Talk:Biphobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

In antiquity, there are no mentions made of any sexualities as we would understand the idea. this is because the idea itself was not known: the understanding was, people did sexual things because they wanted to, not because their sexuality set them up for it.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Everybody gets their own phobia these days, huh? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No - every notable referenced topic (such as this one) gets its own article. Mdwh (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging this page with homophobia. In response to it being too short, i plan to expand this page further and have a series of academic sources on my user page that i plan to use to do so.Mduno (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Mduno, this is a very old discussion; look at the time stamps. No one is going to merge this article with the Homosexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, I see that now. Thank you.Mduno (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

POV mess

This article is an unsourced POV mess. The comments about male swingers are particularly odd. forestPIG 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the swinger reference - what else do you think is a problem? Mdwh (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I've just carried out a major overhaul salvaging the main ideas while eliminating any fingerpointing of groups. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw your "Major overhaul" in my Watch List I was very nervous, since in regards to any LGBT articles that USUALLY means "getting rid of those annoying bisexual people". But hey I think this was a pretty good start!

If you don't mind I added some terms to the "See also" and removed the book. I think it and a bunch of other "classics" should go under "Further reading". Also under item one (1) "Current issues of debate" I put a note to see the Kinsey Scale and the Klein Grid and I think the Klein grid should be added to item five (5). Sorry I think that item six (6) is a bit dubious or should included in LUGS/BUGS, Myspace Bisexuals and Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" et al.

Also I think we very much need a discussion of the virulent biphobia WITHIN the Gay/Lesbian Community including the ideas that (a) because some people call themselves bisexual before they have the nerve to "come out" as gay/lesbian then ALL bisexuals are just in the closet; (b) the theory that it bisexuality dilutes the "purity" to the Gay/Lesbians Movement and Culture; (c) that bisexuality gives bigots the false ideas that sexuality is a choice and therefore harms the "real" Gay/Lesbian movement (d) that bisexuals are just Gay/Lesbian people cynically trying to reap the "rewards" of acting straight, etc., etc. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words, the more so in that I personally understand your dread. Also, I'm glad that someone has finally continued improving a LGBT article once I've overhauled it. Beyond acceptable reason of doubt and good will, it seems that participants cloaked in Wikipedia's guidelines, toting a hidden anti-LGBT agenda, and armed with specious arguments tend to dominate. Attempts at undermining sound, good-quality LGBT articles is, unfortunately, the norm.

However, I do want to point out that it doesn't matter whether or not I "mind" if you add things! :-) Obviously, Wikipedia is an open, joint project. As for my opinion, well, as long as people truly improve a given article, then I'm content. My only concern is a general one: redundancy. You see, there already is a "bi-box" at the bottom, links to articles are repeated, and in the See also section there is redundancy of, albeit extremely important everywhere, bisexual erasure (has a link, its own ,and a direct to its own article). Nonetheless, opine that a certain degree of repetition is necessary for terms that people confuse. This is especially important because people can skip to a particular section thanks to the contents box and thereby miss the link to a key term. I would like someone t o write a line or two about bisexual erasure under its section so that there isn't just a line to link to the separate article. What's your opinion? --CJ Withers (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we decide to call "community" or "Community", that's a can of worms. Ignorance about bisexuality is just one topic on a shortlist of issues/problems/failures when discussing sexual minorities. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice if an overhaul involved use of citations and research, rather than rewriting the opinions - the majority is still uncited and looks like OR. But it looks better at least. I changed "myth" to "idea", as the former is promulgating a POV, and has no sources to back it up. I have no idea if whether of these "myths" are true or false, and i think no study has been conclusive either. How does an uncited article on wikipedia combat ignorance?YobMod 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, a sweeping generalization when perpetuated is called a myth and, of course, a sweeping generalization is an idea, albeit a misrepresentative one. Please read this definition: entries 2 and esp. 3. The overhaul included a re-write for NPOV and reference checks. For a true team project, I suggest more people contribute without "woulda-coulda-shouldas" and by carrying out their own recommendations. Also, the bisexual erasure article, and consequently, the sum-up need more work; that's why I did not offhandedly cut and paste the lead-in, as was just done. If no one gets around to it, and can keep from victimizing or finger-pointing social groups, like the in the former version of the biphobia article and the current lesbophobia article, I'll probably end up doing it at some time. Also, while we're at it, when did Wikipedia start promulgating? *chuckle* We all know that just because something has a cited work tagged to it, does not make it accurate or neutral, hence my checking. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that they are meanings 2 and 3 of myth, while meaning 1 gives it a POV. Lesbophobia does not say "One myth is lesbian bed death, etc" - it reports the study and the refutations.

