Talk:List of media portrayals of bisexuality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviawood1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

["Fluid Sexuality" Is NOT Bisexuality]

There are many instances of characters on this page being described thus: "sexuality portrayed as fluid". Fluid sexuality is NOT the same as bisexuality, as it can apply to too broad a range of sexual identities than bisexuality, which is not "feeling attracted to everyone/anyone" but "being attracted to MALES and FEMALES." A character that has had relations with a trans or gender-fluid character, for instance, would most accurately be labelled "pansexual", and labelling them "bisexual" would be blatantly incorrect.

Furthermore, a character with "fluid sexuality" could be considered literally any character that has, say, kissed members of both genders, but canonically consider themselves straight. You could argue that Rachel Greene from FRIENDS has fluid sexuality because there is an episode in which Rachel talks about kissing a woman in college. Saying that Rachel Greene is bisexual, however, would be incorrect, as this is never once stated or implied in the show AND Rachel has all but outright stated that she is straight.

As a bisexual person, I honestly feel that having so many "sexuality portrayed as fluid" labels on a page that literally discusses bi erasure is, in fact, a form of bi erasure. "Sexuality portrayed as fluid" could mean literally anything other than "heterosexual". "Bisexual" has only one meaning. That's the whole point. "Sexuality portrayed as fluid" is either just a wordy and frankly inaccurate way of avoiding the label of "bisexual" (which would be ironic considering the original intention of this article) or a slimy and still inaccurate way of categorizing any sexuality other than "homosexual" or "heterosexual" as bisexual. If the character isn't canonically or clearly bisexual (meaning NOT pansexual, NOT just sexually curious, NOT "sexually fluid", whatever that even means), then don't put them on this page and label them as bisexual, because they almost definitely aren't. 71.127.218.146 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that fluid sexuality and bisexuality are different, and that kissing someone does not determine someone's sexual identity. However, I strongly object to the notion that bisexuality is defined as only being attracted to "males and females" and that anyone who is involved with a trans or genderqueer character is therefore not bi. Instead I would point to this definition by prominent bisexual activist Robyn Ochs: I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted–romantically and/or sexually–to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, in the same way, or to the same degree" I've also seen people respond to the "bi means 2" argument with "bi refers to genders similar to my own and genders different from my own." In my experience (as a bi person and friend of many bi people), most bi and pan people describe their sexualities in the same way, but just happen to prefer one label or the other. Also, trans men and trans women are still men and women, respectively. Loving or being sexually involved with a trans person doesn't change the gender(s) you're attracted to. Oliviawood1 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

[Untitled]

The information in this article was originally based on that found in The Bisexual Option, including the introduction.

Discusson of merger

I see that article Media portrayal of homosexuality is found to be an acceptable and generally useful article for a number of years now. It seems to me that these are comparable and even complementary area of scholarship.

Please explain why you see that one as having more significance than the other. Thank you CyntWorkStuff 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...not to toot my own horn, but I'd say this article is less stub-y than the one on homosexuality in the media Andral 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that both Media portrayal of bisexuality and Media portrayal of homosexuality should be merged with the page about their respective sexual preferences. Neither of the "Media portrayal" pages bring anything special that they couldn't bring to the original page. --Dakart 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that homosexuality is marked as being larger than the preferable article size, so I'd say Media portrayal of homosexuality at least should remain as a separate article. Mdwh 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article developed to discuss information from The Celluloid Closet and The Bisexual Option, would it be considered more worthy of being a separate article? Andral 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily say it should discuss them, but if it used them as sources to discuss more about the media portrayal of bisexuality I think that would definitely help! --Dakart 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot help but comment that from looking at the history and timeline, it seems to me that while this article was still being entered, initial data still being input, etc., there were immediate & not useful negative comments. And (again in a space of a couple hours, while initial article was still being worked on) a suggestions that the topic was of limited significance/interest and should be merged was slapped on.

