lovingboth | Prompted by some conversations at EBC2

Current Mood: angry

Entry tags:

highlights,
site

Prompted by some conversations at EBC2

If the UK bi community fell under a (rather small fleet of) buses tomorrow, would anyone notice?

I don't think so.

With the exception of Jen's efforts in Manchester, the last serious bits of collective dealing with the outside world we had were London's Pride - getting the name changed in 1996, and the tents at the festival in 96 and 97 - and BiFest in 99.

Since then, what? We've had BiCons. Yay the organisers. We're still to beat the attendance record of 1991 though, and it's been a while since we had anyone significant from outside groups coming to talk with us. (A panel I chaired back in Edinburgh 99, I think. I'm suggesting names in the hope it will be better this year.)

Some bis have done stuff as bisexuals in other organisations - eg Grant and Elizabeth (and Anna Maria before she went off) with the Sexual Freedom Coalition. Yay them. Not least because SFC actually does stuff as well as have fun.

Yay too to Jen for her 'if it doesn't move, ask it for funds' approach. (Even if I sometimes think some things that would be cheap and easy don't get done because they get complicated by seeking funding.) And double yay Jen for doing so much for BCN. But there are some very noticeable omissions from the subscribers list, and it's not really distributed outside the community.

Some readers may remember that at the end of the first EuroBiCon, some people from Belgium got upset at some others for not working with the lesbian and gay communities more and for pointing out that not all of the rest of the happy queer family were nice to bisexuals.

The alternative style they didn't like was personal liberation - 'trying to fuck yourselves free' was the memorable summary.

And it's obviously the way things have gone here. Ten years ago LBG was a thriving, outward looking, mixed social and political space. Now Fridays are split into a dismal small self-support group for men that retains the name, and a slightly larger 'party party party' clique that has the fun.

But what, beyond the individual level of some good times, some serious hangovers and various life-shortening habits, has been the result?

Some recent developments in the health promotion field have me jumping up and down in anger. But while I blame the people who've taken huge piles of cash for work with gay and bisexual men - and then promptly and deliberately dropped the 'and bisexual' bit when it comes to doing the work - I also think that we're not entirely blame-free.

By opting out into the personal liberation attitude, fun though it can be, we've let them get away with it.

Pride didn't change its name because we sat around moaning - and there had been a lot of that. They were prodded into coming to BiCon 13, then lots of people joined, and some actually did something to make the tents the huge successes they were.

Now, the gay scene may be a over-commercialised ghetto, with some dodgy businessmen interested in grabbing some pink pounds for themselves, and Stonewall a private club that delayed at least one law reform by a year due to incompetence and sucking up to a Labour government, but it's extremely difficult to ignore gay men. (The only people more ignored than lesbians are bisexual women of course...)

Witness the "gay marriage" partnership proposals currently out for consultation. No bisexual input, especially on the 'only one' aspect, was ever wanted or offered.

It's equal now despite Stonewall's best efforts, but even though a differential age of consent was another absolutely blatant 'bisexual issue', no-one ever bothered to contact us, never mind involve us. Why should they? Who would they ask?

'We agreed - no leader!' 'Right. So shut up and do as I say!'

Along with the dash for personal liberation has been the Time Bandits approach to leadership.

Its huge advantage is that if someone wants to do something, they can. If I had thought having EBC3 in the UK was a good idea, I could have committed to doing it on the spot. The Germans who did offer had to do so provisionally - they need to ask the rest of their national organization's board.

I quite like that. I think that freedom should continue.

But what we miss out on are the advantages of having something between BiCons. Certain decisions have dragged on for years as successive BiCon sessions have gone 'ooh, that's too complicated / difficult, let's put it off until next year.'

(Of course, even organisations with continuing structures can do that -

softfruit and

vampwillow, have the LibDems ever got around to deciding their position on the Elgin Marbles? Twenty years ago, putting that one off for next time was already a tradition almost as old as the sculptures themselves...)

And when something does happen or someone - gasp - does want to get in touch, what happens? Nothing usually.

The two approaches are not incompatible - while there's a national Dutch Bi Network, just try stopping Dutch people doing their thing!

So why don't we have a national body too?

The basic reason is that the people who tried back in 99 were the wrong people and went about it the wrong way. Spurred on by Dr F Patronising, they formed the British Bisexual Federation and probably never got above three members.

At the time, I was one of the people who said the idea was stupid anyway. We don't need no stinking organization. Now, I'm not so sure.

