Deconstructing the Clinging Myth of ‘Straight-Passing privilege’ for bi+People

Abstract

This article is premised on critiquing the idea that bi+people – that is, those with multiple gendered attractions - have ‘straight-passing privilege.’ This assumed straight-passing privilege suggests that bi+people are not equally affected by homophobia and heteronormativity when compared with lesbian and gay people. This article aims to demonstrate that this notion of straight-passing privilege is harmful in understanding bi+people. To explore these arguments, this article uses literature relating to passing and identity management to understand how bi+specific identities relate to these theoretical concepts. Through a sociological lens, this article argues that the idea of straight-passing privilege neglects the real circumstances of bi+people, who experience safety and wellbeing concerns and presumed privileges because of these assumptions. It is correct that bi+people may be able to pass as straight in certain circumstances, as may many lesbian and gay people, but the understanding of this as a privilege fails to account for the difficulties that anyone living outside of a heterosexual norm experiences. Rather, bi+people are subject to biphobia and bisexual invisibility/erasure that impacts their ability to be ‘out’ at all—leaving them ontologically incom­prehensible.

Keywords:

• Bisexual
• Bi+
• LGBTQ
• privilege
• sexuality
• homophobia
• biphobia

Introduction and terminology

This article tackles the recurrent misunderstandings related to bi+identities and their everyday experiences, whereby bi+people are often suggested to have ‘straight-passing privilege’. To explore these issues, it is first integral to define how bi+identities are being understood and conceptualized in this article. Many researchers have a blinkered or underdeveloped view on what a bi+identity might mean for the lived experience of bi+individuals (Monro et al., 2017). This is particularly true due to the inherent difficulties of describing sexuality and identity because sexual expression can be defined differently according to attraction, labels, and sexual behavior—all of which may be at odds with one another (Stein, 1997, pp. 83–84).

For the purpose of this article, I choose to focus on those who use a bi+identity term to describe themselves, even if bi+people sometimes take issues with the limitations of the identity label they choose (Amestoy, 2001; Callis, 2013, 2014; Flanders, 2017). In understanding bi+identities, I follow Ochs’ definition of bisexuality which is:

“the potential to be attracted – romantically and/or sexually – to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.” (Ochs n.d.).

I am using bi+as opposed to bisexual to refer to the different sexual identities that could fall under the umbrella of Ochs’ definition. Thus, ‘bi+’ could include bisexual people, pansexual people, queer people, biromantic asexual people and anyone else who may consider their identity to use a similar definition as above. As Eisner writes (Eisner, 2013):

It is important to note that though some people might feel uncomfortable identifying with the word bisexuality, even through its umbrella use, many others often do consider themselves part of the bisexual community/movement and thus identify under the broad term. It is with respect to these people that I offer the usage of the umbrella term. I include under it only those people who want to be included under it […] I also mean this as a suggestion for solidarity between the various groups under the bi umbrella […] we all certainly share the effects of biphobia and monosexism. We have many common goals toward which we can work. In addition, many of the social meanings associated with bisexuality […] are also shared by the other bi-spectrum identities. (Eisner, 2013: 30).

I agree with Eisner’s approach to building coalitional solidarity amongst people with similar experiences to work toward full emancipation. To further develop conceptual specificity in this paper, there are several sociological concepts which can help elaborate on the experience of bi+people.

1. Heteronormativity is the idea that it is more usual, expected, or accepted to be heterosexual (Marchia & Sommer, 2019). Heteronormativity is seen extensively in media, families, and education. For example, some states in the United States currently do not provide education on lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships, with some states mandating education which specifies sex education must adopt anti-LGBT teachings (Tran et al., 2023).

2. Homonormativity is an extension of this, which suggests that lesbian, gay, and (arguably by association) bi+people are expected to model themselves against neoliberal ideals to reflect social norms, such as participating in monogamous marriages (Duggan, 2002). Importantly, Duggan writes that homonormativity results in the depoliticization of LGBTQ people (2002).

3. Mononormativity has various disputed meanings dependent on context, but for the purpose of this paper, I am using it to refer to the way in which there is an expectation of monosexuality in most societies. Monosexuality is the interest in only one gender. Monosexuality includes anyone with a unidirectional attraction such as heterosexual people, lesbian people, and gay men. Mononormativity suggests that it is more usual or normal to be monosexual than bi+in any way (Eisner, 2013). This is evident in the recurrent disbelief that bi+people experience in stating their identities, whereby they are understood to be ‘greedy’, ‘cheaters’, or ‘indecisive’ as a result of the belief that individuals will eventually settle into a unidirectional sexual and romantic attraction (Callis, 2013; Corey, 2017; Knous, 2006; See & Hunt, 2011).

