“Where do I fit?

”
An Exploration of Bisexuality as a Liminal Space

Lindsay Margaret Horsham

Student Number: 6617727

Masters Thesis: Gender Studies

Faculty of Humanities

Utrecht University

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Domitilla Olivieri

Second Reader: Dr. Christine Quinan

Word Count: 15,000

Wednesday 5th August 2020

1
 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Domitilla Olivieri, for her
consistent support and enthusiasm for my research, and the knowledge that she shared with
me. Thank you for your guidance. I would also like to thank the Gender Studies department
for their insightful and educational programme; it was everything I was looking for in a Masters
and more.

I would also like to express my gratitude to OurStory Scotland for creating a space for me in
their wonderful organisation and taking me on as their first ever intern; you are doing amazing
and important work, and I am proud to continue working with the charity. I would especially
like to thank Jamie, Haber, and Dom for answering all of my questions and providing excellent
advice (and peanut butter sandwiches!). Thank you for allowing me to use the interviews for
my research and providing me with the equipment and training to conduct my own. And thank
you to the interviewees, both those I met personally and those I did not, for enabling this
research in the first place.

Thank you to all the friends that I made on this course. You made this time incredibly special
and helped me to create a home away from home. As always, thank you to the friends who
have been around much longer, for encouraging me to apply for this degree in the first place
and for coming to visit. And thank you to my parents and family for always encouraging me to
apply myself to whatever I want and helping me achieve my goals.

Finally, thank you to Lewis, for your unwavering support and endless encouragement.

2
 Abstract

Given that bisexuality rejects the monosexist heterosexual/homosexual binary and

decentralises gender in sexual object choice, bisexuality is poised to deconstruct gender and
sexuality binaries. Unfortunately, the majority of attempts by bisexuality and queer theorists to
use bisexuality as an epistemological perspective have failed to acknowledge bisexuality as an
identity/subject position. This study aims to provide an approach to bisexuality that
simultaneously acknowledges the lived reality of bisexual-identifying individuals while
recognising the potential of bisexuality as a hypothetical tool of analysis in queer theorising.
Building on the argument that bisexuality is only truly useful to queer theory if both aspects of
the orientation are acknowledged, this thesis asks: how does understanding bisexuality as a
“liminal space”, encompassing both bisexuality as an identity/subject position and bisexuality
as an epistemological perspective, enhance the contribution of bisexuality to queer theory?
Typically used in anthropology, “liminal space” describes the gap that exists “betwixt and
between” socially constructed categories.

Based on the fact that bisexual identity/subjectivity has largely been overlooked within
sexuality scholarship in favour of reducing bisexuality to a hypothetical, this thesis worked
predominantly with semi-structured interviews in effort to maximise the voices of bisexual-
identifying individuals. Using a combination of thematic analysis and discourse analysis, the
research demonstrated how bisexuality and bisexual-identifying individuals are consistently
positioned between and outside of the heterosexual/homosexual binary, skirting the border of
both without fully belonging to either. For this reason, this research proposes that bisexuality
be understood as a liminal space. Further research is needed to fully explore the potential of
this conceptualisation, and to explore the influence of intersecting identity categories in shaping
bisexual subjectivity. Largely still ignored in both sexuality scholarship and in LGBTQ+
communities and activism, sexuality scholars, particularly queer theorists, would greatly
benefit from sustained engagement with bisexuality – and vice versa, as to do so would finally
grant bisexuality and the bisexual community the attention it deserves.

3
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Contextualisation and Conceptual Tools ................................................................. 9
1.1. Contextualisation ....................................................................................................................9
1.2. Conceptual Tools..................................................................................................................22
Chapter 2: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 30
2.1. The Interviews ......................................................................................................................30
2.2. Limitations ...........................................................................................................................32
2.3. Positionality ..........................................................................................................................33
2.4. Scottish Context ...................................................................................................................34
2.5. Analysis ................................................................................................................................36
Chapter 3: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 38
3.1. Biphobia and Bi-Negativity .................................................................................................38
3.1.(a) Biphobia ...........................................................................................................................39
3.1.(b) Bi-Negativity....................................................................................................................42
3.2. Need for Recognition ...........................................................................................................45
3.2.(a) Bi-Erasure: .......................................................................................................................46
3.2.(b) Bi-Invisibility ...................................................................................................................48
3.3. Feeling Between Two Worlds ..............................................................................................51
3.3.(a) Heterosexuality/Homosexuality .......................................................................................51
3.3.(b) Moving Between Straight/Queer Worlds.........................................................................52
3.3.(c) “Where do I fit?”..............................................................................................................53
Chapter 4: Bisexuality as a Liminal Space .............................................................................. 56
4.1. Liminality and Bisexual Identity/Subjectivity .....................................................................57
4.2. Liminality and Bisexual Epistemologies..............................................................................57
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 60
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 62
Appendix 1: The Interviewees ................................................................................................. 72

4
 Introduction

Bisexuality describes an individual “who experiences emotional, romantic and/or sexual

attraction to, or engages in romantic or sexual relationships with, more than one sex or
gender.”1 Rejecting Western monosexism – a binary social construction of sexuality that
assumes individuals are exclusively attracted to the same or “opposite” gender
(heterosexuality/homosexuality), reliant on the gender binary (male/female) – bisexuality
provides the “ideal starting place” for queer theory, which emerged in the 1990s with the goal
of bringing greater fluidity to sexuality and gender by deconstructing identity categories and
their respective binaries.23 Yet there is a “curious gap” in queer theory concerning bisexuality. 4
Such marginalisation and erasure is evident throughout sexuality scholarship, mirrored by
bisexuality’s apparent absence in sexual minority activism and LGBTQ+ spaces. Various
explanations have been provided by activists and scholars alike to justify this eradication of
bisexuality, leading legal scholar Kenji Yoshino to conclude that both heterosexuals and
homosexuals have a shared investment in keeping bisexuality invisible, sustaining what
Yoshino termed “the epistemic contract of bisexual erasure.” 56 The establishment of bisexual
theory in the 1990s sought to challenge anti-bisexual discourse, focusing particularly on queer
theory’s failure to properly address bisexuality. 7 Mostly taking the position that the inclusion
of bisexuality would reveal queer theory’s continued reliance on the heterosexual/homosexual
binary, bisexuality scholars argued that adding bisexuality to the canon of queer theory would
help the discipline achieve its goals of deconstruction.8 Consequently, these theorists proposed
the utilisation of bisexuality as an analytical lens through which to view the world.

1 Understanding Bisexuality,” American Psychological Association, accessed July 29, 2020, https://www-apa-
org.proxy.library.uu.nl/pi/lgbt/resources/bisexual.
2 Cheryl Kwok, Sharon Rostosky and Ellen D.B. Riggle, “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship
Expectations of Female- and Male-Identifying Partners,” Journal of Bisexuality, ‘Latest articles’ (2020): 3.
3 Suzanne Pennington, “Bisexuals “Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships,” Journal of Bisexuality 9, no. 1
(2009), 39.
4 April Scarlette Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory,” Journal of
Bisexuality 9, no. 3 (2009): 216.
5 Kenji Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure,” Stanford Law Review 52, no. 2 (2000), 361.
6 Mark Gammon and Kirsten Isgro, “Troubling the Canon,” Journal of Bisexuality 52 nos. 1-2 (2006): 170;
Pennington, “Bisexuals “Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships,” 65.
7 Lachlan MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 9, no. 1 (2009): 3.
8 Katkryn G. Burrill, “Queering Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 2, nos. 2-3 (2001): 95; Laura Erickson-
Schroth and Jennifer Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory, or Why Bisexuality Matters,” Journal of Bisexuality 9,
nos. 3-4 (2009): 312.

5
Feminist theorist Elisabeth Däumer first suggested the use of bisexuality “not as an identity
that integrates heterosexual and homosexual orientations, but as an epistemological as well as
ethical vantage point from which we can examine and deconstruct the bipolar framework of
gender and sexuality” in her 1992 essay, ““Queer Ethics: Or, The Challenge of Bisexuality to
Lesbian Ethics.”9 Subsequent bisexuality and queer theorists have adopted bisexual
epistemologies in their attempts to deconstruct gendered and sexuality binaries. However, as a
result, the lived reality of “bisexuality as an identity and subject position” has been consistently
overlooked – resulting in the erasure of bisexual voices once more. 10 “Bisexual subjectivity”
describes “the sexual self-concept that includes a person’s perception of their thoughts,
feelings, and behaviours related to their sexuality and sexual behaviours.” 11 Scholars Georgina
Voss, Kath Browne and Camel Gupta note that “the possibility of simultaneously inhabiting
these positions… has been undertheorised” to the detriment of bisexuality’s contribution to
queer theory.12 They argue that in order for bisexuality to be truly beneficial to queer theorising,
“the particular knot of bi as stable identity; bi as umbrella for a set of practices; and bi as
deconstructive tool” needs to be explored. 13 I propose that conceptualising bisexuality as a
liminal space offers a way of encompassing both bisexuality as a lived reality and bisexual
epistemology. Typically used in anthropology, liminality describes being “betwixt and between
the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial.”14

Aim of Research and Methods

The aim of this thesis is bipartite. First, I explore how and why bisexuality has been
marginalised and ignored in sexuality scholarship, focusing particularly on the absence of
bisexuality in queer theory. Secondly, I explore how the utilisation of bisexuality as an
epistemology has erased bisexual reality, before proposing that understanding bisexuality as a
liminal space overcomes this issue.

9 Elisabeth Däumer, “Queer Ethics: Or, the Challenge of Bisexuality to Lesbian Ethics,” Hypatia 7, no. 4
(1992): 98.
10 Georgina Voss, Kath Browne & Camel Gupta, “Embracing the “And”: Between Queer and Bisexual Theory
at Brighton BiFest,” Journal of Homosexuality 61, no. 11 (2014): 1606.
11 Zenaida Anastasia Rivera, "Sexual Subjectivity In Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Emerging Adults," [Abstract],
Wayne State University Theses (2018): 687.
https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_theses/687
12 Voss et al., “Embracing the “And”,” 1606.
13 Ibid., 1620.
14 Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1969): 359.

6
My main research question is:

How does understanding bisexuality as a “liminal space”, encompassing both

bisexuality as an identity/subject position and bisexuality as an epistemological
perspective, enhance the contribution of bisexuality to queer theory?

I explore three sub-questions:

- How is bisexuality (and other plurisexual identities) marginalised in sexual

minority activism/communities and sexuality scholarship e.g. bisexuality
stereotypes?
- How has sexual minority activism influenced sexuality scholarship?
- How has the utilisation of bisexuality as a lens of deconstruction erased the lived
reality of bisexual-identifying individuals?

To answer my research questions, I use interviews made available to me while completing my

Masters internship with OurStory Scotland, a small Scottish charity that records the life stories
of Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community. I analyse my data using a combination of thematic analysis
and discourse analysis. By answering my research questions through an analysis of interviews
concerning the lived experiences of bisexual-identifying individuals (and interviewees who did
not identify as bisexual but have had same- and other-gender attraction), I aim to offer an
approach to bisexuality that combines bisexuality as a lived reality and bisexuality as an
epistemological vantage point. To do so would greatly contribute to bisexuality scholarship
and queer theory, as the potential of such an endeavour has been largely overlooked until now,
to the disadvantage of both disciplines.

Structure

The thesis is divided into four chapters. In Chapter 1, I conduct a literature review that maps
the erasure of bisexuality in sexuality scholarship, spanning from the 1970s to contemporary
studies. I address how and why bisexuality has been excluded from sexual minority activism,
and how this influenced bisexuality’s absence in sexuality scholarship. I then focus on the
exclusion of bisexuality from queer theory, and how bisexuality theorists have attempted to
add bisexuality to its canon. By doing so, I demonstrate how bisexual epistemologies erase

7
bisexual existence. I conclude the chapter with an exploration of liminality, and how this relates
to bisexuality. In Chapter 2, I discuss the methods I used to conduct my research and provide
my rationale for doing so. I address the limitations of my methods and contextualise my
research within a Scottish setting. I also explain my positionality. In Chapter 3, I examine the
findings of my research, identifying 3 key themes in the interviews – Biphobia/Bi-Negativity,
Need for Recognition, and Feeling Between Two Worlds. I relate this to existing bisexuality
scholarship. In the concluding chapter, I propose the application of liminality to bisexuality,
relating it to my analysis in the previous chapter, and illustrating how this approach enables the
use of bisexuality as a tool of deconstruction without ignoring bisexual existence.

8
 Chapter 1: Contextualisation and Conceptual Tools

Bisexuality has been marginalised in sexuality studies since the 1970s; only in the last thirty
years or so has the discipline broadened to a more inclusive LGBTQ+ approach. 1516 Despite
the 1990s witnessing the establishment of bisexuality scholarship, encompassing
interdisciplinary studies of sociology, psychology, English, and history, bisexuality remains
largely ignored in sexuality scholarship. 1718 The first section of this chapter explores why this
under-representation exists, addressing the ambiguous definition of “bisexuality” and the
historical trajectory of sexuality studies from the 1970s until the present to demonstrate how
bisexuality has been marginalised. I consider the initial focus of sexuality studies in the 1970s
and how bisexuality was conceived before this; the institutionalisation of lesbian and gay
studies and the predominance of radical/lesbian feminist analysis in the 1980s; the emergence
of queer theory in the 1990s, and; the broadening of sexuality scholarship in the 2000s to
include LGBTQ+ issues.19 I also highlight how the key themes within bisexuality scholarship
– bi-negativity/biphobia; bi-erasure; and bi-invisibility – are present throughout sexuality
scholarship. In doing so, I exhibit how bisexuality has consistently been erased. The second
section of this chapter outlines my theoretical framework through a discussion of the
conceptual tools I will use to conduct my analysis. I consider the absence of bisexuality in
queer theory and the methods adopted by bisexuality scholars to add bisexuality to its canon,
namely bisexuality as an epistemological perspective. I conclude with an overview of the
concept of liminality and my justification for applying it to bisexuality.

1.1. Contextualisation

Ambiguous Definitions

There is general agreement within bisexuality scholarship on the absence of a single definition
of “bisexuality.” Sociologist Christian Klesse notes bisexuality has described “a range of

15 Surya Monro, Sally Hines, and Antony Osborne, “Is Bisexuality Invisible? A Review of Sexualities
Scholarship 19970-2015,” The Sociological Review 4 (2017): 667.
16 The abbreviation of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer+”.
17 MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality,” 3.
18 April Scarlette Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock: Labels, Stigma, and Bisexual Identity,” Journal of
Bisexuality 13, no. 1 (2013): 85.
19 I am using “radical/lesbian feminism” to acknowledge the overlap between radical feminism and lesbian
feminism, particularly the promotion of “political lesbianism” as an alternative to heterosexual sex with men in
patriarchal culture.

9
different phenomena” since its emergence in the 19th century, appearing in biological, medical,
psychiatric and sexological writing. 20 For this thesis, I adopt the approach of bisexuality
scholars April Callis and Surya Monro et al., using “bisexual” as an adjective to represent sex
acts and attractions to same- and other-sex persons, and as a noun to describe people who have
these attractions.21 Bisexuality thus describes (possibly unacted on) desires and behaviours,
and an identity. It should be acknowledged that my chosen definition is not universal;
interpretations of what “counts” as bisexual differ significantly. 22 It should also be noted that
other plurisexual (sexual attraction to more than one gender) labels exist, such as pansexual. 23
Some LGBTQ+ individuals reject “bisexuality” because they feel that “bi-sexual” implies there
are only two sexes or genders, supporting the gender binary – despite bisexuals’ insistence that
bisexuality does not rely on dichotomous conceptualisations of gender. 2425

Scholarship concerning the ambiguity of “bisexuality” is divided on whether or not it is a good

thing. Some bisexuality scholars, such as Robyn Ochs, argue the lack of a single definition is
a source of political strength, as ambiguity ensures inclusivity of heterogenous identities. 26
Other scholars, including Klesse, maintain the lack of definition is damaging as people are less
likely to identify with an undefined label – which the adoption of other labels such as pansexual
evidences.27 To account for contemporary understandings of bisexuality, numerous scholars
have attempted to historicise the term, such as Steven Angelides (2001), Ulrich Gooß (2008),
and Lachlan MacDowall (2009). 282930 All argue that modern understandings of bisexuality have
resulted primarily from the establishment of the science of sexuality during the 1800s.

20 Christian Klesse, “Shady Characters, Untrustworthy Partners, and Promiscuous Sluts: Creating Bisexual
Intimacies in the Face of Heteronomativity and Biphobia,” Journal of Bisexuality 11, nos. 2-3 (2011): 229.
21 Callis “Butler and Foucault,”; Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?”.
22 Breanne Fahs, “Compulsory Bisexuality?: The Challenges of Modern Sexual Fluidity,” Journal of Bisexuality
9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 432.
23 Autumn Elizabeth, “Challenging the Binary: Sexual Identity That Is Not Duality,” Journal of Bisexuality 13,
no. 3 (2013).
24 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 93.
25 Andrea Pennasilico and Anna Lisa Amodeo, “The Invisi_les: Biphobia, Bisexual Erasure and Their Impact on
Mental Health,” PuntOorg International Journal 4, no. 1 (2019): 22.
26 Robyn Ochs, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World (Boston, MA: Bisexual Resource Centre,
2009): 9.
27 Klesse, “Shady Characters,” 231.
28 Steven Angelides, A History of Bisexuality (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
29 Ulrich Gooß, “Concepts of Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 8, no. 1 (2008).
30 MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality.”

