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

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn bids for the NHS to rescue Labour

Ahead of tomorrow's by-elections, Corbyn damned Theresa May for putting the service in a "state of emergency".

Whenever Labour leaders are in trouble, they seek political refuge in the NHS. Jeremy Corbyn, whose party faces potential defeat in tomorrow’s Copeland and Stoke by-elections, upheld this iron law today. In the case of the former, Labour has already warned that “babies will die” as a result of the downgrading of the hospital. It is crude but it may yet prove effective (it worked for No to AV, after all).

In the chamber, Corbyn assailed May for cutting the number of hospital beds, worsening waiting times, under-funding social care and abolishing nursing bursaries. The Labour leader rose to a crescendo, damning the Prime Minister for putting the service in a “a state of emergency”. But his scattergun attack was too unfocused to much trouble May.

The Prime Minister came armed with attack lines, brandishing a quote from former health secretary Andy Burnham on cutting hospital beds and reminding Corbyn that Labour promised to spend less on the NHS at the last election (only Nixon can go to China). May was able to boast that the Tories were providing “more money” for the service (this is not, of course, the same as “enough”). Just as Corbyn echoed his predecessors, so the Prime Minister sounded like David Cameron circa 2013, declaring that she would not “take lessons” from the party that presided over the Mid-Staffs scandal and warning that Labour would “borrow and bankrupt” the economy.

It was a dubious charge from the party that has racked up ever-higher debt but a reliably potent one. Labour, however, will be satisfied that May was more comfortable debating the economy or attacking the Brown government, than she was defending the state of the NHS. In Copeland and Stoke, where Corbyn’s party has held power since 1935 and 1950, Labour must hope that the electorate are as respectful of tradition as its leader.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.