Thanks for the detailed and thought-provoking (as you can see from how much follows!) response.

The problem is, where do you draw the line between gay/lesbian and bi, and also, how do you account for the fact that many gay people identify as bisexual due to discrimination? Self-identification is a factor that could very well cause the most at-risk gays and lesbians to be included in bisexual statistics.

Of course how terms are defined is always a potential issue. That said, the following questions occur to me:

• How common is it for gay people to identify as bi due to discrimination? I ask because the attitude that bisexuality doesn't even exist-- and therefore that anyone claiming to be bi must be either gay or straight-- is so prevalent. Men are typically understood as gay; women are typically understood as straight (just slutty). So it's unclear how identifying as bi to escape discrimination would work. Even for lesbians where "bi = straight" applies: they're only trading one stigmatized identity (gay) for another (slut)-- why not just claim to be straight, which lacks such a downside? Further, isn't one implication of gay people feigning bisexuality like this that they view us as being safe from discrimination (even privileged), and therefore non-credible and undeserving of support when we say we've experienced it? Do you think that such an attitude could affect bisexuals adversely?
• Many bisexuals identify as gay or straight, which means that they're not showing up in these statistics. Doesn't this suggest that simply identifying as bi puts one at risk? If so, how does that square with the idea either that we suffer no more discrimination than gay people, or (as you posit below) these poor stats are due to the very nature of our sexual orientation itself? (Since that's shared by the bi people who identify as gay or straight.)
• Are you saying that this must really be about GAY people? If it looks like bisexuals are suffering, that can only mean they're actually homosexuals in disguise? See how troubling this is? Not only in itself, but as an indication of the LG's attitude towards the B? Especially when we seem to be in a pretty dire situation?

To me, it does seem counter-intuitive that bisexuals would have worse statistics, because I don't think they suffer greater stigma or more discrimination than gays and lesbians. If anything, I think it would be less.

And that may be part of the problem. Thinking it would be less. Because if it's equal? The same amount of discrimination that gay and lesbian people face? Now you're dismissing some of it. Because it can't be that bad. Which makes it worse right there. Not to mention the possibility that we might face more discrimination... and then some of THAT is being dismissed.

For example, in this pew research survey, it was found that bisexuals report less discrimination than gays or lesbians. Additionally, FBI Hate Crime Statistics show that the number of anti-gay (male) hate crimes vastly outnumber those motivated by anti-bisexual bias.

Does reporting less necessarily mean experiencing less? While we may not tend to get the kind of targeted discrimination for being bisexual that LG people clearly do for being gay, could that actually just result from the difference between biphobia and homophobia? Namely, that biphobia comes down to believing we don't even exist? And the non-existent is unlikely to be targeted? Yet, even if it means you escape targeting, doesn't being so completely disregarded seem to constitute a type of discrimination in itself?

Moreover, since there's supposedly no such thing as bisexuality, we must really be gay or straight. Bi men (typically misunderstood as gay) then receive the same homophobia that gay men do; bi women (typically misunderstood as straight "sluts") receive the same demeaning and exploitative treatment that "bad"/"loose" women do, and/or (since they sometimes are perceived as gay) homophobia. So even when we receive targeted discrimination ultimately rooted in anti-bisexual bias... it may show up as (apparently) something else.

There are theories that lesbians and gays conspire with straight people in an "epistemic contract" to erase bisexual people. There is terminology that frames gays and lesbians as the oppressors of bisexual people, where the real axis of oppression is not one of gay vs straight but bisexual vs monosexual. Supposedly, biphobia is rampant in gay and lesbian circles. Monosexuals actively exlude bisexuals from their social groups and dating pools and this discrimination, also referred to as "monosexism", is what drives bisexuals to suffer from greater rates of depression, suicide ideation, poverty, etc. This narrative was popularized by Shiri Eisner who also came up with the "Monosexual Privilege Checklist" which further vilified gays and lesbians as the oppressors of bisexuals.

Does it really need to be a matter of conspiracy? I'd characterize it more as "shared assumption". Not even consciously thought out, just reflexive-- the natural tendency to mistake one's own reality for reality itself... and when that's also the majority's reality? Even more so. Everyone but us is monosexual. That's the default. Which is all too easily confused with also being the definition.

Think about it: where does the standard bisexuals-don't-exist attitude come from? Well, if sexual orientation is inherently monosexual... then bisexuality can't even be a sexual orientation, can it? In other words... it doesn't exist. And so neither do we. How else would you explain it?

I agree that this isn't oppression (by anyone); does that mean that it can't be harmful? That it isn't? Can you see any way that it wouldn't be?

For the record, I think the idea that gays and lesbians oppress bisexuals is nonsense... I don't think biphobia from gays and lesbians contributes much if at all to these statistics. It's a narrative that reeks of scapegoating.

As noted, I don't think that LG people oppress bisexuals either. In fact, it seems to me that their monosexism comes from a position not of power (necessary for oppressor status), but rather the opposite: vulnerability. Given that being exclusively same-sex attracted is often stigmatized or worse, the LG are understandably very conscious of, and defensive about, their monosexuality. Which may make it difficult to accept, respect, or even perceive bisexuality. And easy to view it as a threat (for possibly giving the impression that ALL same-sex-attracted people can be attracted to the opposite sex).

The main complaint about biphobia centers around who the LG are willing to date. And that seems like such a non-issue.

Could this be due to the fact that, given the nature of biphobia (often about invisibility rather than anything overt), it's just most easily identified in dating? Where someone is at least acknowledging your bisexuality enough to reject you for it? Certainly I myself would say that biphobia is more of an issue everywhere EXCEPT here (since dating is by definition exclusionary; otherwise, it's rape).

I think there are other factors responsible for the discrepancy in bisexual statistics. It could be that there is something inherently disorienting or stressful about being attracted to both sexes.

Could be, of course; but isn't it more likely to be the "something" that we already know about? The one that's NOT inherent? Namely the disorienting and/or stressful effects of being consigned to non-existence? Occam's Razor and all that.

It's something that needs to be studied more.

On that, I think we can agree :)

TL;DR: re: skepticism about bi people being esp. at risk: there are issues with the reasons given. Self-identification cuts both ways; monosexism isn't so easily dismissed (even on the LG's part); less apparent anti-bi discrimination/crime doesn't necessarily mean less in reality. The nature of biphobia (and its essential difference from homophobia) plays a major role in all of this.