Importantly, a rich amount of scholarship further engages with these ideas whilst bringing to light intersecting experiences such as, including cisnormativity (Pearce, 2018), the dominance of whiteness (Johnson, 2001; Puar, 2018), ableism (Brown, 2017; García-Santesmases Fernández et al., 2017), classism (Brim, 2020; Taylor, 2023), and more. However, these concepts are beyond the limited scope of this paper. I argue that heteronormativity, homonormativity, and mononormativity—which are further shaped by intersecting experiences of oppression prioritize a fixed categorical understanding of one’s sexual identity and expression, which fails to foster a recognition of bi+identities due to bi+people’s perceived ambiguity, liminality, or variability.

The central argument

Bi+people experience exclusion or stigma as a result of everyday ‘misunderstandings’ of their sexual identities (Alarie & Gaudet, 2013; Daly et al., 2018; Hartman, 2013; Hayfield, 2021a; Hayfield et al., 2013; Huxley et al., 2014; Lynch & Maree, 2017; Nelson, 2020). These ‘misunderstandings’ often render bi+identities as implausible or impossible.

A recurrent ‘misunderstanding’ regarding bi+people is the myth of straight-passing privilege. The suggestion here is that bi+people possess straight-passing privilege particularly when in differently-gendered relationships. This idea is often deployed to suggest that bi+people do not experience as much discrimination or oppression when compared to lesbian and gay people. It is often made as an accusation specific to bi+people, and is not typically deployed in response to lesbian and gay people who may similarly be understood or misrecognized as heterosexual during their everyday lives.

This claim—that bi+people have a privilege they can access through appearing straight—often rears its head in unexpected ways. The research participants I have spoken to have referred to these claims. I have witnessed it used by researchers exploring the topic of a bi+identity. I have received conference questions asking about straight-passing privilege. I have seen it used in various comments, posts, and ‘hot takes’ in social media spaces. I have also heard it used in casual day-to-day settings in my own life as a bi+person. Whilst my own experience perhaps may not convince you of the presence of this myth of bi-passing privilege, the numerous responses by bi+activists and commentators may demonstrate the breadth and regularity of the issue (Marshall, 2020; White, 2017; Withey, 2020).

Each of the bi+activists and commentators cited above strongly disagree with the notion that bi+people have straight-passing privilege. This argument is not novel given that bi+people regularly advocate for a better understanding on this reoccurring debate. However, in this article I seek to tackle the myth of bi+passing privilege through a sociological lens to provide a more extensive theoretical understanding of the claim itself, the beliefs that it reproduces, and the way in which we might respond to claims of ‘passing’ amongst bi+people.

This article will first explore how passing is understood in popular and academic literature to establish the context of passing more generally. I will then indicate how claims of straight-passing privilege are deployed, before exploring the particular social barriers that bi+people experience in making themselves intelligible. I discuss bi+disclosure and identity management to unpick the idea of straight-passing privilege before concluding with a suggestion on a different way to conceptualize bi+differently-gendered relationships.

My key argument is that bi+people may ‘pass’ as straight for various complex reasons including safety, however, this is by no means a privilege in of itself and should be taken seriously as an indication of widespread biphobia and queerphobia. The ability to pass is indicative of interrelated issues of heteronormativity, homonormativity and mononormativity which result in bi+people being positioned as impossible, precarious or invisible. Thus, to be invisible and able to pass as a straight person is somewhat more complicated than an understanding of ‘straight passing privilege’ might suggest. Ultimately, the idea of straight-passing privilege is a remarkably unhelpful concept in attempting to support bi+liberation and free expression across societies.

Navigating norms: ‘Passing’ and self-expression

Goffman has described passing as “the management of undisclosed discrediting information” (Goffman, 1990, p. 42). Slightly more recently, passing has been described as “the social performance whereby one member of a defined social group masquerades as another” (Crutchfield 1997 cited in Leary, 1999, p. 85). An example might include a member of a minoritized group choosing to pass as a culturally dominant identity to access rights, privileges, or opportunities otherwise unavailable to them.

Whilst passing has been deployed as a concept in many different contexts, it has held particularly salience when describing the experiences of Black and Mixed-Race people. In a Western context, racism and discrimination led to some Black or Mixed-Race people passing as white on occasion to achieve equitable access, rights, or acceptance (Wald, 2000). This was famously the guiding narrative in Nella Larsen’s influential novella ‘Passing’ where two light-skinned Black women negotiated passing in contrasting ways, illuminating the weight of racism and discrimination that impacted their everyday actions (Larsen, 2002).

More recently, passing has been used in discourses surrounding trans individuals seeking to navigate cisgender or cisnormative spaces—that is, spaces where individuals are presumed or expected to be cisgender. Passing as cis has been described variously as affirming, a need, an expectation, or a requirement for many trans people (Anderson et al., 2020; Nicolazzo, 2016). In this case, passing typically refers to adopting typically feminine or masculine behaviors and presentations to fit into a two-gender system.

