💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › michael-william-review-bisexuality.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:54:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Review: Bisexuality
Author: Michael William
Date: 1993
Language: en
Topics: AJODA, AJODA #36, relationships, review, sexuality, bisexual
Source: Retrieved on August 26, 2009 from http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/ajoda/36/sp001384.txt
Notes: Originally from “Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed” #37 — Summer ’93.

Michael William

Review: Bisexuality

“There seems to be some sort of war going on that I’m not invited to,

but everyone wants me to take a side.”

— Alyx J. Shaw

We first appeared in print primarily in specialized medical and

psychiatric texts. Then, during the seventies, a brief, media-generated

“bisexual chic” phase took place. Elton John and David Bowie were in the

spotlight; gender bending was in.

But as Gary North notes, in the nineties “bisexuality is not chic — not

in this age of AIDS.” A perception that the disease is spreading to the

het population from us is most people’s single impression of bis.

Invisible, except as propagators of a fatal disease — a more sinister

reputation is hard to imagine.

Invisible to others, “We are just becoming visible to ourselves,” in one

bi’s phrase, and in the last few years several anthologies edited by bis

have been changing the ways we see each other and the ways others see us

— Bisexuality: A Reader and Source-book; Bi Any Other Name; Closer To

Home. I devoured these books, like many other bis no doubt.

Appropriately, many of these pieces are personal histories and coming

out stories. Some are the double coming out stories of people who came

out initially as gays or lesbians and subsequently as bisexuals. There

are also longer, theoretical pieces, which are found mainly in Closer To

Home. Personal experiences are interwoven in some of these texts as

well.

Most bi activists and writers are women, and the new bi milieu/movement

on the whole is specifically queer and specifically feminist. Outlooks

in the bi women’s milieu can be outlined and contrasted much more

readily, in effect, than in the comparatively intangible and less

theoretically developed men’s milieu.

Many bi texts discuss the often-tense relationship between bisexuals and

the lesbian and gay milieux. In the ferment of the beginnings of the Gay

Liberation Movement in the sixties, bis participated and apparently were

generally welcomed. Theorists such as Paul Goodman and Allen Ginsberg

actively promoted bisexuality; Gore Vidal, anarchist sexologist Alex

Comfort and others proposed that all people are bisexual. From a point

in the seventies on, however, being bi became decidedly uncool. Carol

Queen “got more grief from my lesbian family for coming out as bi than

from my heterosexual one when I came out as a dyke....” Anne Schneider

comments: “...no bi woman I know has escaped the pain of being

ostracized by some elements of the lesbian community.” Surveying 400

participants at a woman’s event, Paula Rust found that, as well, fully

one out of three lesbian identified women questioned believed that

bisexuality does not exist, giving responses like the following:

I think either you’re a lesbian or you’re straight.

I was born [homosexual]; some are born heterosexual. I find it hard to

believe that people can be bisexual.

It does not exist.Some were prepared to accept the existence of

bisexuality, but only as a transitional stage:

I feel people who think they are bisexual are confused about it or in

transition.

My experience of women who define themselves as bisexual suggests that

bisexual women are either (a) really ‘lesbian’ but using the bisexual

label to preserve their heterosexual privilege in society, or (b) on

their way to becoming lesbian and using the bisexual label as a ‘safe’

transition stage, or (c) experimenting with lesbianism but not in a

serious way.Some did not hesitate to classify bisexuality as a mental

illness:

Bisexual is still heterosexual unless it is pathological.

It is hardly surprising in this kind of climate that some gays and

lesbians are banking on science for the ultimate proof of the

non-existence of bisexuals. “There ain’t no such animal, as I’m

confident will be finally proven by the study of genetics,” according to

an anonymous letter-writer in response to an article on bisexuality by

Michael Szymanski in Genre.

Brenda Blasingame outlines accusations she encountered, and which have

frequently been directed at other bis: “...that I am sitting on the

fence, that I am experimenting, that I am not really gay but straight,

that it is wrong for me to want to be with a man, or that it is just a

phase.” Rebecca Schuster lists other common perceptions and accusations:

“profiteers of heterosexual privilege, indecisive, untrustworthy,

exotic, incapable of committed relationships, promiscuous, and

responsible for the spread of AIDS. [Bisexuals are] accused of harboring

loyalty to the enemy, or worse, of being traitors.” Bisexuality, in

Paula Rust’s description, becomes a “badge of political cowardice, and

social pressure is brought upon those who identify as bisexuals to ‘make

up their minds’.”

