Talk:Bisexual erasure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 


Wikipedia Purging[edit]

I removed Tyrone Power as he is referenced as bisexual in his article, I am also wondering if this sentence shouldn't be deleted and instead moved to the talk sections of the two articles mentioned, or alternatively more articles should be included in this section; either way something has to be changed.--Kooperfan (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Warning[edit]

My issue is this: the tone of article strikes me as being pro-bisexual when it should not be pro-anything. I feel that someone with an axe to grind could potentially use this bias to their advantage if left as is. -Brother Dave Thompson (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is by definition pro-bisexual Dave. How can it not be at least a little bit? Look at and actually read the topic! Look at all the gay pages they are all "pro-gay", how come you haven't marked any of them? Why focus on this page specifically? BlueFireIceEyes (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Hey all you wikipedia people I have all theses various examples (as I'm sure lots of you all do) but I'm just not sure how to get them into the article in proper wiki format. So help, help. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes we will be adding citations directly just give us a day or so to get them in here before you attack. More thanks CyntWorkStuff 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

References section[edit]

The only properly cited article is now missing at the site:

This looks like a really interesting article, but I wasn't able to find a copy online.

Also, the following was listed in the references section, but without citation in the article:

Perhaps someone who has time could cite the statements in the article properly using the sources which are now in the External links section. Joie de Vivre

Why does Haworth make their journals, such as JOH and JOB, so expensive anyway? Journal of Bisexuality isn't available (online, much less in print) from the superb collections of Washington University or University of Illinois libraries --the latter is among the largest in the world! Do I have to come out to SFSU or something? Even it doesn't have it at the main library (nor does IU), though I assume it's available through the sexuality program. Evolauxia 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources."[edit]

Q.E.D.?--Greg K Nicholson 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a phrase people, lighten-up. Anyway, what is wrong now? CyntWorkStuff 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that would be an attempted joke. :) I meant the fact that there were so few references or sources to cite kind of proves that the phenomenon exists. Yeah. So let's say we just pretend it was witty and walk away humming merrily… :) —Greg K Nicholson 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing tag and your comments, (I can't find any assertion in this article that isn't supported by the Kenji Yoshino reference (and for "biphobia", that Wikipedia article), so I'm removing the "unreferenced" tag) sorry for the earlier sarcasm - I was just confused and frustrated CyntWorkStuff 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries—Greg K Nicholson 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hah, I laughed, eventually. It's witty in a delphic kind of way ;-). Evolauxia 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That must be the first time I've heard a joke that was better when explained :-) --DavidHopwood 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PoV[edit]

This article seems incredibly PoV to me, to label any study casting doubt on the existence or prevalence of bisexuality as prejudiced is unscientific, PC nonsense 86.155.128.81 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was labeled that way by several GLBT and straight organizations as well as scientific ones, and the main author of it has a biased and dishonest past. Why don't you do some research? BlueFireIceEyes (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, however, this is an article on bisexual erasure. It would be pretty ironic if erasure was done in the article itself, don't you think? In addition, one must consider that this issue is as much a semantic and philosophical one as well as a scientific and social one. The existence of persons that have sexual relationships with both sexes is an incontrovertible fact, so is the existence of persons who can be aroused by both sexes, the existence of persons who participate in relationships with both sexes simultaneously, etc. etc... Moreover, these persons have always existed. Thus, the semantic issue should be settled. They exist. Fact. Why not have a word for them?

On a philosophical basis the existence or nonexistence of a thing goes under the category of Epistemology or "what is truth?" This would then be an argument over labels. If bisexuality does not exist then the logical conclusion is that all articles on the subject should be deleted and redirects should be placed for other things such as the articles on gay or lesbian subjects. Since Wikipedia does not censor articles then the bias belongs to Wikipedia itself, thus, every word in the English language which relates to any subject and all terms that can be used to label any possible subject can have articles written about them on Wikipedia.

Regarding POV pushing in wikipedia, I sympathize, but the term "bisexual erasure" could be called a POV itself, so could the claim that bisexuals don't exist. By its very nature there is an inherent point of view in this article as this is - get this - an article on a point of view!