For all the bitchy comments about it, the LBG's constitution was very simple. You have members. Once a year, they elect some people. They can do what the fuck they like, but the members can have a meeting to throw them out if they go too far.

It made it clear who was running it, and for how long, and what you could do about it.

I think that's a reasonable model for an organization that actually wants to do something. And I'd quite like to have people do something, not least because I think there's a lot that needs doing.

Looking around, we're being fucked over the health promotion issue. Bisexuals are considerably less popular with the public than either gay men or lesbians (it's the non-monogamy issue!). Bisexuals have worse mental health on average and to my knowledge, no-one in the health field has ever done anything about that. There are still organizations that are rabidly biphobic. You can probably add some more, but do you care?

[Poll #154791]

Whatever the answer, I'd love to hear your comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

An outreach and campaigning group would be a good idea, I feel. I think any organisation would need to have a very definite set of goals before I'd join it.

Although we're annoyingly unaware of how much good it's done us (yet) this year's BiCon has mailshotted every single university Student's Union in the UK with flyers about BiCon - using the rolling bicon.org.uk url.

I don't need to add that this would be a fascinating discussion to have away from an electronic medium, at (for example) a large gathering of bisexuals...

Experience means as far as the idea is concerned, I would rather present something that already exists, having been sorted out over a few weeks, than try to have the necessary discussions in a session at BiCon.

What such a body could do would be a good session.

I think you're wise to float this in advance and thrash it out!

What such a body could do would be a good session

For me, though, this is the critical issue, and until I have a clear idea in my own head I can't really answer the poll question.

It doesn't make sense to create the structure for an organisation before you have a good idea of what it will do. If you want to do media rent-a-quotes/rapid rebuttal, you might well want a very different form of organisation than if you want a Bicon's Older Sibling that can step in to pick up the pieces the next time the organisers fall down.

There are lots of things that could be done - but I don't think that it's the lack of a formal organisation that's stopping us. Certainly some organisation in the general sense would help. But I'd be happier to give support to formalise the arrangements for an existing ad-hoc group that felt they needed it than to make some formal arrangements and hope that activists would flock to the exciting new company-limited-by-guarantee or what-have-you. I'm the sort of person who is interested in the fine distinctions of different legal entities, but I doubt it's something that fires up many people.

Further (and perhaps this is a key point), I'd be much more likely to chip in myself as an activist to a group that was doing things I supported than a group that had a formal structure I approved of but that hadn't yet decided what it was going to do.

I think the use of bicon / bcn money for outreach to students is a good thing, but if we ever get more than a couple of students along to bicon in the same year as the promo work they are responding to it'll be a miracle. However, there are matters of visibility and awareness beyond the immediate "how many booking for how much promo spend" economics.

...*nods* which is why our second wave of flyers (heading out soon) aren't 2003 specific.

We'll be passng on any leftovers to you.

I'd be opposed to a national bi organisation that presented itself as representing all or most bisexuals. Anything that's called something like The Bisexual Federation can't help doing that. The alternative of *a* bisexual organisation, like Outrage for bi's, I might be happier with. The problem is that for the media profile to work (and hence for it to get asked its opinion on anything) organisations of that type seem to either have to pretend to represent all of their interest group (Stonewall) or do high profile media stunts (Outrage). The reasoned approach doesn't seem to go far.

Oh, and do you categorise things like getting an employer to change their policy on domestic partners to be part of the personal freedom approach? Because I did that, and I couldn't have done it without the bi community, in a roundabout way.

I'd be opposed to a national bi organisation that presented itself as representing all or most bisexuals.

Oh god yes - this was one of my main beefs with the BBF.

Is my mind playing tricks on me or was there once / for a while a media focussed group who set about replying to negative bi items in the press?

Now that I'd be very interested in seeing.

Oh ghod yes². It simply isn't possible, never mind sensible, to pretend otherwise.

One of the things I really like about the bi community is its diversity, even if in some areas, it's a bit like the bar in the Blues Brothers that had "all kinds of music: Country and Western!"

Yeah there was. I don't think anything ever happened with it though. Memory is telling me Jo Eadie was behind it.

Jo was one of the main bods, but they actually had at least a dozen members and wrote to a whole bunch of papers, getting published at least a few times.

Oh, good.

Agree totally.

I put irrelevant as rather simplistically you could say that I often wonder what the issues are. Maybe if I understood what the issues were I could be more supportive of "organising".