I add citations to articles every single day, but am not Bi and know next to nothing about biphobia - some of us come here to learn, and pointing out a lack of citation is meant to be helpful. If there are no citations, i learn only one wiki-editor's opinion - which feels like an arbitary decree (hence the metaphor: to promulgate). I agree the Bi erasure needs work, but having an empty section here looked bad, and everything i ported across was cited.

I know it is a work in progress, and the injection of MoS was good, but want to emphasise that without sources, some readers will simply see the article as made-up whole-cloth. Eg. Research has been done into promiscuity amoungst gay men, lesbians and heteros, so i would be suprised if there are none on bisexuals (especially considering the sterotypes that exist), and sources debating the studies' qualities. Ignoring such studies could even be a type of bisexual erasure! ;-).

Forwhat it's worth, i answer 90% of the requests for assessment as the LGBT project (maybe you think assessment is a waste of time, but others do not), and would say this is currently C class, not B. How would people feel about making this the LGBT project collaboration of the month for april?YobMod 07:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There was and is no problem with "myth". People will not think, as you say, that "Bisexuals do not exist" is a myth with the meaning "a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form". Therefore, no POV problem with an extraneous meaning exists. Come on! :-) What actually exist are bisexual people, whether it's because of their sexual orientation, sexual behavior or self-identification. Would you also say that the misconceptions "gays and lesbians do not exist" or "transsexuals do not exist" do not constitute myths?

What surprised me more was how you could say the overhaul was only visual and that "it would have been nice..". False on the first part and bad phrasing/attitude on the second. The overhaul was a major one in that despite useful brainstorming, the tone, organization, sentence structure, wording, and terminology left much to be desired. In fact, the article as a text was incoherent and read more as a refute of the 2002 study. That is why I _contributed_. Mine were obvious improvements, which anyone could have made and which you seemed to have missed or decided not to point out. Maybe you should look at these aspects of all articles before dismissing real improvements. Plus, remember that good articles generally just don't appear overnight. Also, in my view, "reaching" the next letter does not sum up the process of how articles actually evolve, for improvement depends on several factors, and not simply an obsession with referencing every single observable truth. Lastly, I urge you please to encourage others with positive comments as well, i.e. what was good. Otherwise, it's negative criticism, as in the metaphorical use of "promulgate".

I'm glad I invested my time and was able to make this article a readable, receptive base on which to build. I'm looking forward to others' collaborations and improvements.

Now, I'm not sure about making this article the LGBT project of the month because the Homophobia one needs a lot of help and on several levels. What will be nice is a truly constructive assessment of the Heterosexism article. --CJ Withers (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You link to a page with definition showing why it is biased, but ignore them:

2a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief". (1849) 2c. "A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth."

