1. Bisexuals are often left out of LGBT-rights discourse and litigation, leading to erasure and harmful consequences for the bisexual community.
2. The absence of bisexuals in litigation documents is documented, despite the actual presence of bisexuals as litigants.
3. Increased inclusion of bisexuality in LGBT-rights discourse can provide a bridge toward more meaningful, holistic, and accurate discourse on the rights of disenfranchised sexual minorities in the United States.
The article "Bridging Bisexual Erasure in LGBT-Rights Discourse and Litigation" by Nancy C. Marcus discusses the issue of bisexual invisibility and erasure within LGBT-rights litigation and legal discourse. The author argues that bisexuals are often left out of LGBT-right discourse entirely, despite being encompassed by the umbrella phrase "LGBT." The article surveys the bisexual erasure legal discourse to date, examines the causes of bisexual erasure, and its harmful consequences for bisexuals, the broader LGBT community, and jurisprudential integrity as a whole.
The article provides a unique examination of bisexual erasure through a survey of relevant terminology in LGBT-rights cases, including same-sex marriage litigation. The study documents an almost complete systemic erasure of bisexuals in briefings and opinions, including an absence of any mention of bisexuals by majority opinions in cases where the briefings have set a tone of bi erasure by arguing alternatively for "gay and lesbian" rights or "same-sex marriage," while completely omitting reference to bisexuals.
While the article provides valuable insights into the issue of bisexual erasure within LGBT-rights litigation and legal discourse, it is not without potential biases. The author's focus on bisexuality may be seen as promoting one sexual orientation over others within the broader LGBT community. Additionally, while anecdotal evidence is provided to support claims of bisexual erasure by attorneys, courts, and media outlets, there is little empirical evidence presented to support these claims.
Furthermore, while the article acknowledges that some courts and LGBT organizations have employed more inclusive terminology towards bisexuality, it does not explore counterarguments or potential risks associated with increased inclusion. For example, some may argue that increased emphasis on bisexuality could lead to further fragmentation within the already diverse LGBT community.
Overall, while "Bridging Bisexual Erasure in LGBT-Rights Discourse and Litigation" provides important insights into an often-overlooked issue within LGBT-rights discourse, it is important to consider potential biases and limitations in the evidence presented.