Diva667
Mar 10, 2011, 11:10 PM
http://www.birequest.org/docstore/2011-SF_HRC-Bi_Iinvisibility_Report.pdf
Study by San Francisco Human Rights Commission, which may be the first of it's kind by a government body.
Bisexual Invisibility:
Impacts and Recommendations
Bisexuals experience high rates of being ignored, discriminated against, demonized, or rendered
invisible by both the heterosexual world and the lesbian and gay communities.(3) Often, the entire
sexual orientation is branded as
invalid, immoral, or irrelevant.
Despite years of activism and the
largest population within the
LGBT community, the needs of
bisexuals still go unaddressed and their very existence is still called into question. This erasure has
serious consequences on bisexuals’ health, economic well-being, and funding for bi organizations
and programs.
As the authors of one study put it, “Bi-invisibility refers to a lack of acknowledgment and ignoring
of the clear evidence that bisexuals exist.”(4)
An Invisible Majority
According to several studies, self-identified bisexuals make up the largest single population within
the LGBT community in the United States. In each study, more women identified as bisexual than
lesbian, and fewer men identified as bisexual than gay.(5)
In 2010, a study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine(6), based on a nationally representative
probability sample of women and men in the U.S., found that among adults (5,042 respondents),
3.1% self-identified as bisexual, compared to 2.5% as gay/lesbian (Table 1).
...
An “Eclipsed and Conflated” Identity
Despite the overwhelming data that bisexuals exist, other people’s assumptions often render
bisexuals invisible. Two women holding hands are read as “lesbian,” two men as “gay,” and a man
and a woman as “straight.” In reality, any of these people might be bi―perhaps all of them.
The majority of research lumps data on bisexuals under “gay” or “lesbian,” which makes it difficult
to draw any conclusions about bisexuals and skews the data about lesbians and gay men. “Thus any
particular needs of bisexuals are eclipsed and conflated. Only a handful of studies separate out
bisexuals and/or report on their bisexual-specific findings. Fewer compare bisexuals to people who
are not bisexual.”(9)
Inconsistent terminology, even within a single study, makes it hard to decipher the findings
accurately. The NGLTF Policy Institute’s report on bisexual health recommends that researchers use
standardized definitions of sexual orientation labels and remain clear about them throughout the
course of their work, both in conducting studies and in reporting findings. A good set of guidelines
is to allow participants to self-report their own gender and sexual orientation labels and to describe
the gender(s) and sexual identity(ies) of their sexual partner(s). Reported analyses should reflect
these identities.(10)
...
The implications of bi invisibility go far beyond bisexuals wanting to feel welcome at the table. It
also has a significant impact on bisexuals’ health. Here are just a few examples from recent largescale
studies17:
Bisexual people experience greater health disparities than the broader population, including a
greater likelihood of suffering from depression and other mood or anxiety disorders.
Bisexuals report higher rates of hypertension, poor or fair physical health, smoking, and
risky drinking than heterosexuals or lesbians/gays.
Many, if not most, bisexual people don’t come out to their healthcare providers. This means
they are getting incomplete information (for example, about safer sex practices).
Most HIV and STI prevention programs don’t adequately address the health needs of
bisexuals, much less those who have sex with both men and women but do not identify as
bisexual.
Bisexual women in relationships with monosexual partners have an increased rate of
domestic violence compared to women in other demographic categories.
In the 1980s and 1990s, bisexuals were vociferously blamed for the spread of HIV, even though the
virus is spread by unprotected sex, not a bisexual identity. But a 1994 study of data from San
Francisco is also worth noting: it found that at that time, bisexually identified MSMW (men who
have sex with men and women) weren’t a “common vector or ‘bridge’ for spreading HIV from male
partners to female partners due to high rates of using barrier protection and extremely low rates of
risky behavior”18 (see below).
Yet scapegoating continues. Sometimes it is explicit, as in the misleading hysteria about men on the
“down low” infecting unsuspecting female partners, particularly in the African-American
community. Other times, the negative message is communicated in subtle ways. For example, in the
2008 San Francisco Department of Public Health HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Annual Report,
MSMWs are not mentioned at all, their data most likely absorbed into information about MSMs.
The only time the word “bisexual” appears is as an infection source for heterosexual women.19
In a 2010 study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from Washington State—
collected between 2003 and 2007 through a telephone interview survey of randomly selected adults
aged 18 or older—the researchers looked at health disparities between lesbians and bisexual
The report is longer than I can possibly post here... Although it is interesting
Study by San Francisco Human Rights Commission, which may be the first of it's kind by a government body.