No worries about the collaboration, we'll find something else.YobMod 16:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC

I want to reference this term somewhere in WP, as i do believe its a notable pejorative, but im not sure where to add it. i cant find a place where there is already a list, however short, of pejorative terms for sexual orientation. and since it is a pejorative, i want to make sure its inclusion doesnt constitute pejorative speech, ie vandalism. I would like to add "A pejorative term for bisexuals is AC/DC", with the following reference: http://out.ucr.edu/pdf/BiBasics.pdf, which mentions its use as a pejorative. i would then be able to have a link from AC/DC (disambiguation) where the term is located, to an actual article. would this be appropriate here? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

revert of "is anyone bisexual?" reference

The article addition incorrectly summarized this blogger: .com/Gay-&-Lesbians/Can-Anyone-be-Truly-Bisexual.815035. the blog asked why SOME straight people incorrectly id themselves as bisexual. It acknowledged the existence of bisexuality. it didnt say (and a blogger cant be considered a qualified commentator anyway) that bisexuals are really straight. A more prominent article that doesnt acknowledge the existence of true bisexuality, and claims that they are straights just wanting attention, would be needed. I see it as a trivial point that some people would identify as something they are not for any particular reason. in fact, regarding this blog, that would be an argument for pervasive BIPHILIA, as normally people will not voluntarily ID with a group that is shunned, unless something is overridingly compelling about doing so. I wanted to make clear my reasons for reverting on the talk page. if i am off base on this, i am open to discussion or reinstatement.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because socyberty is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, I had to remove the socyberty link before I could archive this page. Above, I restored the "this blogger" link, but I put a space in between "socyberty" and ".com" so that the above post resembles itself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I could have also opted for that option first instead of removing the link altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Biphobia and homophobia, again

I added a quick reference to the fact that homophobia and biphobia do have some common ground; to be honest, I was quite surprised not to see this mentioned before: a homophobe will not be more accepting of two men sleeping together if these men are bisexuals than they would be if the guys were gay. In other words, homophobia could be considered to be a subset of biphobia. I thought this was important to say. Now, I know that the article should insist on what makes biphobia a specific phenomenon, instead of making it seems like another type of homophobia, but pretending that the two of them are not related to each other will lead nowhere. Masorick (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, no. A homophobe is about discriminating against people specifically because they sleep with the same sex, biphobia is more, imo, the disbelief that people can be attracted to more than one sex. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly homophobia is not a subset of biphobia. But I don't think the latter is purely about disbelief that people can be attracted to more than one sex; my experience is that biphobia often incorporates elements of homo- and heterophobia. For some straight bigots, bisexual people are worse than gay people because they're dirty queers who are also after their (wo)men; this is partly about aversion to the idea of being attracted to two sexes, but not entirely—the "dirty queer" bit is essential to understanding the attitude. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for gay bigots. In other words, biphobia overlaps with homophobia and heterophobia, but none of them is a subset of any of the others. garik (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was bad phrasing on my part; what I meant was that homophobes tend to be biphobes, while biphobes are not necessarily homophobes. Otherwise, we pretty much agree.

Masorick (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we entirely agree. And the article, I think, captures things pretty well currently. garik (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Biphobia is 1/3 Puritanism, 1/3 Homophobia, and 1/3 Heterophobia. The article carefully circumnavigates the last part. Gays regard bisexuality as personal threat, and the "Bisexual", instead of regarding themselves as 'just normal' have fallen to the trap by building their own sex-only pressure group, to be subpressed by the puritans. Congratulations! --88.66.31.9 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Masorick, you are correct in saying that biphobes arn't necessarily homophobes however there are some straight supremacists who do place bisexuals above homosexuals in the hierarchy due to the fact they still have heterosexual intercourse. I'm not saying all the rest of the stuff that was said was wrong and in many ways the B is being erased from LGB and the T is suffering far worse than even the B. There are people who do treat bisexuals worse than homosexuals. Altogether though Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia are closely related forms of discrimination that all due the same damage. I'm proud of my bisexual friends especially those who are allies in my gender struggle as a genderqueer person but as my old sociology teacher used to tell me if we keep playing the oppression olympics saying "oh, I have it worse" that we are basically letting the White Christian Upper-Class Heterosexual Man win because we can't even stop bickering with eachother. Just alitttle food for thought.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality & sex phobia.