I'm going to do some thinking about this as it is something I've thought about before but want to get my mind in order (almost wrote 'get my mind straight' but thought better of it!).

One thing though - and the reason this is posted now - is that you've left off at least two options on your poll:

O Probably wrong, but I'd join if it existed in order to make it better
O unknown at this time but if you don't try you can never succeed

plus, of course, multiple answers might be appropriate! Typical b***y bisexuals - always wanting more than one!!

A few thoughts:

1: How different is the situation elsewhere? Is there a French BiCon or something similar?

2: I like the celebratory aspect of BiCon, it's a place where so many things are indulged as normal, and I think it's an important high point in the identity calendar of all of us.

3: What, precisely, would the group be campaigning for - that isn't covered already by other groups? By having a foot in both camps, I think it's essential to filter out what are Straight issues, Gay issues, SM issues, Poly issues and look at the core campaigning issues of bisexual people - universal experiences which we can all draw on.

4: Again, the difficulty is perhaps the very diversity of bisexuality, because for a lot of practicing bisexuals out there, their bisexuality isn't enough of an issue for them to self-identify to the extent of coming to BiCon and such like.

1. I don't think there's a French one in the UK mould. They do have the odd conference, but it's much more oriented at academics. Germany and the Netherlands have them regularly, and there's been one or two in places like Sweden.

2. Oh yes, yes and yes!

3. I'll post some of my thoughts soon. But I don't think you need exclusivity. The differential age of consent wasn't an issue just for bisexuals, for example.

4. Oh yeah, half the people who are bisexual in behaviour don't have any sexual identity, never mind a bisexual one.

1: Is there a campaigning group whose work we should try to emulate here? Perhaps even not a bisexuality group but some kind of equivalent.

2: I'm sure there'll be lots of that at BiCon ;)

3: I think the exclusivity thing is a snag for me - what is it that we could campaign to change differently or better than other groups? I think that as a disparate community there's a need to find common ground and also a focus for campaigning other than the "me too" campaigning of getting Gay things turned into Gay And Bisexual with no change in focus or content.

4: Isn't no sexual identity one of the aims of a bisexual movement? To normalise different sexual behaviour and to embrace fluidity we need to lose the categorisation of people by their sexual desires (and all the other things on the ~~Otto~~ Klein scale), so where are we heading? What's bisexual utopia, other than covered in goo?

4: Isn't no sexual identity one of the aims of a bisexual movement? To normalise different sexual behaviour and to embrace fluidity we need to lose the categorisation of people by their sexual desires (and all the other things on the Otto Klein scale), so where are we heading?

That's a recurring paradox in the bi community, in my experience.

Inclusivity and fluidity are definitely important cultural values for me, and groups where I find those tend to have a significant bi component - which is why I have "bisexual culture" on my interests list, rather than because I think there's anything intrinsically significant about a bisexual identity.

What's bisexual utopia, other than covered in goo?

*giggle* May I swipe that for a sigfile?

Be my guest, but I claim rights if it becomes a BiCon slogan ;)

Q: What is bisexual utopia, other than covered in goo?
A: BiCon!

Oh, and I resent "life-shortening habits". Given the amount the bi community has contributed to the safer sex habits and mental good health of its members, I feel certain our overall life expectancy has increased.

Smoking was the one I particularly had in mind, not least because of H-L's recent comments. It'll almost certainly kill more of us than HIV.

Eh?! In what way does the bi community encourage people to smoke? Or expose them to more smoke than an average social life which includes pubs?

most of the people I socialise with in the bi community don't smoke. Many of them used to; about a year or two ago when I first started spending a lot of time with the London Poly Bis, it seemed like about half of the group smoked at least occasionally. Now almost nobody does; I'm one of a very small minority who still smoke cigarettes, and I'm by no means a habitual smoker.

Boo hisss....

I'll meet you behind the bike sheds in 5 minutes?

*ahem*

let's keep the 'naughty schoolboy' imagery out of this, eh?!

Sure stuff...

With a quick *curtsey* I agree with some of that but I think part of your analysis is biased by the state of the bi scene in London rather than elsewhere. It does have a direct impact on the wider world though since so many people and organisations think the UK ends at Watford. (Sorry I didn't type that it were me whippet walking across t'keyboard).

We've got funding for 300 BCNs for distribution outside the subscriber list for the next 3 issues - if there are people who should be seeing it, name them. Oh, and give us the addresses.

