If biphobia can be explained by a foundation which is common to homophobia and the hierarchical organization of the sexes and genders, it should also be understood by the forms of rejection which are peculiar to it. One characteristic of biphobia is that it is expressed not only by heterosexual women and men who make up the normative majority, but also by gay men and lesbians, representatives of a sexual minority. Initially, it could be suggested that bisexuality’s apparent “in between” position, combined with its nascent and still largely invisible history, is sufficient to explain the
discrimination
to which bisexual women and men are subjected. In this case, the rejection of bisexuality would be comparable to the exclusion of all intermediary groups who have neither political nor cultural history. Yet if certain elements confirm the relevance of this comparison, they are not sufficient to understand the depths of biphobia. As an example, biphobia often takes the form of the staunchly expressed affirmation that “bisexuality does not exist”; therefore, bisexuals do not exist, are not legitimate because they have no physical reality, and are a false pretense of the mind, an abstraction. However, to use a comparison with other intermediate groups, no one would deny the existence of biracial individuals. Admittedly, skin color is a physical manifestation; it can be seen whereas bisexuality seems to leave no imprint on external appearance. But this absence of physical marking denoting difference is a characteristic of homosexuality as well. Yet we would not deny a lesbian who has not had a lover in the last ten years the right to call herself a lesbian; the same goes for a gay man, and for heterosexuals as well. Therefore, there is something specific that comes into play when bisexuality is rejected based on the idea that it does not exist.
Bisexuals might try to respond by using a tactic of their detractors and affirming their existence openly and publicly. Inspired by J. L. Austin, Judith Butler has demonstrated well the idea of repetition, which can be used to establish phobic standards while at the same time becoming a performative strategy to undermine them. By repeating something which is not perceived to exist, one calls into question the construction of the dominant social order. In this context, the repeated affirmation of bisexuality’s existence can be a tool with which to respond to biphobic statements, and thus chip away at the principles of hierarchical organization and exclusion which make up these statements.
There are numerous fears that bisexuality seems to instill among its detractors; among them is the fear of infidelity. This brings up a principal paradox regarding bisexuals in response to biphobia: in proving their existence to detractors, bisexuals multiply their male and female sexual partners for doubters to see, which in turn intensifies criticism of them because of their perceived unfaithfulness. Thus, the proof of bisexuality’s existence is that which is so disagreeable to its detractors: multiple partners. But how can we interpret the stigmatization of people by reason that they are sexually non-exclusive? This picture of biphobia based on a disapproval of bisexuals’ infidelity is underlined by a belief common to all sexual orientations: that exclusive love remains possible. In this way, it is difficult to forgive bisexuals, as they are represented, for casting doubt on the fantasy of fidelity.
People’s desire to always be seen in the best possible light, which is learned from being excluded by others because of some difference, explains in part biphobia’s rejection of bisexuality: bisexuals are different from the norm because they appear to collude with heterosexuals and take advantage of the privileges heterosexuality offers (unlike homosexuals); at the same time, they refuse to name themselves, whether through the
media
or their political actions. Consequently, it can be stated by bisexuality’s opponents that their biphobia can be blamed on bisexuals themselves; in this way, they can avoid asking questions about themselves in the false belief that all their fears have been banished.
—
Catherine Deschamps
Butler, Judith.
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Deschamps, Catherine. Le
Miroir bisexuel. Socio-anthropologie de l’invisible
. Paris: Ed. Balland, 2002.
———, Rommel Mendès-Leité, and Bruno Proth.
Bisexualité: le dernier tabou
. Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1996.
Hall, Donald E., and Maria Pramaggiore, eds.
RePresenting Bisexualiy: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire
. New York/London: New York Univ. Press, 1996.
Pontalis, Jean-Baptiste, ed.
Bisexualité et différence des sexes
. Paris: Gallimard, 1973.
Tucker, Naomi, ed.
Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions
. New York: Haworth Press, 1995.