Thus, the subject of what you are referring to would deserve its own article, like "arguments against the existence of bisexuality," or some such thing, if one does not already exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Tila Tequila[edit]

Recently, William Ortiz added a section about Tila Tequila. I removed this addition, with an edit summary reading "This is not "in the gay community", the section's relevance is not clear, it is too large for the size of the article". William Ortiz left a message for me about it at my Talk page, to which I responded with a repeated request to raise the issue at the appropriate article Talk page (i.e., here). William Ortiz then reinstated the contested addition, with the misleading edit summary: "reverter refused to explain revert".

As I stated in my initial edit summary, the relevance of this section is not clear, and in any case, it is far too large for the overall size of the article; it overwhelms the already short article. Is this ill-known D-list "celebrity"'s little blip on the radar really the best thing to bloat this article? I don't think so. Photouploaded (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I later revised it to change to the popular culture section. This is an incident where someone who was bisexual was denied being bisexual and derired and called a faker. Is this not what the article is about? Its first line is "Bisexual erasure is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence of bisexuality in the historical record, academic materials, the news media, and other primary sources." ????? William Ortiz (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The questioning of someone whose primary claim to fame is their bisexuality is not a good example of bisexual erasure. This complex social phenomenon is not best represented by the (inevitably short-lived) buzz over some fluffy MTV dating show. Judging by the size of the existing article, this proposed addition would represent 50% of the article size, and thus add undue weight. Photouploaded (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The COATRACK thing could still be settled by shortening it. It's possible I don't completely understand the topic and if so then the article needs some kind of examples from somewhere and if that's a bad one, others should be found. The article does have a bit too many links and the links should be made into content. William Ortiz (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with Photouploaded on this. SethTisue (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article?[edit]

Wouldn't it be better served as part of Biphobia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a glossary of terms. SethTisue (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. "Phobia" in this case does not only refer to "fear", just as "homophobia" does not mean "fear" but rather "categorical misconception, derision, and often hatred". I'm going to be WP:BOLD and just do this. If anyone objects they can change it back; I won't revert to the merged version without consensus. Photouploaded (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
So people do not have multiple discussions on same topic going on in different places, have put a central heading to discuss the idea of a possible merger here. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Because erasure is about a cultural activity, and phobia is about an aspect of psychology, though that may be splitting hairs.--Benjamin 22:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 (talkcontribs)

Added Section on Gay Writers and Media Narratives[edit]

I added the following paragraphs to note how homosexual writers frequently mis-represent historical data on bisexuals, and how the gay/straight dichotomy narrative has become so pervasive in American media that anyone caught having same-sex relations is automatically assumed to be a repressed homosexual rather than a bisexual. I believe these trends also represent a form of anti-bisexual bias within the homosexual community.

"It is also common for gay writers and activists to portray bisexual and gender blurring behaviors in ancient and non-western cultures, such as ancient Greek pederasty or Native American berdaches, as proof that homosexuality has been widely accepted in other times and cultures, although these historical institutions do not match the modern concept of gay sexual orientation.

In some cases, American media has portrayed individuals caught in scandals involving same-sex affairs, such as Republican Senator Larry Craig or televangelist Ted Haggard, as "repressed homosexuals." Strictly speaking, these individuals were engaged in bisexual behavior, and did not label themselves as gay or homosexual."

I don't have time to add external references to these paragraphs, but they abound on the Web. I'd appreciate someone adding some references and fleshing out these topics. --ManicBrit (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can start by sourcing them yourself from verifiable and reliable sources and let's stay clear of POV issues. Benjiboi 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig actually ARE closeted homosexual or gay men.108.36.212.243 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WRONG! While Larry Craig probably is an homosexual (his "children" are all adopted step-children), Ted Haggard actually has five children, thus proving he can function sexually with both men and women, therefor we have prima facia evidence that is bisexual! Dutchman Schultz (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of text[edit]