10
Early Sexuality Studies

Bisexuality has had at least three different uses, describing sex, gender, and sexuality
respectively.31 The turn of the 19th century saw a new model of human sexuality that
determined there were fundamental biological differences between men and women;
bisexuality described individuals with male and female reproductive organs. 3233 Concurrently,
the development of psychoanalysis – the study of the unconscious – influenced early sexology;
this largely focused on sexual deviance, specifically male homosexuality. 3435 Bisexuality in
this instance was understood as a stage of development: Sigmund Freud argued that everyone
is born with bisexual “potential” and that people become heterosexual or homosexual as they
mature.36 Bisexuality described both gender and sexuality in this conceptualisation, as
homosexuals were considered to be “inverts” of heterosexuals because of their sexual
preference, and it was thought that homosexuals adopted the gender role of the opposite sex. 37
Early sexologists, to quote Callis, understood bisexuality “as some mixture of an anatomical
condition (intersexuality) and a state of mind.” 38 Callis argues that because bisexuality was
seen as an in-between state in both instances, rather than recognised autonomously, there was
no “truth” to bisexuality. Bisexuality consequently did not witness a similar emergence of
“reverse discourse” that homosexuality did, nor develop an identity movement at the same
speed as lesbians and gays.39

31 Lachlan MacDowall outlined the trajectory of “bisexuality” in Western Europe from the middle of the 19 th
century. “Bisexuality” was first used in physiology to refer to forms of life that exhibited both male and female
sexual characteristics – what we would today call “intersex”. In the early 20th century, bisexuality was used to
describe a combination of behavioural traits i.e. an individual that could be both masculine and feminine in
terms of self-expression. This is also the first time that bisexuality was used to describe sexual attraction to
individuals of both sexes. In the 1980s, following the HIV/AIDS epidemic, bisexuality was divided into
describing sexual attraction or identification, and sexual practice i.e. the act of having sexual relationships with
men and women. See: MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality,” 4.
32 This is known as the “two-sex model”, in which the female is figured as the polar opposite to the male. Prior
to this, the “one-sex model” dominated medical and philosophical understandings of anatomy. The “one-sex
model” conceptualised the female as the lesser version of the male. The differences between male and female
sex organs were recognised, but they were not thought to be significant. The “one-sex”/”two-sex model” was
first discussed in sexologist and historian Thomas Lacquer’s Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to
Freud (1990). See: MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality,” 10.
33 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 223.
34 Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?” 670.
35 Mary Bradford states “psychology has traditionally upheld the dichotomous view of sexual orientation. Until
recently, heterosexuality has been viewed as the standard of normal functioning, with homosexuality seen as
deviant behaviour to be examined and analysed.” See: Mary Bradford, “The Bisexual Experience”, Journal of
Bisexuality 4, nos. 1-2 (2004): 9
36 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 224.
37 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 303.
38 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 223.
39 Ibid., 225.

11
The 1970s: Bisexuality in Sexuality Studies

The seminal work of sexologists Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin were
published in two books on human sexual behaviour, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male
(1948) and Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female (1953). The publications discussed the
results of one of the largest studies of human sexuality ever undertaken, in which the
researchers measured sexuality on the “Kinsey Scale”, which positioned individuals along a
continuum of exclusive heterosexuality (0) to exclusive homosexuality (6).4041 “Bisexual”
described those who were neither heterosexual nor homosexual.42 This was the first time
sexuality was understood as fluid and diverse, rather than fixed. 43 However, the Kinsey Scale
is not without criticism, particularly because it referred to all those who ranked between (1)
and (5) as “bisexual”, ignoring the heterogeneity of sexual attraction within the group. 44 It has
also been criticised for framing sexuality as a spectrum between two poles of heterosexuality
and homosexuality, implying that those sexualities that fall between the two are somehow a
blend of heterosexuality and homosexuality, rather than their own distinct sexuality. 45
Nevertheless, there is consensus among historians that Kinsey et al.’s work, alongside the
homophile movement of the 1950s, inspired the gay rights movement of the 1960s, in which
bisexuals were involved. 4647

40 Terry Evans, “Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 3, no. 2 (2003): 96; Sarah Corey, “All Bi Myself:
Analyzing Television’s Presentation of Female Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 17, no. 2 (2017): 197.
41 The Kinsey Scale was a self-report that required participants to rate their sexual behaviour and interests based
on experience. Categories 1 to 5 identified individuals with varying levels of same- and other-sex attraction, and
also included an “X” to account for those who had “no sexual contacts or reactions,” which we would now refer
to as asexual. See: M. Paz Galupo, Kyle S. Davis, Ashley L. Grynkiewicz and Renae C. Mitchell, “
Conceptualisations of Sexual Orientation Identity Among Sexual Minorities: Patterns Across Sexual and Gender
Identity,” Journal of Bisexuality 14, nos. 3-4 (2014): 347.
42 Corey, “All Bi Myself,” 197.
43 Ibid., 197.
44 Galupo et al., “Conceptualization of Sexual Orientation Among Sexual Minorities,” 434.
44 Pennasilico and Amodeo, “The Invisi_les,” 22.
45 Ibid.
46 Pennasilico and Amodeo, “The Invisi_les,” 22.
47“Homophile,” meaning “loving the same,” is a dated term for homosexuality. The homophile movement took
place during the 1950s, after lesbians and gays started to formally organise in an effort to address the
discrimination they faced from the authorities. One well known example of a homophile group was the
Mattachine Society, which was founded in Los Angeles, USA, in 1950. “Homophile” fell out of circulation with
the emergence of the gay liberation movement in the 1960s, and the introduction of new terminology such as
gay, lesbian and bisexual.

12
Many gay and lesbian groups within the gay rights movement relied heavily on strict identity
politics in their fight for equality.4849 In effort to strengthen their claims, some activists adopted
an “ethnicity model” of homosexuality, framing sexuality as a fixed category. 50 Identity politics
such as this have been criticised for various reasons, namely that it creates a binary split
between “us” and “them” (in this case, “homosexual” and “heterosexual”) that ignores the
intersectional nature of an individual’s identity. 51 Consequently, the gay liberation movement
was structured around gay identity and gay pride – excluding bisexuality.52 Representing a
sexual fluidity that contradicted the essentialist model of sexuality adopted by assimilationist
activists, bisexuals were accused of “polluting” the movement. 5354 Bisexual politics thus
evolved predominantly in reaction to mainstream gay and lesbian activism, resulting in the
emergence of the bisexual movement in the late 1970s that was mostly isolated from
predominant gay liberation. 5556 Bisexual politics is “inherently problematic” because it
paradoxically relies on identity politics to bolster their claims for recognition while revealing
the limits of the practice through bisexuality’s ambiguous nature. 57 Feminist theorist Liz
Highleyman recognised this contradiction, asking whether the goal of the bisexual movement
should be to “build a strong, coherent movement based on sexual identity, or to break down
identity-based distinctions altogether?”58 Bisexuals are divided on identity politics for this
reason.59 This debate is prevalent in Chapter 3.

48 Gammon and Isgro, “Troubling the Canon,” 162.

49 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 217.
50 Kirsten McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 67.
51 “Intersectionality”, coined by the Black feminist lawyer Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, describes how different
aspects of an individual’s social and political identities, such as their gender, race, class, sexuality etc. intersect
to create specific forms of discrimination and privilege.
52 Gammon and Isgro, “Troubling the Canon,” 170.
53 Ibid.
54 Assimilationist politics was a strategy adopted during the Civil Rights Movement, which advocated for the
incorporation and assimilation of differing racial and cultural groups in society. Politics of assimilation has been
accused of simply expanding the status quo to include the more privileged members of marginal groups, while
those most vulnerable continue to be marginalised and oppressed. See: Cathy Cohen, “Punks, Bulldaggers and
Welfare Queens,” GLQ 3 (1997): 443.
55 Gammon and Isgro, “Troubling the Canon,” 167.
56 Early examples of bisexual organisations in the USA include “The National Bisexual Liberation Group”
(founded in New York City in 1972), “The Bi Forum” (New York City, 1975), the “Bisexual Centre” (San
Francisco, 1976) and “Bi Ways” (Chicago, 1978). See: Robyn Ochs and Liz Highleyman, “Bisexual
Movement,” in Lesbian Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia, (ed.) Bonnie Zimmerman (New York:
Garland, 2000): 112-114. The UK’s first Bisexuality Conference was held in December 1984; Kate Fearnely
(interviewee) established the Edinburgh Bisexual Group in the early 1980s.
57 Margaret McLaren, Feminism, Foucault and Embodied Subjectivity (New York: State University of New
York Press, 2002: 135.
58 Liz Highleyman, “Identities and Ideas: Strategies for Bisexuals,” in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and
Visions, (ed.) Naomi Tucker (New York: Haworth Press, 1995): 73.
59 Katkryn G. Burrill, “Queering Bisexuality,” Journal of Bisexuality 2, nos. 2-3 (2001): 101-3.

13
A handful of scholars recognised the trend of bisexual marginalisation in theory and practice,
writing about bisexuality in the 1970s. 60 Examples include Mead (1975), who explored the
social constraints of societies and their effects on bisexual actions and identities, and Blumstein
and Schwartz (1977), who discussed the sexual actions of self-identified bisexuals.61 Typically
done through comprehensive studies of bisexual experience, these initial studies focused on
promoting bisexual visibility and dispelling negative attitudes about bisexuals – two key
themes of bisexuality scholarship. 62

Bi-Negativity/Biphobia

April Callis argues the hostility bisexuals face is “perhaps the most written about theme” in
bisexuality studies.63 Sometimes referred to as “biphobia” (I discuss the nuances of the terms
in Chapter 3), “bi-negativity” describes “the pervasive stereotypes and negative attitudes that
bisexual men and women encounter as a result of their sexual identity.” 64 Bi-negativity operates
through multiple oppressive practices, including violence, discrimination, epistemic erasure
and stereotypes.65 These stereotypes concern bisexuality generally, including: bisexuals are in
denial/confused about their “real” sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual); bisexuality is
transitionary, and; bisexuals are hypersexual and incapable of monogamy. 66 Other stereotypes
are particularly prevalent within the homosexual community, such as bisexuals benefit from
“heterosexual privilege” and; bisexuals are damaging to the gay rights movement. 6768
Bisexuality studies have analysed various aspects of bi-negativity and its consequences. For
example, recent scholarship explored the impact anti-bisexual attitudes have on bisexuals’
mental health, such as Roberts et. al (2015) and McLaren and Castillo (2020). 69 Informed by
minority stress theory, their findings suggest the bisexual community generally has poorer
mental and physical health than other groups because of the dual bi-negativity bisexuals face

60 Gooß, “Concepts of Bisexuality,” 9.

61 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 217.
62 Pennington, “Bisexuals “Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships,” 38.
63 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 85.
64 Kwok et al., “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 3.
65 Klesse, “Shady Characters,” 234.
66 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 87; McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 66; Kwok et al.,
“Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 2.
67 Ibid.
68 “Heterosexual privilege” describes the advantages that heterosexual individuals receive purely because they
are heterosexual. Heterosexual privilege relates to heteronormativity.
69 Tangela S. Roberts, Sharon G. Horne, and Wiliam T. Hoyt, “Between a Gay and a Straight Place: Bisexual
Individuals’ Experiences with Monosexism,” Journal of Bisexuality 15, no. 4 (2015); McLaren and Castillo,
“What About Me?”.

14
from the heterosexual and lesbian/gay communities.7071 Other scholars have explored the
significance of a bisexuals’ gender in their experiences of bi-negativity. Callis and Bradford
(2004) explored male-orientated biphobia, finding that public perception associated bisexual
men with the spread of HIV/AIDS in the straight community, and that bisexual men were
thought to “actually” be gay – and not real.72 Similarly, Callis argues that female bisexuality
has been illegitimated through practices like “performative bisexuality”, leading to bisexual
women being seen as “trendy” and again artificial. 7374 Female-orientated bi-negativity is
particularly prevalent within lesbian communities, particularly among radical/lesbian
feminists. I have already explained why assimilationist lesbians/gays were hostile to
bisexuality: bisexuality threatened their identity-based politics. I will first address how this
hostility played out in radical/lesbian feminist discourse, before turning to “the epistemic
contract of bisexual erasure.”

The 1980s: Lesbian and Gay Studies and Radical/Lesbian Feminism

The late 1970s and 1980s witnessed an epistemological shift in sexuality studies. Scholars,
inspired by the identity politics of the 1960s, began to conceptualise gays and lesbians as
“quasi-ethnic” communities, paralleling African-Americans and other racialised minority
communities.75 The institutionalisation of lesbian and gay studies in the 1980s saw the
establishment of a new scholarly community – partly due to the homophobia lesbian/gay
scholars faced within academia – focused on tackling heterosexism (discrimination against
non-heterosexual people).76 Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its roots in mainstream gay
liberation and the misconception that bisexuals experience “heterosexual privilege”, the
discipline tended to concentrate exclusively on lesbian and gay identities and politics, rather
than a more inclusive LGBT focus, contributing to the marginalisation of bisexuality. 77 Similar
to the consequences of bisexuality in lesbian and gay identity politics, the introduction of

70 Kwok et al., “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 3.

71 Minority stress describes a chronic form of stress that stigmatised minority groups experience. Minority stress
theory maintains that the stress is a result of numerous factors, such as prejudice or discrimination, or
socioeconomic status. These prejudices lead to stress responses such as high blood pressure and anxiety, which
results in poor mental and physical health. See: Pennasilico and Amodeo, “The Invisi_les,” 25.
72 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 84; Bradford, “The Bisexual Experience,” 15.
73 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 85.
74 “Performative bisexuality” is described by Breanne Fahs as heterosexual women “engaging in homoerotic
acts with other women, usually in front of men and most often in the context of social settings like frat parties,
bars, clubs and other crowded sexualised spaces…” See: Fahs, “Compulsory Bisexuality?”, 432.
75 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 215.
76 Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?” 670.
77 Ibid., 671.

15
bisexuality in institutionalised lesbian and gay studies would have complicated their arguments
– meaning bisexuality was largely ignored. The tactics adopted by these scholars illustrate
another key theme within sexuality scholarship: bi-erasure. “Bisexual erasure” refers to “the
ways that bisexuality as a mature form of desire is deferred, elided, or made invisible.” 78 Bi-
erasure is evident within radical/lesbian feminism, which viewed bisexual women in contempt
of the goals of feminism by maintaining a commitment to the patriarchy. 79 These branches of
feminism, with their critique of heteropatriarchy, co-opted “behavioural bisexuality”. 8081 In her
1980 essay, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” feminist theorist Adrienne
Rich argued that heterosexuality was not intrinsic to human nature, but an institution imposed
upon women – and that all women should separate from men and engage in some form of
lesbian relationship instead. 82 By framing female sexuality in this way, Rich and other
radical/lesbian feminists exploited bisexuality, removing bisexual women’s agency in their
attraction to men and dismissing it merely as a consequence of heteropatriarchy rather than
genuine plurisexual attraction. Both institutionalised lesbian and gay theory and radical/lesbian
feminism therefore contributed to the erasure of bisexuality.

“The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure”

In his influential work, legal scholar Kenji Yoshino (2000) posited that bisexuality remains
practically invisible in existing sexuality studies despite evidence suggesting that bisexuals
exist in numbers equal to or higher than homosexuals.83 By conducting online searches of
“homosexuality” and “bisexuality” in popular newspapers and magazines, Yoshino
demonstrated the under-representation of bisexuality.84 Yoshino hypothesised that bisexuals
were invisible as a result of deliberate erasure, rather than nonexistence – which the above
discussion supports.85 He described this as the “epistemic contract of bisexual erasure”,

78 MacDowall, “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality,” 4.

79 McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 66.
80 Ibid.
81 By “behavioural bisexuality”, I am referring to the radical/lesbian feminist argument that heterosexual women
should avoid romantic and sexual relationships with men – as to do so would be supporting the patriarchy – and
instead pursue romantic and sexual relationships with women as an alternative.
82 Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Signs 5, no. 4 (1980).
83 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 361.
84 Between 1990 and 1999, the LA Times, for example, mentioned “homosexuality” in 2790 documents
compared to “bisexuality” in 127. That is over 23 times more. See: Ibid. Monro et al. (2015) adopted a similar
approach to academic texts and found that there was a significant disparity in more than half of the analysed
texts. See: Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?” 669.
85 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 361.

16
asserting that heterosexuals and homosexuals have “shared investment” and “overlapping
political interests” in keeping bisexuality invisible. 8687 Central to Yoshino’s argument is that
heterosexuals and homosexuals benefit from monosexism. Dominating Western culture,
monosexism – a binary social construction of sexuality – assumes there are only two genders
(male/female), and that an individual is attracted exclusively to the same or “opposite” gender
(heterosexual/homosexual). 88 Central to monosexism is the primacy of gender in sexual object
choice: sexuality is determined by the gender that the individual is attracted to. 89 Bisexuality
threatens the “monosexual paradigm” – coined by bisexual Maria Blasingame to describe
lesbians/gays who ignored the consequences of the heterosexual/homosexual binary for
bisexuals – because bisexuals are not exclusively attracted to a single gender. 90 Yoshino
separates the investments in bi-erasure that “self-identified straights” and “self-identified gays”
have into three categories: an interest in stabilising sexual orientation (monosexism); an interest
in retaining the importance of sex as a metric of differentiation in society (which bisexuality
threatens because it questions the predominance of sex as a social identity category), and; an
interest in defending monogamy (as studies have shown bisexuals are more likely see non-
monogamy as an ideal compared to monosexuals).9192 Yoshino sub-divides these categories
into the interests of “only straights”, “only gays”, and both. 93 In exploring why each group
shares these investments – despite having different motivations – Yoshino provides a
convincing argument on bi-erasure, demonstrating how both heterosexuals and homosexuals
benefit from the current social order and share a sustained interest in erasing bisexuality.

Bi-Invisibility

While Yoshino argues that bisexual invisibility is a result of “deliberate erasure” rather than
nonexistence, it should be acknowledged that bisexuality can be invisibilised in ways

86 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 301

87 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 362.
88 Kwok et al., “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 3.
89 Teresa de Lauretis, “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities,” Differences 3, no. 2 (1991): xiv; Maria
Pramaggiore, “BI-introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence,” in RePresenting Bisexualities: Subjects and
Cultures of Fluid Desire, (eds.) Donald E. Hall and Maria Pramaggiore (New York: NYU Press, 1996): 3.
90Brenda Marie Blasingame, “The Roots of Biphobia: Racism and Internalized Heterosexism,” in Closer to
Home: Bisexuality & Feminism, (ed.) Elizabeth Reba Weise (Seattle: The Seal Press, 1992): 47; Erickson-
Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 313.
91 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 388-391.
92 Tania Israel and Jonathan J. Mohr, “Attitudes Toward Bisexual Women and Men,” Journal of Bisexuality 4,
nos. 1-2 (2004): 122.
93 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 399-429.