—Debauchery; Gayphobia; Heterophobia; Heterosexism; Lesbophobia; Psychoanalysis; Transphobia.
BOUTIN, Christine
Christine Boutin, a conservative, devout Catholic politician in France, is best known for her vehement 1998 opposition to the
PaCS
(Pacte civil de solidarité; Civil solidarity pact) proposal, which was to recognize domestic same-sex partnerships in France (short of same-sex marriage). Many remember the moment when Boutin, who was a member of the party, Union pour la democratie française (UDF), spoke for five hours straight in the French National Assembly during debates over PaCS, which she believed would encourage homosexuality in the country; during her speech, she often brandished a copy of the
Bible
. According to her, “What is homosexuality if not the impossibility of reaching another being through their sexual difference? And what is the inability of accepting this difference, if not an expression of exclusion?” She also claimed that “all civilizations that recognized and justified homosexuality as a normal lifestyle fell into
decadence
.” By the time Boutin’s marathon session ended, it earned her the reputation of a fanatic. From the start of her political career, her faith was central to her work, much to the joy of fundamentalist Christian associations, which finally had a significant ally in the French parliament. Having a similar political background as right-wing fundamentalists in the US Congress, Boutin quickly realized that it was in her interest to use her political power to serve a cause shared by interest groups within her own constituency of Yvelines (outside Paris). And though her involvement in debates around issues such as legalized abortion, gender parity, and most of all PaCS revealed a profoundly reactionary personality, she more recently tried to make-over her image by opposing other right-wing opinions on the subject of prisons, where it was widely agreed that she showed great compassion. Not long after, though, her old habits returned, and she has since led a new crusade against pornography.
Born February 6, 1944, Christine Boutin lost her mother at the age of five. An only child for some time, she became a member of, in her words, “one of those damned” blended families after her father remarried. Following studies in law at Assas (in the University of Paris) and her marriage in 1967, she became a press attaché at the Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique (a government-funded research organization), then a journalist. As a member of the UDF, she ran for office in Yvelines with the support of former Prime Minister Raymond Barre, whom she met through UDF president Charles Millon. Rare as it was, she flirted with several conservative political groups (including the National Front) and, despite not being nominated by her party, she did not hesitate to run for president of France in 2002. Her political colleagues are regularly shocked by the outrageousness of her statements; however, Boutin seems to have a certain support that the right wing would not want to lose.
With the 1995 publication of the encyclical
Evangelium vitae
, Pope
John Paul II
named her as “consultant to the Pontifical Council for the
Family
,” the nerve center for the international “pro-life” activities of the Holy See. Thus, she enjoys a status nearly identical to that of a Vatican diplomat, which would normally seem awkward for a deputy of the French people. As a result, there are very few pro-life organizations in France that do not have a connection to Boutin. It should be noted that she is also a patron of the very sectarian and very homophobic Cercle de la cité vivante, a “Christian place for the defense against the inducement of the
perversion
of mores.” However, since 1994, the bulk of her non-legislative activities have been with an organization more directly under her thumb: the Alliance pour les droits de la vie (Alliance for the Right to Life). The Alliance mostly plays a coordinating role in petition campaigns against issues or subjects such as pornography in the
media
, gay
marriage
, and even publishers of children’s books (such as Ecole des loisirs), whom they accuse of trying to pervert children with books about homosexuality or
suicide
. Recently, the Alliance added lobbying to its arsenal. And who were those many senior citizens in attendance during the National Assembly’s PaCS debates, with whom Boutin was always exchanging knowing looks? The answer was found once more within the Alliance, when its secretary explained that its president, Boutin, had been for years inviting her faithful friends to a chapel to pray for the souls of the French politicians, “so that they could save and protect life and family.” This ritual took place every Wednesday evening—right next door to the Assembly!