Eridani controversially contends that anti-bi sentiment in the gay and

lesbian milieux is an “almost exclusively female phenomenon.”

“In 1990, the organizers for the annual gay pride celebrations in

Northampton, Massachusetts, added the word ‘bisexual’ to the event

title. A group of lesbians packed subsequent meetings and voted to

remove it. A similar fight against adding ‘bisexual’ to the New England

Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychologists was led by women. In San

Francisco, when the Bay Times added ‘bisexual’ to its masthead, all the

letters objecting to the new title were from women. Why is it that

women, and not men, think that the gay community is being contaminated

by the presence of bisexuals?”

In Carol Queen’s opinion, gay men “seem more likely to cite personal

antipathy or simple stereotypes about bisexuals as a source of their

chagrin,” whereas the reaction of lesbians has been more a question of

an ideological rejection, an outlook echoed by Eridani. However, there

is clearly considerable hostility to bis in the gay men’s milieu, as

accounts in Bi Any Other Name and elsewhere make clear. And in an

article in the June ’92 “Queer Issue” of the Village Voice, former

OutWeek editor Gabriel Rotello demonstrates that he’s no slouch when it

comes to laying the theoretical basis of a new, more sophisticated

anti-bi agenda which distances itself from the more outrageous bi myths

while erecting even more watertight barriers between bis and the gay and

lesbian milieux.

Biphobia

Bis have offered a variety of theories to explain biphobia. For Brenda

Blasingame, “Biphobia emerges from the belief in the dichotomy of gay

and straight, with no in-between. Therefore bisexuals are not seen as

part of the gay community but apart from the community.” Gabriel

Rotello’s alarmed comment that bis challenge “the most cherished

assumption of the lesbian and gay movement: that it’s by and for

homosexuals” is an illustration. Amanda Udis-Kessler sees biphobia as

part of a deeper identity crisis:

”Lesbians and gay men have been able to define themselves as other than

heterosexual; bisexuals challenge that definition regardless of our

intention to do so. Behind the painful lesbian and gay biphobia which we

have experienced is a poignant cry for self; ‘you don’t exist’ means ‘I

do exist.’ And, too, the rejection as a group (‘go form your own

communities; you’re not welcome in ours’) is a way for lesbians and gay

men to claim a group identity, to say ’we exist, not just as individuals

but as a community’.”

Eridani, on the other hand, links her contention that biphobia is more

widespread in the lesbian milieu to what she believes are fundamental

differences between men and women. Basing her analysis on Kinsey studies

and other observations she inverts the usual identity-as-an-affirmation

stance, positing that “women, compared to men, tend not to have sexual

orientations.” Therefore, she continues, “most women have some degree of

choice about their sexual orientation and most men don’t.” This thesis,

for Eridani, helps to explain the ‘political lesbian’ phenomenon of the

seventies, as exemplified by the statement “feminism is the theory;

lesbianism is the practice,” a quote cited and reacted to many times in

these books. “Many of the women who preferred the solidarity and support

of the new women’s communities,” Eridani continues, “did not have sexual

orientations. A few even had heterosexual orientations, which they

suppressed. A clear difference in the prevalence of sexual orientations

is apparent here. Who ever heard of a heterosexual male who decided to

become gay on the grounds that he didn’t like being around women most of

the time? Men like this become batterers and rapists instead.” According

to Eridani, “It is mainly lesbians without sexual orientations who are

hostile to bisexuals as well. The old standard ‘any woman can be a

lesbian’ is true for the large number of women who don’t have sexual

orientations. Therefore becoming a feminist implies to some women that,

on ethical grounds, women should choose to have a relationship only with

women [...] I don’t see how this attitude differs from that of Phyllis

Schlafly, who thinks that I should choose a heterosexual relationship in

order to be a good Christian reactionary.” According to Eridani, “The

phenomenon of ‘hasbians’ in the eighties, i.e. women who first became

aware of their sexuality in the lesbian-feminist matrix and later took

up with men, indicates again that there are a lot of lesbian feminists

who really don’t have sexual orientations.” Eridani’s provocative

formulations are not without their internal coherence, but ultimately

leave me wary. When a couple of people who had read the article

mentioned it among some local bis, those present did not seem to have

definitive verdicts. Perhaps readers would like to comment?