Can biphobia describe the combined heterophobia & homophobia in asexuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make any sense. Asexuality denotes a lack of sexual interest, not necessarily an aversion towards other people having it. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Title of page and source of its definition

This page about aversion to bisexuality would benefit from a more appropriate title, because "biphobia" is a neologism that is not in widespread use. In addition, the reference used to define it is Ref. 1, which is a primary (not secondary) source. 212.159.102.166 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC) KJN

I agree. In fact, I'm dubious that this exists as a topic. I get the feeling someone made this article based on the bad criteria of well, we have a topic for homophobia, gayphobia, lesphobia, so it's logical to add the missing one. Gronky (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. While I agree "biphobia" is not as widely known as "homophobia", neither is bisexuality as widely known as homosexuality. Certainly within the LGBT community biphobia is a well-known term, and it's even practiced by some LGBT people, who may feel that bi people are merely gay and in denial. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

IP and Gronky, the title of this article is not a WP:Neologism violation; see what WP:Neologism states; the title of this article is not a WP:Neologism violation because the term biphobia is widespread in scholarly and media use. People usually know what is meant by biphobia. And, Gronky, I am tempted to revert you on this removal since you made the section inadequate; that is not a good WP:Summary style at all. The section should summarize the study for the context as to why organizations call the study biphopic. Readers can read more about it in the Bisexuality article. If you do not revert yourself on that removal, I will-re-add a significant portion of the material. And, Mattbuck, as for bisexuality vs. homosexuality, both are equally well known, especially since bisexuality is an aspect of homosexuality, though homosexuality (meaning as a whole) is more well-studied than bisexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

People know what it means because it's self explanatory.

