"Bisexual"

It's being discussed in an intelligent and quiet way, which is noteworthy all by itself.

This is all because of a political thingee about a Supreme Court nominee in the USA. Some people—on what evidence they don't tell us—think that the recent appointee is a lesbian. (And we do have to hope that they aren't operating on some stereotype in making this judgment.) Some of her friends have countered that she is not and give, as proof, the claim that she has dated men.

Bisexuality has come up because, of course, it proves nothing to say that a person has had romantic and/or sexual attachments with members of the opposite sex. That said, I'm not sure bringing yet another label (bisexual) into the discussion helps much.

The Eugene Volokh article I mention above begins with the now familiar observation that women are apparently less binary about this than men are. Here are his comments at some length,

As I understand it, the great majority of women who are not purely heterosexual are actually to some degree bisexual. For instance, Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality 311 (1994), reports that 3.7% of all women report having had both male and female partners since age 18 and only 0.4% report having had only female partners since age 18. Even looking at just the last five years, 1.4% of women report both male and female partners, and only 0.8% report only female partners. When asked about current sexual attraction, 2.7% of all women report mostly opposite gender, 0.8% report both genders, 0.6% report mostly same gender, and only 0.3% report only same gender. And my sense is that many women quite sensibly call themselves “lesbian” or “gay” based on their current or recent partners, or currently or recently felt preferences, even though they have had male partners in the past as well. 

I guess the first thing I'd note is a phrase he begins with "the great majority of women who are not heterosexual" because this "great majority" is actually a tiny minority. I mean, do the arithmetic and look at the problem from the other end of the table. Even if we allow that some percentage have had no partners at all, it still remains undeniable that the overwhelming majority of women are heterosexual and that this is never going to change.

Consider the plight of the 100 percent lesbian. In any group of 100 women, more than 96 of them will never consider having a relationship with her under any circumstances. Of the three or so who might consider her, most are not exclusively interested in women and she must always worry that her partners motives are not necessarily pure. An interested woman may be merely curious. Or she may be making a relationship because it is convenient at this time of her life. Or it may be that she is  pursuing this relationship because she is recovering from a bad one with a  man that has put her off men, although who knows for how long.

None of these possibilities strike me as happy ones. And all three are considerably more likely for a lesbian than her meeting someone she can confidently feel is interested in her for herself alone. And even if she does meet another member of 0.7 percent club, there is no guarantee of any attraction between them.

This last, of course, is a reality for heterosexuals as well. No one can be sure of meeting a good person where attraction is mutual who has similar beliefs and values. But we're looking in a pool that includes the vast majority of men or women. Imagine what it must be like in a world where more than ninety-six percent of the people are excluded. It seems to me that the possibilities of happiness for lesbians must be very small. Not impossible but—no matter how much we tell ourselves about freedom, acceptance, tolerance and other good liberal values—the odds are stacked against lesbians and they always will be.