From: osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Stonewall 25
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:49:39 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

In article <1992Aug15.025105.1222@guvax.georgetown.edu>
mnorth@guvax.georgetown.edu writes:

>ILGA CONFERENCE DECIDES NAME AND DEMANDS OF 1994 INTERNATIONAL MARCH

This statement tries to list as many groups as possible in most of the
demands such that it is of general benefit and not just for gays, lesbians
and bisexuals eg. the race, social background etc. stuff. Yet somehow
transvestite, transsexual, transgender and any other labels you care to
invent have been totally neglected. I can understand wanting to prevent
titles becoming too much of a mouthful, but I'm a bit miffed that TV/TS is
never mentioned even once. OK so I understand that this is a LesBiGay
movement not a transvestite movement, and also there is a danger of
perpetuating the popular myth that all transvestites are gay, but a bit of a
mention eg. "lesbian, biseuxal, gay and all other gender and sexual related
issues" would have been nice. The statements also don't include group
marriages, incest, bondage, nudism and any number of other sexual/gender
things. A waffly umbrella statement could have covered all of these
(particularly useful if laws etc. get passed) without detracting from the
main thrust too much.

It seems to me that the other stuff that has been included is pretty much
accepted anyway and was only included to give the illusion of being well
rounded, so that in fact the only contentious stuff is the LesBiGay content.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that transvestites are much less
accepted and suffer much more harrasment and stigma than "queer" people do.
I know this sounds like a "I get bashed more than you do" statement, but
I've been thinking of saying this for a while and this conference stuff
brought it all out. Go ahead, flame me, I probably deserve it.

> INTERNATIONAL MARCH ON THE UNITED NATIONS TO AFFIRM THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF 
>LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE, JUNE 26, 1994  NEW YORK CITY USA

The fact that BISEXUAL is missing from this will possibly do us more
harm than the good we get from the whole thing. The last thing we want to
do is re-inforce existing black/white stereotypes.

>9.  The General Assembly of the UN proclaim an International Year of
>Lesbian and Gay People (possibly 1999);

It ain't going to happen folks, which is a good job as the word "Bisexual"
is missing.

>Some second hand information follows,
>a. Bi was not included in the March title because of the objections of 
>of Asians, notably Indians, Malaysians, and Thai

Oh great. If they don't like it, they can go shove it up their arse. Ye
gods! How are we to gain acceptance for bisexuals among the norms when some
of the people we're trying to work with don't even accept that we exist?
What is their problem anyway - some religious bullshit? I hate politics -
it always involves compromise and results that absoloutely nobody wanted.

>b. Bi is included in full in all the demands except for the 
>International Year of L/G people because that effort was already 
>underway and in the endorsement stage of organizing.

So what. Anything that has been done can be re-done, and redoing it usually
takes a lot less time than it took the first time round too.

>c. Brenda Howard (NYC) serves on the stonewall committee and deserves 
>credit for the Bisexual inclusions.

And I hope she hates asians as much as I do :-). I've always had a bit more
mild, irrational xenophobia for asians than for other groups, and now I have
something I can justify it with :-).

Owen (in an "if I was *only* bisexual all my problems would be solved" mood)