176
Allison Moore
Horncastle, J (2008) ‘Queer Bisexuality: Perceptions of Bisexual Existence, distinction and
Challenges’ In: International Perspectives on Bisexuality Vol. 8. Nos 1 / 2.
Bisexuality continues to be a much misunderstood and maligned sexuality. Representations in
popular culture and, in particular, popular media, continue to reinforce stereotypical and
pathological views of bisexuality. People who self identify as bisexual or are identified as
bisexual because of their sexual behaviour are variably portrayed as ‘confused’, ‘undecided’,
‘greedy’, ‘promiscuous’, ‘non-monogamous’ (Udis-Kessler:1996). These constructions are
rooted in and reinforced by both heteronormative and homonormative notions of sexuality. In her
article, Queer Bisexuality: Perceptions of Bisexual Existence, Distinction and Challenges, Julia
Horncastle introduces the notion of ‘a kind of bisexuality’ or a ‘queer bisexuality’, which offers
the potential to challenge these dominant constructions / perceptions.
Horncastle draws on the concepts, ‘Queer’ and ‘Sexgender’, as key for thinking through
queer bisexuality. While the term queer has multiple meanings as well as a diverse range of uses,
Horncastle employs it in two specific manners. On the one hand, it is embodied, for it represents
“a sensibility – a way of being in the world” (p.26). On the other, it can be used as a theoretical
tool to articulate non-normativity. Queer, she suggests, has to be understood both ontologically
and epistemologically. ‘Sexgender’, as a concept, is utilized to productively problematize the
sex/gender distinction. It illustrates both the separateness of sex and gender, whilst
simultaneously demonstrating their “mutability” (p.26) and changeability. It also contextualizes
the material conditions through which we live and feel sex and gender. Horncastle argues that it
is the ‘in-between-ness’ or interstitial location of bisexuality, something that exists between
heterosexuality and homosexuality, that leads to a queering of bisexuality. Thus, her concept of
queer bisexuality is not an attempt to reinforce binary constructions of sexuality or to create
oppositional categories of bisexuality (bisexuality v queer bisexuality). Instead, she hopes to re-
conceptualize what bisexuality is through the “logic of interstitiality” (p.28); that is, through an
© Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2008 - Vol. 5 Issue 2
177
analysis of the non-normative space bisexuality occupies between heterosexuality and
homosexuality.
In order to go about this, Horncastle explores dominant constructions of bisexuality by
referencing two examples from the popular media. The first comes from a 2005 New York
Times article entitled: ‘Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited’ (cited on p.28). Based on
‘scientific research’, the article claimed that bisexuality in men was non-existent and that men
who stated to be so were, in fact, either gay or straight. The second example, again in 2005,
comes from a queer community newspaper in Perth, Western Australia, which also draws from
‘scientific research’ to attack bisexuals, and more specifically, bisexual men. What connects
these examples is the fact that both were based on the same ‘scientific research’, both provoked
similar responses from pro-bisexuality activists and both were noticeable for the lack of
consideration of bisexual women. She later refers to this absence as an illustration of how the
existing unitary model of bisexuality demonstrates different ways of knowing about bisexual
men and bisexual women. She suggests that whilst the counter-attack from pro-bisexual activists
against these media representations was not surprising, “the absence of articulating a bisexual
complexity that might, for example, mention queerness” (p.30) was remarkable. She proposes
that bisexual politics / activism needs to move beyond a narrowly defined defensive and
reactionary position to one that is proactive, portraying the complexity of bisexuality and
offering the possibility of a queer bisexuality. In doing so, not only does this challenge
discriminatory and pathological constructions of bisexuality, but it also expands the
epistemological terrain of sexuality.
However, it is not enough to simply problematize popular constructions of bisexuality.
Queer ontology (ways of being) needs to be linked to a queer epistemology (ways of knowing).
Horncastle proposes both a proliferation of categories of sexuality, as well as an increased
movement across and between sexual categories as a way to strike at the foundations of the
inflexibility and rigidity of those categories. Ultimately, she argues for an expansion of the
“existing pool of sexgender knowledge” (p.33).
If there is to be an expansion of ways of knowing about sexuality, then there also has to
be an expansion in the ways of talking about sex and sexuality, what Horncastle calls: “a
© Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2008 - Vol. 5 Issue 2
178
concepto-lingual boom” (33). This is a distinctly queer way of communicating which is not
reliant on, nor limited by heteronormative language. Articulating a notion of queer bisexuality
would at least offer the possibility of opening up what is known and what is knowable about
bisexuality. It offers the potential to transcend the hetero-homo binary and bisexuality’s
relational position within it. That is, instead of being understood in a heteronormative or
homonormative framework, it allows bisexuality to be articulated non-normatively.
Nevertheless, in proposing this shift, Horncastle is mindful of the barriers that need to be
overcome. Mainly, dominant models of sexuality emphasise essentialism, fixidity and
dichotomy, presenting sexuality as an ‘either/or’ binary. This dominant hetero or homo-
normative framework continues to regulate, discipline and contain non-normative sexualities,
whether it be queer bisexuality or some other form of queerness.
By queering bisexuality, a number of sexgender categories are disrupted. Firstly, it
questions privileging gender as sexual object- a formula that typically defines a person’s
sexuality according to their partner’s gender. Not only has this conflation of sexuality and gender
/ sexual object choice limited the perceptions of bisexuality and served to maintain bisexual
invisibility, this unitary view has also oversimplified the complexity of sexual desire and masked
the plurality of determinants in sexual object-choice. Secondly, it would undermine the notion of
a unified form of bisexuality (which has limited the nature and form that bisexuality is perceived
as taking), opening up the space for a multiplicity and heterogeneity of experiences. Lastly, it
critiques and challenges the taboo of polyamory or nonmonogamy. For Hormcastle, polyamory
differs from nonmonogamy in that where the latter represents a challenge to monogamy, the
former “critiques monogamy (in terms of practice and ideology) and nonmonogamy (the term)”
(p.45). By suggesting ways in which queer bisexuality troubles sexgender categories, she clearly
and articulately makes the case for the necessity to link queer ontology and epistemology and,
perhaps, this is the greatest strength of this piece. By criss-crossing sexgender categories,
Horncastle not only queers the category of bisexuality, she also makes the unfamiliar familiar.
There are people the world over leading queer lives or, in Horncastle’s words, “queer sex
gender self-knowledge exists” (p.46). The challenge lies in how this gets articulated and
disseminated. What lies ahead is confronting how notions of queer bisexuality can be expressed
© Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2008 - Vol. 5 Issue 2
179
and experienced in ways that expand the sexgender knowledge pool, rather than being
(mis)interpreted as yet another fixed category of sexuality within the existing hetero / homo
normative framework. While the parameters of this article, arguably, preclude a detailed analysis
of the ways in which queer communication can actually lead to an expansion of sexgender
knowledge, it does raise important, thought-provoking questions about the relationship between
the ontology and epistemology of queer bisexuality.
References
Udis-Kessler, A (1996) ‘Challenging the Stereotypes.’ In: Rose, S, Stevens, C et al (eds)
Bisexual Horizons Politics, Histories, Lives. London, Lawrence & Wishart Limted.
Carey, B. (2005) Straight, gay or lying? Bisexuality revisited. New York Times, 5 July 2005 (Late
Edition (east Coast)), p. F.1.
© Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2008 - Vol. 5 Issue 2