I reverted Benjiboi's removal because I think the text should be given some time to be improved before being summarily deleted. Benjiboi, if you think the new text suffers from POV problems or lack of references, please tag it as such, so it can be improved — rather than just summarily removing others' good-faith contributions. SethTisue (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with SethTisue. Recently I have reverted a couple of wholesale deletions elsewhere and instead replaced them with comment boxes and requests for assistance. Yes, it takes more time and effort to look things up and find the proper references than to just make a witty comment and hit the delete button. But these articles need to be improved in a constructive way, building on each others efforts, not just torn down. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I undid the deletion by Kgorman-ucb on 6 March 2012. I feel that common instances of bisexual erasure should be stated in the article as no serious research has been done on this issue and therefor referencing websites is necessary to show examples. I do not accept deletion and personally I think the revert button should be removed. It violates the purpose of wp to revert most things accept vandalism, and totally un-sited sources. We are building, not destroying.--Benjamin 05:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 (talkcontribs)
Please start add new sections on talk pages at the bottom of the page, instead of adding content to a four year old talk section in the middle of the page. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia, but we're trying to build an encyclopedia consisting of of neutral and verifiable information taken from reliable sources. The section you added included no reliable sources talking about their significance as examples of bisexual erasure, but for it to be included in Wikipedia, there need to be such sources. If it's really true that bisexual erasure is not talked about in enough reliable sources for us to write a good article without resorting to unreliable sources, that's an unfortunate thing, and hopefully it will change soon - but in the meanwhile, our article should still only reflect what is said in reliable sources. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I've added a {{POV}} tag because the article seems unduly slanted towards the opinion (with which I agree) that bisexuality is possible, prevalent, and always worth mentioning. Certainly not all "erasure" is a result of biphobia or bad intentions. --B2xiao (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

this is a small well referenced term/piece and we have had this same discussion over and over again thru the years (see above).
IMHO part of the problem is that some of the "External links" should actually be references. I've changed one, and but others could do more too. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused how Refs. 1-3 are considered acceptable sources as they are all produced by biased activist groups. It's like letting PETA write Wiki articles on animal use in research. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's like Wikipedians writing an article, and using PETA as a reference, which may be justified in many cases. The article isn't asserting how prevalent bisexual erasure exists, it's simply defining the terms, and these references seem valid for that. I've no objection to more sources of course, but I don't see where the claim for POV is here - are the homosexual articles on Wikipedia "pov" because they're unduly slanted towards the opinion that homosexuality is possible, prevalent and always worth mentioning? What about heterosexuality? (Of course, I agree that simply not mentioning bisexuality at a given time isn't in itself erasure, but I don't see that the article in its current state suggests that.) Mdwh (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words, "People"[edit]

I did some minor edits to the article, thought I would explain them quickly. First, I took out the emphasis on, 'or conversely that bisexuals are simply heterosexuals who are "experimenting" with their sexuality.' ... it is written as if experimenting with their sexuality is a bad thing, and "simply" heterosexual ... well, when I add emphasis like that it changes it doesn't?

While obviously the point is to portray that the way they are being told they are "just experimenting" is said in a condescending way, the path the writer here has went about it isn't going to work, as it just isn't neutral.

It's almost 2:00am here for me, I'd usually just reword it myself but you can understand. Maybe I'll reword it later if I remember.

"to be referred to as 'straight' or heterosexual" again I didn't like the emphasis ... and when the emphasis was taken out, it became redundant so I just removed 'straight'.

I completely removed the bolded part in this paragraph, "In some cases, gay commentators in the American and British media have portrayed individuals caught in scandals involving same-sex affairs as homosexual, despite bisexual behavior and lifestyle. As do gay commentators and the gay media, the mainstream media also tends to lump anyone identified with any homosexual or same-sex partners as gay."

It was a sentence that I don't think could ever be reliably sourced. Tends to? Can you prove that at least 51% of mainstream media do this? Which is where the weasel words come in. "In some cases" ... which cases are these? Which gay commentators in the media?

"It is also common for gay writers and activists to..." how common?

"In some cases, even those who specifically identify as bisexual or ..." which cases are these?

