The Bisexual

Experience:
A Brief Report
FOR AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Michaela McParland | SOCY-352 | 8 December 2019
Introduction
What is Bisexuality?
Although the definition of bisexuality is often contested, it is typically defined as an attraction
to two or more genders. It is stigmatized even within the community, sometimes referred to as
transphobic, stemming from the idea that bisexuality only includes the gender binary.
According to a CDC survey published in 2016, approximately 5.5% of women and 2.0% of men
aged 18-44 identify as bisexual (Copen et. al 2016).

The Sexuality Binary

Many of the issues pertaining to bisexuality are directly related to the notion of the existence
of a natural binary. This binary refers to the construction of sexuality as either heterosexual or
homosexual (McLean 2008). The hegemonic binary that exists has persisted within the United
Sates for over a century, although recognition of non-binary sexualities is beginning to emerge
(Callis 2013). Although the “B” in LGBTQ+ stands for “bisexual”, the idea that sexuality is solely
a binary and that anything outside of it is a phase is still flourishing within our culture.

Outline and Purpose

The purpose of this article is to outline the issues and experience of bisexuality and potential
ways to foster inclusivity within our community. Research has shown that, due to biphobia
and monosexism, bisexual individuals may not have access to community support (RHO 2015).
Bisexuals often feel marginalized by both heterosexual and gay communities; support offered
by the LGBTQ+ community, often tailored to gay or lesbian individuals, may not be as relevant
to bisexuals (RHO 2015). As a result, bisexuals often feel a lack of support from organizations
meant to help.

This brief report will outline several key issues in bisexuality: (1) health outcomes, including
physical and mental health, (2) bisexual stigma and erasure, and (3) recommendations for the
AU community. All these issues are interrelated, but it is necessary to recognize each
individual contribution to the overall bisexual experience. An appendix will be included at the
end containing useful information for addressing bisexual stigma and needs.

PAGE 1
 My Story

As someone who grew up in a more conservative, Catholic part of Massachusetts, I deeply struggled
with my identity for years. My family acts to be accepting of “other” sexualities, as they have put it,
but have never proved it. My father describes gayness as “repulsive”, so I took on that quality and
projected it to others while I struggled with who I was. I knew when I was 9 years old that I liked
girls and boys, I but experienced a deep-set internalized homophobia. I acted as though gayness was
“unnatural” because that was what I was taught and did not want to accept myself. I can still recall
my first crush on a girl, and I dated a girl online for several years in my teens, but still never
accepted it as bisexuality. I still deemed myself “straight” to fit in.

After years of struggling with identity, I have finally accepted myself for my fluid sexuality and am
most comfortable with the term bisexual. I experience attraction to anyone, regardless of gender,
and I finally feel comfortable with my own sexuality. It is my goal to foster this same acceptance in
others and create a safe space for bisexual individuals.

PAGE 2
Health Outcomes
Bisexual invisibility and erasure have very real impacts on both physical and mental
health. In fact, bisexual individuals report greater health disparities than the U.S. population
as a whole; this is often worsened by the fact that bisexuals often do not “come out” to
healthcare providers due to the stigma surrounding bisexuality. As a result of this, bisexuality
is not often addressed within the healthcare setting, meaning bisexuals do not receive as much
information as necessary or may even fear judgement from doctors and other professionals
(SFHRC 2011).

Oftentimes, bisexuals are scapegoated for being the source of spreading HIV between
different genders, although this is not the case. Unsafe sexual practices contribute to the
spread of STIs, not sexual orientation (SFHRC 2011). This particular blame was rampant during
the HIV scare during the 1980s and 1990s, but the stereotype still continues that bisexuals are a
“vector” for spreading HIV to different partners (SFHRC 2011). Oftentimes, bisexual health is
not addressed outside the conversation of STIs because of the fear in place surrounding the
potential spread of STIs and the idea of bisexuality as a vector.

One study compared health-related quality of life between lesbians and bisexual
women in Washington state (Fredriksen-Goldsen et. al 2010). It found that bisexual women,
compared with lesbian women, were more likely to experience frequent mental distress and
poor general health. Oftentimes, bisexual women were more likely to experience greater
sociodemographic risks, such as lower levels of education and lower income. These types of
stressors often exacerbate mental and physical health issues, although bisexual women were
still at an elevated risk of poor health-related quality of life even when controlling for these
factors. Bisexual women were also found to be more likely to be frequent smokers and acute
drinkers as compared to lesbians (Fredriksen-Goldsen et. al 2010).

The researchers hypothesized that bisexual women living in urban areas may face
more stressors associated with poorer health outcomes, such as a lack of support in the
LGBTQ+ community, stating that they “may even feel more isolated because they do not have
access to a defined community” (Fredriksen-Goldsen et. al 2010). The tendency to lump sexual
minority women together (such as lesbians and bisexual women) has certainly contributed to
the lack of bisexual-specific health programs and lack of focus on disparities amongst these
women.