For both passing Black or Mixed-Race people and passing trans people passing is a way of accessing safety and invisibility where individuals can pass through without drawing negative attention due to their minoritized statuses. In this, passing reiterates that the privileged position—whether that is whiteness, or cisness—is much more powerful than a minoritized status. In this sense, passing reiterates a system of power, where minoritized groups of individuals participate in mitigating their identities to gain access to better privileges, rights, or reactions.

Academic examinations of passing have suggested that passing can be understood as possessing a ‘secret knowledge’ whereby the passing actor holds hidden knowledge over the unassuming audience (Conrad & Crawford, 1998). In this conception of passing, the power is held by the passing actor and could be titillating or powerful, depending on context. For example, heteronormativity could lead an audience to expect all individuals to be heterosexual. By Conrad and Crawford’s logic, this dominating expectation of heterosexuality would lead bi+people to be in the possession of a ‘secret knowledge’ due to the heteronormative audience. To avoid this definition of passing, a bi+person would necessarily need to declare their identities to each individual they came across, so as to not possess a ‘secret knowledge’—this idea of a ‘disclosure imperative’ is later discussed in this paper. This series of logic culminates in the need for authenticity to avoid deceit and powerplay. However, as Maliepaard succinctly writes (Maliepaard, 2018), coming out can be understood as “a heteronormative imperative that can put enormous pressure on nonheterosexual people to actually confess their nonheterosexuality to live a healthy life (p.163).

DeJordy redefines these ideas a either ‘passing’ or ‘covering’ (DeJordy, 2008) where passing is moving through situations without disclosing one’s identity, whilst covering is the act of “engaging in normalizing behaviors despite having revealed a stigmatized identity” (DeJordy, 2008, p. 514). In practice, this means that those who have already declared a stigmatized identity - such as a lesbian who has disclosed her sexuality to colleagues or friends - may not publicly demonstrate their identity in an open space due to the risk of negative reactions (e.g. homophobia). DeJordy gives here the example of a heterosexual couple kissing in public, whilst a same-gender couple may avoid kissing in public even when otherwise ‘out’ (DeJordy, 2008). DeJordy further distinguishes between whether someone is passing for reward or passing to avoid punishment (DeJordy, 2008). The notion of passing to access particular privileges and opportunities suggests a self-interested manipulation, whilst passing to avoid punishment suggests an attempt at self-preservation in a hostile environment.

Understanding where bi+people fit into this is important given that it further establishes bi+people as duplicitous or truthful depending on interpretation. However, as Anderson says:

“the conceptualisation of self is, in part, determined by how we appear to others and how others judge us according to that appearance” (Anderson et al., 2020, p. 53).

This idea of visibility, understanding, and recognition is a vital concern in considering bi+passing. In this sense, the ability to pass is determined by how others might understand us, as well as the choices one might make relative to one’s external presentation. These different approaches to exploring and understanding passing offer fruitful ground for us to now consider passing as it relates to bi+identities.

Straight passing privilege?

Now armed with some conceptualisations of passing, it is important to understand how the idea of straight-passing privilege can be deployed in understanding bi+people. The claim tends to take certain forms:

• The explicit claim that bi+people have straight-passing privilege – this is a recycled trope in discussing who is most harmed by heteronormative ideals.

• The explicit claim that bi+people in ‘heterosexual’ relationships do not experience discrimination.

• The claim that bi+people (most often women) will leave someone of the same-gender for someone of a different-gender; this suggests that bi+people are anxious to engage in heteronormative relationship models.

• The claim that bi+people have a heavier onus on them to fight for LGT+rights given their stronger social position; this suggests that bi+people do not experience oppression or discrimination comparably to LGT+people.

• The implicit claim that bi+people are in ‘heterosexual’ or ‘gay/lesbian’ relationships (e.g. as opposed to ‘bisexual/queer’ relationships; this suggests bisexual desire is suspended when monogamous, and thus could be interpreted as further justifying claims of straight-passing privilege.

This list is neither exhaustive nor representative of all discourse about bi+people, however, the existence of these claims taps into issues around straight-passing privilege which bi+people regularly have to unpack, disprove, and contradict (Marshall, 2020; White, 2017; Withey, 2020).

There is a large body of evidence that suggests bi+people do not want to pass as heterosexual for the most part and are instead invested in being understood as bi+in their social and professional spaces. Previous empirical research has shown that bi+people want to be understood and seen as bi+for the most part and they strongly do not want to be perceived as either heterosexual, gay, or lesbian (ANONYMISED REFERENCE). Bi+people try different approaches to being recognized, through their speech or sartorial fashion, however, on the whole, they lack an ability to occupy a visible position due to a limited social imaginary (Hayfield, 2021a; Nelson, 2020).