17
unspecific to bisexuality. 94 Michel Foucault’s (1978) The History of Sexuality posits sexual
discourse is a relatively recent development in Western discourse.95 Before sexologists tried to
understand sexual deviance through the existence of the male homosexual, non-
heterosexualities were ignored completely. 96 Historical bi-invisibility can partly be explained
as a consequence of the universal erasure of sexuality and the deliberate ignorance adopted
towards same-sex desire.97 Additionally, beyond scholarship, non-heterosexual discrimination
continues to exist. That said, Yoshino argues there is a form of deliberate social invisibilisation
specific to bisexuals: “bisexual invisibility”. 98 Kwok et al. argues bi-invisibility operates
through three key mechanisms: the absence/silencing of bisexual voices (which I have already
addressed); the assumptions made about a bisexual individual’s sexuality based on the gender
of their partner, and; the absorption of bisexual-identifying people under the LGBTQ+
umbrella.99 This absorption is evident in sexuality scholarship, which tends to combine
bisexual individuals with lesbian and gay samples, contributing to a misrepresentation of
bisexual voices in research. 100

Various scholars, such as Bradford (2004), Schroth and Mitchell (2009), Ochs (2009; 2011),
and Kwok et al. (2020), explore how bisexuals are rarely “seen”, arguing the presence of a
partner typically leads to assumptions that the bisexual person is heterosexual or lesbian/gay. 101
This invisibility is reinforced, according to Klesse, by people’s tendency to actively “forget” a
non-partnered bisexual’s sexuality. 102 Evans argues being bisexual is problematised by the
absence of strong bisexual culture and the dominance of monosexual cultures. 103 A common
question among bisexuality scholars is how one is supposed to “perform” their bisexuality, as
it is likely the individual will be assumed homosexual or heterosexual given the current
monosexual paradigm. Additionally, bisexuals worry that in order to be recognised as bisexual,
they have to play directly into common stereotypes about bisexuality – perpetuating bi-
negativity.104 This is discussed in Chapter 3. Suzanne Pennington (2009) explored the

94 Ibid.
95 Michel Foucault, “Part One: We ‘Other Victorians’,” in The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1
(New York: Vintage, trans. Robert Hurley, 1990).
96 Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?”, 670.
97 Yoshino, “The Epistemic Contract,” 365-367.
98 Ibid.
99 Kwok et al., “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 3.
100 Roberts et al., “Between a Gay and a Straight Place,” 558.
101 Bradford, “The Bisexual Experience,” 14.
102 Klesse, “Shady Characters,” 232.
103 Evans, “Bisexuality,” 93.
104 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 227-8; Whitney, “Cyborgs Among Us,” 112.

18
performative element of bisexuality – not to be confused with the “performative bisexuality”
previously discussed – investigating how bisexual individuals signal their sexuality. She
furthered this by interrogating how bisexual-identifying individuals perform their gender while
in a relationship, noting that they were more likely to conform to gender norms while in
“opposite”-gender relationships.105 This ability of bisexual individuals to subvert gender norms
depending on their relationship status reveals the link between gender and sexuality,
particularly heteronormativity’s reliance on the sex binary, and highlights the constructed
nature of sex, gender and sexuality binaries. It also demonstrates the deconstructive potential
of bisexuality.106

The 1990s: Queer Theory

Despite being a topic of scientific inquiry since the late 1970s, only in the 1990s was a distinct
bisexuality scholarship established, with a spate of publications about bisexuality – primarily
from the USA and Britain – appearing in the 1990s.107108 Like the handful of studies conducted
in the 1970s, this empirical wave of research focused on bi-negativity and bi-invisibility. Rust
(1993) provided the first study to evaluate lesbian women’s beliefs about bisexual women,
while Eliason (1997) conducted a survey asking participants to agree/disagree with 23
statements describing common bisexuality stereotypes.109 Concurrently, queer theory emerged
as an academic discipline in the 1990s, focusing on the constructed nature of gender and sexual
identities and categorisations.110 Specifically, it sought to break down existing identity
categories, bringing greater fluidity to sex and gender while also challenging
heterosexual/homosexual dualism. 111 Queer theory was strongly influenced by social

105 Pennington argued that there is a highly gendered dynamic within monogamous heterosexual relationships.
She based her argument off the work of Judith Butler, who argued that categories of sex and gender are socially
constructed and are dependent on one another. By exploring the romantic relationships of bisexual men and
women, Pennington explored how this traditional gender dynamic was affected by bisexuality; she argued that
bisexuals were more likely to conform to traditional gender norms when in a other-gender relationship and that
they were more likely to subvert these norms when in a same-gender relationship. She concluded that “the social
location of this identity category situates bisexual women and men in unscripted gender terrain.” See:
Pennington, “Bisexuals Doing Gender,” 33-43; 48.
106 Ibid.
107 Callis, “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 85.
108 Examples include Loraine Hutchins and Lani Ka’ahumanu (eds.), Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People
Speak Out (1991); Elizabeth Weise (ed.), Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism (1993); Naomi Tucker
(ed.), Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries and Visions (1996); and, Marjorie Garber (ed.), Vice Versa:
Bisexuality and Eroticism of Everyday Life (1996). See: McLaren, Feminism, Foucault and Embodied
Subjectivity, 135-6.
109 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 217.
110 Ibid., 215.
111 Pennington, “Bisexuals “Doing Gender”,” 39.

19
constructionism, in which Yoshino’s work is grounded. Social constructionism, which evolved
during the 1980s and 1990s, theorised that classifications such as “homosexual” were products
of specific histories and cultures, rather than universal truths. 112 Simultaneously, some feminist
theorists began to question the validity of “woman” as an identity category, noting how
language and science were used to legitimise cultural understandings of gender. 113 Queer
theory and bisexuality scholarship therefore have a lot in common: both are rooted in lesbian
and gay scholarship and feminist theory, and influenced by social constructionism and
postmodernism; each discipline also focus on the deconstruction of binaries. The inclusion of
bisexuality, which challenges both the natural dichotomies of sexuality and gender, within
queer theory could undeniably strengthen the discipline. However, there remains a “curious
gap” in queer theory on the subject, for which it has received justified criticism. 114

Scholars have accounted for this gap in different ways. Callis (2009) argued that bisexuality
has been ignored by queer theorists because it has been wrongly understood as a mix of
homosexuality and heterosexuality – existing within the sexuality binary. 115 Callis cites the
seminal works of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990/2006) and Michel Foucault’s The
History of Sexuality (1978) to demonstrate her point. More prominently, Erickson-Schroth and
Mitchell (2009) maintain that bisexuality is ignored because it is “fundamentally unsettling to
the hegemonic institution of heterosexuality and homosexuality” that queer theory relies on. 116
This position is supported by Steinman (2001) and Sullivan (2003), who argue that queer
theory’s dependency on the homosexual to expose heteronormativity has marginalised other
sexual possibilities, playing into the binary. Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, along with other
theorists such as Feldman (2009) and MacDowall (2009), worked with Eve Sedgwick’s
Epistemology of the Closet (1990) to illustrate their arguments, leading Erickson-Schroth and
Mitchell to conclude that an inclusion of bisexuality would require the “queering of queer
theory.”117 I will return to the practice of “queering” queer theory in the second section of this
chapter, as the methods adopted by bisexuality scholars to use bisexuality in queer theorising
inform the basis of my thesis.

112 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 216.

113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
116 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 312.
117 Ibid., 297.

20
Post-2000

From around 2000, lesbian and gay studies broadened the discipline to include other non-
normative groups; scholarship also pivoted from a queer and poststructuralist lens to address
wider LGBTQ issues. Despite this, LGBTQ texts continue to ignore bisexuality. 118 The was
evident in conducting research for this literature review: the majority of works cited are taken
from one bisexuality-specific publication, The Journal of Bisexuality, established in 1999. The
founding year of the publication supports the argument that a broadening of sexuality studies
occurred to an extent at the beginning of the 21st century; however, the fact that the majority
of the cited works come from one publication indicates other facets of sexuality scholarship
still neglect bisexuality. The Journal provides a clear roadmap of bisexuality scholarship since
its inception, with earlier publications focusing on anecdotal studies of bisexual subjectivity
(Bradford, 2004; Ochs, 2009; 2011), attempts to historicise “bisexuality” terminologically
(Angelides, 2001; Gooß, 2008; MacDowall, 2009), and queer theory’s failure to address
bisexuality (Callis, 2009; Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, 2009; Feldman, 2009). In
approximately the last ten years, bisexuality scholarship has adopted a more intersectional
approach, focusing on the influence of gender – both the bisexual individual’s own and their
partner(s) – in relationships (Fahs, 2009; Alarie and Gaudet, 2013) and the invisibility of
bisexual people of colour (Kwok et al., 2020). 119 Other issues are tackled, such as mental health
(McLean, 2008; Roberts et al., 2015; Pennasilico and Amodeo, 2019) and the
(mis)representation of bisexuality in the media (Corey, 2017; Gonzalez, Ramirez and Galupo,
2017).120

Relevance of Literature Review

This literature review demonstrates the sustained erasure – through various methods – of
bisexuality in sexuality studies. Undeniably, the ambiguous definition of “bisexuality” causes
confusion regarding who “counts” as bisexual, resulting in other plurisexual identities claiming
to be more inclusive. Additionally, the complicated performative nature of bisexuality (in

118 Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?” 672.

119 Milaine Alarie and Stéphanie Gaudet, ““I Don’t Know If She Is Bisexual or If She Just Wants to Get
Attention”: Analyzing the Various Mechanisms Through Which Emerging Adults Invisibilise Bisexuality,”
Journal of Bisexuality 13, no. 2 (2013).
120 Kirsten A. Gonzalez, Johanna L. Ramirez and M.P. Galupo, ““I was and still am”: Narratives of Bisexual
Marking in the #StillBisexual Campaign,” Sexuality and Culture 21 (2017).

21
which an individual is assumed straight or lesbian/gay) means that bisexuals are invisible in
monosexist society. This has made it difficult to establish a strong bisexual community that
could dispel the negative stereotypes surrounding bisexuality and tackle biphobia.
Nevertheless, it is evident that both the heterosexual and homosexual communities have
“shared investment in [bisexual] erasure”, as bisexuality threatens the monosexist culture both
straights and lesbians/gays benefit from. Furthermore, the failure of queer theory to explore
bisexuality as a method of inquiry, despite bisexuality raising important questions about the
construction of sexuality and gender, also points to deliberate erasure – perhaps because
bisexuality would reveal queer theory’s own reliance on the binaries it claims to interrogate.
Even in the last twenty years, as lesbian and gay studies has widened its focus to broader
LGBTQ issues, bisexuality continues to be ignored – suggesting that bisexuality’s absence
from assorted subsects of sexuality scholarship is not merely an oversight, but a deliberate
practice employed for multiple motivations. This review traces the historical trajectory of
bisexuality in sexual minority communities and sexuality scholarship, revealing the many
obstacles that bisexuality scholars face when trying to justify their work.

1.2. Conceptual Tools

This section regards the key theories and concepts – the conceptual tools – that inform the
theoretical framework of this thesis. First, I review why bisexuality scholars are attempting to
“queer” queer theory, exploring the position that queer theorists ignore bisexuality because
queer theory relies on the heterosexual/homosexual binary. I consider their argument that the
inclusion of bisexuality in queer theory would enable the discipline to transcend the sexuality
binary. I then describe the primary method adopted by bisexuality scholars to add bisexuality
to the canon of queer theory: “bisexual epistemologies”. I provide a critique of this method,
namely that the practice reduces bisexuality to a deconstructive tool of analysis that ignores
bisexual existence: being bisexual. I conclude this section by offering an overview of the
anthropological concept of liminality, and my justification for applying it to bisexuality. I argue
that understanding bisexuality as a liminal space encompasses both bisexuality as a lived
identity/subject position and bisexuality as an epistemological perspective, bettering the
bisexuality’s contribution to queer theory.

22
“Queering” Queer Theory

Laura Erickson-Schroth and Jennifer Mitchell argue “the continued erasure of bisexuality, by
queer scholars in addition to mainstream critics, reveals that queer theory has not yet moved
beyond its position as a homosexual opponent to heterosexuality…” 121 “Queer theory” was
coined in 1990 when Italian feminist and film theorist Teresa de Lauretis organised a
conference entitled, “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities”. 122123 The conference aimed
to theorise how lesbian and gay sexualities could provide “forms of resistance to cultural
homogenisation”.124 de Lauretis argued that homosexuality no longer existed on the fringes of
culture, defined in contrast to the “dominant, stable form” of heterosexuality; rather,
homosexuality was now recognised as an autonomous sexuality. 125 Homosexuality thus
challenged heteronormativity. Other theorists made similar arguments prior to de Lauretis
coining “queer theory”, most notably Michel Foucault, Diana Fuss, Eve Sedgwick and Judith
Butler.126 Despite differences in their arguments, these scholars agreed that gender and
sexuality were socially constructed, contradicting the essentialist argument that sex, gender and
sexuality were biologically determined. 127 Queer theory emerged in the 1990s as a segment of
academia grounded within social constructionism. Unlike de Lauretis, queer theory sought to
transcend the heterosexual/homosexual binary – which many scholars feel queer theory failed
to do.128 de Lauretis herself abandoned the term, claiming it was “politically and critically
ineffectual.”129 While maintaining that sexuality was an important societal construction, de
Lauretis criticised the “academic cottage industry driven by queer theory.” 130

Queer theory has been criticised for various reasons, such as its tendency to overlook issues of
race and class, elevating sexuality to the sole identity category. 131 Feminist theorist Cathy

121 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 297.

122 de Lauretis, “Queer Theory,” iii.
123 The conference was held at the University of California, Santa Cruz. de Lauretis wanted to address how
current discourses regarding homosexuality failed to recognise the relationship between race, gender and
sexuality, and how homosexuality may be expressed differently in different contexts. See: de Lauretis, “Queer
Theory,” iii.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.
126 Maria Gurevich, Helen Bailey & Jo Bower, “Querying Theory and Politics: The Epistemic (Dis)Location of
Bisexuality within Queer Theory,” Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 241.
127 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 215; Gurevich et al., “Querying Theory and Politics,” 244.
128 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 215-216.
129 Gurevich et al. “Querying Theory and Politics,” 241.
130 Ibid.
131 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 216.

23
Cohen’s persuasive essay, “Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens,” (1997) supports this,
arguing queer politics failed to reach its transformative potential because it did not consider
how power operates through intersecting identity categories. 132 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell
argue that in its attempt to reveal the constructed nature of gender and sexuality, queer theory
relies on the “marginalised sexual ‘other’”. 133 Rather than exploring the potential of various
non-heterosexual sexualities, queer theory has “unfortunately come to theorise only
homosexual identity.”134 This is evident in the failure of leading queer theorists such as Judith
Butler and Eve Sedgwick to engage properly with bisexuality. Bisexuality scholar Stacey
Young supports Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, arguing that queer theory is “practically
uniform in leaving the heterosexual/homosexual binarism undisturbed.” 135 Young argues this
is because “queer” is often used as a placeholder for “lesbian/gay” – connecting this to the
relationship between queer theory and queer politics.136 Emerging in the late 1980s, “queer
politics” described a new “in-your-face” politics that challenged heteronormativity. 137138 The
derogatory slur was reclaimed by some sexual minority activists as an umbrella term for all
non-heteronormative individuals, enabling a move away from the strict identity politics of gay
liberation.139 Queer theorist David Halperin defined “queer” as “whatever is at odds with the
normal, the legitimate, the dominant.” 140 However, instead of providing an alternative to
identity categorisation, “queer” became one of its own – often subsumed by lesbian/gay groups
in attempts to sustain their ethnic-model of sexuality.141 Rather than deconstructing the
sexuality binary, queer theory created a new one: heterosexual versus “queer”. 142
Consequently, bisexuals were similarly marginalised in queer politics as they had been in the
gay liberation movement. Bisexuals were “not queer enough” because they sometimes pursued
heteronormative relationships. 143 Influenced by queer politics, queer theory mirrored this
marginalisation, resulting in the discipline’s reliance on the heterosexual/homosexual binary.

132 Cohen, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens,” 437-438.

133 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 297.
134 Ibid.
135 Stacey Young, “Dichotomies and Displacement: Bisexuality in Queer Theory and Politics,” in Playing with
Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, ed. Shane Phelan (New York: Routledge, 1996): 65.
136 Ibid., 51.
137 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 214.
138 Prominent examples include “Queer Nation” and “ACT UP” (which “Queer Nation” stemmed from). These
groups favoured direct action to confront discrimination and violence towards the LGBTQ community.
139 Ibid.
140 David M. Halperin, St. Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
1995): 62.
141 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 214; Katkryn G. Burrill, “Queering Bisexuality,” 100.
142 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 216.
143 Blasingame, “The Roots of Biphobia,” 42.

24
Adding bisexuality to queer theory would highlight how the discipline has challenged
heterosexuality by juxtaposing it against homosexuality masked as “queer”.

Bisexual Epistemologies

Bisexuality scholars argue that bisexuality’s addition to queer theory would greatly strengthen
the discipline.144 This is because bisexuality troubles gender and sexuality binaries by refusing
to conform to monosexist notions of attraction and identity. 145 Bisexuality provides queer
theory with the “ideal starting place” for deconstructing gendered and sexuality binaries. 146
Bisexuality theorists have tried to add bisexuality to queer theory through two main
approaches: bisexuality as “universal” and “bisexual epistemologies”. Earlier attempts
emphasised the “universal” nature of bisexuality, framing bisexuality as transcending the
heterosexual/homosexual binary because it rejects fixed sexual object choice. 147 This argument
was largely dismissed by sexuality scholars, including those focused on bisexuality, because it
relied on conceptualising bisexuality as more “advanced” than heterosexuality or
homosexuality.148 Instead, bisexuality theorists suggest that bisexuality be positioned within
the heterosexual/homosexual binary, as to do so reveals the constructed nature of society and
the reliance of queer theory on heterosexual/homosexual dichotomisation. 149 In other words,
bisexuality scholars argued for the use of bisexuality as an “epistemological vantage point”
that enabled the deconstruction of sexuality and gender binaries.150 This was first proposed by
feminist theorist Elisabeth Däumer in 1992. Queer theorists adopted this method in subsequent
years, including Maria Pramaggiore, who stated that bisexual epistemologies offered “ways of
apprehending, organising and intervening in the world that refuse one-to-one correspondences
between sex acts and identity…” 151 Digital theorist Jessa Lingel cautions such practice, arguing
“theory that implements lived experiences as integral to hypothetical inquiry sets up [the]
potential for objectification.”152 Utilising behaviour as an analytical tool runs the risk of

144 Burrill, “Queering Bisexuality,” 95.

145 Gurevich et al, “Querying Theory and Politics,” 236.
146 Callis, “Playing with Butler and Foucault,” 219.
147 Young, “Dichotomies and Displacement,” 52.
148 Ibid., 53.
149 Ibid., 68.
150 Däumer, “Queer Ethics,” 98.
151 Maria Pramaggiore, “BI-introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence,” in Donald E. Hall and Maria
Pramaggiore, (eds.) Representing Bisexualities: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire (New York: NYU Press,
1996): 3.
152 Lingel, “Adjusting the Borders,” 383.

