Why would anyone hold a meeting only to discuss male on female rape unless they were dealing with a specific individual experience, in which case the presence of men should be no problem? I've yet to see any study suggesting that the effects of male on female rape differ significantly from any other kind of rape, and the latest survey statistics show parity or near parity for rape across genders (see the analysis of the actual statistics here: http://www.genderratic.com/?p=836. I encourage you to check the numbers yourself.). That being the case, isn't rape a universal issue which needs to be discussed by the entire community?Doitpow said:Discussing experiences of male on female rape is often utterly inappropriate with men present, and sometimes straight-dating bisexuals.
The problem of discrimination against bisexuals in LGBT communities is neither new nor unique. I find it somewhat reminiscent of "The Myth of the Black Community". In reality, the LGBT movement primarily represents the needs and desires of white middle or upper class gay men, often to the exclusion of other voices and viewpoints within that community. Victims of oppression are sometimes under the impression that they are somehow incapable of oppressing or discriminating against others and see their experiences as a justification for the "rightness" of the way they exclude or discriminate against minorities in their own communities. If you want an example of similar behavior, search this site for threads about bullying.
Also, most gay people are as far from getting the idea of sexuality as a spectrum rather than a binary state as most straight people are. Hell, you even get a lot of bi people who think that everyone is secretly bi and just repressing it. It's the same thing.
This attitude exists because idiots don't know what "agnostic" means and started using it as a middle ground between theism and atheism when it's actually one end of an entirely different scale. For example, I am an agnostic theist. I believe that there is a god, but I do not believe that it is possible to possess definite knowledge of god(s). The position can be further expanded to knowledge in general, which is where you get people who don't believe it is possible to know anything with certainty.Tenno said:i think its probably something like agnostics, both belivers and atheists hate agnostics as there seen as "fence sitters" or they "have a foot in each camp" which isnt really seen as a good thing in these kinds of "us vs them" debates