Rev. Estud. Fem. v.9 n.

2 Florianópolis 2001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2001000200012

Teoria queer - uma política pós-identitária

para a educação
GUACIRA LOPES LOURO
(http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-
026X2001000200012&lng=pt&nrm=iso)

Como a História da Sexualidade de Foucault havia mostrado, tal escolha do

objeto nem sempre tinha se constituído a base para uma identidade e, como
muitas vozes discordantes sugeriam, esse não era, inevitavelmente, o fator
crucial na percepção de toda e qualquer pessoa sobre sua sexualidade.
Este modelo fazia, efetivamente, com que os bissexuais parecessem ter
uma identidade menos segura ou menos desenvolvida (assim como os
modelos essencialistas de gênero fazem dos trans-sexuais sujeitos
incompletos), e excluía grupos que definiam sua sexualidade através de
atividades e prazeres mais do que através das preferências de gênero, tais
como os/as sadomasoquistas.8

A agenda teórica moveu-se da análise das desigualdades e das relações de poder

entre categorias sociais relativamente dadas ou fixas (homens e mulheres, gays e
heterossexuais) para o questionamento das próprias categorias ¾ sua fixidez,
separação ou limites ¾ e para ver o jogo do poder ao redor delas como menos
binário e menos unidirecional.12
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-
026X2001000200012&lng=pt&nrm=iso#b8 (lista de refs do texto acima)

Da mesma forma, a operação de desconstrução, proposta por Jacques Derrida,

parecerá, para muitos teóricos e teóricas, o procedimento metodológico mais
produtivo. Conforme Derrida, a lógica ocidental opera, tradicionalmente, através de
binarismos: este é um pensamento que elege e fixa como fundante ou como central
uma idéia, uma entidade ou um sujeito, determinando, a partir desse lugar, a
posição do 'outro', o seu oposto subordinado. O termo inicial é compreendido
sempre como superior, enquanto que o outro é o seu derivado, inferior. Derrida
afirma que essa lógica poderia ser abalada através de um processo desconstrutivo
que estrategicamente revertesse, desestabilizasse e desordenasse esses pares.
Desconstruir um discurso implicaria em minar, escavar, perturbar e subverter os
termos que afirma e sobre os quais o próprio discurso se afirma. Desconstruir não
significa destruir, como lembra Barbara Johnson ,18 mas "está muito mais perto do
significado original da palavra análise, que, etimologicamente, significa desfazer".
Portanto, ao se eleger a desconstrução como procedimento metodológico, está se
indicando um modo de questionar ou de analisar e está se apostando que esse
modo de análise pode ser útil para desestabilizar binarismos lingüísticos e
conceituais (ainda que se trate de binarismos tão seguros como homem/mulher,
masculinidade/feminilidade). A desconstrução das oposições binárias tornaria
manifesta a interdependência e a fragmentação de cada um dos pólos. Trabalhando
para mostrar que cada pólo contém o outro, de forma desviada ou negada, a
desconstrução indica que cada pólo carrega vestígios do outro e depende desse
outro para adquirir sentido. A operação sugere também o quanto cada pólo é, em si
mesmo, fragmentado e plural. Para os teóricos/as queer, a oposição
heterossexualidade/homossexualidade ¾ onipresente na cultura ocidental moderna
¾ poderia ser efetivamente criticada e abalada por meio de procedimentos
desconstrutivos.

Judith Butler toma emprestado da lingüística o conceito de performatividade, para

afirmar que a linguagem que se refere aos corpos ou ao sexo não faz apenas uma
constatação ou uma descrição desses corpos, mas, no instante mesmo da
nomeação, constrói, 'faz' aquilo que nomeia, isto é, produz os corpos e os sujeitos.
Esse é um processo constrangido e limitado desde seu início, pois o sujeito não
decide sobre o sexo que irá ou não assumir; na verdade, as normas regulatórias de
uma sociedade abrem possibilidades que ele assume, apropria e materializa.