25
ignoring the lived reality of the subject. 153 This is evident in bisexuality and queer scholarship
that approaches bisexuality from an epistemological perspective: bisexual reality is often
ignored – erasing bisexual existence once again. According to Voss et al., the contribution of
bisexuality to queer theory is limited because “the possibility of simultaneously inhabiting
these positions [bisexuality as lived experience and as epistemological perspective] has been
under-theorised.”154 In order to fully recognise the potential of bisexuality in queer theory, “the
particular knot of bi as stable identity; bi as umbrella for a set of practices; and bi as
deconstructive tool” needs to be explored simultaneously.155 I propose that understanding
bisexuality as a liminal space achieves this. To do so ensures the lived reality of bisexuals is
acknowledged, while also providing an epistemological lens through which to look at queer
theory’s continued reliance on the heterosexual/homosexual binary.

Liminality

The concept of “liminality” was introduced by folklorist Arnold van Gennep in Les Rites de
Passage (1909).156157 Focusing on rites in small-scale societies, van Gennep determined that
all rites of passage (“transitions”) consisted of three phases: 1) separation rites; 2) transition
rites, and; 3) incorporation rites. 158 van Gennep described stage 2) as a “liminal period”, during
which the individual “wavers between two worlds.”159160 van Gennep’s work received little
attention following initially; only in 1957 (after his death) was “liminality” taken up again by
Scottish anthropologist Victor Turner. 161

Unlike van Gennep’s precise use of “liminality” to describe the middle stage of rituals, Turner,
in The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (1969), focused less on the actualities of
tribal transitions and instead on how people experienced ritual. 162 Turner understood liminality

153 Ibid., 382-383.

154 Voss et al., “Embracing the “And”: Between Queer and Bisexual Theory,” 1606.
155 Ibid., 1620
156 Bjørn Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern: Living Through the In-Between (New York: Routledge,
2016): 3.
157 “Liminality” stems from līmen, Latin for “threshold”.
158 van Gennep used the example of a boy transitioning from childhood to adulthood, during which the child was
removed from their village as an adolescent and was then reincorporated into society as a man. See: Thomassen,
Liminality and the Modern: 3.
159 Stephen Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” Journal of Beliefs and Values 30,
no. 2 (2009): 209.
160 Turner, The Ritual Process, 18.
161 Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern, 3.
162 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” 209-210.

26
as a “state of mind”, arguing that “liminal personae” (“threshold people”) “are betwixt and
between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial.” 163
Turner argued that liminal personae “elude or slip through the network of classifications.” 164
By framing liminality within the context of experience, Turner “developed the concept to
embrace all transitions and rituals everywhere.” 165166 Turner, when discussing Western
developed societies, differentiated between ritual for serious purpose (liminal) and recreational
purposes (“liminoid”/”liminal-like”), such as theatre, during which the individual deliberately
placed themselves “between fact and fiction.” 167 Furthermore, Turner contrasted “social
structure” with “anti-structure”.168 He argued that society was organised by “a multiplicity of
structural ties” (e.g. caste and class), and that society was an “often hierarchical system of
politico-legal-economic positions… separating men in terms of “more” or “less”.” 169 This
describes “social structure”. “Anti-structure” describes “unstructured or rudimentarily
structured and relatively undifferentiated comitatus, community, or even communion…” 170
Turner argued that anti-structure societies were liminal. Central to this was Turner’s reliance
on communitas – an unstructured state in which all members of a community are equal,
allowing them to share a common experience, typically a rite of passage. 171 Turner argued
“communitas breaks in through the interstices of structure, in liminality; at the edges of
structure, in marginality; and from beneath structure, in inferiority.” 172 Communitas could
inspire “creative, ‘beyond-the-box’ approaches,” encouraging “bottom-up, multi-perspectival,
democratic” endeavours. 173 Turner acknowledged “all sustained manifestations of communitas
must appear as dangerous or anarchical” to those concerned with maintaining social
structure.174 Turner recognised the contradictory possibilities of liminality, which could
simultaneously instill impassivity and inspire revolutionary reversals of power-structures.175

163 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality and Cultural Performance,” 209-210; Victor Turner, The Ritual Process,
359.
164 E. Tristan Booth, “Queering QueerEye: The Stability of Gay Identity Confronts the Liminality of Trans
Embodiment,” Western Journal of Communication, 75, no. 2 (2011): 186-188.
165 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” 209.
166 Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern, 5.
167 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” 211.
168 Ibid.
169 Turner, The Ritual Process, 360.
170 Ibid.
171 Ibid.
172 Turner, The Ritual Process, 372.
173 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” 212.
174 Turner, The Ritual Process, 368.
175 Ibid.

27
Turner’s “liminality” is not without criticism. Stephen Bigger argued that Turner “took a
precise concept… and adapted it into a general programme far removed from the intention of
[van Gennep]” that “introduced a range of confusions.”176 J. Lowell Lewis supports this.177
Bjørn Thomassen acknowledged the “perplexing” qualities of liminality, as it “involves a
potentially unlimited freedom from any kind of structure” – acknowledging social structures
exist – while involving “a peculiar kind of unsettling situation in which nothing really
matters…”178 Nevertheless, Turner’s work was vital in directing attention to van Gennep’s
concept, and liminality remains prominent in both anthropology and popular culture today. 179

Bisexuality as a Liminal Space

Presently, liminality “relates to change in a single personality as well as social change and
transition in large-scale settings; [tying] together the micro and the macro, operating from ‘the
middle’.”180 I will apply liminality to bisexuality for this reason, as liminality encompasses the
dislocation of bisexuality at both levels, recognising the relationship between lived reality and
sexuality scholarship. On a “micro” level, liminality encapsulates embodied bisexual
subjectivity by describing their being “betwixt and between” the “straight” and LGBTQ+
communities.181 At a “macro” level, I frame heterosexuality and queerness as diametrically
opposed social structures, positioning bisexuality as the liminal anti-structure. Sexuality
scholar have employed liminality before: Andrew Gorman-Murray argued that older gay men
are “liminal subjects, skirting the thresholds of two social worlds simultaneously, but not fully
present, not belonging to either.”182 Mandy Wilson described transgender existence as “a
particular phase of liminality”, during which “one’s physical, behavioural and psychological

176 Bigger, “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance,” 211.

177 J. Lowell Lewis, “Toward a Unified Theory of Cultural Performance: A Reconstructive Introduction to
Victor Turner,” in Graham St. John (ed.) Victor Turner and Contemporary Cultural Performance (New York:
Berghahn Books, 2008): 49.
178 Bjørn Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern: Living Through the In-Between (New York, USA: Routledge,
2016): 1.
179 “Liminality” is now applied to a multitude of phenomena. For example, it can be used spatial-temporally,
ranging from describing spaces such as airports, in which time feels as if it “doesn’t exist”, to disputed territory
and national borders. It has been applied to religious practice, and different stages of one’s life, such as the
period between completing the final university exams and graduating. It has also been applied to various
minority groups, such as illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, people of mixed ethnicities, and intersex
individuals.
180 Ibid., 7.
181 I acknowledge that some LGBTQ+ individuals may also identify as heterosexual, however, in this instance, I
am using “straight” to describe cisgender heterosexual (cishet) individuals.
182 Andrew Gorman-Murray, “Liminal Subjects, Marginal Spaces and Material Legacies: Older Gay Men,
Home and Belonging,” in Queer Presences and Absences, (eds.) Yvette Taylor and Michelle Addison (England:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2017): 102.

28
self will be remodelled.”183 By conceptualising bisexuality as a liminal space, I offer a way of
utilising bisexuality in theory that encompasses both bisexual subjectivity and bisexuality as
an epistemological perspective. This ensures that bisexuality is not reduced to hypothetical
inquiry, ignoring the lived reality of bisexual-identifying individuals.

Conclusion

This section outlined the conceptual tools that inform my thesis. I agree with bisexuality
scholars that the inclusion of bisexuality in queer theory would reveal the discipline’s continued
reliance on the heterosexual/homosexual binary. I also agree that the addition of bisexuality
would help queer theory transcend this dichotomisation. However, the primary method adopted
by bisexuality scholars and queer theorists alike – bisexual epistemologies – has resulted in the
lived reality of bisexual individuals being ignored once more, undermining the initial efforts
of bisexuality scholars to have bisexuality recognised as a valid sexual orientation and lived
reality. I hope to avoid this mistake of reducing bisexuality to a hypothetical inquiry by
conceptualising bisexuality as a liminal space, simultaneously acknowledging bisexual
existence and bisexuality’s deconstructive potential.

Mandy Wilson, “`I Am the Prince of Pain, for I Am a Princess in the Brain’: Liminal Transgender Identities,
183
Narratives and the Elimination of Ambiguities,” Sexualities 5, no. 4 (November 2002): 427.

29
 Chapter 2: Methodology

This chapter outlines my methodology. Given that bisexual theorising often overlooks bisexual
identity/subjectivity, I chose to use interviewing as my primary research method. To do so
ensured my analysis was grounded in the personal narratives of bisexuals, rather than using
bisexuality as a topic of hypothetical inquiry. I analysed 9 interviews, involving 12 participants,
conducted between February 2004 and March 2020 (Appendix 1). I begin this chapter by
describing how I executed my research using a combination of interviews I was granted access
to previously conducted by an organisation and interviews I conducted personally. I then
highlight the limitations of my research, before outlining my positionality. I continue by
considering my research within a Scottish context. I conclude by discussing how I analysed my
interviews using a combined method of thematic analysis and discourse analysis.

2.1. The Interviews

As required by the Gender Studies Masters, I undertook a ten-week internship. I interned as a

researcher at OurStory Scotland (OSS) – a small Scottish charity that “collects, archives and
presents the life stories and experiences” of Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community. 184 My primary
role was summarising the oral history recordings of solo, paired and group interviews
conducted by OSS in preparation for archiving at the National Library of Scotland. 185 I
summarised 27 interviews in total. I conducted 2 interviews personally (1 solo and 1 paired)
with the purpose of adding to OSS’s collection and providing primary research for my thesis.
Both interviewees were brought to my attention by OSS; I contacted the participants through
my OSS email.186 I was given permission by OSS to use the interviews I had summarised for
my thesis as the interviewees had already granted their permission for the interviews to be used
for presentation and research purposes.

184 “Welcome to OurStory Scotland,” OurStory Scotland, accessed May 12, 2020,
https://www.ourstoryscotland.org.uk/
185 A summary of the recording is provided in addition to the audio file of the interview to offer a detailed
overview of the recording. The interviews typically last between 1-3 hours; the interview summary breaks the
interview down into approximately 5-minute segments, with 5-6 lines of text summarising each 5-minute
segment. The summaries also provide additional information for the reader, such as the significance of
individuals mentioned, key LGBTQ+ events, and relevant legislation.
186 I contacted 2 other individuals who had expressed interest in being involved in my research. Unfortunately,
the scheduled interviews had to be cancelled due to the outbreak of coronavirus and the imposition of lockdown
in the United Kingdom in March 2020. I was in conversation with the potential interviewees in effort to find an
alternative interviewing method, such as video call or written submission, but I did not receive a reply from
either participant.

30
In order to qualify for my research, the individual had to either: a) identify as bisexual at the
time of the interview; b) identify as bisexual previously, or c) have had sexual
attraction/experiences with both same- and other-sexed individuals previously/presently or
were open to the possibility of such attraction in the future, but did not identify as bisexual. My
reasoning for this qualification was influenced by bisexuality scholars April Callis (2009) and
Surya Monro et al. (2017) – mentioned in Chapter 1 – who use “bisexual” to describe (possibly
unacted upon) sexual attraction to same- and other-sexed persons, and to refer to individuals
who have these experiences. 9 of the 27 interviews qualified for my research, involving 12
participants. 2 participants, Sarah and Angela, appeared in 2 interviews each: both were in a
group interview conducted by OSS (2004); OSS interviewed Sarah individually (2018), and; I
interviewed Angela in a paired interview (2020). 187

All participants identified as cisgender when interviewed, comprising of 6 women and 6 men.
All individuals are White; 7 (1 woman and 6 men) are Scottish, 3 (women) are English but
have lived in Scotland since their late teens/early 20s, 1 woman was raised in New Zealand but
is of Scottish heritage and moved to Scotland as an adult, and 1 woman has Scottish parents
but lived in London until her teens before moving to Scotland. I did not have access to the
participants’ dates of birth, so I am unable to ascertain the exact ages, but the interviews
indicate that the participants range between approximately mid-30s to late 60s. I was unable to
determine the interviewees’ relationship statuses as OSS does not ask for this information;
some participants provided this information voluntarily. I will address how this sample relates
to Scotland demographically later in this chapter.

Semi-Structured Interviews

OSS uses semi-structured interviews; I adopted the same method when conducting my
interviews. Semi-structured interviews are the preferred method of feminist researchers as they
encourage the active involvement of the interviewee when discussing their opinions. 188 Less
restricting than structured interviews, semi-structured interviews enable the interviewer to
explore the participant’s reality more freely. 189 They can also create a reciprocal relationship
between the interviewer and the interviewee, enabling greater participant-involvement in the

187 See Appendix 1 for an overview of the interviewees.

188 Shulamit Reinharz, “Feminist Interview Research,” in Feminist Methods in Social Research (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992): 18.
189 Ibid.

31
research process and collapsing the hierarchical relationship typically found in traditional
interviewing.190191 Semi-structured interviewing allows the bisexual-identifying participants to
give their account of their experiences; by using interviews, I ensured that bisexual subjectivity
was foregrounded in my analysis and that bisexuality was not reduced to a hypothetical tool of
analysis. OSS interviews typically begin with a prompt for the interviewee to describe their
early life. The interviewee is asked additional questions throughout the interview, either to
provide clarification or expansion on a certain topic, or to shift the focus of the interview. In
both interviews I conducted I had prepared questions relating to my research concerning
hostility from the straight and LGBTQ+ communities and how the gender of the interviewee’s
partner influenced their experiences as a bi+ individual. During both interviews, the
participants provided this information without prompt. All interviews were conducted by me
or Jaime Valentine, the Chair of OSS, and audio-recorded. I summarised each interview: they
were not transcribed verbatim. I later transcribed verbatim portions of the interviews relevant
to my research in preparation for my analysis.

2.2. Limitations

Interviewing is not a flawless research method. The oral history interviews by OSS were
conducted with the participants’ awareness that OSS seeks to amplify LGBTQ+ voices, while
my interviewees knew my research concerned bisexuality. It is possible that my interviewees
catered their answers to my research, although I was careful not to specify my focus on bisexual
subjectivity. Any information provided by OSS’s interviewees concerning bisexual
subjectivity was volunteered without prompt. Nevertheless, there is a performative element to
oral histories because they are narrative acts that require the presentation of self: interviewees

190 Reinharz, “Feminist Interview Research,” 18; Wanda Pillow, “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking
the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research,” International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 16, no. 2 (2003): 178.
191 Feminist research originated in the desire to recognise the importance of the lived experiences of women.
Feminist researchers argued that dominant avenues of knowledge production excluded women. For example,
some feminist researchers have argued that traditional methods’ reliance on positivism – which states certain
knowledge (fact) is derived from sensory experience – excludes women because positivism assumes there is
only one logic of science. Feminist researchers challenged traditional methods by creating new meanings by
combining different opinions and standpoints that have usually been ignored within the Academy. They also
recognised the hierarchies that exist in such practices, such as the tendency to generalise women’s social
situations or overlooking issues of race, class and culture, and how such practices can reinforce the status quo.
Finally, feminist researchers argue that traditional research methods create a hierarchical subject/object
relationship. See Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, "Feminist Research: Exploring, Interrogating, and Transforming
the Interconnections of Epistemology, Methodology, and Method," in Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory
and Praxis, (ed). Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber (Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2011): 2-9.

32
tell their life stories with the knowledge that their accounts will be listened to or read by another
person.192 Sociologist Sharlene Hesse-Biber argued that people identify themselves with or
against other people; this is evident in the polarisation of traditional identity politics. 193 It is
worth acknowledging that the interviewees – perhaps unconsciously – could recreate this
homogenous heterosexual/queer polarisation. It should also be recognised that interviews
explore an individual’s personal experiences and their version of the truth, rather than absolute
fact.194 The situated knowledge of the interviewee must be considered. Influential feminist
theorist Donna Haraway defined “situated knowledge” as “embodied objectivity”, recognising
how individuals are influenced by their own position within the world. 195 Ergo, how someone’s
identity – comprised of various identity categories in addition to the (historic) time and space
that they are in – affects their understanding of the world.196 Feminist researchers argue that in
order for research to be truly objective, the situated knowledge of the researcher must also be
considered.197 Consequently, central to feminist theory is the practice of reflexivity. 198

2.3. Positionality

To quote anthropologist Charlotte Davies, “reflexivity, broadly defined, means a turning back
on oneself.”199 In other words, reflexivity requires the researcher to consider their relationship
to their research and how this relationship is influenced by their positionality: the stance of the
researcher in relation to the socio-political context of the study. 200 I am a Scottish bisexual
woman in a long-term relationship with a heterosexual man. My interest in this topic is
influenced by my own bisexuality, and the dislocation I often feel in both heteronormative and
LGBTQ+ spaces. Being Scottish, I also wanted to focus on Scotland’s bisexual community –
because both bisexuality and Scotland tend to be overlooked in research unless focusing on

192 Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, “A Re-Invitation to Feminist Research.” in Feminist Research Practice: A
Primer, 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2013): 53-4.
193 Ibid.
194 Hesse-Biber, “Feminist Research: Exploring, Interrogating and Transforming,” 9.
195 Haraway argues that traditional scientific inquiry adopts the “God trick”: a “mode of seeing that pretends to
offer a vision that is from everywhere and nowhere, equally and fully". Haraway concludes that the only way of
achieving any kind of objectivity in science is by admitting that knowledge is partial and situated. See: Donna
Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privileges of Partial Perspective,”
Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 581.
196 Nina Lykke, "Methodologies, Methods, and Ethics,” in Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory,
Methodology and Writing, (ed.) Nina Lykke (London: Routledge, 2010): 152.
197 Ibid., 159.
198 Pillow, “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure?” 178.
199 Charlotte Aull Davies, Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others, 2nd ed., (London:
Routledge, 2008): 4.
200 Pillow, “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure?” 178.