Gender and Identity

Central to many of these texts are questions of identity, a concept

which “bisexuals have alternately clung to and shrunk from,” in Kathleen

Bennett’s words. Many bis locate themselves on a continuum between

straight and gay. A point which, for some, is not fixed: during a

lifetime one’s same or other sex attraction can increase (having gone

from het to bi in middle age, this has been the case with me). This

fluidity is itself seen as threatening by ‘essentialist’ outlooks which

are common in the gay and lesbian milieux, theories which posit identity

as an innate, unchanging essence from which many of us are said to be

alienated; to become whole, we must rediscover our lost essence, our

true identity. Concerning sexual orientation this easily leads to

dismissing 10 years of pleasurable het sex as a state of false

consciousness.

Some bis say that they are not part straight and part gay but “all bi.”

Others refer to distinct straight or gay sides of themselves, or like

Victoria Woodward, to “my lesbian self” and “my heterosexual self.” For

Rebecca Schuster, on the other hand, bis are “100 percent lesbian or gay

and 100 percent hetero-sexual...we are simultaneous full members of both

groups.” In Dvora Zipkin’s experience, however, “many bisexual women

share a general sense of not belonging to either the lesbian or

heterosexual world.”

Personally I feel apart from and a part of both the straight and gay

milieux.

Also coloring questions of identity are divergences between bis for whom

a dichotomy of genders doesn’t seem to exist, or is secondary, and those

who see differences between the sexes as fundamental. For Karin Baker,

“Women and men are actually more alike than different, and most of our

differences are social creations.” For Alyx Shaw, in an article in

Angles, “Love is not a gender-oriented experience.” In a letter to Gay

Ottawa Info, Cathy Moreau says, “After all, I not only fall in love (and

lust) with a person’s body, but, more importantly, with his or her

beliefs, attitudes and behavior. In short, the person as a whole. And

what is a body, anyways? Just a carrier for the brain and/or soul.”

Anne Fox, on the other hand, describes her relations to men and women as

“simply (and complexly) different.” For Karen Klassen, “there are parts

of myself, ways of being which I just don’t experience with men.” Diane

Anderson states, “I don’t think a man can match the depth and intimacy

that you can find with a woman.” And in Susie Bright’s opinion,

“Intellectually, we always favor those of our own sex, even if they’re

not our sexual partners. Bisexuals are the same as everyone else in this

regard.”

Transsexuals add another dimension to questions of gender and identity.

For John, a pre-operative bi interviewed for an article published in

Tapestry and On Our Backs, “It’s my genitals that are dishonest. The

truth is that I am a man.”

For Karin Baker, because “bisexuality blurs the supposed duality of

sexuality” it “has the potential to go beyond gender.” If homosexuality

explodes the complementarity of “opposite sexes,” bisexuality further

challenges institutionalized gender polarization itself — opening the

door to a more androgynous mix which could even abolish the male/female

split as we know it. But the example of John and others cited above

indicate that, even when considerably bent, gender categories easily

spring back to resemble familiar male/female forms. Baker acknowledges,

undermining the “beyond gender” thesis, that some bis “are attracted to

women for the qualities culturally associated with this gender and to

men for qualities identified as masculine.” Clearly, bisexuality does

not automatically challenge gender roles. Rebecca Kaplan’s warning: “If

we wish to deny that women are ‘innately weak’, we cannot also say that

women are ‘innately peaceful’” highlights problematic essentialist

assumptions which are also present in some bi discourses.

The meaning of the often politically charged word lesbian and how bis

relate to the question of lesbian identity has also been complex. “Is

being a lesbian about being attracted to and falling in love with women,

or about not being attracted to and falling in love with, or at least

getting involved with, men?” asks Elizabeth Rebe Weise. For some,

becoming bi signifies leaving behind the label lesbian. “I fell in love

with a man,” says Lani Kaahumanu, “and that did not make sense to me as

a lesbian.” Stacey Young calls herself a “feminist and formerly-lesbian

bisexual woman.” However others retain a lesbian identity, using the

term “lesbian bisexual,” for example.

