What do you think?
Rate this book
Bisexual and Pansexual Identities
This book explores the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality from the past to the present and is unique in extending the discussion to focus on contemporary and emerging identities. Nikki Hayfield draws on research from psychology and the social sciences to offer a detailed and in-depth exploration of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality. The book discusses how early sexologists’ understood gender and sexuality within a binary model and how this provided the underpinnings of bisexual invisibility. The existing research on biphobia and bisexual marginalisation is synthesised to explore how bisexuality has often been invisible or invalidated. Hayfield then evidences clear examples of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality within education, employment, mainstream mass media, and the wider culture. Throughout the book there is consideration of the impact that this invisibility and invalidation has on people’s sense of identity and on their health and wellbeing. It concludes with a discussion of how bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality have become somewhat more visible than in the past and the potential that visibility holds for recognition and representation. This is fascinating reading for students and academics interested in in bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexual spectrum identities and for those who have a personal interest in bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality.
132 pages, Paperback
Published July 17, 2020
1 person is currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 5, 2023
this book can be accurately summed up with this direct quote: “limited to discussions of bisexuality, although some of the ideas discussed here could potentially be extended to pansexual, asexual, and plurisexual identities.”
while there are some small bits specifically about pansexuality and asexuality, this is a book is about bisexuality that often just tacks on “(and pansexual and asexual)” to the end of sentences. i don’t understand why pansexual was included in the title, because it doesn’t get the focus that bisexual gets, which is an understandable expectation when both are in the title. but bisexual is mentioned 5x more than pansexual is, as well as asexual (and this isn’t taking into account how many of the times pansexual and asexual are mentioned are just them being listed as add ons.)
i’m fully aware that hayfield is drawing on existing research, and it’s not her fault that there’s more research on bisexual than pansexual and asexual. it is her fault, however, for claiming her book is something it’s not. if there wasn’t adequate research for pansexual, then don’t include it in the title. and to be honest, hayfield does mention and cite things other than research papers or books, so the excuse that there isn’t a lot of pansexual and asexual research to reflect on doesn’t really hold up in the first place.
it’s just like....what’s the point? why claim to “offer a detailed and in-depth exploration of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality” when your content does not live up to that? why appear to be inclusive and giving much needed visibility to invisible identities when you aren’t? especially when you criticize research (among other things) that include bisexuality in their titles or note how many people identify as bisexual, but then “omit any focused consideration” of bisexuality? you are doing to pansexual and asexual people what you’re criticizing others for doing to bisexual people.
in this book, through the title and description and the author’s promotion, pansexual people “seem to be included” but once you actually read the book, you realize that pansexual people “are effectively excluded and their experiences erased”. it just comes off as wanting to appear inclusive and draw in a wider audience, without actually doing the work to be inclusive to or deserving of that wider audience.
a main annoyance of mine with this book is the use of the bisexual umbrella. is anyone surprised?
just like shiri eisner did in bi: notes for a bisexual revolution, nikki hayfield criticizes things that are done to bisexual people, while doing those things to other queer people. most notably is her use/support of the bisexual umbrella (as well as her use of “plurisexual” to capture mspec identities other than bisexual and pansexual), while pointing out that bisexual is often erased in lgbt acronyms, initialisms, umbrellas, etc. hayfield says, “while it is not my ideal scenario to use an umbrella term for all the reasons i discussed above, i do nonetheless”, which is so utterly useless. what good is your criticism of something if you’re doing nothing to change it? eisner also did this; criticized something and justified her own perpetuation of it.
it struck me as odd to see her include plurisexual in the bisexual umbrella, when plurisexual is most often used by academics as the catch all term for mspec identities. hayfield notes that p for pansexuality is usually considered to be “subsumed within the plus sign in lgbtq+ but often remains unacknowledged”, but makes no note about how the same is just as true for pansexual’s inclusion in the bisexual umbrella (i mean, people even use “bisexual+”).
it’s frustrating seeing criticism of the bisexual umbrella, focusing on its function in research, being validated only because “researchers have argued” it “may be inappropriate” and “potentially obscure important differences” by amalgamating different mspec identities with bisexual. pansexual people have been criticizing the forced bisexual umbrella for years, and how more often than not, bisexual statistics are actually statistics on all mspec people. but hayfield only acknowledges this in hypotheticals because some researchers theorized about it. i don’t think it’s fair to care more about what researchers are saying than actual pansexual people, because there aren’t a lot of researchers looking specifically into the pansexual community, so whatever does exist either isn’t in depth (based on a handful of pansexuals) or up to date (rehashes the basics or focuses on bisexual).