33
either topic specifically. 201 Reflexivity is sometimes dismissed as “narcissistic” based on the
argument that acknowledging one’s positionality does not erase the consequences of such a
position.202 Nevertheless, by using reflexivity, I hope to “better represent, legitimise or call into
question” my data.203

2.4. Scottish Context

To situate my research sample within a Scottish context, an overview of Scotland’s

demographics and its LGBTQ+ history is useful. The latest national census (2011) found that
92% of the Scottish population (estimated at 5.5 million) identify as “White: Scottish” or
“White: Other British”. 204205 206 The remaining 8% consists of White non-British individuals
and Scottish minority ethnic groups.207 If we are to assume that the sample reflects Scotland’s
national demographics, 92% of 12 equates to just over 11. While the lack of non-White
representation in the interview sample is significant given that it fails to acknowledge bisexuals
of colour in Scotland, it is not proportionally inconsistent. Similarly, the 6 male and 6 female
interviewees broadly reflect Scotland’s population regarding sex: the 2011 census was divided
almost evenly between men (48%) and women (52%). 208 Unfortunately, this census did not
request gender identity; it is therefore difficult to determine Scotland’s non-binary and trans
population.209 Other socio-political identities, such as class, age, and disability could also be

201 The United Kingdom is often reduced to England in media depictions and general discussion, marginalising
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a “Celtic Fringe” that surrounds a hegemonic England. See: Jessica
Homberg-Schamm, Colonised by Wankers: Postcolonialism and Contemporary Scottish Fiction (Cologne:
Modern Academic Publishing, 2018): 9.
202 Pillow, “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure?” 176.
203 Ibid.
204 Population UK, “Scotland Population 2020,” accessed 29 July, 2020,
https://www.ukpopulation.org/scotland-population/.
205 Scots are sometimes described as having “Caledonian Antisyzygy”, which refers to the idea that Scottish
people possess the dual identities of Scottish and British simultaneously. It was first coined by Scottish literary
critic George Gregory Smith in reference to Scottish literature, but it since been used to describe the Scottish
psyche. The Scottish and British identities are understood to be in direct opposition to each other and typical
within Scots. The results of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum is thought to reflect this: 44.7% voted
for independence, while 55.3% voted to remain in the United Kingdom. See: Homberg-Schamm, Colonised by
Wankers, 1-2.
206 White non-British groups include ‘White: Irish’, ‘White: Polish’, ‘White: Gypsy/ Traveller’ and ‘White:
Other white’. See Scotland’s Census, “Ethnicity Identity, Language and Religion” (2011), accessed 12 May
2020: https://scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion
207 Ibid.
208 Scotland’s Census, Table QS104SC: “Sex: All people,” National Records of Scotland (2011), accessed 20
July 2020: https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-analyser/jsf/tableView/tableView.xhtml.
209 The 2021 Census will ask for gender identity. See: “Scotland’s Census 2021: Sex and Gender Identity Topic
Report,” National Records of Scotland, accessed 20 July 2020:
https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/census2021/Sex_and_Gender_Identity_Topic_Report.p df.

34
considered. I have chosen not to in this instance, largely due to space, but that does not mean
that they are not important in influencing sexual identity.

Historically, Scotland has been the “passive or grudging recipient of Westminster

liberalisation.”210 The UK Parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act in 1967, legalising
homosexual acts in private between two men aged 21 and over. 211212 It took Scotland thirteen
years to follow suit, passing the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act in 1980.213214 Most works
focusing on homosexuality within Britain fail to account for Scotland’s slower response. 215
Historians Jeffrey Meek and Steve Bruce argue religion played a part in Scotland’s reluctance,
alongside the country’s rural landscape. 216 This was evident in 2000, when the “Keep the
Clause” campaign – a privately funded political campaign seeking to stop the repeal of Section
2A of the Local Government Act – enjoyed some support in rural Scotland. 217 The campaign
ultimately failed. Much like the United States, Scotland’s bisexual community developed in
the early 1980s, again in reaction to antibisexual attitudes within mainstream gay liberation. 218
This was evidenced by 2 interviewees, Sarah and Kate, who established bisexual support
groups in reaction to such hostility.

210 James Valentine, “Turning Out to Make History (Part 2),” History Scotland 12, no. 2 (2012): 50.
211 The legislation was based on the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report. Officially entitled the “Report
of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution,” the report published the findings of
a committee established in the United Kingdom following a string of convictions of well-known men for
homosexual acts between males; proponents of decriminalisation had called for a commission to study the issue.
See: David A.J. Richards, “The Fall of Empire,” in The Rise of Gay Rights and the Fall of the British Empire,
(ed.) David A.J. Richards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013): 158, and; Steven Dryden, “A short
history of LGBT rights in the UK,” British Library, accessed 20 July 2020, https://www.bl.uk/lgbtq-
histories/articles/a-short-history-of-lgbt-rights-in-the-uk
212 Jeffrey MacGregor Meek, “Gay and bisexual men, self-perception and identity in Scotland, 1940 to 1980,”
PhD thesis, University of Glasgow (2011): 10.
213 Ibid.
214 The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act introduced the same measures introduced under the Sexual Offence Act
1967, which was limited to England and Wales.
215 Meek, “Gay and bisexual men,” 11.
216 Only 17% of Scotland’s population reside in rural areas, despite its accounting for 98% of Scotland’s land.
The OSS interviews evidence how rural Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community is affected by growing up in these
areas, as they had little to no contact with other individuals in the LGBTQ+ community. This results in domestic
migration towards urban cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. In terms of religion, Scotland has traditionally
been socially conservative, which is connected to Scotland’s rural communities as this tends to be where
religion in concentrated. In 2011, 53.8% of Scots identified as Christian. Steve Bruce connects Scotland’s
increasing liberalisation to the declining influence of the Church and urbanisation, while James Valentine
connects it to devolution. See: Bruce, “Sex and Politics,” 217 and Valentine, “Turning Out to Make History
(Part 2),” 50.
217 Section 2A (known as Section 28 in England and Wales) stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally
promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the
teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” The
Act was repealed in 2000 in Scotland with a 99 to 17 majority vote. See: “Sex and Politics,” in Steve Bruce,
Scottish Gods: Religion in Modern Scotland 1900-2012 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014): 519.
218 Voss et al., “Embracing the “And”,” 1609.

35
In 2015 and 2016, ILGA-Europe – an independent, international non-governmental umbrella
organisation that advocates for human rights and equality for LGBTI people – ranked the UK
as first and third respectively in terms of European countries’ legal and policy practices for
LGBTI people.219 Scotland met more criteria than England, Wales and Northern Ireland in both
instances.220221 This is largely due to Scotland having devolved powers. 222 Additionally, the
Scottish National Party (SNP) – Scotland’s largest political party and party of Government –
has 9 LGBT politicians of 47 Members of Parliament (MPs) at Westminster. 223 This makes it
the political party with proportionally the most LGBT politicians, and the SNP
disproportionately contributes to Westminster’s title of “the gayest parliament in the world.” 224
Scotland is therefore widely considered to be a good place to live as an LGBTQ+ individual. 225

2.5. Analysis

I used a combination of thematic analysis and discourse analysis to sort and analyse the
interviews. Thematic analysis is a qualitative method for “identifying, analysing and reporting
patterns (themes) within data.” 226 Discourse analysis, while referring to a variety of different
approaches to studying texts, generally shares “a rejection of the realist notion that language is
simply a neutral means of reflecting or describing the world, and a conviction in the central
importance of discourse in constructing social life.” 227 I used thematic analysis to first
categorise the main themes that presented themselves within the interviews on the topic of

219 “Rainbow Europe,” ILGA-Europe, accessed 12 May, 2020, https://www.ilga-europe.org/rainboweurope

220 Francesca Stella, Moya Flynn, and Anna Gawlewicz, “Unpacking the Meanings of a ‘Normal Life’ among
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Eastern European Migrants in Scotland,” Central and Eastern
European Migration Review 7, no. 1 (2018): 59, https://doi.org/10.17467/ceemr.2017.16.
221 Press Association, “Scotland tops league for gay rights,” The Guardian, 10 May 2015,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/scotland-tops-league-for-gay-rights
222 The Scotland Act 1998 does not specify which matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament; it specifies
those matters that are reserved to the UK. See GOV.UK, “Devolution settlement: Scotland” for the full list,
accessed 12 May, 2020: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-scotland
223 LGBT MP, accessed 20 June, 2020, https://mps.whoare.lgbt/
224 Andrew Reynolds, “The UK’s parliament is still the gayest in the world after 2019 election,” PinkNews, 13
December, 2019, https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/13/uk-gay-parliament-world-2019-general-election-snp-
conservatives-labour-lgbt/
225 David Torrance, “The tartan rainbow: why it’s great to be gay in Scotland,” The Guardian, 5 April, 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/05/tartan-rainbow-why-great-to-be-gay-in-scotland- lgbt-rights-
kezia-dugdale
226 Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3, no.2 (2006): 79.
227 Rosalind Gill, “Discourse Analysis,” in Qualitative Research with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical
Handbook, (eds.) Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, (London: SAGE, 2000): 172.

36
bisexuality. I then employed discourse analysis to interrogate these themes to explore the
possibility of applying liminality to bisexuality.

37
 Chapter 3: Discussion

This chapter considers 3 main themes that emerged while analysing the 9 interviews. I will
discuss each theme in turn, relating it to existing bisexuality scholarship. The first theme is (1)
Biphobia/Bi-negativity, addressing the “pervasive stereotypes and negative attitudes”
individuals experience because of their bisexuality.228 This theme is divided into two
subthemes as there is significant distinction between (a) Biphobia and (b) Bi-negativity.
Additionally, I will consider how gender influences biphobia/bi-negativity, due to marked
differences in the experiences of male and female interviewees. The second theme is (2) Need
for Recognition, comprised of two subthemes: (a) Bi-Erasure and (b) Bi-Invisibility. This
acknowledges the differences between the deliberate erasure of bisexuality in mainstream
lesbian/gay activism and how bisexuality is invisibilised through un/misrecognition, situating
bisexuality within the broader context of identity politics. The third theme is (3) Feeling
Between Two Worlds, which concerns the dislocation bisexuals feel in both straight and
LGBTQ+ spaces because of their sexuality. By grounding my research in personal accounts of
bisexual subjectivity, I hope to avoid reducing bisexuality to a tool of hypothetical inquiry.

3.1. Biphobia and Bi-Negativity

All (a) bisexual-identifying interviewees bar Graham reported experiencing biphobia or bi-
negativity. Those who (b) did not identify as bisexual but had previously or (c) had/could
experience same- and other-sex attraction also recalled experiences of sexuality-based
discrimination. I describe this as homophobia: ranging negative attitudes toward
homosexuality or people who are/perceived as being LGBTQ+. 229 I largely focus on the
bisexual-identifying interviewees as their experiences mostly concerned their bisexuality.

All bisexual-identifying participants reported experiencing biphobia and bi-negativity from the
straight and queer communities. Using bisexuality scholar Mickey Eliason’s argument, I use
“biphobia” and “bi-negativity” to describe different phenomena. Eliason prefers “homo-
negativity”/“bi-negativity” to “homophobia”/“biphobia” for various reasons. 230 Firstly, Eliason

228 Kwok et al., “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s Relationship Expectations,” 3.

229 Kerri Durnell Schuiling and Frances E. Likis, Women's Gynecologic Health 2nd ed. (Burlington, MA: Jones
and Bartlett Publishers, 2013): 186.
230 Mickey Eliason, “Bi-Negativity,” Journal of Bisexuality 1 (2000): 140.

38
argues “homophobia” and “biphobia” are limiting because they draw attention to prejudices
held by one individual, rather than “societal institutions that create the climate for negative
attitudes to flourish.”231 She disagrees with the utilisation of “phobia” in this instance because
it does not describe “irrational, uncontrollable fear that leads to psychological distress” but an
“often rational and intentional” position “fuelled by anger, hostility or hatred.” 232 Eliason
argues that individuals with genuine phobias typically want to overcome their fears, while
homophobes usually do not. 233 “Bi-negativity” acknowledges the nuanced societal nature of
antibisexual discourse, while “biphobia” reduces such attitudes to irrational fear. 234 I propose
that “biphobia” should not be dismissed terminologically; rather, “biphobia” can describe anti-
bisexuality attitudes within the straight community, as the interviewees tended to associate
heterosexual anti-bisexuality attitudes with ignorance. “Biphobia” aptly describes the
“irrational, uncontrollable fear” of bisexuality within the straight community. “Bi-negativity”
better describes queer anti-bisexuality attitudes, as the queer community, particularly
lesbians/gays, have sustained a “societal institution that creates the climate for negative
attitudes to flourish” based on attitudes “fuelled by anger, hostility or hatred”, evidenced in
Chapter 1. The interviewees expressed feeling betrayed and frustrated by the queer community
because they believed the community understood the reality of bisexuality but deliberately
chose to ignore it. That said, I do believe that biphobia is also present within the queer
community, demonstrated by the salience of anti-bisexuality stereotypes.

3.1.(a) Biphobia

Interviewees provided various examples of biphobia from heterosexual individuals. Sarah,

Angela and JohnA recalled being asked what their “percentage” was i.e. how their attraction
to men and women was “divided”:

“It’s another thing that people outside of the bi community seem to get obsessed
with. It’s one of the first questions I often get asked: “So, what’s your percentage?”
(Sarah)

231 Ibid.
232 Ibid.
233 Ibid.
234 Klesse, “Shady Characters, Untrustworthy Partners, and Promiscuous Sluts,” 234.

39
This is a common stereotype about bisexuality grounded in the misconception that bisexuality
is a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. 235 The interviewees believed this
question stemmed from misinformation and ignorance regarding bisexuality rather than
homophobia:

“From the straight side, unless you’re talking about real homophobic people…
there’s no such biphobia issue… they’re slightly, “I don’t know how to deal with
this”… Or they’re curious and they decide they might as well just see how far they
can go… My experience is the same type of men who will be homophobic will be
biphobic but only on the homophobic side.” (JohnA)

Participants recalled other examples aligning with common stereotypes provided in Chapter 1,
such as bisexual promiscuity. 236 The hyper-sexualisation of bisexuality was discussed in-depth
among the support group. Both JohnA and Sarah expressed frustration at the fact that there was
no other label for bisexuals, while labels such as “gay” and “lesbian” were commonly used
alternatives by homosexuals:

“…there isn’t really a non-sexual word for it… It’s “bi” and silently “sexual””
(JohnA)

JohnA and Sarah felt that the lack of a non-sexual label for bisexuality added to its hyper-
sexualisation. Other participants linked hyper-sexualisation to media representations of
bisexuality:

“There’s often the media representation of bisexuality [as] something that

happens when you’re in bed with people of opposite genders and at no other time.
That is when you are bisexual: in the process of having sex with two other people.”
(David)

David’s description of bisexual representation demonstrates how bisexuality continues to be

positioned within the gender and sexuality binaries, as representations of bisexuality posit

235 Pennington, “Bisexuals “Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships,” 65.

236 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 298.

40
bisexuals as people who simultaneously engage in heterosexual and homosexual sex, failing to
acknowledge those who do not conform to the gender binary. Various scholars have explored
the impact of such media depictions. Pennasilico and Amodeo (2019) associate hyper-
sexualisation of female bisexuality with media representations, concluding that while
representation is hypothetically beneficial, depictions have been mostly harmful as “they are
often riddled with stereotypes...” 237 Media theorist Sarah Corey’s study of televised
representations of bisexual women supports this, finding that female bisexual characters were
typically involved in cheating scandals and love triangles.238 The hyper-sexualisation of
bisexual women was evident in the interviews: Angela recounted being asked for threesomes
in both interviews, and both Sarah and Angela recalled being called “greedy”. Significantly,
none of the male participants recounted similar experiences – although this could be because
male bisexuality is rarely represented on screen. 239 The hyper-sexualisation of male bisexuality
is typically articulated instead through the false association of bisexual men with the spread of
HIV/AIDS.240241 This was evidenced by the BiScotland group: a member was accused of
genocide for having sexual relations with a bisexual man. Both examples demonstrate the
gendered nature of biphobia/bi-negativity.

The hyper-sexualisation of bisexuals was also evidenced by various participants reporting that
partners had questioned their faithfulness. This is due to the stereotype that bisexuals prefer
non-monogamous relationships (only 1 participant was in a polyamorous relationship at the
time of interviewing). Stuart, who identifies as gay but has had romantic/sexual relationships
with women, recalled his girlfriend’s concerns:

237 Pennasilico and Amodeo, “The Invisi_les,” 24.

238 Corey examined media texts with female characters that had prolonged romantic/sexual relationships with
more than one sex or gender, noting the “significantly higher” representation of sexual minorities from the
1990s onwards compared to the 1970s and 1980s. Corey did so with the goal of identifying concurrent themes
regarding television’s depiction of bisexuality. Corey studied three shows, Grey’s Anatomy, Lost Girl, and
Orange is the New Black. She identified three themes: 1) lack of terminology/self-identification; 2)
greedy/unable to commit, and; 3) parental displeasure. Corey’s findings reflect common tropes about bisexuality
in sexuality scholarship. See: Corey, “All Bi Myself,” 190-1; 194-200.
239 Meyer argues that media representations of bisexuality “follow a typical narrative pattern”: bisexual
characters are usually female and non-White. See: Meyer, “Representing Bisexuality on Television,” 366-7.
240 Callis, “Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 84; Klesse, “Shady Characters, Untrustworthy Partners, and
Promiscuous Sluts,” 232.
241 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell argue that bisexual men were the easiest to blame for the spread of HIV/AIDS
into the heterosexual population – because it was thought that bisexual men contracted the disease from gay
men and that they then passed it on to heterosexual women. Ulrich Gooß stressed that it has since been proven
that there is “little substance to this argument.” See: Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,”
301; Gooß, “Concepts of Bisexuality,” 12.