My edit to the article is unrelated to my comment here. The details of methods of measuring arousal are not relevant to biphobia, nor are subsequent studies which confirmed or refuted the original study. This article shouldn't even take a position on whether the study has merit -- that's for an article about bisexuality or the debate over whether bisexuality exists (if such an article exists). If there's an article about those topics then the old text from this article would be useful as a summary there. In this article, it was just off-topic filler. I can't see any removed sentences which could be re-added which would make this article more informative about biphobia. Gronky (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Gronky (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), people also know what it means because many people are well-educated. This is an article about biphobia; and as such, it should include material, with WP:Reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources), about things that are considered biphobic; that includes the study in question. Such material, including views on whether or not bisexuality exists, belong in the Bisexuality article, the Biphobia and Bisexual erasure article (that is unless the Bisexual erasure article is ever merged into the Biphobia article, which should only happen after WP:Consensus is achieved on that). The in-depth information about biphobia should be in the Biphobia article. And the in-depth material about bisexual erasure should be in the Bisexual erasure article. Wikipedia is not taking a stance on any of this, as is made clear at WP:Valid. In the case of studies and some other material, we can decide if the content is better addressed in-depth in this article or one of the other articles, but even so, the content should be appropriately summarized. I don't feel that this is appropriately summarized, and it currently doesn't even point to the section that addresses it in greater detail. Your cut has made that content more "off-topic filler" than it was before. This is why I stated that if you do not add a better summary for that section, I will. And there is no Gayphobia article, by the way; well, it exists, but as the Homophobia article; the term gayphobia is a redirect to the Homophobia article, as it should be. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reason to believe I'm "well-educated", and well-read, and slightly better informed about LGBT issues than the average, but I'd never heard of biphobia before seeing it on Wikipedia. Gronky (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm well educated, well-read and much better informed about mathematics or railways then most people, but I've never heard of most of the topics in those areas. Besides, we don't restrict our coverage to what is well-known, that would be self-defeating. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to the claim that "people also know what [biphobia] means because many people are well-educated". I think there are a lot of well-educated people who've never heard of biphobia. Even after reading this article, if someone told me they were biphobic I would assume they mean they have two phobias. Gronky (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, per what was recently stated at the Bisexuality article about this study, my summary of the study (if it comes down to me summarizing the content) will include both sides; meaning the side indicating that study is not automatically biphobic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The text I removed included neither side of any topic related to biphobia. I never said the summary was one-sided, I said it was off-topic. If you think you can give a summary that's better than the current remaining text, then that would be great. The current remaining text is short, but it's on-topic (although the relevance of the last sentence is debatable and I was tempted to delete it). Gronky (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the text you removed needed work, as is also clear by this discussion; I simply didn't agree with a huge removal that I felt left the section inadequate as to what it is about. Anyway, I will come up with a better summary. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Update (new post cutting in between old posts above and below): This is a better summary of the content; I restored a little of what you removed. I'm not going to expand the section beyond that, after all. Instead, I added a "Further information" link. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22:, I must come back against your assertion that "bisexuality [and] homosexuality, both are equally well known, especially since bisexuality is an aspect of homosexuality". That is completely false. First off, bisexuality is not nearly so well known as homosexuality - if it were, people wouldn't think that one same-sex experience makes you "gay". As for bisexuality being an aspect of homosexuality, that is also false. Bisexuality is neither an aspect of homosexuality nor an aspect of hetersexuality - it's something intersecting but distinct from each. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattbuck, no need to WP:Ping me to this section. My statement that "bisexuality [and] homosexuality, both are equally well known, especially since bisexuality is an aspect of homosexuality" is not false. Do you have any evidence to show that they are not equally well known? I understand that homosexual or gay are more readily used in some countries, including often in the United States, than bisexual is, which is what some sources refer to as bisexual erasure; so in that regard, I can understand bisexuality being less well known than homosexuality. But people generally know of both terms these days. As for my evidence, scholarly and media sources indicate that they are equally well known, and some of them indicate that homosexuality (as a whole) is far more studied. And as for bisexuality not being an aspect of homosexuality, I don't understand how you've come to that conclusion; homosexuality is any same-sex romantic and/or sexual attraction or any same-sex sexual activity, as is made clear in the Homosexuality article and by its sources. I am not talking about the term homosexual, which is more often used to refer to a person whose sexual orientation is strictly homosexual. I am talking about the flexibility of the term homosexuality. And as is seen at Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 4#Requested move (2), it is more flexible than simply being used to refer to a person's sexual orientation. The Homosexual behavior in animals article clearly usually uses the terms homosexual and homosexuality to refer to behavior instead of to sexual orientation, and the reasons why are noted in that article and in the move discussion I linked to. Likewise, scholars commonly use the terms homosexual and homosexuality to refer to same-sex sexual behavior when regarding humans and not only same-sex sexual attraction when regarding humans. The offensiveness and/or flexibility of the term homosexual and/or homosexuality has also been discussed various times at WP:LGBT; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles.

Stating that bisexuality is not an aspect of homosexuality is like stating that biphobia is not an aspect of homophobia; and like I noted in this recent discussion at Talk:Homophobia, while pointing to scholarly sources, it is false to state that homophobia does not include biphobia; I stated there, "And biphobia is obviously an aspect of homophobia because bisexuality involves homosexuality and many people object to any same-sex romantic and/or sexual activity." If you want, I can provide scholarly sources for my assertions that you took issue with above, like I did in the recent case of an editor defining the term gay strictly, or in this recent case of an editor defining the term lesbian strictly, but it is a pain pulling together all those sources, especially when editors can make the trip to Google Books themselves. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Effects of Biphobia

I would like to add a new section about the effects of biphobia that detail some of the risks that bisexuals encounter due to biphobia. Using the sources that I mention below I want to talk about mental and sexual health issues that many bisexuals have significantly higher rates of due to the specific discrimination that they face and the hesitations they often have about talking about their sexual orientations with doctors and psychiatrists.

