definitions of bisexuality vary from person to person. for some people it would cover the entire queer umbrella, for others it is two genders, for others still, two or more.
my wondering if it is too exclusive is not because of the definition of bisexuality (whatever it may be defined to be) but because if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality). also, as zeroaesthetic mentioned, asexuality exists.
perhaps an alternative would be something like “The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and other related sexual identities”.
if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality).
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered.
The problem really boils down to, they didn’t define sexual orientation so much as they gave examples of it.
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)
To be honest i was kind of surprised (and happy) bisexuality was mentioned at all in the original proposal. I understand your concerns they make perfect sense, the reactionary discourse will always find ways to adapt to whatever discourse is deemed legit/legal.
I agree with you, however i don’t know of any structural oppression against asexuality? I mean there’s strong incentives to have children and there may be interpersonal judgement around the topic but i don’t believe anyone has “mandatory sexual relationships” on their political agenda. Am i missing something?
No, there’s no structural oppression against asexuality, but there’s also no structural oppression against heterosexuality, and the latter is explicitly mentioned as a sexual orientation in the bill.
Don’t you believe the addition of hetero and bi sexuality explicitly in the list was calculated to defuse progressive/reactionary opposition in advance? If heterosexuality wasn’t on there people on the right would have claimed “it’s a secret lgbt plot to criminalize heterosexuality”, or at least i believe so
but i see your point thanks, not trying to nitpick :)
Uh, no, I think they were included in the list because it would be incorrect to say that sexual orientation just means homosexuality. (And why do you lump hetero- and bisexuality together? Bisexuality is still a form of queerness.)
How so? Wouldn’t you consider “bisexuality” covers queerness?
definitions of bisexuality vary from person to person. for some people it would cover the entire queer umbrella, for others it is two genders, for others still, two or more.
my wondering if it is too exclusive is not because of the definition of bisexuality (whatever it may be defined to be) but because if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality). also, as zeroaesthetic mentioned, asexuality exists.
perhaps an alternative would be something like “The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and other related sexual identities”.
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered.
The problem really boils down to, they didn’t define sexual orientation so much as they gave examples of it.
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)
To be honest i was kind of surprised (and happy) bisexuality was mentioned at all in the original proposal. I understand your concerns they make perfect sense, the reactionary discourse will always find ways to adapt to whatever discourse is deemed legit/legal.
Thanks for taking the time to explain!
no problem :)
I personally don’t think there’s a difference between bisexuality and pansexuality, but asexual is a thing.
I agree with you, however i don’t know of any structural oppression against asexuality? I mean there’s strong incentives to have children and there may be interpersonal judgement around the topic but i don’t believe anyone has “mandatory sexual relationships” on their political agenda. Am i missing something?
No, there’s no structural oppression against asexuality, but there’s also no structural oppression against heterosexuality, and the latter is explicitly mentioned as a sexual orientation in the bill.
Don’t you believe the addition of hetero and bi sexuality explicitly in the list was calculated to defuse progressive/reactionary opposition in advance? If heterosexuality wasn’t on there people on the right would have claimed “it’s a secret lgbt plot to criminalize heterosexuality”, or at least i believe so
but i see your point thanks, not trying to nitpick :)
Uh, no, I think they were included in the list because it would be incorrect to say that sexual orientation just means homosexuality. (And why do you lump hetero- and bisexuality together? Bisexuality is still a form of queerness.)
Heterosexuality is listed because leaving it out would open the bill up to equal protections challenges.