41
 “…if I’m chatting to anyone else, male or female, she’s thinking in her head, “Is
that a challenge?”

Stuart’s plurisexual attraction caused his partner to think he was more likely to cheat.

A few interviewees discussed how these representations affected their understanding of

bisexuality, recounting concerns that they would become attracted to someone else of a gender
different to that of their partner. Such anxieties were enhanced by stereotypes about
percentages of attraction. The interviewees therefore demonstrated internalised biphobia/bi-
negativity: the “unintentional agreement with negative and biased understandings around
bisexuality, as well as the subsequent development of negative beliefs and feelings about one’s
bisexual orientation.”242

3.1.(b) Bi-Negativity

Both Roberts et al. and McLean associate internalised biphobia/bi-negativity with the exclusion
of bisexuals from the lesbian/gay community, which I discussed at length in Chapter 1:
bisexuality weakened their ethnic-model of sexuality.243 One of the main methods adopted by
lesbian/gay activists to justify bi-erasure was questioning the authenticity of bisexuality,
typically by rejecting bisexuality as an authentic orientation or by painting those who do not
identify as monosexual as going through a confused “phase”. 244 Both tactics were evident in
the interviews.

Sarah believed that the idea that bisexuality does not exist – which can be seen in both straight
and queer communities – directly stems from mainstream gay/lesbian activism:

“…they’ve completely bought the myth that the gay movement has promulgate that
there’s no bisexuals…”

242 Monro et al., “Is Bisexuality Invisible?” 673.

243 Roberts et al. “Between a Gay and a Straight Place,” 556-7; McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 72.
244 Israel and Mohr, “Attitudes Towards Bisexual Women and Men,” 121; Roberts et al., “Between a Gay and a
Straight Place,” 554.

42
She supported this by recounting an experience of her bisexuality being invalidated by a lesbian
women’s collective. When asked to divide themselves between heterosexuals and lesbians,
Sarah asked where she should stand and was told there was “no such thing” as bisexuality. This
highlights the longevity of anti-bisexual attitudes within radical/lesbian feminist circles
discussed previously.245 JohnA discussed anti-bisexual attitudes among gay men:

“If you’re on the scene or you have a boyfriend, it’s absolutely not done to say that
you’re bisexual.”

JohnA’s account indicates bi-negativity exists in gay men’s circles. Kate supports this,
recounting her time as a volunteer with Switchboard (the second oldest LGBT+ telephone
helpline in the United Kingdom), causally linking it her reasoning behind establishing a
separate bisexual phoneline in Edinburgh during the 1980s. Kate said:

“Switchboard at that time had very much the sense that bisexual people were a) all
men; b) all married men; and c) all married men who were actually gay. So that
was their image of bisexuals.”

Kate’s comment demonstrates how Switchboard invalidated bisexual men – but also how they
invalidated bisexual women by refusing to acknowledge women at all. JohnB disagrees with
this, expressing amazement at how little bigotry towards bisexuals exists among male
homosexuals. These contradicting ideas are reflected in scholarship concerning male
bisexuality, with some research indicating gay men are more tolerant than lesbians toward
bisexuals (Schokeid, 2001) while others suggest gay men do not accept male bisexuality (Mohr
and Rochlen, 1999).246

Various interviewees suggested bisexuality is rejected as a valid identity because it cannot be

categorised as heterosexual or homosexual. JohnA’s mother told him to “choose one way or
the other”, and Kate, who began dating a man while a member of her university’s Gay Society,
was assumed to have gone:

245 Galupo et al., “Conceptualisation of Sexual Orientation Among Sexual Minorities,” 451.
246 McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 67.

43
 “from being a lesbian to being straight – not, you know, not stopping to “touch go”
or anything…”

Some interviewees related this to the centrality of gender in sexual object choice in determining
sexuality, which is fundamental to the traditional ethnic-model of sexuality adopted by
mainstream lesbian/gay activists:

“By focusing on the end point, it completely negates anything that’s come before
the fifty years’ worth of a phase. If you end up with one at the end of it, that’s it:
you’ve come to your true sexuality – when your true sexuality has been true at
whatever point.” (JohnA)

Louise, who is in a long-term relationship, demonstrated such thinking:

“I think now I would identify myself because I’ve been with Zoë for so long. So, I
would think of myself as being lesbian…”

Louise identifies as lesbian because of her relationship with a woman but acknowledges that
she previously “didn’t really feel that [she] had to be pinned down” by labelling her sexuality.
Louise’s choice to identify as lesbian reinforces JohnA’s statement.

Another popular tactic to discredit bisexuality is by conceptualising it as a “phase” people go

through before realising their true heterosexuality/homosexuality. 247 Monosexism has resulted
in the depiction of bisexuality as a “stepping-stone” for people to realise their authentic
sexuality.248 Cordelia supported this, saying she “went through a bisexual phase for about six
months…” before determining she was lesbian. This common stereotype is furthered by people
coming out as bisexual first before identifying as something else, like Lisa. Numerous
justifications for doing so have been offered, such as individuals being scared to come out as
lesbian/gay, or because lesbian/gay individuals want to experience “heterosexual privilege”. 249
Relatedly, those who identify as neither heterosexual/homosexual are seen as “confused”. 250

247 Roberts et al., “Between a Gay and a Straight Place,” 554.

248 McLean, “Inside, Outside, Nowhere,” 69.
249 Roberts et al., “Between a Gay and a Straight Place,” 554; Callis, “Black Sheep of the Pink Flock,” 90.
250 Ibid.

44
Bisexual-identifying interviewees recalled such accusations, demonstrated by Sarah’s incident
at that workshop. Angela was told numerous times that she was “actually lesbian”. The
examples provided by Angela and Sarah can also be linked to the consequences of
“performative bisexuality” among women, discussed in Chapter 1: because some heterosexual
women “perform bisexually”, typically to please heterosexual men, bisexual women have been
illegitimated.

Interviewees demonstrated how they internalised this inauthenticity. JohnA attempted to

“choose” between homosexuality and heterosexuality before concluding that he could not,
while others expressed concerns that their bisexuality was a phase that would result in them
hurting their partner, including JohnB:

“…I remember feeling a terrible kind of unease – panic even – what would I do if I
was with a guy and then I suddenly – something about my sexual desire oscillated
away from guys towards women and suddenly I didn’t find him attractive
anymore.”

The common thread throughout the bisexual-identifying participants’ accounts of their

experiences of biphobia/bi-negativity is the frustration that they feel at their sexuality
continuously being overlooked. This informs the second theme, Need for Recognition, which
relates to broader discussions regarding identity politics and performativity – both discussed in
Chapter 1.

3.2. Need for Recognition

All interviewees, including non-bisexuals, stressed the importance of having their sexuality
recognised; the bisexual interviewees particularly desired recognition from the queer
community and were frustrated by bi-negativity within LGBTQ+ circles. I will refer to this
deliberate overlooking of bisexuality as “bi-erasure”, grounding my discussion within the
wider debate about identity politics. Numerous interviewees also drew attention to
bisexuality’s invisibility i.e. the struggle to recognise other bisexuals, either due to a lack of
social signifiers, or because the gender of a bisexual individual’s partner leads to the
assumption that the bisexual person is heterosexual/homosexual. I refer to this as “bi-

45
invisibility”. These categories overlap, as it is a circular phenomenon: bisexuals are less
involved in mainstream queer politics/institutions because it is likely they will be excluded,
resulting in a lack of bisexual representation. Bisexual voices are then missing, leading to
misrepresentation and erasure. 251

3.2.(a) Bi-Erasure:

Self-identifying bisexuals expressed clear frustration at being excluded – and consequently

erased – from mainstream lesbian/gay politics, providing numerous examples of such
exclusion. Kate and Sarah, whose experiences happened separately, fought to have “Bisexual”
added to the “Lesbian and Gay Centre” in London and Glasgow respectively, facing strong
resistance. Stacey Young provides various instances of such events, arguing that “bisexuality”
was excluded from conference titles and community centres because the categories of “lesbian”
and “gay” were destabilised “once you throw bisexuality in.” 252 Other examples of bi-erasure
provided included bisexuality being ignored as a sexual orientation at conferences and
workshops – as evidenced by Sarah in the previous section – and incidents of tokenism, in
which participants were often the only bisexual present at events, and faced ridicule because
of their bisexuality. Each example provides a visceral depiction of the larger debate, outlined
in Chapter 1, concerning sexual identity politics: the inclusion of non-monosexual sexual
minorities weakens the identity-based politics of mainstream gay liberation. 253 However, the
interviews also demonstrated the consequences of identity politics on other non-homosexual
individuals. Lisa, who identifies as demisexual, was notably upset when she discussed her
realisation that she no longer identified as a gay woman – which she had identified as since her
20s:

“…it made me feel not authentic – for the first time in a long time… I felt like I was
doing people a bit of a disservice.”

251 Young, “Dichotomies and Displacement,” 53.

252 Young discusses the “instability” of bisexuality as length, arguing that heterosexuality and homosexuality are
seen as “stable” because they are associated with fixed sexual object choice. She argues that this stability is in
fact a fiction and sees the supposed “instability” of bisexuality as a potential source destabilise sexuality and
gender binaries. See: Young, “Dichotomies and Displacement,”60-5.
253 Ibid., 57.

46
Lisa illustrates how the bipolar model of sexual identity politics can marginalise other sexual
minorities by policing categories of sexual orientation.

Chapter 1 discussed the paradoxical nature of bisexual politics, which simultaneously relies on
sexual identity politics for recognition while bisexuality’s fluidity highlights the limits of such
strict categorisations. 254 The bisexual-identifying interviewees recognised this contradiction:
they generally agreed that while abandoning sexual identity categories completely was the most
desirable, their bisexual identity was incredibly important to them. The importance the
interviewees felt in labelling themselves as bisexual partly stemmed from the exclusion and
hostility that they faced from members of the queer community because of their bisexuality,
galvanising some interviewees to continue using the label in effort to gain recognition. Kate
said that she always made the effort to use “bisexual” because “the word doesn’t get used or
seen” otherwise, while JohnB stated that even though most bisexuals are “functionally
pansexual”, he identifies as bisexual because:

“[bisexual] is a badge of shame. The hatred and the invective that they heaped upon
us because of that means that it is a flag that I will always stand by. It’s a bloody
banner.”

Other participants, such as Sarah, identify as bisexual because doing so acknowledges their
“whole history.” Sarah admitted that she thought it was unlikely she would date a man again
but identified as bisexual to recognise her past relationships with men. Unlike Louise, discussed
earlier, Sarah’s sexuality is not defined by her sexual object choice. Similarly, JohnA stated
that he identifies as bisexual because:

“…if I’m with a man and I identify as bisexual, if I fancy a woman, that’s fine…
you’re allowed to do that.”

JohnA appeared to find comfort in the freedom of identifying as bisexual. Nevertheless, some
of the interviewees identify as bisexual simply because that is what they feel best fits them:
Angela said that she did not “like the other terms because [they do not] mean anything to [her].”

254 McLaren, Feminism, Foucault and Embodied Subjectivity, 135.

47
Finally, some of the bisexual-identifying interviewees, including Sarah and JohnB, recognised
the problematic implication of “bi-sexuality”, acknowledging that the label appears to support
the gender binary. However, they continued to identify as bisexual to highlight the inclusivity
of bisexuality, and because other plurisexual labels such as “pansexual” are not as well-known:

“…because it’s the word that means the most to the most people and we need to
reclaim that space – even if the word for it isn’t that good.” (Sarah)

3.2.(b) Bi-Invisibility

Another way Need for Recognition was expressed was through the interviewees’ frustration at
being unable to identify other bisexuals, leading JohnB to conclude that bisexuals are “like the
invisible men.” This relates to bi-invisibility. The previous section demonstrates how bi-
erasure contributes to bi-invisibility, delegitimising bisexuality as a sexual orientation.
However, bisexuality’s inconspicuousness also stems from difficulty to recognise bisexuality.
The interviewees attributed this invisibility to two main factors: the lack of non-stereotypical
social signifiers to illustrate one’s bisexuality, and the gender of a bisexual individual’s partner.
Both factors stem from the salience of monosexism in Western culture.

The previous section outlined the various stereotypes that the participants were subjected to. A
consequence of this is that bisexual-identifying individuals can struggle to signify their
bisexuality to others without relying on these stereotypes. This is evident in both the bisexuality
scholarship discussed in Chapter 1 and in the interviews. For example, both Angela and JohnB
suggested that their bisexuality is often unrecognised because they do not conform to
stereotypical presentations of bisexuality. Similarly, JohnA said:

“Sometimes I assume that things must scream out to people and, apparently, they
don’t. Or people go out of their way… not to read the signs.”

JohnA is not only suggesting that his bisexuality is often unrecognised because he does not
conform to typical stereotypical ideals of bisexuality, but also that some people deliberately
ignore his bisexuality. This supports the previous argument that bisexuality is purposefully
erased as a sexual orientation – probably in effort to sustain the monosexual paradigm.

48
Bisexuality scholar Terry Evans supports this argument, positing that the dominance of
heterosexual and homosexual cultures has resulted in the lack of a strong bisexual culture. 255
Sarah echoed this position:

“…there isn’t like an accepted sexual orientation called bisexual in the culture…”

Because bisexuality is not accepted – or less accepted – as a sexual orientation within Western
monosexist society, bisexuals struggle to signal their bisexuality to others without relying on
harmful stereotypes.

The interviewees also voiced the opinion that their bisexuality is ignored or unrecognised
because of the gender of their romantic/sexual partner, which I have experienced personally.
Due to the salience of monosexism in Western society, the interviewees are often misidentified
as heterosexual or homosexual. Participants provided both examples:

“I was in a relationship with a woman; we were both bi. But then it would be
assumed that we were gay.” (Angela)

And:

“It was hard when I was in a relationship with him to be out [as bisexual] to
people…” (Kate)

Kate furthered her statement with:

“it’s actually quite hard as a bisexual person to be out in general because you have
to kind of either label yourself or describe your sexual history rather than just
saying, you know, “Meet so-and-so, she’s my girlfriend,” kind of thing.”

Kate’s comment illustrates the difficulty bisexuals have in “proving” their bisexuality: when
in a romantic relationship, their bisexuality is misrecognised as heterosexual/homosexual;
when single, they also struggle to “prove” their sexuality without providing examples that

255 Evans, “Bisexuality,” 93.

49
demonstrate their attraction to more than one gender. Angela supported this, succinctly
summarising that she “couldn’t win” no matter which gender she dated. This supports bisexual
feminist theorist Carolyn Pajor, who argued bisexuals appear to be “a group whom it’s socially
acceptable not to accept.”256

Again, the interviewees illustrated how they internalised these attitudes. For example, Jeri and
Sarah expressed guilt for experiencing heterosexual privilege. Jeri confessed that he did not
often consider consequences of heteronormativity – using the specific example of potentially
living in a care home in the future – because he was in a long-term relationship with a woman.
He felt bad for not having considered this until it was brought up in the interview. Sarah said:

“…you feel – the heterosexual privilege just dumped upon you as soon as you’re in
a relationship with someone of the opposite gender…”

Relatedly, multiple participants discussed “passing”, in which a bisexual person “[assumes]

(either actively or passively) membership with multiple communities.” 257 For the most part,
interviewees demonstrated “passive” passing, evidenced by the examples of their bisexuality
being misidentified. However, JohnA confessed that when he was with gay men, it was easier
“just not to mention any of the woman side.” Sarah also demonstrated “active” passing: she
would gel her hair when she wanted to “[look] more heterosexual.” Sarah highlights the
relationship between gender norms and sexuality: heterosexual women are assumed to put
more effort into their appearance than lesbians. Her comment also supports Pennington’s
argument – outlined in Chapter 1 – that bisexuals can “negotiate an alteration of traditional
performances of gender and sexuality…”258 Sarah, by complying or subverting gender norms,
deliberately alters her appearance to imply specific sexuality.

Before moving on to the final theme, I will address the single interviewee who did not relate
to the others participants’ experiences. Graham identifies as a bisexual man and is married to
a gay trans man. Graham’s husband identified as a heterosexual cis woman when they married.
It can be assumed, based on the accounts of the other interviewees and the evident salience of
monosexuality, that Graham’s sexuality has been misunderstood as both heterosexual and

256 Carolyn Pajor, “White Trash: Manifesting the Bisexual.” Feminist Studies 31:3 (2005): 574.
257 Lingel, “Adjusting the Borders,” 382.
258 Pennington, “Bisexuals Doing Gender,” 33-43; 48.

50
homosexual. When I asked Graham if he had ever experienced any kind of discrimination
because of his bisexuality, he said he had not. Significantly, Graham mentioned in his interview
that he was not heavily involved in the LGBTQ+ scene – the only participant that was not –
when he first came out or now. This suggests a direct correlation between anti-bisexual
attitudes and the lesbian/gay community, supporting my earlier discussion. Additionally, given
that Graham’s husband only recently started to identify as trans, it can be assumed that, for the
most part, Graham has been misidentified as heterosexual – benefiting from heterosexual
privilege by “passing” as straight.

3.3. Feeling Between Two Worlds

An underlying theme throughout the interviews was the binary conceptualisation of two
worlds: straight and queer. I use “straight world” to describe both heterosexuality and
heteronormativity: “the privileging of heterosexuality as normal, natural, and right over
homosexuality” in daily life and societal institutions.259 I rely on David Halperin’s definition
of “queer”, which “acquires its meaning from its oppositional relationship to the norm.” 260 It
parallels Michael Warner’s “queer planet”, which “[confronts] the default heteronormativity
of modern culture.”261 I have chosen “queer” rather than “lesbian/gay” to acknowledge how
this umbrella term has resulted in the marginalisation of bisexuality by relying on the
dichotomisation of “queer” and “heterosexual”, creating another space in which bisexuality
does not fit.262 The interviewees did not necessarily express this binary division explicitly;
rather, it was veiled in discussions of feeling that bisexuals were perceived as a combination
of heterosexual and homosexual, that the interviewees moved between the straight/queer
worlds, and a sense that bisexuals do not fit in anywhere.