PAGE 3
 One study found that both bisexual men and women have greater health disparities
and risks compared to gays, lesbians, and heterosexual men and women (Dilley et. al 2010).
Bisexual women were found to have a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes and
hypertension, although more research must be conducted on this phenomenon. The
researchers highlighted the importance of including sexual orientation as a standard
demographic variable within the field of public health and surveillance systems in order to
accurately address and improve health outcomes for LGBTQ+ individuals, especially focusing
on bisexuals as separate from gays and lesbians (Dilley et. al 2010).

Studies have reported higher rates of mental health problems in bisexual women in
comparison to heterosexual and lesbian women (Bostwick 2012). Bisexual individuals are often
overlooked in research studying the associations between sexual orientation and health
disparities, often because of bi-erasure or assumptions that bisexuals face the same stressors as
other LGBTQ+ individuals. They are often lumped in under one sexual orientation, typically
listed as “gay/bisexual” (Bostwick 2012; Johnson 2016; RHO 2015). This neglect in identifying
and studying bisexual groups separately often produces inaccurate conclusions; however, in
recent times, more research studies focusing on bisexuals are becoming more common
(Johnson 2016).

Although there is research suggesting that LGBT minority stress factors (i.e. rejection,
discrimination, harassment) can ultimately lead to the development of mental health
conditions or even worsen ones that may already exist (MAP 2016), more research is required
specifically on bisexuals to determine their unique experience with minority stressors and
mental health. Bisexuals have self-reported higher rates of suicide ideation and poorer mental
health than other groups within the population (i.e. heterosexual, gay, lesbian population)
(MAP 2016; RHO 2015). According to one study, bisexual individuals were four times more
likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual adults (MAP 2014). Researchers have suggested that
previous studies may have overemphasized the risk of mental health problems for gay and
lesbians because they were grouped together with bisexuals (SFHRC). Nearly all current
research where bisexuals have been studied separately from homosexuals has found that
bisexuals have poorer mental health than others.

Overall, more research is needed specifically upon bisexual health and risk factors
considering the long period of time in which all sexual minorities were grouped together for
studies. With more research emerging on bisexual health disparities, it is evident that more

PAGE 4
programs specifically addressing bisexuality are necessary. The unique experience of
bisexuality is one that evidently contributes to health outcomes and disparities even within
the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, specifically addressing the needs of bisexuals can help
contribute to better health outcomes for this population.

PAGE 5
Stigma & Erasure
As mentioned previously, bisexuals are typically grouped together with gays and
lesbians. Although bisexuals make up more than half of the LGBTQ+ community, they are
typically included within the greater community, meaning specific issues and disparities are
made invisible within the community as a whole (MAP 2016). Bisexuality is also erased within
broader society as well; since bisexuals are assumed to be either gay or straight, often
dependent upon the sex of their partner, bisexuality is thus erased or rendered as “a phase”
(MAP 2016).

Biphobia, defined as “the irrational fear of bisexuality in oneself or others and the
distrust and discrimination practiced against those individuals because of this fear” (Hutchins
and Kaaahumanu, 1991). Anti-bisexual prejudice exists both within the LGBTQ community and
outside of it; many individuals who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community who identify as
either gay or lesbian often see bisexuals as “outsiders” and potentially as a threat to their own
acceptance in society (Gonzalez et. al 2016). As a result, this inherent promotion of
monosexual identities (i.e. homosexual or heterosexual) stigmatizes the bisexual identity,
essentially making it invisible.

Researchers have argued that heterosexual and homosexual identities are reinforced
through bi-erasure since it reinforces the stability of sexual orientation instead of viewing
sexuality as a spectrum (Yoshino 2000). The idea that bisexuality is a “novelty” or as simply a
“phase” where the individual cannot decide or is “on the way to gay” ultimately invalidates it;
the thought is that individuals simply cannot be bisexual because it is just a phase or that they
are “confused” (Callis 2013). This again reinforces monosexuality because bisexuals are simply
thought of as “secretly gay”.

The bisexual coming-out experience is also significantly different than other coming-
out experiences; research has found that bisexual stigma can hinder the process of coming-out
for bisexuals (Knous 2005; McLean 2007). It was found that bisexual stigma led to the use of
selective disclosure strategies for many participants within the study as well, meaning that
many only came out to specific safe individuals at specific times (McLean 2007). Although
more research must be done on this subject since it is not well-studied, it still highlights the
impact of erasure and stigma on bisexual individuals.