Though sleeping with men, others reject a bisexual identity, raising the

recurring question of a disparity between identity and behavior. Holly

Near, for example, says she “doesn’t feel like a bisexual,” and that her

lesbianism is “linked to [a] political perspective” rather than “sexual

preference” — causing Beth Elliot to ruefully remark, “unlike,

presumably, her bisexuality.” These identity clashes are typically set

out in the contrast between Sheela Lambert’s statement: “I feel that

everyone should have the right to define their own identity” and

Elizabeth Rebe Weise’s approach: “You’ve got Rita Mae Brown, Jan

Clausen, Jill Johnson, Holly Near, June Jordan, pillars of the lesbian

community, who all turned out to be bisexual, however they choose to

define themselves.” For Voice writer Gabriel Rotello, this kind of

attitude represents an “Invasion of the Orientation Snatchers” which

will “decimate the ranks of gay history.”

Bis and other Sexual Minorities

In a seventies-eighties lesbian feminist climate in which “the personal

is political” was often interpreted in the most literal way — no

“sleeping with the enemy” — bisexuality inevitably challenged

orthodoxies which proposed that, in Stacey Young’s description, “desire

can and should be subordinated to a narrowly-defined, politically

correct version of sex.” “But desire will out,” as Elizabeth Rebe Weise

puts it in her introduction to Closer To Home: “We chose to acknowledge

our desires and then find a way to live with them as feminists and as

thoughtful human beings.” In a clash-between-desire-and-PC-sex sense,

bisexuality is linked to the trajectory of other sexual minorities and

to what has become known as the “sex wars” which began in the late

seventies over porn, S/M, butch/femme, transsexuals, using dildos, etc.

Accusations of being dupes and traitors levelled at bis in effect are

strikingly similar to accusations other sexual minorities have

encountered. In a letter to OUT/LOOK, Lyndall Mac-Cowan says, “I was

glad to see the ‘Bisexuality Debate’ in your Spring ’92 issue. The

articles and the cover art made a connection for me that, as a Kinsey

scale 5-1/2,1 I’d never considered. The fears embedded in biphobia —

that ‘some lesbians’ are really straight, or might be contaminating

lesbian space with heterosexual values — are some of the same

accusations and fears that have been directed at me as a femme for

twenty years.” For John, the pre-op transsexual, “the lesbian community

is the only place where I encounter hostility. They think I’m a woman,

so they think I’m a traitor.” And in feminist Robin Morgan’s

unforgettable accusation, a lesbian S/M practitioner is “a lesbian copy

of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism.”

Some bis are enthusiastic about the appearance of a broader, more

inclusive ‘queer’ milieu in which bis and other sexual minorities can

more easily claim a space without having to constantly justify their

existence. However, other bis are less comfortable with the queer

concept or relate primarily to the het world. Ultimately, the

relationship between bis and other minorities such as butch/ femme or

transsexuals remains unclear. As well, many bis and presumably most

anarchists would have problems with S/M, with its array of

accoutrements, dungeons and dominator/ dominated roles. For

anti-authoritarians, S/M no doubt raises a variety of thorny questions

concerning power, consent, and the limits of desire/reappearance of PC

sex.

The bi Milieu/Movement

If a vocal bisexual milieu has indisputably surfaced in the last decade,

the extent of the existence of a movement is more a question of debate.

Susan Sturges, in a letter responding to Gabriel Rotello’s Voice

article, speaks of a “surging bisexual movement”; in OUT/LOOK, on the

other hand, bi theorist Amanda Udis-Kessler is considerably more

hesitant: “Each group has a different sense of where a movement — if

there exists a movement — or where a community (god knows if there is a

community) might be going.”

Bi groups began to spring up in a number of North American and European

cities in the late seventies and early eighties. In 1985, the East Coast

Bisexual network was formed. Bi contingents in gay and lesbian pride

marches were organized, newsletters and journals appeared, and in 1990,

Bi Pol, a political action group, sponsored the first national Bisexual

Conference. As bis come out of the closet what has been termed the GBD

(Great Bisexual Debate) has rippled through the gay and lesbian press.