I'm also quietly working on getting some Bigger Picture type projects into a state where they are worth sharing with the world, but for now I'll say no more.

Err, me! I've not had a BCN in yonks and I have tried and tried to get my new address to you!

We have BiCon to organise BiCon, we have BCN for communications, what was it we needed a national bisexual organisation for?

Oh yeah, to make a few people feel they were (doing something) important.

Provided there's someone from the bicon team each year and someone from BCN willing to be rentaquotes to the media then the public figure type angle is covered. Plus when they do get quoted, it promotes a bi "thing" rather than a loose networky thing.

We do have a few media whores, it's just a case of linking them up with the journo's.

I was someone who was involved in wanting to start the uk bi network. In hindsight calling it the BBF and the way we went about it
was misguided but the actual idea of having a bi activist Group was not.

BiCon can never be this nor can it of itself decide whether a campaining bi group can be setup or not. It is a Convention not a Conference; groups do not send delegates; it's a collection of individuals.

I believe such a group will eventally be set up, quite possibly by a group of bi people who:

a) have never heard of BiCon.
b) think BiCon is irrelevant
c) think BiCon may be a good place to meet old friends, make new friends and if lucky get a shag or two but that's it.
d) all of the above.

What I'm trying to get at is that there are thousands of bisexuals in the UK; some who are closeted and a hell of a lot who are not. Go take a look on the Gaydar personals website or Bi Bar website or the bi uk chat website. This is where most bi's who use the net frequent; they don't use bi.org or the uk bi mailing list. It is also interesting that quite a few swingers' clubs now have regular bi nights for both sexes. These are the places where bi's socialise; not BiCon or the London or Manchester bi group. It is these people who need to be made aware that there are a few bi groups they can go to.

If you want to change society's view of us, you have to get your point across to the media. They will only talk to you if you acually represent an organisation. The number of members Stonewall or Outrage have is small compared to the size of the gay community but this is where gay policy is decided. Precisely because of this, journalists know where to get a quote from. Once you get publicity people will join you. This is how organisations grow.

Here ends the lesson!!! :-)

Interesting post!

I've got that "more thoughts than time to write them" feeling about it, but here are some of my thoughts:

I'm reluctant to generalise about whether "a national bi organisation" is a good idea. Probably about 90% of my opinion on that would depend on what organisation and how it was done.

However, my feeling about it a.t.m. is that rather than one big organisation for everything, I'd be more inclined to argue for various national groups focusing on particular areas, being developed over time.

I would love to see the thing that

adjectivemarcus mentions - the media response task force thingy - happening again. If I were (re)inventing it, I would still envisage that organisation concentrating purely on that mission. It would respond in a timely way to any bi-relevant crap that got into the media (especially national media), but also do press releases with comments about the other news.

I don't know how close that is to what Jo & co did before, but I suspect that if that were done consistently for a year or so, journalists would gradually start to take the initiative and ring up for comments. I stress "consistently", and the key to that i.m.o. is having enough people to do the job without it all landing on about 3 or fewer people who then get burnt out.

Longer term, a group to concentrate on government lobbying would interest me greatly. (Obviously those people would stay in touch with the ones working on the media side even if it were a different organisation.) And I'd like to hear other suggestions of what national organisations might be for.

Why I'm drawn to the media thing first is that media stories could potentially lead fairly directly to more people hooking up with the community. Even if it's only because the words "A spokesperson from the Bisexuality Media Alliance" (or whatever) appear in a story somewhere, and somebody thinks "wow, unashamed out-bi people exist somewhere, I must find them".

Anything that doesn't have that direct and fairly immediate payback-of-investment potential, I would be far more cautious about launching into, because of the risk that it'll suck a lot of energy and then prove to be unsustainable. Even if it were a blatantly good cause.

To come at your argument from a slightly different direction: I have this sense that a sustainable activist contingent depends upon a thriving mostly-non-activist community, who pitch in when needed, and a few of whom are always gradually evolving into activists to replace the ones who leave.

I think about 90% of my activism in recent years has simply been aimed at reaching people who don't even know yet that the bi community exists, and making it safe (as in "emotionally possible") for people to come out as bi. Basically by education and local publicity. And my sense is that that groundwork is necessary, to build a critical mass which the gay male community has, and lesbians have to a lesser degree, and which as yet we are nowhere near.

