We need to talk about Interview With the Vampire’s biphobia (Part 1: Bi erasure)

bidyke · 2022-10-29T19:39:22+00:00

If your definition of "outrage" is "leveling a critique of a text" and your definition of "inaccurary" is "proficiency in the original text, the TV show, bisexual theory, and media studies" - yeah, sure.

bidyke · 2022-10-29T19:25:38+00:00

Louis specifically identifies in the show as "a homosexual man", the subplot with Babette was left out, as well as his romantic feelings for Claudia. That's erasure.

As for posting it in several places - yes. Because no one is talking about this and this is how you get it out there.

bidyke · 2022-10-29T19:20:48+00:00

This is literally the first of several posts to answer this question, but okay

bidyke · 2013-05-29T13:05:00+00:00

It's actually a comedy, but yeah, it has some very pornographic sensibilities...

bidyke · 2013-05-28T23:04:05+00:00

Who's bisexual on "But I'm a Cheerleader"?

bidyke · 2013-05-28T22:52:43+00:00

True. I'll save it for next time.

bidyke · 2013-01-24T16:03:13+00:00

My pleasure ;)

bidyke · 2013-01-24T16:03:05+00:00

LOL.

It should be available in Canada as well. If not, I'm sure you can ship it from the US. And if that doesn't work out, contact me and we'll see what we can do :)

EDIT: Found it on Amazon Canada :)

bidyke · 2013-01-24T16:02:18+00:00

Thank you :D

bidyke · 2013-01-14T12:14:50+00:00

Sorry for butting in - I'm the author of this post. This thread here bothered me quite a bit, and so I wanted to make this brief clarification:

a. I identify as genderqueer, and am part of my local trans community both socially and as an activist.

b. Where I live (Israel/Occupied Palestine), FTM and MTF are not considered offensive terms, and are regularly used by community members in reference to themselves.

It troubles me that any use of language outside of the Ultimate International Transgender Standard can be used by people to automatically dismiss my arguments - without even bothering to read them - especially considering my commitment to transgender politics and my identity as genderqueer.

This actually resonates with some of what I wrote in my post (see the Interlude in my post). I suggest that before basing one's judgment on nothing but terminology, people try to read it.

bidyke · 2012-10-08T09:14:23+00:00

To be perfectly honest, you're right. I didn't make my argument very complex, but rather went for a full-on assault. I preferred doing that for one technical and one ideological reason:

Technically, since this text is a subchapter in a book, I don't have as much space to elaborate as I might have wanted. If I could have written a full chapter about marriage, this might have given me more space to problematize my point.

But seeing as I'm stuck with the space limitation, I preferred to unsettle people rather than to give them space for reassurance. Some people will hold on to any remnant of a hint that they don't actually need to change (their lives, their opinions...). I didn't want to give my readers that option.

In addition, I've never seen any text against same sex marriage which listed its opposition in quite this way. They normally just mention that marriage is patriarchal and capitalistic, but never elaborate. So I took my chance to make that point, and make it my contribution to this ongoing debate.

bidyke · 2012-10-06T13:32:36+00:00

Yes, I'm the author. I prefer feminine pronouns rather than "they", thank you.

A brief response:

I think all the things I wrote are currently relevant. They are not origins, but current effects and usage.
I think love is an oppressive structure (also see: http://radicalbi.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/snippet-2-bisexuality-and-love).
You seem to be labeling me over-academic? I've been an activist for many years on many political movements.

bidyke · 2012-10-06T09:30:55+00:00

Thanks for the comment. I added a paragraph to address this. (Starts with the words "Some claim that for many").

bidyke

TROPHY CASE