In Genre, a new upscale publication which bills itself as the “gay

Esquire,” bisexuality was recently labelled “the most controversial

issue of the nineties.”

As it takes shape, however, a number of problematic aspects of the new

bi milieu/movement have become apparent. First, there is the diversity

noted by Elizabeth Rebe Weise in an assessment of a 1988 bi conference:

“We are Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Democrats, Republicans,

Libertarians, and probably some who want to see the monarchy

re-established.” In other words, a sprawling mess: a shared sexual

orientation becomes the only glue preventing things from disintegrating

into cacophony, underscoring the familiar, limiting focus endemic to

single-issue-based groups.

Although many bis talk of selecting friends and partners as individuals

as opposed to members of gender categories, this individualist thrust is

rarely explored further. Rather, organizers typically exhort bis to

execute “theoretical tasks” or to “take on liberation work,” putting

forth a dreary, sacrifice-oriented approach which is exhausting in

itself as opposed to potentially liberating. Talk of leadership, unity,

‘tasks’, role models, programs — all the reactionary bric-à-brac of

‘progressive’ and national liberation movements abounds in the new bi

milieu. But there are also critiques of identity politics and

victimization approaches, and attempts to learn from the mistakes of

national liberation movement ideology. (I should add that, in attempting

to outline bi viewpoints, this text has taken on something of a

victimization coloring itself....)

Despite the eclectic nature of the milieu, some bis are proposing a

false unity. For Rebecca Gorlin, “Recognition takes a strong and united

bisexual front.” “Unity Is Our Bi-Word” was chosen as the theme of the

bi contingent in a San Francisco gay and lesbian pride day march. Unity

usually implies leaders to crystallize a representation racket. And

there is no lack of talk of leadership in these texts. According to the

editors of Bi Any Other Name, “we must nurture all the leadership

potential of our community.” Calling for a “liberation program,” Rebecca

Schuster exhorts bis to “claim our homes among lesbians and gay men and

heterosexuals and rapidly take our place with them as powerful leaders

of all people.” This craving for leadership is complemented by the

media’s need for leaders in order to feed the spectacle. In his anti-bi

article in the Voice, Gabriel Rotello deftly integrates the leadership

phenomenon, playing off bi leaders whose discourse supports his thesis

against others he feels threatened by. That a leadership has solidified

as far as the media are concerned appears evident for example in the

letters printed and choice of participants in a round table on

bisexuality which appeared in OUT/LOOK in response to a feature section

on bisexuality in the previous issue: three were editors of books on

bisexuality and another was Amanda Udis-Kessler, who appears to be the

most referred-to bi theorist. But there are also texts which stress a

non-hierarchical approach or which question leadership. Kathleen

Bennett, for example, cautions that “The bisexual movement must not

yield to the faulty thinking of ‘vanguardism’ just because of our

potential to have a special perspective on dualism.”

Along with cheerleading for leadership are equally strong but somewhat

different calls for role models. (Personally it has always escaped me

why people want to model themselves on someone else, anyway). Lacking a

bi milieu, or often even someone to share perceptions of bisexuality

with, it is no doubt understandable, if unfortunate, that the role model

exerts such an attraction for so many bis. For Gary North, “the problem

is, we don’t have many role models.” Dianne Anderson, upon moving to

L.A., “found few bisexual role models and even fewer that I could relate

to.” For Beth Elliot, a cultural hero — a Malcolm X — becomes the

solution to the question of the bi message not getting out. Comparing

Holly Near, who rejects the label bisexual, to Gretchen Phillips (a

young out bi musician), Elliot says, “Still, it is Holly Near and not

Gretchen Phillips who has the credentials to be a spokesperson or role

model attractive to seventies lesbian feminists and the younger women

who identify with their left-oriented community....” What is needed, in

Elliot’s opinion, is “a Holly Near-type/ era bisexual feminist role

model to go along with the Gretchen Phillips-type/ era bisexual feminist

role model.” One individual representing an era would seem aberrant, but

no stranger than representation itself to those of us who wish to be

represented by no one.

Also problematic is the concept “bi pride.” If bi pride functions as an

understandable reaction to homophobia and biphobia, it rapidly tends to

become a broader, in one bi’s phrase, “I am fine the way I am” outlook

which promotes complacency: if everyone stays exactly the way they are,

the chances of radical change are mighty slim....