Recent research suggests that bi+people want to be seen and understood in a safe and welcoming environment (Nelson, 2020). The issue, therefore, is why this visibility and understanding becomes impossible for many bi+people. However, many bi+people may not feel that it is safe to pass without fear of violent reprisal or verbal harassment. Some bi+people conceal their identities due to ongoing social stigma and reactions to their bi+identities (Feinstein et al., 2020; McLean, 2007) which can lead to negative impacts on mental health (Feinstein et al., 2022). This is arguably true both in heteronormative spaces and distinct LGBTQ+spaces due to the lack of understanding amongst all of these communities (McLean, 2007). The next section will explore these tensions from a bi+perspective.

Bi+people and the (lack) of space: Coming out and the Disclosure statement imperative

This section explores a central question in this paper; why might the idea of passing be used to inform others’ understandings of bi+lives? Bi+people navigate oppressive structures of heteronormativity, homonormativity, and mononormativity, which ultimately coalesce to position bi+identities as impossible. Researchers tend to argue that bi+people are essentially positioned as having untenable identities within mainstream heteronormative and monosexist discourses. This noted lack of recognition is harmful to bi+people (Hayfield, 2021a; Jorm et al., 2002; McLean, 2008; Monro, 2015; Monro et al., 2017). This may be demonstrated via outright discrimination (Callis, 2013; Flanders et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2015), a lack of bi+visibility in the media (Alexander, 2007; Hayfield, 2021a; Johnson, 2016; Magrath et al., 2017), an ignorance of what bi+identities are (Hayfield et al., 2014), and an exclusion of bi+identities from LGBTQ+communities (Formby, 2017; Weiss, 2003). Whilst these exclusions are clearly detrimental in of themselves, some scholars have linked these experiences of social exclusion to the fact that bi+people demonstrate higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality than their cis lesbian, cis gay, and cis heterosexual peers (Colledge et al., 2015; Johnson, 2016; Jorm et al., 2002; McDermott et al., 2021). In many ways, bi+people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, with little understanding from heteronormative or LGBTQ+spaces. This, in turn, means bi+people may take part in passing if only due to their ambiguous liminal position relative to monosexual identities.

To explore this further, it is important to understand how bi+people navigate heteronormative and cisnormative social spaces. One could call these ‘heterosexual structures and institutions’, though in reality, these spaces tend to include LGBTQ+people, so instead we might call it the spaces where cisgender and heterosexual norms dominate. These spaces include institutions, (not limited to) healthcare, universities, the workplace, marriage, religion, and government. Whilst it is not a novel argument to argue that these institutions tend to privilege the already-privileged—most often white middle-class heterosexual able-bodied men—it is worth unpacking some research findings related to bi+identities in these spaces.

Heteronormative institutions by their nature anticipates heterosexuality amongst all social groups. As a result, where someone may be LGBTQ+, it is anticipated that the LGBTQ+person declare themselves as such to establish that they are different from the heterosexual norm. This is referred to ‘coming out of the closet’ in common nomenclature but has also been understood as the disclosure imperative by some academics. McLean (2007) has demonstrated how common LGBTQ+identity models in the 1970s and 1980s depicted ‘coming out’ as an important stage in developing a healthy sexual identity, with many concluding that it is the only way for an LGBTQ+person to live ‘authentically’. In practice however, ‘coming out’ and the disclosure imperative results in a significant amount of pressure for LGBTQ+people to establish themselves as something other than expected of them in a heteronormative environment. As McLean writes:

The disclosure imperative […] ignores the complex factors attached to identity development and identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Sexual identity development models and coming out narratives fail to acknowledge that identity development, in the first instance, may be rather more complex than simply realizing one is ‘different’ and then disclosing this fact to others, and that coming out may not necessarily be the ideal situation for many people. These discourses also do not adequately capture the difficulties of living with a sexual identity that is considerably misunderstood, such as bisexuality (McLean, 2007, p. 154)

Thus, McLean argues this ‘disclosure imperative’ fails to account for persistent queerphobia that may dissuade people from ‘coming out’. In addition, bi+people may feel uncertainty around their sexual identities as a result of mononormative, heteronormative, and homonormative pressures to align to heterosexuality, lesbianism or gayness (Maimon et al., 2021).

Bi+people have different experiences in disclosing their sexual identity when compared to other sexual identities (McLean, 2007). Bi+people are subject heteronormativity and its potential impact on reactions to coming out, similar to lesbian and gay people. However, bi+people’s experiences can deviate from lesbian and gay peoples in that there is a wider social misrecognition and misunderstanding of bi+identities when compared to the somewhat stronger understanding of lesbian and gay identities (Költő et al., 2021). Much mainstream advocacy work focuses on usualising lesbian and gay identities but fails to account for bi+people, thus leaving them all the more misunderstood. As a result, we can conclude that the pressure to ‘come out’ and be ‘authentic’ has a different impact for bi+people.

