Does bisexuality exist? 400 women called Sarah say yes

Julie Bindel questioned the existence of bisexuality. But 400 women called Sarah disagree.

Does bisexuality exist? Julie Bindel caused a storm of debate when she wrote an article for the Huffington Post last week questioning “the concept of swinging both ways”. She said that “if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men”, and cited a US study of 400 self-identified lesbians and bisexuals, which found that “some bisexual women actually doubt whether bisexual women exist at all."

That may be Bindel’s evidence, but 400 women named Sarah disagree. A Facebook group set up to protest against Bindel’s dismissal of bisexuality set out to find at least 400 women with the same name who believe that bisexuality does exist.

It took its inspiration from Project Steve, which opposed a list of scientists who doubted evolution by compiling a much longer list of “scientists called Steve” who supported it.

The criteria for signing up was simple:

To join this group you don't have to identify as bisexual, or know lots of bisexual women. You just have to be called Sarah** and believe that:
- some women, whether or not called Sarah, are attracted to more than one gender
- some women, whether or not called Sarah, choose to label themselves bisexual, and that's nobody else's business

At the time of writing this, there were 465 members. Point made.

Sarah Bernhardt, bisexual actress, pictured here in 1890. Photograph: Getty Images/Hulton Archive.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.