Talk:Bisexual erasure

POV Warning

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)

Comment

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

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

• Sexual Prejudice: The erasure of bisexuals in academia and the media Hutchins, Loraine American Sexuality magazine Volume 3, No. 4 (2005)

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:

• Weiss, Jillian T., GL vs. BT: The Archaeology of Biphobia and Transphobia Within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community, Journal of Bisexuality (Haworth Press 2004), available at http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/glvsbt.htm

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."

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

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)

Tila Tequila

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?

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)

Added Section on Gay Writers and Media Narratives

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)

Recent removal of text

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)

POV

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"

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)

I know you don't like the bisexual community, but you need to stop with the biphobia. The only people who should be editing this are members of OUR community. Stick to the lesbian stuff and leave us alone!