PAGE 6
 Bisexual stereotypes commonly perpetuated lend themselves to the furthering of
bisexual stigma. Common stereotypes include promiscuity, inability to be loyal, and the idea
that bisexuality is simply a “phase” for individuals who have not “fully” come out (McLean
2007; Ochs 2011; Ross, Dobinson & Eady 2010; Spalding & Peplau 1997). These biphobic
attitudes are perpetuated in both gay and straight populations; as a result, bisexuals are
typically found on the outside of groups and experience and additional stigma that many other
sexual minorities do not (Wandrey et. al).

One study in particular highlighted the experience of young adult bisexual women
coming out as bisexual. Many faced both internalized and external homophobia and biphobia,
and several individuals explain their fear of using the term “bisexual” because of the stigma
attached to it (Wandrey et. al). One participant ultimately decided to use the term “pansexual”
because of the negative connotations associated with “bisexual”, and one simply turned to
saying that her sexual identity should not matter (Wandrey et. al). Some individuals have
chosen to identify themselves as “partially heterosexual” and “partially homosexual”, further
imposing biphobia upon themselves and perpetuating the idea of monosexuality as the norm.

Callis (2013) argues through her research that the negativity and stigma around
bisexuality upholds the idea of a sexual binary through the prevention of identifying as
bisexual as well as the prevention of acceptance of bisexual identities. Bisexual women are
typically viewed as “trendy” whereas bisexual men are usually viewed as simply “gay”, but not
fully coming out yet; as a result, the bisexual identity is erased (Callis 2013). Bisexuality is often
viewed as synonymous with hypersexuality; that is, bisexual individuals will have sex with
anything that moves and simply want attention (Callis 2013). These types of stereotypes
regarding bisexuality lend itself to the negative connotation it has where many individuals do
not wish to identify as such because of this negativity (Callis 2013).

PAGE 7
Recommendations for the AU Community
Whereas the university is home to an LGBTQ+ organization, it is necessary to offer a program
or group that addresses the specific issues and needs to bisexuals. The emphasis is typically
placed upon gays and lesbians, which in itself is important for that community, but can
ultimately contribute to the erasure of bisexuality.

To address this, I propose the creation of a bisexual-specific group on campus in order to

inform the university on relevant issues and ways to combat stigma. This is important because,
as a group of individuals who face these issues regularly, it will be the most useful way to
create a safe space for this group; it can allow the University to understand more about the
student experience and create initiatives for a more welcoming campus.

To the student body, it is important to combat stereotypical views of bisexuality. A list of

common forms of biphobia has been included in the appendix, excerpted from a report from
the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. Recognizing these common forms of biphobia
and understand its impact upon others who may face these issues is an important first step in
combating the stereotypes.

PAGE 8
 WORKS CITED

Bostwick, W. (2012). “Accessing Bisexual Stigma and Mental Health Status: A Brief Report.”
Journal of Bisexuality 12: 214-222. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2012.674860.

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

Copen, CE., Chandra, A., & Febo-Vazquez, I. (2016). “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and
Sexual Orientation Among Adults Aged 18-44 in the United States: Data From the 2011-2013
National Survey of Family Growth.” Natl Health Stat Report (88) 1-14.

Dilley, J. A., Simmons, K. W., Boysun, M. J., Pizacani, B. A., & Stark, M. J. (2010).
Demonstrating the importance and feasibility of including sexual orientation in public health
surveys: health disparities in the Pacific Northwest. American journal of public health, 100(3),
460–467. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.130336

Fredriksen-Goldsen, K.I., Kim, H., Barkan, S.E., Balsam, K.F., & Mincer, S.L. (2010). Disparities
in Health-Related Quality of Life: A Comparison of Lesbians and Bisexual Women. American
Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2255–2261.

Gonzalez, K.A., Ramirez, J.L, & Paz Galupo, M. (2017). “I was and still am: Narratives of
Bisexual Marking in the #StillBisexual Campaign.” Sexuality & Culture 21: 493-515. doi:
10.007/s12119-016-9401-y.

Hutchins, L., & Kaahumanu, L. (Eds.). (1991). Bi any other name bisexual people speak out. Los
Angeles, CA: Alyson Books.

Johnson, H.J. (2016). “Bisexuality, Mental Health, and Media Representation.” Journal of
Bisexuality 16(3): 378-396. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2016.1168335.

Knous, H. (2005). “The coming out experience for bisexuals: Identity formation and stigma
management. Journal of Bisexuality 5(4): 37-59.

McLean, K. (2007). “Hiding in the closest? Bisexuals, coming out and the disclosure
imperative.” Journal of Sociology 43(2): 151-166.

McLean, K. (2008). “Silences and Stereotypes: The impact of (mis) constructions of bisexuality
on Australian bisexual men and women.” Gay & Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 4(3):
158-165.

Movement Advancement Project. (2016). “Invisible Majority: The Disparities Facing Bisexual
People and How to Remedy Them.” Retrieved from https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/invisible-
majority.pdf.