Bisexual Invisibility:
Impacts and Recommendations
Bisexuals experience high rates of being ignored, discriminated against, demonized, or rendered
invisible by both the heterosexual world and the lesbian and gay communities.(3) Often, the entire
sexual orientation is branded as
invalid, immoral, or irrelevant.
Despite years of activism and the
largest population within the
LGBT community, the needs of
bisexuals still go unaddressed and their very existence is still called into question. This erasure has
serious consequences on bisexuals’ health, economic well-being, and funding for bi organizations
and programs.
As the authors of one study put it, “Bi-invisibility refers to a lack of acknowledgment and ignoring
of the clear evidence that bisexuals exist.”(4)
An Invisible Majority
According to several studies, self-identified bisexuals make up the largest single population within
the LGBT community in the United States. In each study, more women identified as bisexual than
lesbian, and fewer men identified as bisexual than gay.(5)
In 2010, a study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine(6), based on a nationally representative
probability sample of women and men in the U.S., found that among adults (5,042 respondents),
3.1% self-identified as bisexual, compared to 2.5% as gay/lesbian (Table 1).
...
An “Eclipsed and Conflated” Identity
Despite the overwhelming data that bisexuals exist, other people’s assumptions often render
bisexuals invisible. Two women holding hands are read as “lesbian,” two men as “gay,” and a man
and a woman as “straight.” In reality, any of these people might be bi―perhaps all of them.
The majority of research lumps data on bisexuals under “gay” or “lesbian,” which makes it difficult
to draw any conclusions about bisexuals and skews the data about lesbians and gay men. “Thus any
particular needs of bisexuals are eclipsed and conflated. Only a handful of studies separate out
bisexuals and/or report on their bisexual-specific findings. Fewer compare bisexuals to people who
are not bisexual.”(9)
Inconsistent terminology, even within a single study, makes it hard to decipher the findings
accurately. The NGLTF Policy Institute’s report on bisexual health recommends that researchers use
standardized definitions of sexual orientation labels and remain clear about them throughout the
course of their work, both in conducting studies and in reporting findings. A good set of guidelines
is to allow participants to self-report their own gender and sexual orientation labels and to describe
the gender(s) and sexual identity(ies) of their sexual partner(s). Reported analyses should reflect
these identities.(10)
...
The implications of bi invisibility go far beyond bisexuals wanting to feel welcome at the table. It
also has a significant impact on bisexuals’ health. Here are just a few examples from recent largescale
studies17:
Bisexual people experience greater health disparities than the broader population, including a
greater likelihood of suffering from depression and other mood or anxiety disorders.
Bisexuals report higher rates of hypertension, poor or fair physical health, smoking, and
risky drinking than heterosexuals or lesbians/gays.
Many, if not most, bisexual people don’t come out to their healthcare providers. This means
they are getting incomplete information (for example, about safer sex practices).
Most HIV and STI prevention programs don’t adequately address the health needs of
bisexuals, much less those who have sex with both men and women but do not identify as
bisexual.
Bisexual women in relationships with monosexual partners have an increased rate of
domestic violence compared to women in other demographic categories.
In the 1980s and 1990s, bisexuals were vociferously blamed for the spread of HIV, even though the
virus is spread by unprotected sex, not a bisexual identity. But a 1994 study of data from San
Francisco is also worth noting: it found that at that time, bisexually identified MSMW (men who
have sex with men and women) weren’t a “common vector or ‘bridge’ for spreading HIV from male
partners to female partners due to high rates of using barrier protection and extremely low rates of
risky behavior”18 (see below).
Yet scapegoating continues. Sometimes it is explicit, as in the misleading hysteria about men on the
“down low” infecting unsuspecting female partners, particularly in the African-American
community. Other times, the negative message is communicated in subtle ways. For example, in the
2008 San Francisco Department of Public Health HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Annual Report,
MSMWs are not mentioned at all, their data most likely absorbed into information about MSMs.
The only time the word “bisexual” appears is as an infection source for heterosexual women.19
In a 2010 study using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from Washington State—
collected between 2003 and 2007 through a telephone interview survey of randomly selected adults
aged 18 or older—the researchers looked at health disparities between lesbians and bisexual
The report is longer than I can possibly post here... Although it is interesting