DEF DE PERFORMANCE DE GÊNERO:

http://queermodernism.blogspot.com.br/2010/03/definition-of-gender-
performance.h

In accordance with Judith Butler’s idea of gender performance, it []seems as

though the best definitions to be used are “sexually identity, especially in
relation to society or culture,”[GENDER] and “the manner in which or the
efficiency with which something reacts or fulfills its intended
purpose.”[GENDER PERFORMANCE]
Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in
Phenomenology and Feminist Theory Author(s):

Judith Butler Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec.,

1988), pp. 519-531 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University
Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207893 .
Accessed: 14/02/2014 13:27

http://facweb.northseattle.edu/mjacobson/SPECIAL%20TOPICS%20IN
%20PSYCHOLOGY/Subjectivity/PerformativeActs.pdf
Journal of Bisexuality, 9: 213–233, 2009 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group,
LLC ISSN: 1529-9716 print / 1529-9724 online DOI:
10.1080/15299710903316513 THEORIES PLAYING WITH BUTLER AND
FOUCAULT: BISEXUALITY AND QUEER THEORY April S. Callis Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, USA [FGH]

y. For some authors, this absence provides bisexuality a place of political

strength, as it insures the inclusiveness of the identity (Rust, 1996). Others
believe that this lack of salient definition has adversely affected the ability of
individuals to feel comfortable identifying with the label of “bisexual,” as they
are often unsure of what bisexuality is or if they are being bisexual in the
“right way”
In a society where monogamous couplings are the norm, bisexuality is hard
to see; a bisexual in a monogamous relationship will read as heterosexual or
homosexual (Whitney, 2002). The inability to “see” bisexuality leads to a lack
of connection among bisexuals and a fear of bisexuals by those individuals
who do not identify as such (Hemmings, 2002; Ochs, 1996)

individuals who do not identify as such (Hemmings, 2002; Ochs, 1996).

Drawing on Rich’s 1980 work in which she developed the theory of
compulsory heterosexuality, James (1996) terms this phenomenon
“compulsory monosexuality.” He stated that U.S. society mandates that
every person be attracted to just one sex and denies that a person can be
attracted to both. Bisexual people are devalued by the erasure of bisexuality
in much the same way that gays and lesbians are devalued by compulsory
heterosexuality (James, p. 221).
Despite the array of literature available in this subdiscipline and the
numerous anthologies published on the topic, bisexuality scholarship was,
and is, often ignored by the broader fields of sexuality research (Angelides,
2006). As with

Other authors have turned to postmodern theories when discussing

bisexuality, as bisexual identity is seen as a natural intersection with “threads
in postmodern discourse such as indeterminacy, multiplicity and the blurring
of ‘identity’” (Gammon & Isgro, 2006, p. 169). Hall (1996) stated that
“Bisexuality = Postmodernism Embodied” (p. 9).
There are several possible reasons for this lack. Some scholars argue that
queer theory relies on binary oppositions to distinguish gay from straight
(James, 1996). Thus, in an attempt to break down dualistic opposition, queer
theorists ignore sexuality that lies outside of them and end up reifying the
binaries that they are attempting to challenge (Steinman, 2001)
Relatedly, bisexuality can be understood as a part of the binary system, and
thus not a force of deconstruction (Daumer, 1992).
Finally, there is a feeling from some queer theorists that ‘queer’ has moved
beyond bisexuality, as bisexuality is a term situated within a
sexual/gendered binary by its very name. Hemmings (1997b) quoted one
scholar as saying that “bisexual theory is not as sophisticated as queer
theory” (p. 32). Perhaps bisexuality in general is not seen as sophisticated
enough for queer theory.
An example of this was the theory of “sexual evolution.” In this model, the
“human species evolved from a primitive hermaphroditic state to today’s
gender differentiated physical form [with the] psychological development of
the individual parallel [to] this evolutionary process” (Fox, 1995, p. 49). In
other words, just as all human embryos start as intersexed, so too do they all
start as bisexual. For example, psychoanalyst Wilhelm Stekel (1922) stated in
the 1920s that “all persons originally are bisexual in their predisposition.
There is no exception to this rule” (p. 39). Sexologist Havelock Ellis (1915)
believed that the “basis of sexual life is bisexual” (p. 18). Although he noted
that individuals tended to display heterosexual or homosexual
characteristics, he felt that all individuals began as bisexuals and eventually
felt more pull toward one sex or the other. Ellis went on to state that
bisexuality as a category introduces “uncertainty and doubt” into the study
of sexuality (p. 19)
What this short history shows is that bisexuals were never a “species”
according to medical discourse. Bisexuality could be a stage, or a primordial
sexuality, but it was never used to describe a person