Mirroring the new bi movement, the editorial focus of these books is

feminist. Thus some of the many feminist insights are incorporated, and

dismantling the patriarchy becomes a focal point. But at the same time

feminism itself is largely left unchallenged; on the contrary,

underlining the feminist credentials of the new queer-bi milieu becomes

a priority. Although there are critiques of lesbian separatism (the

tendency which has been the most hostile to bis), much of the writing in

these texts is similar to mainstream lesbian currents. Speaking about

members of the Seattle Bisexual Women’s Network who encountered problems

when they attempted to organize a workshop at the Northwest Lesbian

Conference, Elizabeth Rebe Weise states, “in fact, many of us were

indistinguishable from the lesbians in that group in our politics and

lives.”

In Closer To Home; Bisexuality and Feminism, bisexual men are rarely

mentioned beyond a couple of accounts by women who were involved with bi

men. One is left to wonder what the relationship (if any) between the bi

women’s and men’s milieu is (if there is a men’s milieu), though there

is clearly some interaction in certain local bi groups and in planning

regional and national events. Beth Elliot notes, “Many of us take part

in bisexual women’s groups without necessarily feeling part of a larger

(and co-ed) bisexual community.” In a review of Closer To Home in

Frighten the Horses, Carol Queen comments that “Many of the book’s

contributors seem to feel that they’ve found practically the only man

worth relating to....”

There is little specifically anti-statist sentiment in bi texts, or,

indeed, mention of the state at all. One is left to wonder what kind of

state is being proposed, no doubt a question better left unasked. There

is also little profound questioning of technology, industrialism, or the

economy, giving the impression that the status quo, or something close,

is acceptable to most of these writers and activists.

To date, bi visibility and achieving formal recognition in the

gay/lesbian milieu have constituted the narrow focus of most bi

organizing efforts. Like Susan Trynka, some bis feel that the “queer

women’s communities are probably a lot more responsive to bisexuality

now” than in the past. Certainly some of the more absurd myths, such as

the non-existence of bisexuality, seem to be crumbling. The word

bisexual is more and more visible in gay and lesbian journals and

events. And as long as same-sex attractions continue to bring us

together, bis will interact with lesbians and gays, whether we are

formally accepted or not. As Carol Queen notes, “It won’t help to vote

whether bisexuals should be let in: we are in.” At the same time some

gays and lesbians have made it clear that, for them, bis will never be

accepted; they will remain “heterosexual transgressions into our

entrenched, yet fun, little world,” as Ara Wilson put it, or in Sandy

Dwyer’s blunt phrase: “They are merely opportunists.”

Merely opportunists?!?

Antholgies

Bisexuality; A Reader and Sourcebook edited by Thomas Geller (Times

Change Press, Box 1380, Ojai, California 93023, 1990) 184pp. $10.95

paper.

Bi Any Other Name; Bisexual People Speak Out edited by Lorraine Hutchins

and Lani Kaahumanu (Alyson Publishing, 40 Plympton Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02118, 1991) 416pp. $11.95 paper.

Closer To Home; Bisexuality and Feminism edited by Elizabeth Rebe Weise

(Seal Press, 3131 Western Avenue, Suite 410, Seattle, Washington 98121,

1992) 320pp. $14.95 paper.

A new anthology, of which at least half will be by women of color, will

soon be available from Sister Vision Press. Write to: Bisexual Women’s

Anthology, c/o Sister Vision Press, P.O. Box 217, Station E, Toronto,

Ontario, Canada M6H 4E2.

Journals

BiWomen (East Coast Bi-Network, 338 Newbury Street, Second Floor,

Boston, Massachusetts 02115). Bi-monthly. $15.00/ year.

North Bi Northwest (P.O. Box 30645, Greenwood Station, Seattle,

Washington 98103–0645). Bi-monthly. $12.00/year.

Organizations

BiNet USA, the Bisexual Network of the USA (5584 Castro Street #441, San

Francisco, California 94114). A quarterly newsletter is available. No

fee, but $35 donation is requested.

East Coast Bi Network. Phone 617–2476683 in Boston.

3x3 (P.O. Box 10436, Oakland, California 94610). Bisexual People of

Color — political, support, and social group.