One might assume that bi+people would have better experiences and feel more supported in LGBTQ+spaces due to shared experiences of queerphobia amongst members. However, the reality is that bi+people can often feel excluded from lesbian and gay communities (Alarie & Gaudet, 2013; Barker & Yockney, 2004; McLaren & Castillo, 2020; Weiss, 2003). Bi+people struggle to find their own community within queer spaces (McLean, 2008; Nelson, 2020). Bi+people often experience stigma from lesbian and gay communities, including aspersions that they are greedy, cheaters, unstable, or indecisive (Callis, 2013; Corey, 2017; Knous, 2006; See & Hunt, 2011). Further whilst there are some (perhaps problematic) stereotypes or forms of dressing to depict one’s gay or lesbian identity (Clarke & Turner, 2007; Huxley et al., 2014; Walker, 1993), bi+people often find that they are misunderstood as lesbian or gay when attempting to mix queer symbols and heterosexual symbols (Nelson, 2020). In many ways, bi+people experience alienation and exclusion from the supposed communities that they would think would support them, and struggle to find their own place.

Bi+people therefore are found betwixt and between mononormative, heteronormative and homonormative places, and further discriminated through being in this doubly-outside space. Bi+people are neither hold an immutable lesbian or gay identity, nor a normalized heterosexuality, and instead may move between these spaces whilst belonging to neither. The currents of monosexism, heteronormativity, and homonormativity result in bi+invisibility/erasure (Yoshino, 2000; Hayfield, 2021a; Hayfield, 2021b) and biphobia (McInnis et al., 2022; Obradors-Campos, 2011). These currents work together to establish bi+identities as largely invisible, unknowable, or impossible in most social contexts. Hayfield demonstrates that bi+invisibility impacts the experience of bi+women in specific ways when she says:

Bisexual women are sometimes positioned as ‘really lesbian’ but more often are represented as ‘really heterosexual’ and as kissing other women in order to titillate and seek the attention of heterosexual men (Hayfield et al., 2014, p. 353)

Here, Hayfield draws out the way in which bi+women in particular effectively cannot exist without being understood through a monosexist lens; that is—through being perceived as partially or fully heterosexual or homosexual. Hayfield’s most recent text Bisexual and Pansexual Identities: Exploring and Challenging Invisibility and Invalidation further explores these issues to conclude that bi+identities are largely invisible (Hayfield, 2021a). I have argued elsewhere that bi+people need a space defined by bi+lives, perspectives, and identities as opposed to being understood through heteronormative, homonormative or mononormative lenses (ANONYMISED REFERENCE). As Ault says,

[…] the figure of bisexual becomes a self divided, a composite self dependent upon the dominant sexual binary for coherence and cultural comprehension (Ault, 1996, p. 454).

Herein lies the issue for the way in which bi+people can develop their own identities, understand their social position, and be understood by others. Ultimately, bi+people are incomprehensible in the social world due to the predominance of a heterosexual/homosexual binary.

As bi+people are thus pressed between dominant discourses that prioritize understandings of heterosexual people, lesbian people, and gay men, it is therefore clear how bi+people are understood as having straight-passing privilege when in different gendered relationships; it appears to be as a result of the inability to understand bi+identities outside of the languages and discourses of a heteronormative, homonormative, and mononormative structuring of sexual identities. The unknowability of bi+identities renders bi+people as intelligible only when understood through the lenses of heterosexuality or homosexuality. Consequently, it is incumbent to explore how bi+people might communicate and enact their identities against the backdrop of unintelligibility.

Coming out and unintelligibility: Bi+people and identity management

Given that bi+people are positioned as epistemologically unintelligible, how might they be seen and understood as opposed to unintentionally passing? The body of literature on identity management is vast within sociological thinking, given that—as a discipline—the role of the individual in wider structures is the bread and butter of the disciplinary interest. To explore bi+identity management, I am drawing on Goffman, Butler, McLean, Sedgwick, and Hayfield to capture some dynamics of passing in a bi+context.

Goffman’s 1956 work adopts a symbolic interactionist approach, which focuses on the experience and meaning of everyday life. Goffman (1990) suggests that we can understand everyday interaction through theatrical dramaturgy - that is—transposing everyday interactions into theatrical terms to understand the performative nature of everyday actions. Individuals perform a role to present their ‘audience’ (e.g. the social world) with a carefully constructed persona. Relatedly, ‘backstage work’ is the active work that individuals do to manage their identities outside of the view of participants.