Boutin also played a major part in the fight against legalized abortion in France. From 1986 to 1998, as head of an interparliamentary organization called le Groupe parlementaire pour favoriser l’accueil de la vie (the Parliamentary Group in Favor of Welcoming Life), she firmly entrenched opposition to legalized abortion within parliament, thanks to the support of the National Front. She then encouraged leaders of the right to consider granting amnesty to those convicted as anti-abortion activists. As a result, in May 1995, Minister of Justice Jacques Toubon and a longtime opponent of the 1967 Neuwirth law which made the sale of contraceptives legal in France, drafted a bill for amnesty and presidential pardon for such activists, explaining that he was trying to create “an equilibrium between those who fight for and those who fight against abortion.” When it was debated in the Assembly on June 21, it was severely criticized by numerous opponents; as a result, the government conceded and proposed revisiting the text, but affirming the need to return to the strict application of the law with regard to the condemnation of those who either encourage abortion, or fail to discourage women from it.
But Boutin’s greatest notoriety resulted from her hardline stance on PaCS. She did not hesitate to take the lead in the fight against the recognition of homosexual couples. Her speeches, along with her book
Le “Mariage” des homosexuels?
(Homosexual “marriage”?), constitute in and of themselves a veritable anthology of contemporary homophobia in France. According to her, homosexual movements seek to “undermine the fundamentals of our society,” and that if PaCS were passed, “not only the coherence of the law, but also the financial equilibrium of the State would be compromised.” Her statements regularly make use of
rhetoric
that is at once both banal and sinister, employing amalgamations of the most odious type: “Where is the line drawn, for an adopted child, between homosexuality and
pedophilia
?” She also attempts to play on the fears of the public, making homosexuality out to be the
peril
of perils: “the very fundamentals of civilization and of democracy are being questioned,” and thus, “entire parts of society could be swallowed up, without rhyme or reason, in this bottomless pit” that is the recognition of homosexual couples. In short, she believes, “we are back in barbaric times.”
Yet, Boutin does not believe that she is homophobic. After all, “homophobia exists often only within their [homosexuals’] own hearts,” she writes in her book, and that “it would be difficult to foster the perpetration of
violence
against homosexuals if informed by objective information.” In her infinite charity, she goes even further: she claims to understand “the reality of the suffering of homosexuals,” and declares her “love” for them after all, affirming in all modesty that “to each their own truth, no matter how monstrous or contradictory to human beings.”
(In 2007, Christine Boutin was named Minister of Housing and the City, under the newly-elected government of President Nicolas Sarkozy.)
—Fiametta Venner
Boutin, Christine.
Le “Mariage” des homosexuals? CUCS, PIC, PACS et autres projets législatifs
. Paris: Critérion, 1998.
Desfossé, Bertrand, Henri Dhellemmes, Christèle Fraïsse, and Adeline Raymond.
Pour en finir avec Christine Boutin
. Paris: H & O Editions, 1999.
—Anti-PaCS; Catholic Church, the; Decadence; Far Right; France; Marriage; Mirguet, Paul; Peril; Politics; Rhetoric; Theology; Tolerance.
BRYANT, Anita
In the latter half of the 1970s, Anita Bryant, who was once a popular American singer, a former Miss Oklahoma, and the star of orange juice commercials, became a well-known spokesperson for the religious right in America in the battle against homosexual rights. Specifically, she campaigned extensively to repeal a local ordinance in Miami, Florida, where she lived, which prohibited the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; her campaign was named “Save Our Children.” As such, she came to represent the homophobic views of fundamentalist and born-again Christians, the latter comprised of the newly converted who had rediscovered the Bible after a long period of distance from or indifference to religion. Curiously, Bryant’s crusade against homosexuality was launched in reaction to actions set in motion by another born-again Christian (but this one a moderate), President Jimmy Carter. Following his election in 1976, Carter instituted a policy that supported the rights of gays and lesbians, encouraging the repealing of laws against sodomy in many states, and pushing local governments to pass bylaws that would protect homosexual rights. The city of Miami’s vote on its anti-discrimination ordinance became the founding act of Anita Bryant’s new career as an anti-gay lobbyist, and in the end, she was successful in having the ordinance overturned.