hayfield parrots eisner’s recommendation to only include those in the bisexual umbrella who wish to be included in it in order to respect agency, and as i said in my review of bi: notes for a bisexual revolution, this does not make the bisexual umbrella any better or respectful of agency. it is, in fact, more erasure. if you’re using the bisexual umbrella to discuss or research mspec experiences and claiming it only includes those who want to be included in it, you’re either lying about how you’re using it to dismiss criticism, or you’re erasing those who don’t want to be included in it from discussions and research about experiences that they are a part of. you can’t claim the bisexual umbrella is or should be exclusive only to those who want to be included, while you and others with influence are using it in a generalized, universal manner.
it’s disappointing that while discussing the assumption that bisexual people are straight or gay/lesbian depending on the gender of their partner, no note was made of the rampant, unchallenged assumption that people default to bisexual if they're attracted to more than one gender, which is a constant kind of erasure that other mspec people deal with. leaving out these kinds of things just goes to show who this book is really for/about.
then there’s some general panphobia.
hayfield incorrectly states that pansexuality “first came into use” during the 1990s. it’s more accurate to say it gained more use in the 1990s, because it was, in fact, used decades prior. if i know this, an academic writing a researched book where this information is relevant should know this.
hayfield states, “while pansexuality is sometimes conflated or used interchangeably with bisexuality, some have distinguished between bisexuality as binary and pansexual as non-binary”, and this is such an unfair statement. framing a way ignorant people differentiate pansexual and bisexual as the only way people differentiate them, while not even offering any criticism of conflating them is disingenuous and contributes to the idea that trying to differentiate, or more accurately, acknowledging the difference, is inherently biphobic.
hayfield states that because some people use both bisexual and pansexual, “it is difficult to know in what ways pansexual people’s identities, experiences, and lives might be distinct from those of bisexual people” and i don’t understand how a researcher is saying this, because it seems obvious that comparing the experiences of bisexuals, pansexuals, and bisexual/pansexuals would offer some insight here.
i don’t like that jack harkness is described as being “reported to be bisexual by writer and actor”, but only “also interpreted as pansexual or omnisexual”, despite the fact that he has also been canonically referred to as pansexual and omnisexual by writer and actor. the way that’s worded makes it seem like he’s officially bisexual, but people with no authority think he’s pansexual or omnisexual.
disappointing that the only mention of panphobia is a short note of pansexual people being tired of having to explain pansexuality and respond to saucepan jokes. as if that’s all we deal with, or that’s all that is specific to us as pansexuals. a bunch of “and pansexuals, too” comments when talking about the bigotry bisexuals experience. as if we don’t experience anything unique to our pansexuality. then it’s mentioned that some pansexuals use bisexual because it’s better known, but it’s not mentioned that many pansexuals use bisexual specifically to avoid panphobia. hayfield oddly says that “more recently there is some evidence that pansexual, asexual, and plurisexual people may find that their identities are also subject to issues of invisibility and invalidation” excuse me? “more recently”? “some evidence”? “may find”? this is a slap in the face to mspec and ace people. we do not need our invalidation and invisibility to be proven by researchers in order for it to be real or taken seriously by others. our voice is evidence enough, because we can’t wait around for researchers to decide to give a shit about us.
and now other issues/notes.
i’m really gonna need bisexual people to stop bringing up katy perry as an example of baiting or faking bisexuality. katy perry is queer. this has been known for years before this book was published. and aside from that, this is exactly the kind of invasive policing and accusing real people of queerbaiting that i cannot stand. you do not know someone’s life or experiences or identity or feelings. if katy perry (“i kissed a girl”) or demi lovato (“cool for the summer”) or rita ora’s (“girls”) songs aren’t representative of your experiences, guess what? that’s okay! and even more, consider that they’re not meant to be. they’re the artist’s experiences, and you are not owed an explanation or coming out in order to justify them making those songs. in demi lovato’s case, specifically, they said that song was their way of sharing that part of themself before they were ready to truly talk about it. and absolutely fuck every single queer person who makes that into something bad or harmful because they feel entitled to someone else’s identity because they want representation.
and just in general. i understand criticizing the idea that bisexuality is just girls kissing each other to entice guys or whatever. but there are queer girls who got drunk and kissed, whether it was in front of guys or not, as a way of exploring feelings they were having and either couldn’t or didn’t know how to explore them otherwise. you do not have to put down real queer experiences and people just because they don’t match your own, or because other people use those experiences to make generalizations. and if you’re thinking “obviously i’m not talking about actual queer girls who did that!” let me ask you: how do you know who is actually queer? you dont. so stop.