We might imagine that bi+people perform a certain sexual role via their sartorial expressions to different groups of people based on different factors. Previous work (Nelson, 2020) has demonstrated that bi+people wish to be seen and understood as bi+through their sartorial and self-expression. Further, (anonymised reference) (Daly et al., 2018; Lynch & Maree, 2017) has illustrated how bi+people may adjust their self-expression as a result of who they are flirting with or dating. It is apparent that there is a clear performative expression of identity in these cases as bi+people navigate gender norms to indicate sexual availability through sartorial choices. However, these expressions are mitigated by risk and safety, where bi+people pass in spaces they perceive may be queerphobic –LGBTQ+people sometimes feel more comfortable expressing themselves in queer-specific spaces (Gamarel et al., 2014; Marzetti, 2018). As such, bi+people adapt their sartorial expression based on context and risk. Given existing evidence that bi+people want to be seen as bi+and evidence suggests safety as a concern in passing we can draw out that being straight-passing is an evasion of perceived harm and danger rather than a privilege. In this sense, expressions may be deliberate and chosen for certain audiences in some cases, as per Goffman, however—these choices are not made by whimsy.

To further develop these ideas, Butler adopted a queer application of performativity (Butler, 2007). As per Butler (influenced by de Beauvoir), we perform an ideal version of an identity, for which there is no original. Performativity helps create an illusion of a stable identity for some, whilst also creating a complimentary hierarchy of identities where those outside the norm are positioned as abject. Butler establishes the ‘heterosexual matrix’ (Butler, 2007), a cultural belief in binary gender and sexuality which posits men and women as the sole genders possible. This binary leads to an implicit complementarity, meaning that men and women are ‘supposed’ to pair with one another via a heterosexual, monogamous union. Butler’s thoughts have been hugely influential in queer theory and in charting the specific dynamics that LGBTQ+people have to work against (McCann & Monaghan, 2019), however, queer theory as a school of thought has often neglected bi+identities (Callis, 2009).

As per Butler, bi+people are unable to perform an identity effectively as they do not adhere to the heterosexual matrix due to their multi gender attraction. They also are not ‘fully’ in adherence with the abject position of gay and lesbian people due to their potential of being in a different gender relationship, and thus appearing ‘heterosexual’. Thus, bi+people occupy a unique positionality relative to the heterosexual matrix and its resultant heteronormativity. Consequently, bi+people’s may be misunderstood and never fully placed by heterosexual people, lesbian, and gay people alike. This fundamental incomprehensibility leaves bi+people as epistemologically destitute. Here, passing is no privilege—it is a misrecognition and a lack of acknowledgement. This lack of acknowledgement further establishes bi+identities as impossible, unknowable, or incredulous, enabling further social discrimination.

This fundamental unintelligibility impacts disclosure with bi+people often experiencing incredulity, disgust, or denial when coming out. As Sedgwick argues, each disclosure of one’s (LGBTQ+) sexuality:

erects new closets whose fraught and characteristic laws of optics and physics exact from at least gay people new surveys, new calculations, new draughts and requisitions of secrecy or disclosure (Sedgwick, 2008, p. 68).

Sedgwick argues that disclosing a stable identity does not help address gender and sexuality based parity or emancipation (Sedgwick, 2008). McCann and Monaghan have effectively summarized Sedgwick’s focus as drawing “attention to a deadlock between the essentialist and constructivist positions on identity, clouding every conceptual tool we have for analyzing it” (McCann & Monaghan, 2019, p. 141). Sedgwick argues that whilst identity is inherently fluid and unstable, the act of ‘coming out’ necessitates a fixity to describing oneself. Further, as sexuality—particularly bi+sexualities—may not be visible, then being transparently ‘out’ necessitates endless disclosures in daily interactions.

Thus, Sedgwick’s argument reiterates that a) sexual identities/identification is largely antithetical to queer emancipation, b) ‘coming out of the closet’ cannot be a permanent and onetime occurrence, and c) the binaries implicit in the deployment of language in these examples reinforces oppressive dynamics and oppositional identities which do not reflect the true complexity of sexual experience (Sedgwick, 2008).

