Talk:Biphobia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biphobia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Psychology C‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

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.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Feminist views on sexual orientation was copied or moved into Biphobia with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biphobia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mduno. Peer reviewers: DCirillo14, Abergin13, Azhao96, Athomas1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iampompompurin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs many more citations -- too much original research and writing point of view[edit]

This article currently needs many more citations. Much of the text appears as assertions, with no citations. Pete unseth (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the text should be revised, right? Which sections do you see as making assertions without citations? --Historyday01 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted addition of content about gendered biphobia[edit]

I have reverted this edit but I think that there might be something in it. The problem was that it didn't fit well in the Intersectional perspectives section. Is there a valid home for it somewhere else? Should we have a new section where we talk about how biphobia can affect men, women and others differently? Should we rename the "Women's issues" section to "Feminism" to make it more clear what it is actually about? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection of men (gender) and bisexuality (sexual orientation) is by definition an intersectional topic. Similarly, feminism theoretically addresses gender equality in a way which helps men as well as women. Intersectionality does not only cover "oppressed" groups, and in this instance the bias is empirically against men.79.155.33.104 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that intersectionality by its nature includes men, women, and other genders. It's about gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, and many other factors. I'm not sure what the problem was with your addition or why it was reverted. Hist9600 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My problem was with the placement of the additional content, not the content itself. I think my recent edit addresses this while keeping the new material. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can fix it if we just change the headings a bit. I've had a go at that and I think it sort-of works. Do we like this or does it need more rethinking?

What I am thinking now is that the new gender section only has a section on men and it needs a section on women and maybe also a section on nonbinary people. The feminism section is not the women section we need. The feminism section is good but it is its own thing about feminism and I think that should stay as it is. For the women section we want to talk about elements of biphobia that disproportionately affect bi women. e.g. men fetishising their bisexuality, being made unwelcome in women's spaces and hence having less of a support network, etc. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Monosexism" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Monosexism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Monosexism until a consensus is reached. MikutoH (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Monosexist" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Monosexist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § Monosexist until a consensus is reached. MikutoH (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]