(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

There's also the term 'Rainbow Population' that would suit me.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Artists of all kinds appeared on the scene with new definitions of reality, e.g. Picasso, James Joyce. Traditional meanings and forms were put to the test and I'm not sure how well we have recovered from that.

Your own search for meaning, and mine too, is again part of the ambiguity of the voyage into the 21st century. Now I'm being pedantic. Haha.

But I am glad you picked up on the real threat to the 'Queer' community.

I would add, and this is my personal pilgrimage now, that perhaps the biggest obstacle to becoming who we really are as 'Queer' persons, is the general tendency to deny that, as human beings with the 'gift' of thought, we do have a spiritual life of some kind.

Moreover, to repress our spiritual lives is as damaging as repressing our sexuality. There's no reason why we cannot have both a sexual and a spiritual life in order to fulfill ourselves, to recognize and be recognized as who we are, and for what only we can bring to make the world a better place. That would be using the 'front' door!

Rather than be known for 'I am against this or that', I would like to be known for what I have to bring that nobody else can bring because we are, after all, quite unique individuals.

And goodnight. Haha!

(Report comment to the moderator)

I don't like the word 'homophobia' for the following reasons:

- it is an echo of the word 'homosexual', which was most widely used at a time when being gay was considered a mental illness;
- the 'homo'- part excludes bisexuals, who face the same bigotry for their same-sex attraction;
- it technically means 'fear of the same', and doesn't have any specific reference to sexuality;
- if lends an air of medical legitimacy to what is basically bigotry.

The first three points are largely pedantry on my part, but the last one genuinely troubles me. I'll accept that a lot of what we call homophobia is based on fear – perhaps especially among straight men? – but I refuse to acknowledge it as a genuine 'phobia'. Even if it is… you can have therapy for that kind of thing!

You're completely right, of course, about where the real threats lie for all of us. We do need to pull together to try and educate straight folk. We'll get there eventually.

(Report comment to the moderator)

It's good that we are talking about it, though. Let's face it, depending on who is using the word, it can have a number of connotations. The word 'straight' can be both complimentary and offensive.

We seem to be living in a world of ambiguous words. Even that, ambiguity, could be an umbrella term; let people give it whatever tone of voice they want. It could mean anything and that is what we find in the LGBT population.

But frankly, Alison, lately, and it could be a phase but it's not a phobia, I'm more concerned with what the anti-gay population is calling us.

To some dangerous religious sects, we are not only infidels, we are also the scum of the Earth, and we are being murdered just because we are gay.

In that sense, the struggle would be against sexually related phobias. A phobia is an irrational fear, like the fear of spiders, or frogs, or bees. In many cases it is a mental illness, and we should be able to cure it, shouldn't we, if we want to take our places and contribute fully to society the gifts that only we have.

But I'm losing it now, I'm way off the subject.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Part of the problem with the word bisexual is the focus on 'sexual' – it makes it pretty difficult to come out to your parents! Maybe we need a more user-friendly term. Personally, I like 'halfgay', and I'm determined to get it into common usage.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Alison:

I too like the word queer, only I spell it Queer.

I don't like dropping authors, but one of the most fascinating books I've ever read (and re-read and re-read) is entitled 'Coming Out Spirituality – The Next Step' written by …swoon… Christian de la Huerta, the founder of Q-Spirit in San Francisco. There is a website, easy to find.

It's true that some people take offense at the word, though. Then again, unless I miss my guess, are we not saying in fact that some people take offense at the term LGBT? I'll say it again, I like Queer.

And Giblet is most creative; leave it to Simon Murphy to come out with something like that! Love it.

(Report comment to the moderator)

You said:

"If on the other hand one understands bisexual to mean someone who would happily settle down for life with someone of either sex, then I have still yet to meet one.

I use the second definition of bisexuality above…"

Dumb. I can't imagine settling down "for life" with anyone of either gender. Does this make me asexual?

Also, I've never met a Bhutanese person, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Our identities, prejudices, and milieux influence the types of people who enter our lives. Maybe the "real" (by your flawed definition) bisexuals avoid becoming close with you because they sense your small-mindedness.

(Report comment to the moderator)

It seems obvious to say it, but in terms of promoting diversity, one large diverse group of people has a louder voice than ten small homogenous ones.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

The only alternative I can think of is 'giblet' (Gay/Intersex/Bisexual/Lesbian et Transgender). Then again I suppose many people may not want to be named after turkey innards.

Sorry – I couldn't resist

(Report comment to the moderator)

I think there is little point in discussing the various terms we use to identify ourselves and the bigotry we face. I would welcome a move to a genuinely inclusive term. Inclusivity can only lend strength to our efforts to address prejudice.

(Report comment to the moderator)

This kind of dialogue should characterize regular meetings of the LGBT community. Does such a thing exist as a group coming together and, following the simple rules of a democratically organized meeting complete with an agenda, workshops, open comments and questions, and a closing statement to co-ordinate future attitudes and actions?

Homophobes of all kinds are organized, and powerful.

(Report comment to the moderator)

That was a campaign directed at straight people concerning homophobia in society. By homophobia he meant dislike or discrimination against someone based on their same sex sexual orientation. You might not want to accept it but that implicitly includes bisexual people.

If a bi man is assaulted for holding his boyfriend's hand it is not because his attacker thinks he is bi. It is because his attacker does not make any distinction. He just thinks 'dirty faggot, kick him.'

We can argue the finer points of biphobia on a site like Pink News because sexuality is something we have all paid some thought to. But a campaign like 'Some people are gay' is meant to catch attention. If the campaign was called 'Some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, intersex' then the simple message is lost and it reduces the impact.

That may not be perfect but the most effective way to deliver a forceful message is to keep it simple.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

The Stonewall 'Some People Are Gay' campaign was an example of how existing large LGBT groups interact with the bi community.

Ben Summerskill introduced the campaign: ‘Homophobia is almost endemic in our schools and blights the lives of people throughout society. It makes sense that this zero-tolerance message should be extended to the wider public. Across urban and rural Britain, this plain-speaking slogan will remind people that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is no longer acceptable.’

All good stuff, but they're supposed to be an LGBT organisation. In fact, in the press guidance on their website, they specifically state that the word 'gay' should not be used as an umbrella term to include bisexuals, as it is not inclusive. So they're not following their own advice.

There was a postcard campaign launched through Bi Community News to lobby Stonewall on the issue… it's not really fair to suggest we just sit back and let it happen.

(Report comment to the moderator)

On the one hand, you've got LGBT groups who have added the 'BT' to their name and then seem to have carried on as a lesbian & gay group without making any attempts to be inclusive. On the other, there are groups who have recognised the lack of representation of bisexuals in their numbers, and have made active efforts to redress that.

For example, Unison's lesbian & gay section used to have a terrible reputation for their attitude to bisexuals (which amounted to "no you can't join us, go away and organise your own caucus"). Now, their LGBT section is trying to reach out to their bi and trans members, doing things like going to meet bi groups to drum up support. It's things like that which will make bi people realise they're actually going to be welcomed to a group (or at least will have support from the leaders). Otherwise, it really takes a critical mass of bi (or supporting) members within an organisation to make the necessary changes. It can be daunting being the only bi in a group, and you don't want to be seen as constantly harping on about any instances of prejudice you encounter.

And some groups are a bit of a closed shop – how can we change the attitude of, say, Stonewall, other than by lobbying them from outside?

(Report comment to the moderator)