3.3.(a) Heterosexuality/Homosexuality

April Callis argues that queer theory ignores bisexuality because it is misunderstood as a
combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, thus existing within the sexuality binary. 263

259 James Joseph Dean, Straights: Heterosexuality in Post-Closeted Culture (New York: New York University
Press, 2014), 26.
260 David Halperin, St. Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995):
62.
261 Michael Warner, “Fear of a Queer Planet,” Social Text 29 (1991): 16.
262 Cohen, “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens,” 437.
263 Callis, 216.

51
This conceptualisation of bisexuality has existed from the start of sexuality scholarship,
evidenced by The Kinsey Scale describing all those who ranked (1) to (5) on the polarised
heterosexual/homosexual spectrum of sexuality as “bisexual”. Examples provided throughout
this discussion illustrate this misconception, including David’s comment regarding media
representations of bisexuality and the notion of percentages of attraction. The interviewees also
demonstrated how bisexuals sometimes internalise this notion of a combination, noting that
some people describe themselves as “straight and gay” rather than “bisexual”:

“they tend to think of it as their gay side. So, there’s gay and straight and they’re
the same person…” (JohnB)

JohnB suggested that, in the case of bisexual men, this is a tactic of self-preservation against
bi-negativity – or because bisexuality is commonly misunderstood. JohnA also linked the
combination myth to common misconceptions about bisexuality and the lack of a bisexual
community:

“A lot of people have just not come across the concept of bisexuality in an organised
sense or as a widespread identity. So, they will say what they want – what they can
say to express their position as best they can.”

The perpetuation of the misconception that bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and

homosexuality denies bisexuality the authentication of a valid sexual identity, contributing to
bi-erasure. The combination myth also positions bisexuality within the sexuality binary, thus
justifying queer theory’s overlooking of bisexuality.

3.3.(b) Moving Between Straight/Queer Worlds

Bisexuals are commonly stereotyped as “fence-sitters”, typically by the lesbian/gay

community.264 Bisexuals are dismissed because they – in a society that determines sexuality
by a singularly (binary) gendered object choice – “choose not to choose.”265 Like the
misconception of bisexuality as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, the
attribution of “fence-sitting” to bisexuality demonstrates the binary division of heterosexuality

264 Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, “Queering Queer Theory,” 301.

265 Whitney, “Cyborgs Among Us,” 119; Pramaggiore, “BI-Introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence,” 3.

52
and homosexuality, again revealing the salience of monosexism in Western culture. To quote
Maria Pramaggiore, the fence “identifies a place of in-betweenness and indecision.”266 The
notion of indecision can be linked to previous discussions of bisexuality being a confused
“phase”. Stuart demonstrated this binary division of same- and other-gendered attraction:

“I let it out the box, y’know, when I met up with someone, but then it was back in
the box again and I was back to straight Stuart who was academic and just didn’t
have a girlfriend.”

“It” describes Stuart’s same-gender attraction; he does not dismiss this attraction but separates
it from his other-gender attraction. He discussed his sexuality like they were different masks
that he put on. Sarah reflected a similar dichotomisation, noting that her romantic feelings for
men and women were completely different. After coming out, Stuart entered into a relationship
with a woman, who he now has a child with. He said:

“Suddenly, after being out for a while, moving into this world of, “Now I’m going
to fit into this straight world” …pushing a buggy with 2.1 children and the rest of
it.”

Stuart’s description of his plurisexuality highlights how bisexuals do not only navigate between
polarised heterosexuality and homosexuality, but also the social norms and the wider “world”
attributed to each sexuality. Stuart’s conceptualisation of the “straight world” did not only refer
to his being in an “opposite”-sex relationship, but to the heteronormative mould that he and his
partner were then fitting. Sarah again echoed this sentiment, describing heterosexuality and
homosexuality as different “camps”.

3.3.(c) “Where do I fit?”

Both the notion that bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, and
the different “worlds” relating to this led some of the participants to voice that they felt like
they did not belong in either the straight or queer world. Sarah said:

266 Pramagiorre, “BI-Introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence,” 3.

53
 “You’re not confused because you’re bisexual. You’re confused because you’re
thinking, “Where do I fit?””

This was evidenced by JohnA:

“It took a long time to work out – where [his bisexuality] fitted in. And in fact, it
took until late teens to realise I didn’t really fit in at all.”

The interviewees attributed this again to monosexism, arguing that bisexuals felt dislocated
because bisexuality is not culturally accepted as a sexual orientation. They argued people do
not “like the messiness” (JohnA) of bisexuality because it “[blurs] the boundaries” (Sarah).
This idea of not fitting in demonstrates the consequences of sustained bi-erasure and
biphobia/bi-negativity. The interviewees describe their bisexuality like it is a liminal space:
they are “neither here nor there” but “on the fence” between heterosexuality/heteronormativity
and queer(ness).267 To quote Pramaggiore, the bisexual-identifying participants are
“precariously perched atop a structure that divides and demarcates,” in which the structure is
monosexism.268

Conclusion

This chapter considered the key findings from the interviews: Biphobia/Bi-Negativity; Need
for Recognition, and; Feeling Between Two Worlds. Each theme supports existing bisexuality
theory and demonstrates the co-dependent relationship between the lived reality of sexual
minorities and sexuality scholarship; particularly, how sexuality scholarship mirrors existing
anti-bisexual attitudes in real life. The through-line of the interviews was the continued
positioning of bisexuality between heterosexuality and homosexuality (or queer), whether that
be the continued misconception that bisexuality is a combination of heterosexuality and
homosexuality, or evident in the uncertainty the participants experience at not quite fitting in
in either the “straight world” or the “queer world”. Additionally, an undercurrent throughout
the interviews was the deconstructive nature of bisexuality, demonstrated in the bisexual-
identifying interviewees refusal to conform to the monosexist paradigm and their ability to

267 Turner, The Ritual Process, 359.

268 Pramaggiore, “BI-Introduction I,” 3.

54
subvert gender norms. Each of these findings inform my proposal of understanding bisexuality
as a liminal space.

55
 Chapter 4: Bisexuality as a Liminal Space

In their essay, “Embracing the “And”: Between Queer and Bisexual Theory at Brighton BiFest”
(2014), scholars Georgina Voss, Kath Browne and Camel Gupta argued that bisexual identity
is often invisibilised in queer theorising and sexuality scholarship. 269 They asserted that the use
of bisexuality as an epistemological perspective that deconstructs sexuality and gendered
binaries has resulted in the overlooking of bisexuality as an identity and subject position,
meaning that “the possibility of simultaneously inhabiting these positions… has been
undertheorised.”270 Their article attempts to explore the ways in which bisexuality can be used
for queer deconstruction while also recognising the “stable coherent bi identity.” 271 I propose
that understanding bisexuality as a liminal space offers this opportunity, as liminality can
simultaneously encompass bisexual identity and subjectivity – acknowledging bisexual
existence – at a discursive level while also offering a conceptual lens through which to
approach bisexuality that allows queer deconstruction of sexuality and gendered binaries. I
begin this chapter with a brief disclaimer regarding my application of liminality to bisexuality
as there is some overlap in common terminology that may cause confusion. I then present my
two-fold approach to understanding bisexuality as a liminal space. First, I illustrate how
“liminal space” aptly describes the dislocation bisexuals feel in terms of bisexual identity and
subjectivity, as demonstrated in the interviews in Chapter 3. Secondly, I demonstrate how
understanding bisexuality as a liminal space assists queer theorising, positioning bisexuality as
the liminal anti-structure between the socially constructed pillars of
heterosexuality/heteronormativity and queer(ness).

Before I present my proposal, I want to quash any possible confusion concerning my

application of liminality to bisexuality. Arnold van Gennep’s original definition of “liminal
space” referred to the middle stage of rites of passage: transition rites. 272 Victor Turner then
expanded the concept of liminality to encompass all types of secular and religious transitions,
understanding liminality as a “state of mind.” 273 Both scholars understood the liminal period
to be relatively short before the individual re-entered society.274 A common misconception

269 Voss et al., “Embracing the “And,” [Abstract].

270 Ibid., 1606.
271 Ibid.
272 Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern, 2.
273 Ibid.
274 Iver B. Neumann, "Introduction to the Forum on Liminality," Review of International Studies 38, no. 2
(2012): 473.

56
regarding bisexuality – as evidenced in Chapters 1 and 3 – is that individuals go through a
“phase” of bisexuality before reaching their “true” sexuality: heterosexual or homosexual. 275
My application of liminality to bisexuality is in no way supporting the notion that bisexuality
is a transitionary phase individuals go through before reaching their true sexuality.

4.1. Liminality and Bisexual Identity/Subjectivity

My application of liminality to bisexual identity/subjectivity is simple: it relies largely on the

popular interpretation of liminality to describe being “between or belonging to two different
places”.276 It offers an alternative to the derogatory “fence-sitter” attributed to bisexuals to
describe their “[choice] not to choose” between heterosexuality and homosexuality, while also
acknowledging the “in-betweenness and indecision” demonstrated by the bisexual-identifying
interviewees in Chapter 3 through the question of “where do I fit?” 277 The bisexual-identifying
interviewees illustrated how they exist in the “liminal space” between heterosexuality and
homosexuality, not fully belonging to either, but existing somewhere in the grey area between
(1) and (5) on the Kinsey Scale of sexuality.

4.2. Liminality and Bisexual Epistemologies

My employment of liminality to bisexual epistemologies is more complex, as I attempt to

position bisexuality within Victor Turner’s framework in effort to demonstrate bisexuality’s
deconstructive potential. Bisexual individuals can be seen as examples of Turner’s “liminal
personae” (“threshold people”); the interviewees illustrated how bisexuals skirt the boundaries
of heterosexuality and homosexuality without crossing the borders. This supports my
application of liminality to bisexual subjectivity. However, by taking a metaphorical step back,
we can see how bisexuality exists not only between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but
also between the “straight world” and “queer world” associated with both sexualities, as I
described in Chapter 3, supported by the interviews. This zooming out enables the positioning
of bisexuality “betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom,
convention and ceremonial,” revealing the constructed nature of sexuality – and consequently
gender – and supporting queer theory’s argument that bisexuality can deconstruct such

275 Roberts et al. “Between a Gay and a Straight Place,” 554.

276 “Liminal,” in Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liminal.
277 Whitney, “Cyborgs Among Us,” 119; Pramaggiore, “BI-Introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence,” 3.

57
dichotomisations.278 Furthermore, by situating bisexuality between these monosexual pillars –
picture Kinsey’s Scale once more – following Turner’s argument, bisexuality becomes a
liminal anti-structure. Existing in contrast to social structure, the anti-structure – comprised of
communitas (a community in which individuals are equal and share a common experience) –
rejects and subverts social norms. Bisexuality rejects the socially dominant monosexual
paradigm and refuses to conform to fixed sexual object choice. Additionally, as evidenced in
the interviews, bisexuals subvert and reject other social norms, such as an increased likelihood
to see polyamory as an ideal and their ability to navigate traditional gender norms, particularly
when in a relationship. Conceptualising bisexuality as a liminal anti-structure thus recognises
the deconstructive potential of bisexuality – supporting queer theorising – in relation to
sexuality and gendered binaries by positioning bisexuality between the “straight” and “queer”
worlds.

I acknowledge that my framing of bisexuals as a communitas runs the risk of homogenising

bisexuality, ignoring intersectional identities that undoubtedly create inequalities within the
bisexual community. However, in recognising this, I maintain that the majority of bisexuals do
share the common experience of bi-negativity and biphobia and are at least equal in their
bisexual subjectivity in this way.

Conclusion

Bjørn Thomassen asserted that liminality “ties together the micro and the macro, operating
from ‘the middle’.”279 My conceptualisation of bisexuality as a liminal space achieves this.
Understanding bisexual existence as a liminal space aptly describes the dislocation and “in-
betweenness” that the interviewees reported feeling because of their bisexuality. Framing
bisexuality as Turner’s liminal anti-structure highlights the constructed nature of sexuality and
gender binaries that queer theory looks to reveal and demonstrates the deconstructive potential
of bisexuality as a tool of analytical inquiry. Thus, perceiving bisexuality as a liminal space
“ties together” bisexual identity/subjectivity and bisexuality as an epistemological perspective,
enabling the exploration of “the particular knot of bi as stable identity; bi as umbrella for a set
of practices; and bi as deconstructive tool” needs to be explored simultaneously. 280 To do so

278 Turner, The Ritual Process, 359

279 Thomassen, Liminality and the Modern, 7.
280 Voss et al., “Embracing the “And”,” 1620.

58
ensures the lived reality of bisexuality is not overlooked in queer theorising of bisexuality as a
tool of deconstruction.

59
 Conclusion

Heretofore, most efforts by bisexuality and queer theorists to add bisexuality to queer theory
have resulted in reducing bisexuality to a tool of hypothetical inquiry, framing bisexuality as
an epistemological perspective from which to deconstruct gender and sexuality categories.
Epistemologically, bisexuality offers the optimal model for challenging socially constructed
identities, rejecting monosexism and the centrality of gender in sexual object choice. However,
theorising bisexuality in this way has resulted in the lived reality of bisexual existence
consistently being overlooked, dampening the contribution of bisexuality to queer theory – and
undermining the original efforts of bisexual activists and scholars to increase the visibility of
bisexuality. This thesis aimed to explore how understanding bisexuality as a liminal space
could enhance bisexuality’s contribution to queer theory by offering a way to simultaneously
recognise bisexuality as an identity/subject position and as an epistemological perspective.
Describing being “betwixt and between” socially constructed categories, liminality aptly
encompasses this dual nature. The bisexual-identifying interviewees can be understood as
“liminal personae” (“threshold people”), whose reported feelings of dislocation largely
stemmed from their inability to fully conform to the categories of heterosexual or homosexual.
Simultaneously, by positioning bisexuality between the socially constructed “straight world”
and “queer world”, bisexuality can be understood as a liminal anti-structure, offering
bisexuality as a deconstructive lens and demonstrating the benefits of utilising bisexuality as
an epistemological perspective. Understanding bisexuality as a liminal space thus
acknowledges how bisexuality can operate on different levels at the same time, without taking
away from the significance of either.

In effort to centralise bisexual identity and subjectivity in my exploration of bisexuality as a

liminal space, I grounded my research in the personal accounts of bisexual individuals. Using
the combined method of thematic analysis and discourse analysis, I examined 9 interviews,
conducted by me and provided by OurStory Scotland, highlighting 3 themes: Bi-
Negativity/Biphobia; Need for Recognition, and; Feeling Between Two Worlds. Each theme
related to existing bisexuality scholarship explored in Chapter 1 and supported my
conceptualisation of bisexuality as a liminal space, clearly illustrating how bisexuality was
continuously positioned within and between the heterosexual/homosexual binary. However,
while my research supports the argument of bisexuality and queer theorists that bisexuality can
and does destabilise sexuality and gendered binaries by highlighting their construction, it

60
remains that I analysed a small sample of interviews all embedded within a Scottish context.
While my sample was a relatively accurate representation of the Scottish population generally,
it was difficult to determine whether or not it accurately reflected Scotland’s LGBTQ+
community. Furthermore, given that all of my interviewees were cisgender and White, my
research lacked diversity, limiting an exploration of the influence of bisexual-identifying
individuals’ intersectional identities in their bisexual subjectivity. Therefore, while these
factors somewhat limit the generalisability of the results, this approach offers an opportunity
to explore the deconstructive potential of bisexuality without marginalising bisexual identity
and experience. In fact, it offers a way to tie together both facets.

To fully understand the implications of my research, future studies would benefit from a
broader sample size, both in terms of the number of participants and the diversity of the sample.
This would allow for greater exploration of bisexual identity and subjectivity. Theorists should
also continue to consider the relationship between sexual minority activism and sexuality
scholarship, in effort to understand and highlight how theory has often mirrored practice,
emulating certain biases, such as anti-bisexual attitudes. Queer theorists would particularly
benefit from this consideration, as the inclusion of bisexuality would help the discipline
transcend the heterosexual/homosexual binary and achieve its goal of deconstruction.

Ultimately, sustained engagement with bisexuality within any subsect of sexuality scholarship
would greatly improve the discipline, shedding light on an orientation that continues to be
largely ignored.

61
 Bibliography

(Online) Books

Angelides, Steven. A History of Bisexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Bruce, Steve. Scottish Gods: Religion in Modern Scotland 1900–2012. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press, 2014.

Davies. Charlotte Aull. Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others.
2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2008.

Dean, James Joseph. Straights: Heterosexuality in Post-Closeted Culture. New York: New
York University Press, 2014.

Halperin, David. St. Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press, 1995.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2011.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, 2nd edition. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE, 2013.

Homberg-Schamm, Jessica. Colonised by Wankers: Postcolonialism and Contemporary

Scottish Fiction. Cologne: Modern Academic Publishing, 2018.

Kinsey, Alfred, Cornfield, Jerome, Brown, Jean M. and Indiana University, Institute for Sex
Research. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1953.

Kinsey, Alfred, Pomeroy, Wardell, and Martine, Clyde. Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1948.

Lykke, Nina. Feminist Studies. London: Routledge, 2010.

62
McLaren, Margaret. Feminism, Foucault and Embodied Subjectivity. New York: State
University of New York Press, 2002.

Ochs, Robyn. Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World. Boston, MA: Bisexual
Resource Centre, 2009.

Reinharz, Shulamit. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1992.

Richards, David A. J. (2013) The Rise of Gay Rights and the Fall of the British Empire:
Liberal Resistance and the Bloomsbury Group. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139805681.

Schuiling, Kerri Durnell and Likis, Frances E. Women's Gynecologic Health (2nd ed).
Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2013.

Thomassen, Bjørn. Liminality and the Modern: Living Through the In-Between. New York:
Routledge, 2016.

Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. London: Routledge and
Kegan, 1969.

Chapter of Edited Books

Blasingame, Brenda Marie. “The Roots of Biphobia: Racism and Internalised

Heterosexism.” In Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism, edited by Elizabeth
Reba Weise, 47-55. Seattle: The Seal Press, 1992.

