Transfeminism has brought clarity and complexity to discussions about bodies, genders and desires. It also created shadows. In the name of a supposed radical political coherence – often linked to a very specific hegemony – some transfeminist discourses reproduce logics of exclusion from bisexual people. Yes, we are talking about a discreet bifobia that generates uncomfortable and violent speeches, looks and silences.
Although it may seem false, in certain militant environments, bisexuality is considered a betrayal of the "queer pact". Rather, it is labeled as "too ambiguous," "too heterosexual," or "too normative," and its legitimacy is not recognized. A rather minoritarian and anachronistic approach, by the way; but very present in certain spaces of political and cultural power and hegemony.
These spaces defend, in principle, the openness of the political subject, but paradoxically they standardize the subject of bollera and marika and carry out the policy of gatekeeping – the dynamic of excluding people who are not considered sufficiently queer.
Although it may seem false, in certain militant environments, bisexuality is considered a betrayal of the "queer pact"
This position, in addition to being unfair, is totally contradictory to the principles that transfeminism should uphold. That is, that every person can build relationships, erotically and affectively, from his own plastic sexuality and freedom of desire. Without any ideology and without having to prove political purity.
The parallelism with the trans-exclusionary feminists is inevitable. Like those who deny trans identities in the name of an essentialist feminism, those who de-legitimize bisexuality from the transfeminist trenches are falling into a position that resembles denialism: "If your experience does not fit into my theoretical framework, it is not valid. If your desire displaces me, I will pathologize it or leave it ridiculous."
Queer people, transfeminists and radicals, we cannot regulate the map of pleasure and affection. Otherwise, we would lose our subversive power and resemble the disciplining apparatus we are fighting for.
The proclamation of bisexuality and all hybrid, mixed or multiform forms of desire is not a threat, but a reflection of sexual and political complexity. This is why it is important to dream beyond the Marika/Bollera dichotomy of political subjectivity.