This unseemly haste to dispose of an entry before the typist has even reached the bottom of the page seems more to reflect a distastes or disinterest in the topic at hand (Bisexuality, Bisexual community, et. al.) than a studied reflection on any intrinsic merit and appropriateness of this entry. Larry 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument would hold up if the article has changed much since then... It has been a day and I still don't think the article is important enough to be separated from bisexuality. As of now the article is a list of sources that mention bisexuality - to me, that sounds more like a bibliography than an article. --Dakart 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but MDWH said, "i don't see how Wikipedia can use Wikipedia as a reference - though this article might be useful link for this section. convert to a wikilink" --Dakart 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please DO NOT ERASE I am using this for a school paper. There is almost NO INFORMATION of bisexual people and now someone has done a study saying we don't exist. This is one of the ONLY references that shows we do outside of porn sites thank you very much

PS I have also added the link to another place about bisexual iiterature thank you again you again

Uhhh... What about: Bisexual, [www.bisexual.org], [www.glbtq.com], and [www.gaycenter.org]? By the way, Wikipedia usually isn't acceptable as a site for research anyways. As far as research goes WP is usually used just a place to find links for research. --Dakart 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Your comment that "Wikipedia usually isn't acceptable as a site for research" really amazes me. Other than a few disgruntled NPOV people who are angry that their "propaganda" was discovered and exposed, I have never heard that said before. However I have frequently seen it used for research, especially for school-children up to high-school (& possibly in college, just don't have examples) and for work related data.

Not meaning in any way to be disrespectful to you or flippant, but if you don't think an encyclopedia is acceptable for research, what do you feel is their proper use? Just curious. CyntWorkStuff 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave list alone and Dakartit is obvious all you did is google the WORD 'bisexual' and make a list of whatever came up since your examples don't have anything to do with media, for example [www.gaycenter.org] is just a gay community center in new york city, your casual atitude about this really makes me have to questions your motives in why you are so keen on getting rid of a list of bisexual topics.

Would it really be appropriate to have a huge list in with an article on bisexuality? It doesn't seem to conform to the appropriate page style. So why is this up for merging? 68.191.217.254 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

X-men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay_and_bisexual_people_in_comic_fiction

Mystique and Destiny, two very important characters to the X-men universe.

Furthering the topic

"explicit scenes or implicit evidence of erotic activity in which a single character is involved with members of both the same and other sex is usually considered as evidence indicating a primary sexual orientation that is either hetero- or homosexual."

We have a few sources for this, http://www.glbtq.com/literature/bisex_lit.html and The Bisexual Option. Should we add this observation to the article? I imagine some people would question the neutrality of it, but, honestly, who can really argue that bisexual activity ISN'T usually offered as evidence of homosexuality or sometimes heterosexuality. Whether or not bisexuality is real (as some people believe it is not) wouldn't be in question here, just the way it is shown in culture.

Mention of bisexuals in each movie

I don't know how to make charts here, but maybe we should, making note of the bisexual character in each show and their portrayal in the movie.

I figured out the chart thing ... I applied it to films, and then decided it would do well for literature as well, so I added in release dates and authors for the books listed. Hope it looks okay ... easily reversed if not. -Krys

Encyclopedic or Trivia?

Am I the only person who looks at this article and thinks listserver? I think a few examples would suffice and those examples could be merged with the respective topic. See What wikipedia is not Alan.ca 07:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While you are not the only person, so far you are in a distinct minority, (one of two). Especially given that the template for this page was copied from other long existing pages covering the same type of data for different subjects, (please see Media portrayal of homosexuality for example).

And I have checked the page you mentioned and while I can guess which one you are referring to, no I do not feel it fits into any of the categories mentioned. There are many items in Wikipedia that lend themselves to a "List" type format (please see List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City for example). Simply being in a particular format does not make them un-Encyclopedic. I believe what they are referring to is articles that are very "thin" and where people then attempt to bolster their notability by wildly throwing in anything they can think of that has anything remotely to do with the subject.