Because the bisexual was not placed into a “species” or written about as
such by the medical community in the 19th and early/mid-20th centuries,
there was also no “truth” in bisexuality
Finally, because bisexuality was not reified as a medical category, and used
as a way of medically labeling individuals, there was not the same sort of
“reverse discourse” built up around the topic. Because of this, bisexuals were
slower to build an identity movement than gays and lesbians had been.
Although homosexual individuals used the categories and the language of
the medical fields to create a movement, bisexual identity politics grew from
dissatisfaction with the gay and lesbian movement. Thus, the “reverse
discourse” utilized by bisexual politics would have been based in the
rhetoric of gay and lesbian politics, rather than in science. Further, the lack of
a medical typology/legitimate identity has caused confusion as to just what
bisexuality is, even among bisexuals themselves. Eadie (1993) noted that:

Eadie (1993) noted that: With alarming regularity, I encounter people who
feel that, in the absence of a coherent (which would also mean policed)
bisexual identity, their expression of bisexuality is wanting. ... This persistent
insecurity 226 JOURNAL OF BISEXUALITY is generated by the absence of
any normative identities which might provide the security of being bisexual
“in the right way.” (p. 144)

However, Butler cautions that these phenomena can never be understood

separately, because each is positioned with/by the others. Thus, “intelligible
genders are those which in some sense institute and maintain relations of
coherence and continuity among sex, gender, sexual practice, and desire”
(Butler, 1990/2006, April S. Callis 227 p. 23). For example, to be a man (sex) is
to be read as masculine (gender) and as heterosexual (sexuality). However,
beyond this, part of being masculine is being heterosexual. Sexuality can
thus never be divided from gender, because it constitutes an important
aspect of what gender is.
As mentioned previously, Butler does not address bisexuality in her
arguments about the interconnectedness of sexuality and gender, nor in her
section on the performative nature of gender. When discussing the former,
she talks more about homosexuality, and particularly, lesbian identity. When
addressing gender performativity, she turns specifically to the process of
drag. However, I believe that bisexuality, taken as an identity, 228 JOURNAL
OF BISEXUALITY serves as a way of starting gender trouble. Bisexuality can
also be used to highlight the importance of performance. I agree with Butler
that sexuality is an important aspect in the construction, and performance, of
gender. Thus, to be a lesbian is a deviation of the “correct” mode of feminine
and creates gender trouble. However, this gender trouble seems to be
dismissed by broader Western culture, which tends to view gays and
lesbians as somehow cross-gendered. Thus, a lesbian is assumed to be
masculine, keeping the “correct” gender and sexuality matched up, and
minimizing the challenges to the gender system. Hemmings (1997b) noted
that the stereotypes of the “‘mannish woman’ and effiminate man,’ and their
correlate ‘opposite’ object choices” allow gender and sexuality to stay
coupled (p. 17). Bisexuality, on the other hand, cannot be so easily matched,
because it does not allow gender to be wholly tied with sex object choice. If
a person is choosing both sexes as erotic partners, her or his gender cannot
be matched with sexuality
Bisexuality, on the other hand, cannot be so easily matched, because it does
not allow gender to be wholly tied with sex object choice. If a person is
choosing both sexes as erotic partners, her or his gender cannot be
matched with sexuality. A woman who sleeps with men and women cannot
be read as either feminine or masculine without causing gender trouble.
Either her gender is constantly changing (with her partner), or her gender
does not match her sexuality. Further, by desiring men and women she has
really removed herself from either gender category, as “men and women” is
not an option in either masculinity or femininity. She is therefore causing
gender trouble in a way that cannot be dismissed, unless her sexuality is
called into questioned. The fact that bisexuality is constantly questioned
seems to attest to the gender trouble that this identity causes (Hemmings,
1997b). Bisexuality is “the Snuffaluffagus of sexualities,” with individuals
debating whether or not it exists at all (Macalister, 2003, p. 25). Is this debate
partially due to an inability to read genders and sexualities that do not
match? This is a question that Butler could have addressed, had she added
an analysis of bisexuality to her work. This analysis would have strengthened
her arguments on the interconnections of sexuality and gender.

