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.
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 :)