Bisexuality and Schooling: Erasure and Implications for Health

Abstract

It has long been known that schooling in the United States emphasizes and reproduces heteronormativity. With increasing frequency, gay and lesbian issues are being raised—given the presence of Gay-Straight Alliances in schools, the political discourse about gays and lesbians in the U.S. military, and the deeply contested politics of same-sex marriage. The focus of school culture in general, at best, is on either side of the continuum (i.e., heterosexuality or homosexuality), with bisexuality and sexual fluidity being largely erased. This long-standing institutional erasure has had a negative health impact on bisexual youth. Using a multidimensional model of health, I theorize about how harm is done not only to bisexual youth and school personnel but also to the general population in and out of schools. Besides general health costs due to erasure, I address the negative impacts erasure has on sexual health more specifically as well as how to stem the tide of bi-erasure and explicitly bring bisexuality into schooling.

KEYWORDS:

• bisexuality
• health
• intersectionality
• microaggressions
• resiliency
• risk factors
• school culture
• schooling
• sexual fluidity
• sexual health
• sexual minority youth
• sexual prejudice
• social ecological model
• youth

Notes

1. The definitions of the six dimensions of health and wellness were expanded from those provided by Donatelle (2009) and Hettler (1976). Hettler's descriptions of the six dimensions of health can be found at http://www.nationalwellness.org.

2. Some of these suggestions repeat ideas that appear in the section where I offer examples of ways to improve visibility of bisexuality using the social ecological model framework. I have done this to stress the sheer importance of these interventions.

3. For detailed rationales on the merits of using a resiliency approach, please see Savin-Williams (2005) and Talburt (2004). On the other side of the debate are those researchers who favor more of a risk-factor approach, as exemplified in the works of Blackburn and McCready (2009) and Munoz-Plaza, Quinn, and Rounds (2002). There are many other works that represent these positions. The above-mentioned works, however, typify the kinds of reasons offered for both approaches.

4. I have had many conversations over the years with Dr. Gust Yep, my dear friend and colleague, about the notion of intersectionality, and specifically about the shortcomings and the superficiality of the “roster approach.” I have gleaned much from our conversations and have appreciated his notion of “thick” intersectionalities, which involves not only more vectors of difference (e.g., ability, nation, and so on) but also how intersectionality is complicated, deeply nuanced, and highly context dependent.