Like, I have this sense that the kind of visible high-leverage activism you're mostly talking about is the fruit of a tree, and I feel like I'm mostly working on growing the tree... Or something :-)

At the Out & Out conference that the LGB Consortium ran in Nottingham in 2001, they had a guest speaker from East Midlands Voice (the Black & "ethnic minority" umbrella group). And they said this thing about: When the BME voluntary orgs began to suddenly get given resources, it didn't mean they were ready to take an equal place at the governmental table, and they needed to concentrate on developing their own strengths and building alliances among themselves first. And I heard a lot in what they said which I felt applied to the bi community.

personal liberation - 'trying to fuck yourselves free' was the memorable summary.

And it's obviously the way things have gone here.

Where is this "here" to which you refer? 'Cause it ain't here!!

Certain decisions have dragged on for years as successive BiCon sessions have gone 'ooh, that's too complicated / difficult, let's put it off until next year.'

::innocent look:: What decisions would those be, then, Ian?

::giggling to myself::

Seriously, if you mean the thing about financial structure for BiCons, I for one was not going "ooh, that's too complicated/difficult". I was going "This proposal is nowhere near ready for voting on at a plenary, and putting it to a plenary at this stage is a waste of time".

As counterexample, I refer you to the sterling contribution of

purplerabbits & co in Cambridge in 1998, on the BiCon guidelines. The interested parties got together, and kept going until all the recurring objections had been resolved and they'd created something resembling consensus (for that group of people). Then when they put it to the plenary, everyone could hear that yes, this was going to work. And, quelle surprise, it got voted in straight away, 'cause there were no snaggy "Yes but"s left for people to raise!

Now you might think that the BiCon financial structure is more controversial than that. And if so, you might be right, because I think there are some genuine either/or/or/or choices to be made there about which direction to go in. (Though you might also be forgetting how much relatively fruitless argument there was about "how to defend the true way of BiCon" before the Guidelines were invented. :-) ) So in this case it might not be "Here's one proposal, everyone says yes". It might be more "Here are two or three possible ways forward, each of which has its possible failure points ironed out and planned for, each of which has been looked over by our friendly bi lawyers and accountants... now we vote to choose among them". But that is still a lot different from what was on offer last year.

Of course you may have been thinking of some quite different issue that had been put off from year to year :-)

Just to clarify, when I chose "irrelevant" I meant "irrelevant to me". I have no problem with anyone who feels it would be relevant to them going ahead and organising one, though as

purplerabbits says, it shouldn't claim to represent all UK bisexuals.

I also somewhat resent the implication in your post that organising fun things isn't "doing stuff". You may consider it less important than overtly political activism, but that's down to your personal priorities. It's not a self-evident truth. Go ahead and organise whatever you like on behalf of yourself and anyone who agrees with you, but please don't act like it gives you any right to the moral high ground over those who are quietly getting on with implementing their own, different priorities.

And I also think it's somewhat inconsistent to argue that bisexuals should have had specific input on the "only one" aspect of partnership registration, while at the same time complaining that "the public" dislikes bisexuals more than lesbians and gay men because of the association with non-monogamy. (I think this is actually more of a meeja figment than a reality, fwiw). I also think that bisexuality and ethical non-monogamy should not be conflated for campaigning purposes, IMO, or the result will be a worse mess.

Organising fun things is activism, I quite agree. I'm delighted by it.

What I'm moaning about are the areas that haven't had so much attention. If that sounds like claiming the moral high ground, it's not meant to, and I'd welcome a way of putting it that didn't.

I don't think those two are inconsistent. What research has been done is quite clear, BTW.

I think government, church and public need education on the matter. And if not by us, by who? I can see the point that to mix up the two is not the best idea, but they already are mixed up!

For a single example, see the CofE's 'Issues in Human Sexuality' that's been in the news again recently:

5.8 [..] it is clear that bisexual activity must always be wrong, for this reason, if for no other, that it inevitably involves being unfaithful.

If that sounds like claiming the moral high ground, it's not meant to,

I think the problem for me was twofold. Firstly, your post seemed to take a hell of a lot for granted - that being noticed is a good thing, that the bi community should be collectively interacting with the outside world, that being content with personal liberation is opting out, that there should be some result beyond personal good times, that we have some kind of responsibility not to "let them get away with it" and so on. I really struggle not to read that as implying that those of us who prefer to concentrate on the fun stuff are falling short of some notional ideal that we haven't actually subscribed to in the first place. All of those things that seemed to me to be taken for granted are fine as personal beliefs, but it isn't safe to assume that all your readers will agree with them or that they're wrong to disagree.