Sources:

1. V Gonzales, K M Washienko, M R Krone, L I Chapman, E M Arredondo, H J Huckeba, and A Downer. Sexual and drug-use risk factors for HIV and STDs: a comparison of women with and without bisexual experiences. American Journal of Public Health December 1999: Vol. 89, No. 12, pp. 1841-1846.

2. Pompili, Maurizio, David Lester, Alberto Forte, Maria Elena Seretti, Denise Erbuto, Dorian A. Lamis, Mario Amore, and Paolo Girardi. "Bisexuality and Suicide: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature." The Journal of Sexual Medicine J Sex Med (2014): n. pag. Web.

3. Bostwick, Wendy. "Assessing Bisexual Stigma and Mental Health Status: A Brief Report." Journal of Bisexuality 12.2 (2012): 214-22. Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduno (talk • contribs)

Mduno, when it comes to the Mental and sexual health effects section you added, or any health material, make sure that you are sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. This, for example, means usually avoiding WP:Primary sources. Wikipedia also usually goes by lowercase for headings; see MOS:HEAD. This is why I changed the heading style for section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Mduno, as indicated with these tweaks I made to your latest edits, keep WP:REFPUNCT in mind. Also consider being consistent with the quotation mark style already used in the article. And if something is already linked in the article, it usually does not need to be linked again; see WP:Overlinking. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I would improve upon the imagery, as there is none, and perhaps the content, as the idea is abstract, but could be grounded more in the realm of the treatment of bisexuality in general. The imagery is hard to determine, however, as there is so little to physically represent this topic in terms of images. DCirillo14 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)DCirillo14

I agree with DCirillo14 about the imagery. More neutrality would also probably be good along with some discussion of the discrimination faced by bisexuals from both heterosexuals and homosexuals along with the false idea of bisexuals being privileged in the LGBT+ community for being able to "pass" as straight. (Not sure how much literature there is on this, just comments I've noticed in my own experiences). Abergin13 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi MDuno, you made some great changes to the article! However, I think you could maybe try phrasing your "In the Media" section a little more neutrally, or perhaps just explicitly say which source these ideas are coming from. In addition, as DCirillo14 stated, I think a couple nice illustrations would enhance your article. I also think it would be cool if you added more testimonials to the case studies section, or perhaps talked about biphobia around the world. Other than these things, though, great job on the article. Azhao96 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi MDuno! Thank you for working to expand this article; I really enjoyed reading it! I have a few suggestions for improvement. First, careful about using phrases like "of course" in order to maintain a neutral tone of voice throughout. Your writing style is very clear, but in a few points you were inconsistent (using capital letters and then lowercase letters, using double quotation marks and then single quotation marks, etc.). If you could fix these issues and hopefully add another image, I would see no problems with the article. Great job!! Athomas1995 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

I really enjoyed reading your contribution as biphobia isn't really a topic that I've heard or learned a lot about. The information you add is clearly relevant, especially the section on media representation as it's an issue that many, if not all marginalized groups face. However, in that section, I would add more clarity on what the terms really mean and how they manifest in real-life discrimination. I also really liked the section on case studies, which has a lot of potential of introducing the significance of researching and being aware of case studies of marginalized groups and individuals. The main thing is probably linking to other Wikipedia articles, especially all of the movies and celebrities that you mention, who I think all have Wikipedia pages. Linking to the movies would be helpful if the reader wanted to learn more about the specific movie.

