A while ago I happened across an exhibit on bisexuality put up by the “Gender Equity Resource Center” on the U.C. Berkeley campus.

One of the signs (sorry for the blurry photo) said, “Bisexual: The capacity for emotional, romantic and/or physical attraction to more than one sex or gender. That capacity for attraction may or may not manifest itself in terms of sexual attraction.” This contradicts the standard definition of bisexuality, “sexual behavior with or physical attraction to people of both genders (male and female), or a bisexual orientation.” The question is: Why intentionally broaden the definition to include “the capacity” for attraction, which would include just about everybody?

The sign got me to thinking: Is there really a “gay agenda” in modern academia? It does seem at times that the message “Everyone’s gay; you’re gay too, even if you don’t realize it yet” is pretty omnipresent in certain departments.

This sign (which is more than just a sign — it represents the philosophy of the “Gender Equity Resource Center,” and was taken from “The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Bisexual Health book”) is a new twist on the concept: OK, maybe you’re not all gay, but you are all bi. The key word in the sign is “capacity”: In order to be classified as bisexual, all you need to have is the capacity for any sort of emotional connection with people of more than one gender. And really, everybody has the capacity for anything, even if it isn’t expressed — right? Q.E.D., everyone is bisexual. Whether or not they know it.

Is there now jockeying within the politico-sexual academic world for control over the right to dictate humanity’s sexual orientation?

What if I made my own sign:

“Heavyweight Boxing Champion: Anyone with the capacity to train really hard and then become so good at boxing that they could win a championship match. That capacity for victory may or may not manifest itself in terms of actually winning a match.”

Anyway, the bisexuality sign got me to thinking, and I’m still thinking about it, though perhaps not in the way the designers intended. I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. What’s your opinion?