Movement Advancement Project. (2014). “Understanding Issues Facing Bisexual Americans.”

Retrieved from https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/understanding-issues-facing-bisexual-
americans.pdf.

PAGE 9
Ochs, R. (2011). “Why we need to ‘get bi’”. Journal of Bisexuality 11(2/3): 171-175.

Rainbow Health Ontario. (2015). “RHO Fact Sheet: Bisexual Health”. Accessed November 2,
2019, from https://latarasoff.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rho_factsheet_bihealth_e.pdf.

Ross, L.E., Dobinson, C. & Eady, A. (2010). “Perceived determinants of mental health for
bisexual people: A qualitative examination.” American Journal of Public Health 100: 496-502.

San Francisco Human Rights Commission (SFHRC). (2011). “Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and
Recommendations”. Retrieved from https://sf-
hrc.org//sites/default/files/Documents/HRC_Publications/Articles/Bisexual_Invisiblity_Impac
ts_and_Recommendations_March_2011.pdf.

Spalding, L.R. & Peplau, I.A. (1997). “The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals’ perceptions of
bisexuals and their relationships.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 21(4): 611-624.

Wandrey, R.L., Mosack, K.E., and Moore, E.M. (2015). “Coming Out to Family and Friends as
Bisexually Identified Young Adult Women: A Discussion of Homophobia, Biphobia, and
Heteronormativity”. Journal of Bisexuality 15:204-229. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2015.1018657.

Yoshino, K. (2000). “The epistemic contract of bisexual erasure.” Stanford Law Review, 52: 353-
461.

PAGE 10
Appendix
Forms of Biphobia
Bisexual invisibility is one of many manifestations of biphobia. Others include:

 Assuming that everyone you meet is either heterosexual or homosexual.

 Supporting and understanding a bisexual identity for young people because you
identified “that way” before you came to your “real” lesbian/gay/heterosexual identity.
 Automatically assuming romantic couplings of two women are lesbian, or two men are
gay, or a man and a woman are heterosexual.
 Expecting a bisexual to identify as gay or lesbian when coupled with the “same”
sex/gender.
 Expecting a bisexual to identify as heterosexual when coupled with the “opposite”
sex/gender.
 Believing that bisexual men spread HIV/AIDS to heterosexuals.
 Believing that bisexual women spread HIV/AIDS to lesbians.
 Thinking bisexual people haven’t made up their minds.
 Refusing to accept someone’s self-identification as bisexual if the person hasn’t had sex
with both men and women.
 Expecting bisexual people to get services, information, and education from
heterosexual service agencies for their “heterosexual side” and then go to gay and/or
lesbian service agencies for their “homosexual side.”
 Feeling bisexuals just want to have their cake and eat it too.
 Assuming a bisexual person would want to fulfill your sexual fantasies or curiosities.
 Thinking bisexuals only have committed relationships with “opposite” sex/gender
partners.
 Being gay or lesbian and asking your bisexual friends about their lovers or whom they
are dating only when that person is the “same” sex/gender.
 Assuming that bisexuals, if given the choice, would prefer to be in an “opposite”
gender/sex coupling to reap the social benefits of a “heterosexual” pairing.
 Assuming bisexuals would be willing to “pass” as anything other than bisexual.
 Believing bisexuals are confused about their sexuality.
 Feeling that you can’t trust a bisexual because they aren’t really gay or lesbian, or
aren’t really heterosexual.
 Refusing to use the word bisexual in the media when reporting on people attracted to
more than one gender, instead substituting made-up terms such as “gay-ish.”
 Using the terms phase or stage or confused or fence-sitter or bisexual or AC/DC or
switch-hitter as slurs or in an accusatory way.
 Assuming bisexuals are incapable of monogamy.
 Feeling that bisexual people are too outspoken and pushy about their visibility and
rights.

PAGE 11
  Looking at a bisexual person and automatically thinking of her/his sexuality rather
than seeing her/him as a whole, complete person.
 Not confronting a biphobic remark or joke for fear of being identified as bisexual.
 Assuming bisexual means “available.”
 Thinking that bisexual people will have their rights when lesbian and gay people win
theirs.
 Expecting bisexual activists and organizers to minimize bisexual issues (such as
HIV/AIDS, violence, basic civil rights, military service, same-sex marriage, child
custody, adoption, etc.) and to prioritize the visibility of “lesbian and/or gay” issues.
 Avoiding mentioning to friends that you are involved with a bisexual or working with a
bisexual group because you are afraid they will think you are a bisexual.

Excerpt from: San Francisco Human Rights Commission (SFHRC). (2011). “Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and
Recommendations”. Retrieved from https://sf-
hrc.org//sites/default/files/Documents/HRC_Publications/Articles/Bisexual_Invisiblity_Impacts_and_Recommendations_Mar
ch_2011.pdf.

PAGE 12