Lastly, the word "people" is was used 6 times throughout the article... 5/6 going 'gay people', 'bisexual people', 'homosexual people', etc. For such a small article, it was used enough that I noticed it. I removed most of them, but in future reference try to use a variance in words. It isn't offensive to say "bisexuals" once in awhile, so you don't need to use "bisexual people" every time, in example. Avalik (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Made some changes[edit]

Alright, I put in plenty of sources, changed some of the language and cleaned up the neutrality as much as possible. It's not exactly a non controversial topic so different people will view neutrality differently. Quite frankly, I feel that some of the people here who are pointing fingers about neutrality are biased themselves and may be engaging in biphobia and trying to get rid of this page entirely or vandilize it, and thus are not qualified to make that call. This page is maintained by members of the bisexual community and only they and their allies should maintain these pages to ensure no one else with an agenda of their own who wants to get rid of our community pages entirely should be allowed to do so. Please leave our pages alone, and just let us be. Thank you. BlueFireIceEyes (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not work like that. Anyone is allowed to edit it, and I don't think one can give a "bisexuality exam" to see if they're allowed to edit this page. The page belongs to no one in particular, it is public domain. It is unduly slanted towards a pro-bisexuality view. While I personally find nothing wrong with that, Wikipedia shouldn't be pro-anything. It should be neutral. So it certainly needs a different approach. So far, no one I see here is trying to "destroy" this article, in fact if you look through their history you'll see many people you are accusing of being biphobic working very hard at other LGBT articles to maintain neutrality and take out bias (against, AND for)... they are trying to make it neutral. While I'm sure everyone appreciates the work you put into the article so far, the cites you added were either duplicates or not backing up the words though I still have to go through it a bit. I feel bad for having to edit out most of your work but it has to be done. Avalik (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
My apologies seems I mixed up your edits with the IP-address edits. Yours seem to have contributed a lot with helping with neutrality in most areas. Nonetheless, I still stand by everything else I said. Avalik (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


How is this article "not neutral?"[edit]

It seems quite neutral to me. Saying bisexuality exists is not being biased, nor is showing that there is another side to the Bailey study. It is also not biased to say bisexual erasure exists. These "non neutral" tags should be taken down, I do not see valid reasons for keeping them. Mizzm2 bi (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion on this page, and you can see what the article used to look like by clicking the history tab at the top. On the whole, though, the article looks pretty decent at the moment so I pulled the tag. Please make a new section below and propose specific remedies if the issues are not settled enough. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bisexual erasure with Robert Mapplethorpe[edit]

Here's another example of Bisexual erasure here on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Mapplethorpe#sexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.251.243 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dan Savage and other gay men in the media practicing bisexual erasure[edit]

Why is Dan Savage not used as an example of biphobia and bisexual erasure?

He's VERY biphobic-among other things-despite what he claims, and has said in his "advice" column that bisexual men do not exist.

Here are some examples of Dan Savage being biphobic.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=636633

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2859

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=10764 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.70.172 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That does not reflect my reading of those columns or my understanding of Savage's approach to sexuality. Though I do confess a certain frustration when cute men self-identify as bi, but would never under any circumstances be physically or emotionally available to me. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the links? In the one link he used the bisexual erasure tactic that many gay men use where they say that male bisexuality does not exist at all or else it is very very rare, but that female bisexuality does exist.

Dan Savage is no expert in sex. His view on male sexuality is too restrictive. He tends to see male sexuality through a political lens rather than through a real-life lens. Male sexuality is far more complex than the simple "gay or straight" categories propagated by Gay Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.240.207 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors - this is the internet, and it is extraordinarily easy for miscommunications to occur when the medium lacks the nuance carried by tone, inflection, and facial expression.
While I would be happy to debate the finer points of politics and sexuality with him or you over a beer, I am afraid that such a conversation would not be appropriate to this page. Do you have any reliable sources describing Savage's stance on bisexuality in men and women, and his importance to the topic? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read the above links and Savage has written them himself so they are a reliable source showing how Dan Savage does practice bisexual erasure especially where he mentioned that he thinks that male bisexuality does not exist.

If you have ever seen the Bisexual documentary titled Bi the Way there is footage of both Dan Savage and Michael Musto directly saying to the camera how they believe that bisexuality in men does not exist. How is this not an example of Bisexual Erasure with a reliable source?

Dan Savage, Michael Musto, Chris Crain, Andrew Sullivan, and other gay men in the media have said or written directly and it has been very documented that they do not believe in male bisexuality and this is bisexual erasure.