MYao (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)MYao

Case study

The case studies section needs to be either rewritten or at least renamed. The section only refers to people experiences and doesn't actually include any results of studies. It also uses way too long direct quotes instead of summarizing the content. JDDJS (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the media

After realizing that the one sourced "In the Media" section was fairly new, I fell that it should be removed until a better source section can be written. One single essay on the topic was written as fact and the other paragraph was clearly written in a POV way. I moved the criticism of a specific case study to the case study section. JDDJS (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

JDDJS, regarding this edit you made, see the #Effects of Biphobia and #Peer review sections above, if you haven't already seen them. Most of the content was part of a WP:Class assignment. For why those assignments often do not result in ideal outcomes, read WP:Class assignment. As for the Bailey material, it is not a case study about biphobia; it is a study that was criticized by portions of the media and the LGBT community as biphobic. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the Case studies section. So I made this and this edit to it. If you think the section is non-neutral because it only mentions that the study was criticized, we can include a bit of material there relaying Bailey's response. But the section points to the Bisexuality article for more detail on the study; we don't need to have all of that text that in both articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I added a brief counterargument to go with the brief mention of the criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

When I was referring to the POV paragraph, I meant the section about The Bachelor. That was clearly a very POV statement. The Bailey section I have no problem with, but I do appreciate the edits you made. JDDJS (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A few comments

This is a well-cited and substantial contribution on an important issue, nice work. I do have a few suggestions though:
- The case studies section is essentially just two anecdotes. This section should probably be either re-organized or removed
- the Bailey study subsection should probably be integrated into another part of the article, or could be expanded

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like any help. Thanks. GavinCross (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually bought up the same thing about the case studies not too long ago. I completely agree that it has to be re-written or removed. The Bailey study should be somewhere in the article, but it doesn't matter to me where. JDDJS (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bibrain.org/ControversyOverBaileyV2.0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

Hi, Kmwebber. Regarding cases like this one, make sure that the reference does not support the entire paragraph or more than one sentence before marking part of the paragraph as needing a citation. Sometimes a paragraph will have one reference because that one reference supports the entire paragraph. Due to WP:Citation overkill concerns, an editor might not use the reference to support each sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the recent edit history of the Asexuality article, you can see that you at first thought that a sentence was unsourced. You then duplicated the source with a WP:REFNAME. I reverted it as being unnecessary citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22 Reborn I will keep this in mind while editing in the future. I very much appreciate your comments. Kmwebber (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

Add to "Denialism" Under Negative Stereotypes

I was considering adding a bit under this discussing how coming out as bisexual has recently been seen as a trend and therefore is leading people to believe that bisexuality isn't real. I want to add "Coming out as bisexual has been seen as "trendy" as bisexuality gains more attenion within the LGBT community and within media." I think this would probably fit best before discussing how bisexuality is also seen as "fashionable". -Sddone01 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biresource.org/pamphlets/glossary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701174350/http://out.ucr.edu/pdf/BiBasics.pdf to http://out.ucr.edu/pdf/BiBasics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413152614/http://blogs.villagevoice.com:80/dailymusto/archives/2009/04/ever_meet_a_rea.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2009/04/ever_meet_a_rea.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216065035/http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/MagArticle.cfm?Article=475&PageID=0 to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/MagArticle.cfm?Article=475&PageID=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140216071740/http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/bisexuality to http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/bisexuality
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2008/10/27/greys-anatomy-s-3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928141453/http://gaybookreviews.info/review/2488/548 to http://gaybookreviews.info/review/2488/548
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922114218/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/ to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/donna-haraway/articles/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Article revisions

I've done a bit of reorganization, merging, and trimming material in the article. There was quite a bit of redudancy, repetition, and disorganization left over from past mergers and tangents, including paragraphs that simply repeated content and themes from Bisexuality, Bisexual erasure, and Monosexuality. I kept "stubs" of those topics in various places along with links to the proper articles. Other structural changes I made were to take "Denial" out of the "Negative stereotypes" section (because "we don't exist" isn't really a stereotype) and put them under a "Forms of biphobia" header, and to combine the Feminist and Race perspectives into a single umbrella section about Intersectionality. I know this is a lot of changes, but sometimes it's best to roll up the sleeves rather than tinker here and there. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biphobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821003341/http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/iwa/findingaids/html/CommonlIves.html to http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/iwa/findingaids/html/CommonlIves.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)