A female kissing another female can be read as a sexual performance and a

(faulty/subversive/troubled) gender performance. However, how does one
read bisexuality? If there are no bisexual acts, but rather, only heterosexual
and homosexual ones, then how can bisexuality ever be performed?

Whitney asks this question, wondering “what behaviors, manners of dress or

speech might I ‘put on’ in order to prove myself bisexual ... How can I
embody bisexuality as an inherent part of myself, an unmistakable April S.
Callis 229 identity?” (Whitney, 2002, pp. 116–117). She noted that any gender
or sexuality must be performed to be considered “real.” However, any
performance of bisexuality would seem to directly play into common
stereotypes of bisexuality. In this way, “the pressure which is often imposed
on bisexuals to ‘prove’ that they exist is in direct conflict with the pressure to
prove that they are anything less than sexual deviants and perverts” (p. 118).
Thus, in a society based on (serial) monogamy, bisexuality cannot be
performed, and thus cannot be validated. Further, and to get back to my
earlier point, what gender would a bisexual perform to be correctly read?
Androgyny? This would have been an interesting point for Butler to consider
when she was discussing performativit

From the above, one can see the utility that exists in adding bisexuality to
Butler’s work. As bisexuality troubles the binaries of sexuality and gender
and lacks the potential for performance, an analysis of it highlights the
importance of cultural binaries and gender/sexuality performance. Further,
theorists today could easily use Butler’s theoretical framework to continue
to engage with bisexuality. How do bisexuals perform and understand their
identities, given the limitations? What do bisexuals who claim to “love
people, not genitalia” tell us about sex/sexuality/gender? How can these
individuals be made culturally intelligible?

From the above, one can see the utility that exists in adding bisexuality to
Butler’s work. As bisexuality troubles the binaries of sexuality and gender
and lacks the potential for performance, an analysis of it highlights the
importance of cultural binaries and gender/sexuality performance. Further,
theorists today could easily use Butler’s theoretical framework to continue
to engage with bisexuality. How do bisexuals perform and understand their
identities, given the limitations? What do bisexuals who claim to “love
people, not genitalia” tell us about sex/sexuality/gender? How can these
individuals be made culturally intelligible?

I do believe that bisexuality, an identity that is often questioned and not

always understood, will remain ambiguously constructed if queer theory is
utilized. A theory that aims to break down identity categories will not
successfully create a cohesive bisexual identity. However, the identity
politics of the gay and lesbian movement of the 1970s have shown us that
valorized identities, though politically powerful, are also potentially othering.
Because of this, I see no reason why bisexuality should remain outside of the
realm of queer theory. The melding of the two will allow queer theory to
strengthen its position of deconstruction, while forcing bisexuality to remain
openly identified and inclusive.
Queering
Queer Theory,
or Why
Bisexuality
Matters
Laura Erickson-Schroth & Jennifer Mitchell
Pages 297-315 | Published online: 25 Nov 2009

● Download citation
● http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316596

Queer theory has been groundbreaking for its ability to bridge the
theoretical and the actual, scrutinizing personal and collective
experiences, to reveal our construction of a system that recognizes only
heterosexuality, but nonetheless relies upon a marginalized sexual
“other”: the homosexual. However, in its attempt at theorizing
nonheterosexual identity, queer theory has unfortunately come to theorize
only homosexual identity.

