making the case without personalizing it that there seem to be an awful lot of folks who’ve been in relationships whose membership lands all over on the map, gender wise (it’s not just a binary, not just a two-dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional array).
We need to create safe spaces for people to come out as “bisexual”, and we especially need to create safe and supportive structures for people to “come out” a second time as “bisexual”, who’ve previously identified as “gay” or “lesbian”, because that often involves a duplication and reliving of the original traumas and loss of social context and support networks that folks went through the first time around.
We also need to acknowledge that some people (and I don’t think we really know how many) come out as “bisexual”, on the way to a “gay” or “lesbian” identity, and that this is fine, but isn’t representative of the experience of the majority of people who identify as bisexual, and have for many years.
I’m not sure how to phrase this to avoid potentially inducing a defensive reaction among allies . . . but, fundamentally, I don’t see that the mainline GL(BT) organizations, or even the reasonably clueful ones (like NGLTF) are ever going to be comfortable arguing that there are people in the GL community who are really bisexual, but in the closet about it, and need support to “come out”. . . . and what we really want, anyway, is an organization whose institutional mission is to support the coming out process of both “queer-identified” and “straight-identified” bisexuals.
I can’t see a GL(BT) organization really stretching itself to reach out to str8 identified folks and asking them to come out as bisexual or be supportive of them having a straight identity while exercising same-sex attractions, and seeing their mission as serving these folks as well.
If the leadership of these organizations doesn’t identify as bisexual, can they really understand what’s needed? Can we take folks whose entire identity is built on the group dynamic of exclusion, and expect them to fuzz up those very boundaries?
At an abstract level, you’d think that substantially expanding the queer community’s boundaries would be beneficial to the entire GLBT community, and the organizations supported by it, but that’s a real leap in a certain way.
I can’t help but think that a large portion of the GL community would react violently negatively to the idea that there are even a significant minority of closeted bisexuals in their ranks, would see it as an attack on their integrity and authenticity and an attempt to argue that their identity is invalid, etc.
We don’t face that issue with str8 identified bisexuals, just a whole host of other issues that fall under the general rubric of homophobia, and then maybe a smaller set of issues around figuring out where the sexual acts and sexual identities merge and don’t merge and how to deal with inherently high levels of fuzziness of identity.
I don’t know . . . somehow, we have to get to the point where the level of sensitivity around sexual identity isn’t so high, so that it is totally OK to simply be bisexual, or for someone to point out that, hey, maybe you’re not straight or not gay, you’re bi, without it being such a loaded thing . . .
See, ultimately, I think this is the central, defining rationale for bi-specific organizations.
I think GL(BT) organizations, no matter how hard they try, are just never going to be able to let go of the “us”/“them”, black and white, straight and gay binary paradigms. I think there’s a lot of research around group dynamics that supports such an expectation . . . . and, unfortunately, that’s one of the core issues we face as well: we have a mandate for inclusion and diversity, but the central, defining act of group creation is drawing boundaries and excluding folks.