Gill, Rosalind. “Discourse Analysis.” In Qualitative Research with Text, Image and Sound:
A Practical Handbook, edited by Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, 172-190.
London: SAGE, 2000. 172-191.

63
Gorman-Murray, Andrew, “Liminal Subjects, Marginal Spaces and Material Legacies:
Older Gay Men, Home and Belonging.” In Queer Presences and Absences, edited by
Yvette Taylor and Michelle Addison, 93-117. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Highleyman, Liz. “Identities and Ideas: Strategies for Bisexuals.” In Bisexual Politics:
Theories, Queries and Visions, edited by Naomi Tucker, 73-92. New York:
Haworth Press, 1995.

Michel, Frann. “Do Bats Eat Cats? Reading What Bisexuality Does.” In RePresenting
Bisexuality: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire, edited by Donald E. Hall and
Maria Pramaggiore, 55-69. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

Ochs, Robyn and Highleyman, Liz. “Bisexual Movement.” In Lesbian Histories and
Cultures: An Encyclopedia, edited by Bonnie Zimmerman, 112-114. New York:
Garland, 2000.

Pramaggiore, Maria. “BI-introduction I: Epistemologies of the Fence.” In RePresenting

Bisexualities: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire, edited by Donald E. Hall and
Maria Pramaggiore, 1-7. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

Young, Stacey. “Dichotomies and Displacement: Bisexuality in Queer Theory and

Politics.” In Playing With Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, edited by Shane
Phelan, 51-74. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Translated Books

Foucault, Michel. “Part One: We ‘Other Victorians.’” In The History of Sexuality: An

Introduction, Volume 1. New York, Vintage, trans. Robert Hurley, 1990 [1976]: 3
13

Journal Articles

Alarie, Milaine. and Gaudet, Stéphanie. ““I don’t know if she is bisexual or if she just
wants to get attention”: Analyzing the various mechanisms through which

64
 emerging adults invisibilize bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 13:2 (2013): 191-
214, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2013.780004.

Bigger, Stephen. “Victor Turner, Liminality, and Cultural Performance.” Journal of Beliefs
and Values 30:2 (2009): 209-212, DOI: 10.1080/13617670903175238.

Booth, Tristan E. “Queering QueerEye: The Stability of Gay Identity Confronts the
Liminality of Trans Embodiment,” Western Journal of Communication 75:2
(2011): 185-204. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2011.553876.

Bradford, Mary. “The Bisexual Experience.” Journal of Bisexuality 4:1-2 (2004): 7-23.
DOI: 10.1300/J159v04n01_02.

Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3:2 (2006): 77-101.

Brewster, Melanie E. and Moradi, Bonnie. “Personal, Relational and Community Aspects
of Bisexual Identity in Emerging, Early and Middle Adult Cohorts.” Journal of
Bisexuality 10:4 (2010): 404-428. DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2010.521056.

Burrill, Katkryn G. “Queering Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 2:2-3 (2001): 95-105,

DOI: 10.1300/J159v02n02_06.

Callis, April Scarlette. “Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory.”
Journal of Bisexuality 9:3 (2009): 213-233, DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316513.

Callis, April Scarlette. “The Black Sheep of the Pink Flock: Labels, Stigma, and Bisexual
Identity.” Journal of Bisexuality 13:1 (2013): 82-
105, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2013.755730.

Cohen, Cathy J. “Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens.” GLQ 3 (1997): 437- 465.

Corey, Sarah. “All Bi Myself: Analyzing Television’s Presentation of Female Bisexuality.”

Journal of Bisexuality 17:2 (2017): 190-205.

65
Däumer, Elisabeth. “Queer Ethics: Or, the Challenge of Bisexuality to Lesbian Ethics.”
Hypatia 7:4 (1992): 91-105.

de Lauretis, Teresa. “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities.” Differences 3:2
(1991): iii-xviii.

Eliason, Mickey. “Bi-Negativity.” Journal of Bisexuality (2000): 137-154.

Elizabeth, Autumn. “Challenging the Binary: Sexual Identity That Is Not Duality.” Journal
of Bisexuality 13:3 (2013): 329-337, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2013.813421.

Erickson-Schroth, Laura, and Mitchell, Jennifer. “Queering Queer Theory, or Why

Bisexuality Matters.” Journal of Bisexuality 9:3-4 (2009): 297-315. DOI:
10.1080/15299710903316596.

Evans, Terry. “Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 3:2 (2003): 91-108. DOI:

10.1300/J159v03n02_06.

Fahs, Breanne. “Compulsory Bisexuality?: The Challenges of Modern Sexual Fluidity.”

Journal of Bisexuality 9:3 (2009): 431-449. DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316661.

Feldman, Susan. “Reclaiming Sexual Difference: What Queer Theory Can’t Tell Us about
Sexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 9:3 (2009): 259-278.
DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316562.

Galupo, M. Paz, Davis, Kyle S., Grynkiewicz, Ashley L., and Mitchell, Renae C.
“Conceptualization of Sexual Orientation Among Sexual Minorities: Patterns
Across Sexual and Gender Identity.” Journal of Bisexuality 14:3 (2014): 433-456.
DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2014.933466.

Gammon, Mark A. and Isgro, Kirsten L. “Troubling the Canon.” Journal of Homosexuality
52:1-2 (2006): 159-184, DOI: 10.1300/J082v52n01_07.

66
Gonzalez, Kirsten A., Ramirez, Johanna L., and Galupo, M.P. ““I was and still am”:
Narratives of Bisexual Marking in the #StillBisexual Campaign.” Sexuality and
Culture 21 (2017): 493-515, DOI: 10.1007/s12119-016-9401-y .

Gooß, Ulrich. “Concepts of Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 8:1 (2008): 9-23.

DOI: 10.1080/15299710802142127.

Gurevich, Maria, Bailey, Helen and Bower, Jo. “Querying Theory and Politics: The
Epistemic (Dis)Location of Bisexuality withing Queer Theory.” Journal of
Bisexuality 9:3-4 (2009): 235-257, DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316539.

Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science of Question in Feminism and the
Privileges of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 4:3 (1988): 575-599.

Israel, Tania & Mohr, Jonathan J. “Attitudes Toward Bisexual Women and Men.” Journal
of Bisexuality 4:1-2 (2004): 117-134, DOI: 10.1300/J159v04n01_09

Klesse, Christian. “Shady Characters, Untrustworthy Partners, and Promiscuous Sluts:

Creating Bisexual Intimacies in the Face of Heteronormativity and Biphobia.”
Journal of Bisexuality 11:2-3 (2011): 227-
244, DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2011.571987.

Kwok, Cheryl, Rostosky, Sharon and Riggle, Ellen D.B. “Bisexual-Identifying Women’s
Relationship Expectations of Female- and Male-Identifying Partners.” Journal of
Bisexuality, ‘Latest articles’ (2020), DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2020.1755406.

Lingel, Jessa. “Adjusting the Borders: Bisexual Passing and Queer Theory,” Journal of
Bisexuality 9:3-4 (2009): 381-405, DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316646.

MacDowall, Lachlan. “Historicising Contemporary Bisexuality.” Journal of Bisexuality 9:1

(2009): 3-15. DOI: 10.1080/15299710802659989.

67
McLaren, Suzanne and Castillo, Paola. “What About Me? Sense of Belonging and
Depressive Symptoms among Bisexual Women.” Journal of Bisexuality, ‘Latest
articles’ (2020), DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2020.1759174.

McLean, Kirsten. “Inside, Outside, Nowhere: Bisexual Men and Women in the Gay and
Lesbian Community.” Journal of Bisexuality 8:1-2 (2008): 63-
80, DOI: 10.1080/15299710802143174.

Meyer, M.D.E. “Representing Bisexuality on Television: The Case for Intersectional

Hybrids.” Journal of Bisexuality 10:4 (2010): 366-387.

Monro, Surya, Hines, Sally, and Osborne, Antony. “Is Bisexuality Invisible? A Review of
Sexualities Scholarship 1970-2015.” The Sociological Review 4 (2017): 663-81,
DOI: 10.1177/0038026117695488.

Neumann, Iver B. “Introduction to the Forum of Liminality.” Review of International

Studies 38:2 (2012): 473-479, DOI: 10.1017/S0260210511000817.

Ochs, Robyn. “Why We Need to “Get Bi”.” Journal of Bisexuality 11:2-3 (2011): 171-175.
DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2011.571983.

Pajor, Carolyn. “White Trash: Manifesting the Bisexual.” Feminist Studies 31:3 (2005):
570-574.

Pennasilico, Andrea and Amodeo, Anna Lisa. “The Ivisi_les: Biphobia, Bisexual Erasure and
Their Impact on Mental Health.” PuntOorg International Journal 4:1 (2019): 21-28.

Pennington, Suzanne. “Bisexuals “Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships.” Journal of

Bisexuality 9:1 (2009): 33-69. DOI: 10.1080/15299710802660029.

Pillow, Wanda. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as

Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative
Studies 16, no.2 (2003): 175-196.

68
Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5:4 (1980):
631-660.

Roberts, Tangela S., Horne, Sharon G., and Hoyt, William T. “Between a Gay and a
Straight Place: Bisexual Individuals’ Experiences with Monosexism.” Journal of
Bisexuality 15:4 (2015): 554-569. DOI: 10.1080/15299716.2015.1111183.

Stella, Francesca, Moya Flynn, and Anna Gawlewicz. “Unpacking the Meanings of a
‘Normal Life’ among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Eastern European
Migrants in Scotland.” Central and Eastern European Migration Review 7, no. 1
(2018): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.17467/ceemr.2017.16.

Voss, Georgina, Browne, Kate and Gupta, Camel. “Embracing the “And”: Between Queer
and Bisexual Theory at Brighton BiFest.” Journal of Homosexuality 61:11 (2014):
1605-1625, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.944055.

Warner, Michael. “Fear of a Queer Planet.” Social Text 29 (1991): 3-17.

Whitney, Elizabeth. “Cyborgs Among Us.” Journal of Bisexuality 2:2-3 (2001): 109-128.
DOI: 10.1300/J159v02n02_08.

Wilson, Mandy. “`I Am the Prince of Pain, for I Am a Princess in the Brain ’: Liminal
Transgender Identities, Narratives and the Elimination of
Ambiguities.” Sexualities 5:4 (November 2002): 425–48. DOI:
10.1177/1363460702005004003.

Yoshino, Kenji. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure.” Stanford Law Review 52:2
(2000): 353-461.

News/Magazine Articles

Press Association. “Scotland tops the league for gay rights.” The Guardian, 10 May 2015,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/10/scotland-tops-league-for-gay-
rights.

69
Reynolds, Andrew. “The UK’s parliament is still the gayest in the world after 2019
election.” PinkNews, 13 December, 2019,
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/13/uk-gay-parliament-world-2019-
general-election-snp-conservatives-labour-lgbt/.

Torrance, David. “The tartan rainbow: why it’s great to be gay in Scotland.” The Guardian,
5 April, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/05/tartan-rainbow-
why-great-to-be-gay-in-scotland-lgbt-rights-kezia-dugdale.

Theses and Dissertations

Meek, Jeffrey McGregor. “Gay and bisexual men, self-perception and identity in Scotland,
1940 to 1980.” PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow (2011).

Rivera, Zenaida Anastasia. “Sexual Subjectivity in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Emerging
Adults.” [Abstract]. Wayne State University Thesis (2018): 687.

Website Content

American Psychological Association. “Understanding Bisexuality.” Accessed 29 July,

2020, https://www-apa-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/pi/lgbt/resources/bisexual.

GOV.UK. “Devolution settlement: Scotland.” Accessed 20 June, 2020,

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-settlement-scotland.

ILGA-Europe. “Rainbow Europe.” Accessed 20 June, 2020, https://www.ilga-

europe.org/rainboweurope.

Kittredge, Katharine. “An Exploration of Bierasure in Literature.” Accessed June 4, 2020.

Available at:
https://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1700&context=
whalen.

70
LGBT MP. Accessed 20 June, 2020, https://mps.whoare.lgbt/.

OurStory Scotland. “Welcome to OurStory Scotland.” Accessed May 12, 2020,

https://www.ourstoryscotland.org.uk/.

Population UK, “Scotland Population 2020,” accessed 29 July, 2020,

https://www.ukpopulation.org/scotland-population/.

Scotland’s Census. “Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion.” National Records of

Scotland (2011). Accessed 12 May, 2020,
https://scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion.

Scotland’s Census. “Scotland’s Census 2021: Sex and Gender Identity Topic Report.”
National Records of Scotland. Accessed 20 July, 2020,
https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/census2021/Sex_and_Gender_
Identity_Topic_Report.pdf.

Scotland’s Census. “Table QS104SC: Sex: All People.” National Records of Scotland
(2011). Accessed 12 June, 2020, https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-
analyser/jsf/tableView/tableView.xhtml.

Valentine, James. “Turning Out to Make History.” (Part 2). History Scotland 12, no. 2
(March/April 2012): 50-
54.https://www.ourstoryscotland.org.uk/research/pres/TurningOutToMakeHis
tory2.pdf.

71
 Appendix 1: The Interviewees

9 of the 27 interviews that I summarised during my internship with OurStory Scotland qualified
for my research. The 9 interviews included a total of 12 participants. I conducted two interviews
personally; the others were conducted by Jaime Valentine, the Chair of OurStory Scotland.
Below I have provided basic information regarding the interviews and (when available) the
interviewees (e.g. their gender [M/F]; their age at the time of the interview, and; why they were
interviewed). While I do not have access to the interviewee’s date of birth, their age can be
approximated based on the content of the interview. Romantic partners mentioned by name
have also been interviewed personally by OSS and have thus consented to their interviews
being used for research and presentation purposes.

I have divided the interviewees between the categories that I outlined in Chapter 2:
Methodology: the interviewee had to either a) identify as bisexual at the time of the interview;
b) identify as bisexual previously, or c) have had sexual attraction/experiences with both same-
and other-sexed individuals previously/presently or were open to the possibility of such
attraction in the future, but did not identify as bisexual. The interviews are further organised
chronologically. The * indicate interviewees that appeared in more than one interview.

a) identify as bisexual at the time of the interview:

BiScotland (Glasgow, February 2004)

- Group interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Participants:
• David [M]: aged 31, from Giffnock, East Renfrewshire
• Sarah [F] (BiScotland founder): aged 38, from New Zealand, lives in Glasgow,
Scotland [7 years]*
• JohnA [M]: aged 35, from Edinburgh
• Angela [F]: aged 37, lives in Glasgow*
• Jeri [M]: aged 37, from Glasgow, lives in Lanakshire

72
Kate Fearnely [F] (Dalkeith, February 2018)
- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: late 50s/early 60s.
- Kate founded the Edinburgh Bisexual Group and one was of the key organisers of
Edinburgh’s first (the UK’s third) Bisexual Conference (BiCon), “Bisexuality and the
Politics of Sex” in 1985. Kate is married to Maruska Greenwood, the Chief Executive
of LGBT Health and Wellbeing (an organisation that works to improve the health,
wellbeing and equality of LGBT people in Scotland). OSS interviewed Maruska
separately and also interviewed Kate and Maruska together; I did not include the paired
interview in my research as Kate did not discuss anything that she had not also
mentioned in her solo interview.

Sarah Currier [F] (Stirling, April 2018)*

- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: 52/3
- Sarah grew up in New Zealand but moved to Scotland in her 30s, first living in
Edinburgh and then in Glasgow. Her mother was Scottish. Sarah founded and ran
BiGlasgow (a bisexual support group), which later became Bi Scotland, then
Bi+Glasgow.

Bi+Glasgow (Glasgow, March 2020)

- Paired interview conducted by me and Dom Miller-Graham (another member of
OurStory Scotland).
- Participants:
• Angela [F] (now runs Bi+Glasgow; Sarah left BiGlasgow during the early 2010s):
aged 52/53, lives in Glasgow*. Angela realised she was bisexual when she was in
her 30s.
• JohnB [M] (not the same John that participated in the BiScotland 2004 interview):
aged 50+, lives in Glasgow.

NB: Bi+Glasgow is a later edition of BiScotland. The group changed its name after being
criticised for being exclusionary towards other plurisexual orientations (such as pansexual and
omnisexual) and trans-exclusionary.

73
Graham Checkley [M] (Edinburgh, March 2020)
- Solo interview conducted by me.
- Age: 67
- Graham grew up in Newcastle, before moving to Edinburgh once he finished university.
I met Graham’s husband at an OSS event held during LGBT History Month, and he put
me in contact with Graham after learning about my research.

b) identify as bisexual previously:

Cordelia Ditton [F] (Stirling, June 2018)

- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: 64/65
- Cordelia is an actress and writer who co-directed “The Gay Sweatshop Theatre
Company”, which encouraged gay people to produce a season of gay plays and form a
company. Cordelia was the founder of “Glasgay!”, an LGBT+ arts festival held in
Glasgow between 1993 and 2014. The festival was created in direct response to Section
28.
- Cordelia “went through a bisexual phase for about six months”. She now identifies as
lesbian.

Lisa Charlwood-Green [F] (Stirling, June 2018)

- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: late 30s/early 40s.
- Lisa is the founder and Director of “The WOW Network”, which is the only network
in the UK that supports LGBT women in coming out at work. It was established in 2017
after a study found that 64% of women felt that they were unable to come out in the
workplace.
- Lisa initially identified as bisexual during her teens and early 20s. She then identified
as a gay woman, and now identifies as demisexual.

74
c) have had sexual attraction/experiences with both same- and other-sexed individuals
previously/presently or were open to the possibility of such attraction in the future, but did not
identify as bisexual:

Louise Welsh [F] (Glasgow, April 2014)

- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: 49
- Louise is an author from London who lives in Glasgow. She is married to author Zoë
Strachan.
- Louise now identifies as lesbian, but previously “didn’t really feel that [she] had to be
pinned down” by labelling her sexuality. Louise expressed the opinion that she
identifies as lesbian because she is in a long-term relationship with a woman.

Stuart Duffy [M] (Stirling, June 2018)

- Solo interview conducted by Jaime Valentine.
- Age: 40s
- Stuart is a digital multi-media journalist and the founder of the organisation “Pink
Saltire”, which was established in 2014 with the aim of improving the representation
of LGBTQ+ people in Scotland.
- Stuart identifies as gay “although [he has] been with women and men.”

75