Secondly, all of that seemed to distract from what you're actually trying to do, which is perfectly reasonable in itself. Better to keep it simple and focused on what you intend to do rather than on what others have done, I think, with no actual or implied criticism of anyone else - nothing about where previous efforts went wrong, how the balance is skewed towards having fun, etc etc. I'd certainly have reacted much more positively if you'd just got on with doing what you actually want to do. What other people are/have been up to doesn't strike me as relevant (as long as they're not actively preventing you from getting on with your thing, of course). I understand that, if you start a new group, you will want to (a) give it a distinctive strategy and (b) learn from past mistakes, but why not keep that for your first strategy meeting?

and I'd welcome a way of putting it that didn't.

I'd suggest something along the lines of "I'd like to form an organisation to address [the portrayal of bisexuality in the media/bisexual health promotion/laws that discriminate against bisexuals/laws that discriminate against poly relationships]. Some ideas of what it might do are [fitb]. Would any of you care to join me?" Anything else seems to me to be more noise than signal at this stage in the proceedings.

I can see the point that to mix up the two is not the best idea, but they already are mixed up!

What I'm saying is that I think it would be fine to form a bi organisation to go and tell the CofE that being bi doesn't always mean having more than one partner at the same time, or form a poly organisation to go and tell them that having more than one partner at the same time isn't always a bad thing, but I don't think it would be a good idea to have the same organisation do both, and I don't think it's sensible to complain if the bi organisation doesn't get consulted on poly issues or vice versa.

One other thing I meant to say...

I sometimes think some things that would be cheap and easy don't get done because they get complicated by seeking funding

One person's cheap may be another person's whopping great wodge of cash.

Oh yes indeed, and I am delighted to see how much cash you've raised. What's the grand total now? It's probably more than everyone else, ever, combined. Yay you (again!)

What prompted the comment was that the idea of having another get-away at a YH earlier this year was left, if I remember accurately, with you trying to get funding for it. It certainly didn't actually happen (or if it did, I didn't get to hear about it!)

Last year, there was no attempt to get funding for it - £240 split n ways is not much - and it did happen.

Now, of course with funding it would be possible to pay people's fares etc as well. And that'd be good. But I still think it's better that something like this happen than not because of not being able to get the funding for it.

Or was there another reason?

Depends how much money you have to gamble with, and this Spring I didn't have that much. It got more scuppered by seasonal availability of YH though, and it's my next bi project but 4 in priority (*) so it should happen this winter(!!)

Thinks: total raised so far...
2001-2003 biphoria= £1477
LSP research project= £550
community devt grant= £1870
bi day grants= £800

What's that, a bit over four grand? Just about equal to the LBWG's one-off Awards For All grant for their film project in 2000.

(*) higher up the list being: putting the bisexuality into EuroPride, the overdue BCN SP revamp, and BiCon 2004 hitting the ground running. Further down the list are projects like BiDay2003, BiPhoria's 2004 funding, and the "3 wishes" peer research.

Ah, I'd forgotten about that film award.

We did get something on the Europride 'A new agenda for equality for lesbians and gay men [sic]' that's annoyingly on 22nd August.

"we"?

It's funded by Manchester City Council who as a matter of policy believe there is no such thing as a bisexual (see

softfruit on many occasions past).

We = work.

Would it help for us to say 'what about the bisexuals and trans people then?'

Perhaps, though all the people I'd normally be throwing at something like that will be at BiCon. I prefer to have it as bitching after the event to be honest - there's enough mud slinging about in the city over EuroPride at the moment, and I would rather like it to be a huge success and generate a lot of cash for LGBT and HIV organisations. Not least because then I might get hold of some more money ;o)

EuroPride isnt being inclusive in everything, there's a women-only space which sounds as though it will be dodgy on T issues as usual, and so letting the council do something that is only L/G fits in with that model. We're countering by doing a b-specific event and I'm trying to sort out some media opportunities relating to it on local radio etc.

If BiCon were a different weekend it'd all be a lot easier!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Prompted by some conversations at EBC2

I think you're right.

Re: I think you're right.

Re: I think you're right.

Students

Re: Students

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

heh

Re: heh

Re: heh

no subject

off topic, but...

*Snark*

Re: *Snark*

Do we need a national bi organisation?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Snark

Re: Snark