Talk:Biphobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biphobia article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Biphobia vs. Homophobia

Surely confusion, living the swinging lifestyle and promiscurity are stereotypes also given to homosexuals (especially the 'swinging lifestyle'). Are there any better examples? -A

I agree. But I think the assumption that no male is bisexual, only gay and in denial is far too prevalent in conventional wisdom today. This is, most commonly, a conclusion come to and quoted by fiercly heterosexual males or homophobic people as a way to deny to themselves the actual capacity of a "real man" to be attracted to both sexes (maybe as a way to deny to themselves the possibility that they are included in this). They degrade it by calling it just plain "gay," and since they aren't "gay" they no longer have to fear that they may have even a slight attraction to the same sex. A coping mechanism, and since homophobia or at least the social stigma around gays is so widespread, it stands to reason that this bipohobic notion would be as well.

This article doesn't seem very neutral. -cl

To be honest, they might not be all inclusive, but I think that those examples above are perfectly acceptable. I think what the article is trying to say is that many bisexuals are accused of being swingers, not that all swingers are bisexual. Maybe it needs to be rephrased to remove that ambiguity Davepealing 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above user, cl... most bisexual men are told they are either gay and in denial, confused or going through a phase, because according to mainstream society, "real men" cannot be attracted to other men as well as women. Also, many, if not most, gay men feel they were "born that way" and bisexual men were, too - they just do not know it, yet. There is clearly a reverse discrimination of the bi community and bisexuality in general as a lifestyle, preference or sexual orientation. Bisexuals are pretty much invisible - and lumping them into the gay community only further that invisibility. Also, having a rainbow gay flag for this article is inappropriate... a Bisexual pride flag should be used in its place, especially since this is strictly a bisexual issue involving the bisexual community. TednAZ

In re comments on rainbow flag- that's how that partiular Wikipedia box that indicates articles related to/of interest to the LGBT community comes.
But cheer up, progress is being made, it was just recently renamed to LGBT. Prior to that it was just plain old Gay for the longest. CyntWorkStuff 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unrelated content

I removed the following content because it seems to contribute little to the substance of this entry:

(The "HNG sks 2HBB" abbreviation refers to the "horny net geek seeks two hot bi babes"
posts which have clogged groups such as soc.bi for years.)

Epolk 15:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Bible

Why no mention of the Bible? "If a man lie with a man as he lie with a woman" etc seems to indicate that all men (or by extrapolation, all people) are at least potentially bisexual. If that's the christian god's opinion, isn't it worth noting? --MacMurrough 17:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, just realized where I was. Going to the Bisexual article. --MacMurrough 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

"It is fair to note many anti-bisexuals are also anti-homosexual"

But the article has already established that gay people can be biphobic as well. Unless of course that you are saying the homosexuals that have a common prejudice against bisexuals are also self-hating homophobes. In short; huh? - 86.133.33.133 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It says "many" not "all". Mdwh 21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like the passage is trying to say that many anti-homosexuals don't like bisexuals, rather than all anti-bisexuals dislike homosexuals. There's not much of a difference, and it took a couple or re-reads to get that, so it might need rephrasing Davepealing 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too 'wordy'...?

The article does get across some of the main points, but it is quite wordy and involved with very many simoultaneous references to heterosexual biphobia and homosexual biphobia. would anyone be opposed to me putting the two under different headings for ease of reading? or some other suggestion maybe? Davepealing 18:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly agree with above and have added the "Needs Cleanup" Box CyntWorkStuff 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to reference an important "External Link"

. . . . who have a poor Internet presence.

This would be the "Association of Bi Mental Health Professionals"[1] who do a great deal of work and research in the area of Biphobia and related topics. However, there only presence on the web is a Yahoo Group and mailing lists and forums don't meet WP:EL.

Any suggestions on how to address this problem would be much appreciated. CyntWorkStuff 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have they published books, gotten peer-reviewed journals to accept their work, etc? A lot of that stuff should be online, but I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "work and research" if it doesn't fall under those categories. Can you clarify? -- nae'blis 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "bisexophobia"

It is a neologism or protologism not found on any dictionaries.I declare this to be moved to "bisexophobia" because it is like to be afraid of the number 2 like Triskaidekaphobia and tetraphobia. "bi " is not a Greek prefix but "mono" is so why is "mono" and not "uni" for monosexuality. 71.175.32.185 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bisexophobia is a neologism you've just made up (at least, I can't find that anywhere). If you oppose an article on biphobia on the grounds of it being a neologism, that move would just make it much worse! Mdwh 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean like how people who don't like homosexuals are called homosexophobes, right? Ric | opiaterein 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense to call it "bisexophobia" but that's just not what it is in the English language. The exact translation of the word doesn't make sense, sure, but changing wikipedia doesn't necessarily change reality! Marigold 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason the word is "monosexuality" and not "unisexuality" is that people wanted to avoid confusion with the biological term "unisexual," which refers to a plant or animal that has either exclusively male or exclusively female physical characteristics. Mike1981 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umm...