it’s disappointing that there’s very little on the defining asexuality section compared to that of bisexual and pansexual (bisexual and pansexual got deeper dives, while asexual was solely definitions for a handful of terms). i wish there was more criticism of the kinsey scale, other than literally one comment about how it still upholds binary understandings of sexuality. hayfield considers glsen to be inclusive, yet glsen admitted to disregarding asexual participants from their survey who didn’t have other queer identities because they don’t think asexuality is queer on its own. there’s some insistence that mspec characters who aren’t labeled on screen are harmful, which is something i vehemently disagree with when it’s presented with that level of lack of nuance; unlabeled characters can be and have been done purposely and thoughtfully, and they have importance because they represent real mspec people who don’t label themselves. i generally dislike the concept of “visual identities”, which has a whole chapter, so that wasn’t fun for me.
overall, this book isn’t what it claims to be, and there’s nothing new or enlightening in it.
while there are some small bits specifically about pansexuality and asexuality, this is a book is about bisexuality that often just tacks on “(and pansexual and asexual)” to the end of sentences. i don’t understand why pansexual was included in the title, because it doesn’t get the focus that bisexual gets, which is an understandable expectation when both are in the title. but bisexual is mentioned 5x more than pansexual is, as well as asexual (and this isn’t taking into account how many of the times pansexual and asexual are mentioned are just them being listed as add ons.)
i’m fully aware that hayfield is drawing on existing research, and it’s not her fault that there’s more research on bisexual than pansexual and asexual. it is her fault, however, for claiming her book is something it’s not. if there wasn’t adequate research for pansexual, then don’t include it in the title. and to be honest, hayfield does mention and cite things other than research papers or books, so the excuse that there isn’t a lot of pansexual and asexual research to reflect on doesn’t really hold up in the first place.
it’s just like....what’s the point? why claim to “offer a detailed and in-depth exploration of the invisibility and invalidation of bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality” when your content does not live up to that? why appear to be inclusive and giving much needed visibility to invisible identities when you aren’t? especially when you criticize research (among other things) that include bisexuality in their titles or note how many people identify as bisexual, but then “omit any focused consideration” of bisexuality? you are doing to pansexual and asexual people what you’re criticizing others for doing to bisexual people.
in this book, through the title and description and the author’s promotion, pansexual people “seem to be included” but once you actually read the book, you realize that pansexual people “are effectively excluded and their experiences erased”. it just comes off as wanting to appear inclusive and draw in a wider audience, without actually doing the work to be inclusive to or deserving of that wider audience.
a main annoyance of mine with this book is the use of the bisexual umbrella. is anyone surprised?
just like shiri eisner did in bi: notes for a bisexual revolution, nikki hayfield criticizes things that are done to bisexual people, while doing those things to other queer people. most notably is her use/support of the bisexual umbrella (as well as her use of “plurisexual” to capture mspec identities other than bisexual and pansexual), while pointing out that bisexual is often erased in lgbt acronyms, initialisms, umbrellas, etc. hayfield says, “while it is not my ideal scenario to use an umbrella term for all the reasons i discussed above, i do nonetheless”, which is so utterly useless. what good is your criticism of something if you’re doing nothing to change it? eisner also did this; criticized something and justified her own perpetuation of it.
it struck me as odd to see her include plurisexual in the bisexual umbrella, when plurisexual is most often used by academics as the catch all term for mspec identities. hayfield notes that p for pansexuality is usually considered to be “subsumed within the plus sign in lgbtq+ but often remains unacknowledged”, but makes no note about how the same is just as true for pansexual’s inclusion in the bisexual umbrella (i mean, people even use “bisexual+”).
it’s frustrating seeing criticism of the bisexual umbrella, focusing on its function in research, being validated only because “researchers have argued” it “may be inappropriate” and “potentially obscure important differences” by amalgamating different mspec identities with bisexual. pansexual people have been criticizing the forced bisexual umbrella for years, and how more often than not, bisexual statistics are actually statistics on all mspec people. but hayfield only acknowledges this in hypotheticals because some researchers theorized about it. i don’t think it’s fair to care more about what researchers are saying than actual pansexual people, because there aren’t a lot of researchers looking specifically into the pansexual community, so whatever does exist either isn’t in depth (based on a handful of pansexuals) or up to date (rehashes the basics or focuses on bisexual).
hayfield parrots eisner’s recommendation to only include those in the bisexual umbrella who wish to be included in it in order to respect agency, and as i said in my review of bi: notes for a bisexual revolution, this does not make the bisexual umbrella any better or respectful of agency. it is, in fact, more erasure. if you’re using the bisexual umbrella to discuss or research mspec experiences and claiming it only includes those who want to be included in it, you’re either lying about how you’re using it to dismiss criticism, or you’re erasing those who don’t want to be included in it from discussions and research about experiences that they are a part of. you can’t claim the bisexual umbrella is or should be exclusive only to those who want to be included, while you and others with influence are using it in a generalized, universal manner.
it’s disappointing that while discussing the assumption that bisexual people are straight or gay/lesbian depending on the gender of their partner, no note was made of the rampant, unchallenged assumption that people default to bisexual if they're attracted to more than one gender, which is a constant kind of erasure that other mspec people deal with. leaving out these kinds of things just goes to show who this book is really for/about.