To avoid being represented as having straight-passing privilege, bi+people would have to ‘come out of the closet’ in most interactions to ensure they were not misrepresenting themselves to others. However, as Sedgwick argues, this is unhelpful when identities are fluid and unlikely to help bi+emancipation due to further reiterating Cisheteronormative approaches to sexuality and gender. McLean focuses on the idea of the disclosure of identity in an Australian bi+context (McLean, 2007). McLean argues that disclosing one’s sexuality has been understood as an inherent good, whilst not disclosing one’s identity is bad as it is unhealthy (McLean, 2007). McLean’s empirical research indicates that the disclosure of identity can be a nuanced experience as bi+people feel that people misunderstand or misrepresent bi+sexualities (McLean, 2007). Further, bi+people themselves have feelings of uncertainty related to their sexuality and whether they can consider themselves ‘bi+enough’ due to consistent mononormative social messaging which reiterates incredulity relative to bi+existence (McLean, 2007; Nelson, 2020). McLean writes that some people selectively disclosed their identity as they believed that “bisexuality is seen as a non-legitimate or non-credible sexual identity in wider society” (McLean, 2007, p. 163). As McLean concludes:

The strategies used by bisexuals to manage disclosure, either by testing the waters or disclosure by necessity, indicates that not coming out is not simply a matter of ‘hiding in the closet’. Rather, the use of these strategies as well as the development of several ‘personas’, demonstrates a concerted effort by many bisexual people to manage coming out in a way that suits them best, rather than following prescribed models of how coming out should be managed and expressed (McLean, 2007, p. 163).

McLean’s work expands neatly on Sedgwick’s idea of the impossible closet that one can never fully step out of. In McLean’s work, we see that bi+people negotiate their identity not for duplicitous purposes, but rather for reasons of safety and security. Further, as McLean asks—what is so good about disclosing one’s sexuality identity, anyway? Especially given that it reiterates cisheteronormativity.

Hayfield’s work (Hayfield, 2021a, 2021b; Hayfield et al., 2013; 2014). concludes there is little opportunity of presenting oneself as bi+due to the unintelligibility of bi+people and the lack of recognition from others. Consequently bi+people are often misrecognized as there is no wider social recognition of style, fashion, or self-presentation that can communicate bi+identities. Thus, bi+people—by necessity—need to come out verbally and disclose their identities in conversation. However, additional research into identity and disclosure has illustrated that bi+people struggle to disclose their identity due to individuals failing to take their bi+identity seriously, either assuming that they will transition into a gay/lesbian identity, that they’re uncertain about their identities, or—in some cases—just forget and assume a sexual identity based on the partner of the bi+individual (ANONYMISED REFERENCE).

Now, we might return to DeJordy’s idea of passing and the consequences of being ‘discovered’:

Passing […] always has a significant and serious consequence because identity information, once revealed, cannot be reconcealed, at least not within the particular context in which it was revealed - (DeJordy, 2008, p. 515)

DeJordy’s interpretation of passing does not hold for bi+people. This is due to the complexities of the closet (Sedgwick, 2008), the safety concerns of bi+people (Goffman, 1990; McLean, 2007), and the lack of understanding of bi+people (Hayfield, 2021a; Nelson, 2020). All these considerations lead to the difficulties of presenting as a visible bi+person, conceptually, discursively, and physically. So, whilst we may see that many bi+people are not visibly understood as being bi+, we may ask who holds the power in discussions of bi+people passing? I shall now turn to unpicking the specific dynamics implicit in assumptions of straight-passing privilege.

Debunking straight-passing privilege

The idea of bi+people having or using straight-passing privilege is often deployed to suggest that bi+people are taking advantage, are manipulative, or are avoidant of queer solidarity. This section will unpick this claim to indicate that whilst bi+people may pass, it is typically for reasons of safety, cultural unintelligibility, and invisibility against a backdrop of a homonormative, heteronormative, and mononormative social world.

Safety and Wellbeing Concerns

Bi+people may avoid disclosing their identities due to a fear of queerphobic responses. Bi+people experience biphobic macro and microaggressions from both heterosexual/heteronormative and LGBTQ+communities (Bostwick & Hequembourg, 2014; Dodge et al., 2016; Johnson & Grove, 2017). Alongside general biphobia, bi+people are at a higher risk of sexual violence (Bermea et al., 2018; Dickerson-Amaya & Coston, 2019; Johnson & Grove, 2017), poorer mental health (Colledge et al., 2015; Jorm et al., 2002), and higher risks of substance use (Smout & Benotsch, 2022). All these experiences can be further amplified through other intersecting experiences of discrimination or oppression, such as racism or classism. Given this clear imbalance rooted in social experience, it is clear that bi+people are subject to discrimination, oppression, and negation in part because of their sexual identities. Importantly, this “can be additive, based on other marginalized facets of identity, including race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status” (Doan Van et al., 2019, p. 159), meaning that individuals with multiple marginalized identities may have amplified negative experiences. Doan Van et al. suggest that bi+people develop coping mechanisms based on social support, resilience, and even seeing bi+representation in media sources (Doan Van et al., 2019).