The heterosexual and the homosexual communities seem to be allied in

the erasure and delegitimation of bisexuality. Heterosexuals participate in
the erasure of bisexuality by assuming that all bisexuals are either
closeted gays, straights who are trying out bisexuality as a “fashion” or a
“fad” or individuals who are going through a “phase” that will bring them to
a more stable identity. It is interesting to note how much importance we
place on stability, even though for many people sexual preference
changes a great deal over a lifetime. Not only do heterosexuals
participate in bisexual erasure, they also contribute to bisexual
delegitimation. Straights stereotype bisexuals as promiscuous, insincere,
closeted homosexuals, and as bridges of infection from gays to straights
(Yoshino, pp. 395–396).

perform in a way that is attractive to the other sex—especially women,

who are the subordinate group.
However, noted sexologist Havelock Ellis recognized that a homosexual
man could be “masculine” in other ways even though he was “feminine” in
his sexual habits (Angelides, 2001Angelides, S. 2001. A history of
bisexuality., Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press., p. 39). 2 2.
Ellis continued to view lesbians as inverts. This may be because women
of the time were demanding their social and legal rights and thus acting
more like “men.”View all notesHe theorized that every fetus started off
“bisexual,” in that it was attracted to men and women, just as it started off
“intersex,” or hermaphroditic.
y focusing on the relationship between homosexuality and
heterosexuality, queer theory has stopped short of addressing the
structures of power that underlie our organization of sexuality—something
bisexuality speaks to on a daily basis.
Maliepaard, Emiel (2015). Bisexuals in space and geography: more than
queer? Fennia 193: 1, pp. 148–159. ISSN 1798-5617.
the concept of (compulsory) monosexuality or monosexism is very useful as
it identifies a social ideology that one-to-one links sexual
activities/performances with sexual identities (e.g. Ault 1996; James 1996;
Hemmings 2002; Gurevich et al. 2009; Green et al 2010). Sexual
performances and activities with someone from the opposite sex leads to
the conclusion that someone is heterosexual, while activities with someone
from the same sex lead to the conclusion that someone is gay or lesbian.
Bisexuality, as sexual identity which is not limited to a person of one sex or
gender, is thus made invisible and non-existing. Interestingly, James (1996)
understands monosexism or compulsory monosexuality as essential part of
the heterosexist or heteronormative system that polices our desires. The
concept of monosexuality is a useful analytical tool and a constant reminder
of the privilege of certain types of heterosexuality and homosexuality in our
society.