This is a serious, very useful, scholarly entry. As a mater of fact, especially in the "Literature" area it may be that it will soon grow too large for a combined section and should be split off into its own article. CyntWorkStuff 17:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a category for the wikipedia articles on this subject and that category could be appended to those pages? As for the list concept, I do now realize after further reading that structured lists are encouraged. There are some tips on the wikilink I attached that may assist you in improving the quality and longevity of this list. Thanks for the discussion. Alan.ca 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would LOVE to see some sources for this. There's not a single source for anything in the entire article. To call this "scholarly" is simply not correct, claims of "seriousness" and "usefulness" aside. Everything in the article needs to be sourced or else it's blantantly OR and NPOV, mandating deletion. Detruncate 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's please turn this into an article. AfterEllen.com writes articles on this all the time; surely we Wikipedians can too. — Emiellaiendiay 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to make it an article we'd have to source abosutely everything. And I've come to like the lists. We could make two separate pages Andral 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Queer Eye

Could anyone confirm the bisexual in this show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.4.1 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism and removing information

If you want to take something off, please discuss it first. Adding stuff is cool, but denying there are bisexuals in stuff like Queer as Folk doesn't make much sense. We'd really appreciate it, thanks. Andral 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'Pansexual'

Pansexuality (sometimes referred to as omnisexuality[1]) is a sexual orientation characterized by the potential for aesthetic attraction, romantic love and/or sexual desire for people regardless of their gender identity or biological sex. - Wikipedia

I think it's an adequite word. I think Stephen Moffat, who wrote Jack's first few episodes in the show, is supposed to have described him as such also, though I don't have a reference. Andral 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain

Heath Ledger was quoted as stating in Time magazine: "I don't think Ennis could be labeled as gay. Without Jack Twist, I don't know that he ever would have come out... I think the whole point was that it was two souls that fell in love with each other."

And if you want more, check out the Reception section of the Brokeback Mountain page. Please don't remove it again before discussing. Andral 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Summer

Has anyone seen this film?Andral (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Front Runner

I've read this book many times and although I think it's safe to say that Vince was bisexual, Harlan most definitely was not. He married a woman, but that was when he was in denial about being gay, and all of his genuine feelings of attraction were to men. - Marauder

Dark Angel

This page lists Original Cindy as bisexual, but the list of Dark Angel Characters identifies her as a lesbian. Which is correct? 82.152.168.142 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dean Winchester

I understand a lot of fans of Supernatural feel that Dean is bisexual given his behavior in the show. However, Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Therefore, unless there are reliable sources proving that he's straight (that means statements from the showrunners, not personal blogs), he should not be listed here. clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why are characters like Bob Kelso and Elliot from Scrubs or Stewie from Family Guy here? They are only vaguely implied the same way Dean Winchester is, they are not bisexual through canon statements from showrunners or in show. Honestly, Dean's crush on Dr. Sexy alone qualifies him at least as much as some other characters listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.172.197.182 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST isn't a good defense for anything. I'd be willing to remove other questionable entries from this list if they're here based on assumptions or original research. I'd prefer everything here to have a source to keep it from being contentious.

Also, Bob Kelso? I must have missed those scenes. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request made for a 3O for this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) because all forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require thorough talk page discussion before requesting assistance. If you come to a stalemate after you have discussed this matter fully, feel free to relist this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

The same kind of edit wars for Dean Winchester (Supernatural) have been happening on other LGBT articles for some years now. No one has been able to provide reliable sources for the claims. AD (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

James Bond

I removed James Bond as he was never implied to be bisexual. His remarks in Skyfall were obviously a way to mock the villain as well as referencing the torture scene in Casino Royale.

"The scene raised eyebrows at early “Skyfall” press screenings because of the implication that the dashing MI6 agent is bisexual. According to screenwriter John Logan, however, that isn’t the case."Source

--2001:B07:A13:D97E:31E2:1D29:A5E5:9F46 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of media portrayals of bisexuality. 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.advocate.com/html/stories/822/822_greenday672_3.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227015815/http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/2/garethdavidlloyd to http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/2/garethdavidlloyd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422063751/http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid59252.asp?page=1 to http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid59252.asp?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106225852/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/bisex_lit.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/bisex_lit.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)