Does anyone else think if this page should be merged with homophobia as a subsection or something? The article itself is fairly short to begin with and as someone on this talk page previously wrote, a lot of the stereotypes mentioned such as "confusion, living the swinging lifestyle and promiscurity" are already anti-gay stereotypes. Does this article really have enough unique information to deserve its own page? --Potato dude42 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Biphobia manifests itself in attacks on the bisexual community from both the heterosexual and the gay male/lesbian communities. It is a related, but distinct and separate "disorder". You are correct that more work does need to be done. Perhaps you would like to volunteer? BiAndBi 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lede needs help

The opening sentences add more confusion than needed. "need not include" seems strange, perhaps "although biphobia may include elements of..." would work? Benjiboi 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fake Bisexuals

"a common stereotype is that female bisexuals are attention seeking heterosexuals"

This sentence indicates that this stereotype is probably largely untrue. In fact, straight girls pretending to be bisexual is a very common occurance, as it's commonly seen as a desirability booster when attracting men. In certain circles, straight males also do this but it's less common. If anything, fake bisexuals probably deserve their own article as there are so many of them about. ~~

sigh . . . please see myspace bisexual et al. CyntWorkStuff

[edit] Merge of content from Bisexual erasure to this article

I just finished merging Bisexual erasure, in its entirety, to this article. I feel that bisexual erasure is simply a manifestation of biphobia, and that, as another user said, both concepts are part of the same encyclopedic topic. If anyone thinks it is better that there be two articles, let's discuss it here. I'm open to changing it back if that is the consensus, but I think it's an improvement. I was sure to integrate all parts of the article, including the external links, interlanguage links, and so forth. I also archived the Talk:Bisexual erasure talk page at the top of this page. Let me know what you think. Photouploaded (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this merging. I do want to see other editors' thoughts on this matter. I feel that it would have been better if you took this to the talk page first before merging. Going to talk pages first before making changes that have a good chance at being contested is always better. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the merge. SethTisue (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no idea if I support it or not as a merge prevent me from even seeing the former article. Agree that checking with others on related tal pages seems to more closely follow merge protocol and suggest you consider rolling it back. Benjiboi 00:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled at troubled by what has been done. I am gong to move to immediately have this merger rolled back and reinstate the article.

  • Comment While I have no doubt of the editor's sincerity and of course assume good faith, this was an article with a robust discussion page that had already been thru a formal delete process where it had been decided that the article had merit.
I will say that all of this may not have been clear to the editor who removed this article because of two recent occurrences.
The first thing that happened was that some editors (with all the best intentions in the world, I'm sure) but with what seemed to me an imperfect understanding of the subject matter or of it's importance, had essentially gutted the article. Shortly after that occurred another editor, in an excess of zeal and possibly mislead by the now truncated and somewhat incomprehensible article, added a long story and quotes having to do with a current pop culture heroine, that while posibly may have mertited a sentence with citation went a bit overboard.
I will suggest that after the article is first restored and then rebuilt to it's correct contents, those that wish could take another look at it (including at the AfD discussion page) and if they still feel so moved, could start a discussion topic on a possible merger. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of possible merger of Bisexual erasure into Biphobia

Please use this area to discuss a possible merger of these articles. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really for the merging of the Bisexual erasure article into this article. I feel that this article can stand on its own. Obviously it can, as it has for some time now. While it could fit into the Biphobia article, the word "Biphobia" is so much more connected to the feelings of fear and hate. Because of that, the topic of bisexual erasure, which is not always about hate and fear and often encompasses studies about whether or not bisexuality exists, should be separate. Actually, when I first went to the Bisexuality article here at Wikipedia, I felt that there should be something in it about how the existence of bisexuality is often questioned. The Bisexuality article does have a little in it about the topic of how its existence is debated, but I'd rather an actual section there be dedicated to that topic. Even now. Though the reason it may not be there yet is because it would be seen as inappropriate, like having a section in the Heterosexuality or Homosexuality article stating that the existence of heterosexuality or homosexuality is debated...even though it's bisexuality that is debated. My main point is that the Bisexual erasure article deals with this topic, even though it focuses more on the hate/ridicule aspect, and I feel that it should be separate of the Biphobia article. I don't feel that every researcher who is skeptical of bisexuality should be considered to be suffering from biphobia or practicing bisexual erasure, thus I'm not exactly too keen on adding any such material to either of these two articles.

Either way, the Bisexual erasure article deals with the dismissal of bisexuality in general, which, even a study done more so to get so-called answers, could be seen as bisexual erasure...while the Biphobia article is more about biphobic feelings in general. Again, I'm for keeping the Bisexual erasure article separate. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)