The discussion on Butler is particularly interesting as bisexuality is often

seen as a sexual identity – if already authentic – which enforces the binary
system of sex, gender, and sexualities as it represents the middle ground
(see Hemmings 2002; Lingel 2009). Work by Fritz Klein and Alfred Kinsey –
albeit they both incorporate bisexuality – considers bisexuality as the middle
ground between heterosexuality and homosexuality as such work still relies
on the sex binary, gender binary, and the rigid link between gender and
sexual identity. In fact, “Even the term bi-sexual denotes that the person who
identifies with this term is attracted to two different things, reinforcing the
gender binary, and also excluding transgender and intersex people as
objects of affection” (Erickson-Schroth & Mitchell 2009: 304). Steven
Angelides (2006), building upon his book A history of bisexuality (Angelides
152 Emiel Maliepaard FENNIA 193: 1 (2015) 2001), argues that “in the history of
discourses of sexuality bisexuality is both the stabilising and destabilising
element in the epistemic construction of sexual identity; Its erasure in the
present tense stabilises the hetero/homosexual opposition whilst
simultaneously and perpetually destabilising the very terms of the
opposition” (Angelides 2006: 142). Angelides (2006: 142) continues to argue
that bisexuality “has been the category through and against which modern
sexual identity itself has been discursively constructed”. Callis (2009: 227–
228) criticises queer theory as she observes that “[Judith] Butler does not
address bisexuality in her arguments about the interconnectedness of
sexuality and gender, nor in her section on the performative nature of
gender (…). When addressing gender performativity, she turns specifically to
the process of drag. However, I believe that bisexuality, taken as an identity,
serves as a way of starting gender trouble”. Butler prefers to discuss
homosexuality and especially lesbian identities when discussing the
assumed interconnection between sexuality and gender. It seems that
Butler fell in the monosexual trap when challenging heteronormativity and
the constant repetition of heterosexual norms, values, and orthodoxies.
Callis (2009: 228), however, discusses the potential of including bisexuality in
queer theoretical discussions to deconstruct the link between gender and
sexual identity by arguing that “bisexuality (…) cannot be so easily matched,
because it does not allow gender to be wholly tied with sex object choice. If
a person is choosing both sexes as erotic partners, her or his gender cannot
be matched with sexuality”.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299710903316646?
needAccess=true

this article is predominantly concerned with the notion of intentionality in

bisexual behavior and whether or not deliberate choices are made to
participate in communities that identify as either straight or queer.

Does sexual fluidity challenge

sexual binaries? The case of
bisexual immigrants from 1967-
2012

Article (PDF Available) in Sexualities 18(4):413-437 · May 2014 with 28

Reads

DOI: 10.1177/1363460714550901

●
● 1st Ray Sin
● 2.95 · University of Illinois at Chicago

Although bisexuals are accorded some heterosexual privilege, they are

nonetheless not full members. Similarly, the gay and lesbian community
margin-
alizes bisexuals because they are viewed as ‘traitors’ or ‘fence sitters’
(Masters and
Johnson, 1979; Rust, 1995). This awkward social location of gaining access
but not
enjoying full privileges is what Patricia Hill Collins (1998) calls ‘outsiders-
within’.
The ability to transgress hetero- and homosexual communities gives
bisexuals
unique access to contradictory knowledge on how sexuality is regulated.
Epistemologically, the marginalized status of bisexuality displaces the
natural-
ness of the hetero/homo divide because bisexuals are conventionally seen
as indi-
viduals who are sexually attracted to, sexually intimate with, and/or capable
of,
establishing romantic relationships with members from both sexes. They
represent
an affront to monosexuality – a consistent single-sex object-choice –
in such a way
that upsets the stability of hetero/homosexuality as mutually exclusive
opposites
(Garber, 2000; Hutchins and Kaahumanu, 1991; Klein, 1978). Bisexuals also
eschew the identity politics that draw contours delineating who are in/out-
siders
and, instead, highlight the flexibility that comes with the freedom of
expressing
sexual desires in myriad and complex ways (Rust, 2000; Zinik, 2000). This
capacity
to be erotically and romantically partnered with either sex is what I refer to
as
sexual fluidity. Bisexuality, marked by sexual fluidity, provides an
epistemic centre
to trouble sexual binaries and exposes how the hetero/homo distinction
disciplines
other sexual variants into normative sexual classifications (Gurevich
et al., 2009;
Young, 1997)

passsing as = foco em como eh lido, //n eh consequencia tira a angecia da

bisex, n eh uma identidade, mesmo dentro da butler, pq n se pode
perfemorar bisex , tipo impossivel incluir a persistencia em tal açao, embora
sim seja limitado o qto o cara tem controle disso, therefore oq seria um
genero p butler