If you’ve been reading this newsletter for a while, you are likely familiar with the fact that it has only been in recent years that many researchers have begun considering bisexuals to be a separate and distinct demographic category worth considering on our own — as opposed to, say, just lumping us in with gays and lesbians under a broad queer umbrella, or categorizing us based on the gender of our current partners (no I don’t know what happens with single bisexuals, or bisexuals with multiple partners, in that scenario). On the one hand: it’s really good when research does this! That’s how people have been able to determine that bisexuals are at greater risk of poverty, poor mental and physical health, rape and abuse, and suicidality, for instance.
However. There are also downsides to being under the microscope.
To wit: my inbox is currently flooded with mentions of a recent study titled, sigh, “BIDAR: Can Listeners Detect if a Man Is Bisexual from His Voice?” in which a group of Australian researchers… try to figure out if listeners can tell in men are bisexual based on voice alone.
I should note upfront that the study — which, in case you’re wondering, found that listeners categorized bisexual men’s as more more masculine than either straight or gay men — was extremely limited in scope, with just seventy participants ranking only 60 men’s voices (20 straight, 20 gay, 20 bi). So the findings should be taken with several grains of salt.
But even if they hold up, I mean: WHO GIVES A SHIT.
There’s something deeply distressing to me about the idea of scientific funds being devoted to research that feels like the set up to a really hacky stand up set. The very idea of “gay voice” is already a little dubious — certainly, there are many gay men whose voice and gender presentation are on the more feminine end, but there are also straight men with feminine voices and gay men with masculine voices — but the idea that bi men must necessarily have their own unique and distinct vocal patterns is… I mean I can tell you, based on my knowledge of a range of bi men, that it’s absolute nonsense.
Just for fun, here are a few recordings of bi men talking. I would not personally say that Jay Jurden, Alan Cumming, or Billie Joe Armstrong fit the “more masculine” framing presented by this study — and I also wouldn’t say there’s anything particularly unifying about any of their voices. But I also… don’t care? It’s so hard for me to figure out what the benefit is of trying to suss out some bi specific vocal quality when we could, instead, be devoting resources to combatting the various health crises faced by bi people, or creating social safety nets so that no one — bi, gay, or straight; trans or cis, whatever — has to worry about living in poverty, period.
It also feels worth reminding people that for many (many) years, a not insignificant amount of money was poured into a search for a “gay gene.” After decades of research and periodic headlines about how, like, lesbians had index fingers that were different lengths than straight women’s*, the ultimate conclusion was that… gay people just be like that sometimes. There is no gay gene; at best there’s a cluster of various genes and social experiences that can, in different combinations, result in queer attractions.
Given the vast diversity among bisexuals, one has to assume that bisexuality is going to be just like that… only more so. There is no bidar because there is no one bisexuality.
Now can we please put research money towards more important things?
* Since you’re probably wondering, a glance at my own hands suggests that I have lesbian fingers
"Has played the emcee in Cabaret" is a great way to detect bisexuality.
Your endless creativity astounds, Lux. Your recent posts are as fascinating and important as your initial ones, and not a single one repeats another. I don't think I have ever seen anything like it. Sending good vibes and thanks your way always! - Bob