As a result of the wide-ranging and convincing evidence base that continues to reiterate the biphobic responses to bi+identities, it is unsurprising that a some bi+people choose not to disclose their sexual identities publicly (Arena & Jones, 2017; Scherrer et al., 2015). Heteronormativity dictates that individuals will be typically interpreted as heterosexual, thus meaning that bi+people will fly ‘under the radar’ when obviously romantically or sexually entangled with someone of a different gender due to the presumption they are modeling heteronormativity. However, the way that bi+people may participate in straight-passing for safety and wellbeing reasons relating to social acceptance and an aversion to violence is certainly not a privilege. When looking at the evidence of poor treatment and wellbeing, it is of little wonder that many bi+may not disclose their bi+identities in public settings.

Presumption of the other and the privileging of heterosexuality

For bi+people who may be in different gendered relationships, those viewing the relationship may presume that individuals are heterosexual. However, this presumption is due to a presumed mononormative understanding of sexualities which privileges defining identities by present relationships. Thus, viewing a bi+person in a different gendered relationship and presuming them to be heterosexual is in part due to bi+identities’ epistemological unintelligibility stemming from mononormativity, homonormativity, and heteronormativity. How could bi+meaningfully express their sexual identity beyond reiterating their identity verbally, or indicating it sartorially? Even where bi+people actively try to communicate their identities, they are liable to be misunderstood due to bi+cultural unintelligibility. In fact, many bi+people do want to be seen as bi+, but fail in doing so due to a lack of cultural expressions that can meaningfully express a bi+identity (Nelson, 2020). Further, this vision of sexuality presumes monogamy, which may not be the model some bi+people subscribe to (Klesse, 2005; Klesse 2021).

Further, straight-passing privilege reiterates heterosexuality as a default position, a normative position, and a desirable position. Whilst this may sometimes be the case in queerphobic spaces, it is not commonly the case that bi+people are presumed to demonstrate ‘gay passing privilege.’ This double standard seems to implicitly reinforce the narrative of bi+people as excluded from a broader LGBTQ+cause, an experience often discussed by bi+people (McInnis et al., 2022).

Presuming privilege of the passer

To be out as bi+, to be known as bi+, and to be identifiable as bi+is to hold a certain degree of privilege. That is, being identifiable as LGBTQ+in anyway relies on some supportive structures in process. That could be legislative such as via anti-discrimination laws or inclusive workplace policies. However, it could also be supportive social systems, including a family and friend group who may accept sexually diverse identities and experiences.

Thus, to assume that a bi+person has straight-passing privilege is to assume that the individual under question has a degree of privilege and opportunity via legislative or policy protection, as well as being privy to familial or friend-based support. This may therefore disproportionately impact individuals in places without anti-discrimination policies or laws, individuals in rural areas, individuals with religious backgrounds, or individuals with a strong cultural rejection of diverse sexualities/genders.

Conclusion: passing is not a privilege

It is correct that bi+people may be able to pass as straight in certain circumstances, as may many lesbian and gay people, but the understanding of this as a privilege fails to account for the difficulties that anyone living outside of a heterosexual norm experiences. Bi+people are often hampered by a lack of recognition around bi+identities, a lack of visibility, and an inability to represent their identities in public spaces. Consequently, what is considered straight-passing privilege may be reframed as a reasonable concern for safety and a lack of awareness and nuance on the part of the viewer.

Many of these issues relate to problems of queer solidarity. Bi+people often find themselves sidelined in queer communities due to continued discrimination from within LGBTQ+communities (Formby, 2017; Weiss, 2003). The reality is that the continued divisions within communities of minoritized sexualities serve to further fracture the queer solidarity needed to oppose social structures which promulgate ideals of heteronormativity, monosexism, and so forth. As a result, positioning bi+people as possessing straight-passing privilege fails to account for the reason why bi+people may be passing as straight—due to invisibility, misinterpretation, or safety—that leads bi+people to be misunderstood or to cover their identities to ‘pass through’ unencumbered.

In keeping with these conclusions, it is critical in conversations around privilege, passing, and sexual citizenship that those fighting for visibility, fairness, and equality must focus on the wider issues of heteronormativity, homonormativity, and mononormativity as repressive structures. In the fight for a more egalitarian and equitable social world, we must focus our attention on punching upwards, not downwards. What could this look like? It would be a matter of queering expectations to allow for a fluidity of expression across sexuality and gender. It would be pushing against boundaries, identities and expectations that relate to certain siloed models of identity. It would be broadening boundaries to encompass wider ranges of experience, not policing boundaries. It would be recognizing that there is no better, worse, or neutral way of modeling a sexual identity. Rather, the individual should be able to do whatever they want—it is the values we place on these expressions which is problematic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rosie Nelson

Dr Rosie Nelson (they/them) is a Senior Lecturer in Gender at the School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, University of Bristol. Rosie’s research and teaching interests include queer theory, bisexuality, minoritized sexualities and genders, feminist theory, and qualitative research methods. Rosie has recently published Making Space for Bi+ Identities with Routledge, and is currently working on a book related to Queer and Feminist Qualitative Methods with SAGE.