Someone should edit the article to mention how these men are biphobic even though they claim that they're part of the GLBT "community" or are for equality for all GLBT people which clearly is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.251.171 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual Erasure in Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy[edit]

With song lyrics/lines like this in the Torch song Trilogy written by Harvey Fierstine that are an example of bisexual erasure why is there no mention of this in the article?

Lines/lyrics from Torch song trilogy: In all my born days, and there have been plenty, I never met a real bisexual. Please, not in front of YOU-KNOW-WHO. I’m not listening. I’d like to see a bisexual who lived with his boyfriend and then saw his girlfriend on the sly.

website removal[edit]

no reliable sources describe 'gay husbands, straight wives' as bisexual erasure or describe its importance. I'm uncomfortable describing a website as an example of bisexual erasure - especially when it involves linking to a website that sells spyware - without a RS that describes it as such. The editor who readds the website to the article has been citing WP:IAR as a reason to do so, but I don't believe that there's a strong enough case for inclusion so as to be worth departing from our normal standards of WP:V and WP:DUE. You need seriously amazing reasons to IAR away verifiability, and this website lacks them. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage[edit]

Dan Savage should be mentioned in the article. He has practised bisexaul erasure for decades and still continues to.

In Dan's own words: Like I Said….

posted by Dan Savage on July 5 at 8:43 AM

As I’ve been saying in Savage Love for, oh, 14 years now (I started writing the column when I was 18, as everyone knows), there’s no such thing as male bisexuality. Now the science is there to back up my claims - the NYTimes has the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.207.86 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia[edit]

This article reads as very homophobic. It claims that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are responsible for bisexual erasure, but essentially all of the examples come from homosexual people (despite the fact that homosexuals don't actually have enough power in society to "erase" bisexuals). The "Common Examples" and "In the LGBT community" sections are also very similar, and again focus entirely on homosexuals. I recommend combining those two sections and finding a wider range of examples that more accurately reflect the source of bisexual erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womanticisms (talkcontribs) 14:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gay men and lesbians certainly do have "enough power in society to 'erase' bisexuals," and this article addresses just how that is. Still, this article needs to be fixed up better and, like you suggest, should have significantly more non-LGBT causes of bisexual erasure. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In what way do gay men and especially lesbians have any power? If they had power then homophobia wouldn't exist, and the fight for marriage equality would be essentially irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womanticisms (talkcontribs) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to LGBT visibility, I already answered your question above; it's an answer that various WP:Reliable sources support. And every form of discrimination (yes, even the less common form of discrimination that is against people because they are heterosexual) will exist, no matter what power a group has, because human society will never be perfect and neither will the rest of animal society. Also, are you IP 114.198.106.13...as seen here and here at the Biphobia article? If so, that is not the way you are supposed to go about editing this site.
And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your username for you above twice. I will now contact Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

More examples would be a good idea here; for one, I just added Ani DiFranco as another obvious one. However, speaking as a gay man, I don't think this argument about whether "gay men and lesbians have enough power in society at large to erase bisexuals" is a productive or useful one to have — for one thing, there's an important nuance that's being missed in your respective appeals to absolutism.

Gay men and lesbians certainly don't have the power to erase bisexuals from the culture at large all by ourselves, without a whole lot of help from the heterosexual world — but we do have an unfortunate habit of colluding in that process, and we do very much have, and use entirely too much, the power to erase bisexuals from our community (or to include them only in a token way, by adding a B to the names of community organizations but then not doing anything to ensure that they're actually B-inclusive in any genuinely meaningful way.) So in a very real way, both of your positions are partly right and partly wrong at the same time.

So let's just concentrate on finding more examples for the article (which is what the talk page is for), and avoid getting into an unwinnable political argument (which isn't). Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what you stated about gay men and lesbians contributing to bisexual erasure is what I was addressing; I certainly was not stating that gay men and lesbians have the power to erase bisexuals from the culture at large alone; if I believed that, I would not have stated that the article "should have significantly more non-LGBT causes of bisexual erasure." Anyway, thanks for weighing in and helping out with the article. Though I have not yet looked for more examples of non-LGBT causes of bisexual erasure, I did, as you probably noticed, fix a bit of the poor sourcing in this article (seen here, with a tweak here). Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)