then there’s some general panphobia.
hayfield incorrectly states that pansexuality “first came into use” during the 1990s. it’s more accurate to say it gained more use in the 1990s, because it was, in fact, used decades prior. if i know this, an academic writing a researched book where this information is relevant should know this.
hayfield states, “while pansexuality is sometimes conflated or used interchangeably with bisexuality, some have distinguished between bisexuality as binary and pansexual as non-binary”, and this is such an unfair statement. framing a way ignorant people differentiate pansexual and bisexual as the only way people differentiate them, while not even offering any criticism of conflating them is disingenuous and contributes to the idea that trying to differentiate, or more accurately, acknowledging the difference, is inherently biphobic.
hayfield states that because some people use both bisexual and pansexual, “it is difficult to know in what ways pansexual people’s identities, experiences, and lives might be distinct from those of bisexual people” and i don’t understand how a researcher is saying this, because it seems obvious that comparing the experiences of bisexuals, pansexuals, and bisexual/pansexuals would offer some insight here.
i don’t like that jack harkness is described as being “reported to be bisexual by writer and actor”, but only “also interpreted as pansexual or omnisexual”, despite the fact that he has also been canonically referred to as pansexual and omnisexual by writer and actor. the way that’s worded makes it seem like he’s officially bisexual, but people with no authority think he’s pansexual or omnisexual.
disappointing that the only mention of panphobia is a short note of pansexual people being tired of having to explain pansexuality and respond to saucepan jokes. as if that’s all we deal with, or that’s all that is specific to us as pansexuals. a bunch of “and pansexuals, too” comments when talking about the bigotry bisexuals experience. as if we don’t experience anything unique to our pansexuality. then it’s mentioned that some pansexuals use bisexual because it’s better known, but it’s not mentioned that many pansexuals use bisexual specifically to avoid panphobia. hayfield oddly says that “more recently there is some evidence that pansexual, asexual, and plurisexual people may find that their identities are also subject to issues of invisibility and invalidation” excuse me? “more recently”? “some evidence”? “may find”? this is a slap in the face to mspec and ace people. we do not need our invalidation and invisibility to be proven by researchers in order for it to be real or taken seriously by others. our voice is evidence enough, because we can’t wait around for researchers to decide to give a shit about us.
and now other issues/notes.
i’m really gonna need bisexual people to stop bringing up katy perry as an example of baiting or faking bisexuality. katy perry is queer. this has been known for years before this book was published. and aside from that, this is exactly the kind of invasive policing and accusing real people of queerbaiting that i cannot stand. you do not know someone’s life or experiences or identity or feelings. if katy perry (“i kissed a girl”) or demi lovato (“cool for the summer”) or rita ora’s (“girls”) songs aren’t representative of your experiences, guess what? that’s okay! and even more, consider that they’re not meant to be. they’re the artist’s experiences, and you are not owed an explanation or coming out in order to justify them making those songs. in demi lovato’s case, specifically, they said that song was their way of sharing that part of themself before they were ready to truly talk about it. and absolutely fuck every single queer person who makes that into something bad or harmful because they feel entitled to someone else’s identity because they want representation.
and just in general. i understand criticizing the idea that bisexuality is just girls kissing each other to entice guys or whatever. but there are queer girls who got drunk and kissed, whether it was in front of guys or not, as a way of exploring feelings they were having and either couldn’t or didn’t know how to explore them otherwise. you do not have to put down real queer experiences and people just because they don’t match your own, or because other people use those experiences to make generalizations. and if you’re thinking “obviously i’m not talking about actual queer girls who did that!” let me ask you: how do you know who is actually queer? you dont. so stop.
it’s disappointing that there’s very little on the defining asexuality section compared to that of bisexual and pansexual (bisexual and pansexual got deeper dives, while asexual was solely definitions for a handful of terms). i wish there was more criticism of the kinsey scale, other than literally one comment about how it still upholds binary understandings of sexuality. hayfield considers glsen to be inclusive, yet glsen admitted to disregarding asexual participants from their survey who didn’t have other queer identities because they don’t think asexuality is queer on its own. there’s some insistence that mspec characters who aren’t labeled on screen are harmful, which is something i vehemently disagree with when it’s presented with that level of lack of nuance; unlabeled characters can be and have been done purposely and thoughtfully, and they have importance because they represent real mspec people who don’t label themselves. i generally dislike the concept of “visual identities”, which has a whole chapter, so that wasn’t fun for me.
overall, this book isn’t what it claims to be, and there’s nothing new or enlightening in it.
October 10, 2021
A book that's actually in tune with the LGBTQI+ community, I don't always find books/articles about bisexuality or more plurisexual identities that are so informed.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews