Guest Post by Manishita People of Colour at BiCon: Are we really…

Guest Post by Manishita People of Colour at BiCon: Are we really…



Guest Post by Manishita 

People of Colour at BiCon: Are we really welcome there?

@Angreebindii works in Higher Education. She has a background in political activism and social justice campaigns. She is QTIPOC, disabled, a trade union organiser and is mostly angry about inequality.

Bicon is the UK’s largest and most consistent event dedicated to the bisexual community. It is the amalgamation of both a conference and a convention, hence the name Bicon. Bicon explores a whole spectrum of issues relating to bisexuality, kink and sex positivity. It came about in the mid-1980s after an event titled ‘The Politics of Bisexuality’ was the first to be organised in London, 1984. What followed was a series of similar events after fully concretising into Bicon shortly after. It is a yearly event where the management and delivery of the event is democratically run.

This year’s event was the second I attended. And it may well be my last. In fact, my first Bicon was on the cusp of being my last. My first Bicon was rifled racism. I found myself swimming in meagre attendance of people of colour in an oppressive sea of white attendees. It was an unsafe space fraught with white dreadlocks and well-meaning pretty white bindis. It also consisted of culturally appropriative events organised and led by white people. These included meditation mornings and tantric sex type of sessions. This year’s Bicon was  pretty much of the same old white thing. Even with Bicon’s sponsorship of first time Bis of Colour attendees, this year’s event was quite white.

There have always been ongoing Bicon issues with whiteness. However, this year took more than an uncomfortable turn and it shook me. The organisers booked in Spectrum, the LGBT arm of the Home Office and praised the presence a uniformed Police Officer at the event. Many members from the Bis of Colour were uncomfortable and felt unsafe. I took to Twitter to highlight the issue. The response was mixed. At one point, it got very frustrating. My ‘views’ were disputed however, those of white people were not. For example: I, a migrant of colour got whitesplained about the police & the Home Office. However, ex-employees of the Home Office received support and compassion for stating the same thing as I did.

The very same weekend the police were aiding racists to attack people of colour in Charlottesville, Bicon was sharing pro-police & Home Office tweets. At the event, organisers and attendees were friendly and complicit with their presence. The lack of sensitivity, disrespect and outright racism at the expense of people of colour was hurtful. It certainly felt that our bisexuality counted less than white queers.

The presence of organisations linked to institutions such as the Home Office and the police is not only racist due to how the people of colour are treated but how our sexuality is discriminated against. Bicon organisers decided to defend their presence. That was racist as well a biphobic, classist, ableist and sexist. Their discrimination towards us were intersecting. The Home Office’s abhorrent treatment of queer, disabled, and women refugees cannot be ignored. The same is with the police. In fact, the police are responsible for killing people of colour due to the colour of their skin. These facts are not ignored by white queers at Bicon - they are debated then negated.

Following from these debates I had about Bicon, I decided that enough was enough.

Bisexuals of colour are told to engage in the event’s organisational processes. We are encouraged to attend, to contribute, and to make complaints within the existing structures. And when we do, we are thanked and our ‘views’ appreciated. However, those views, which in stark reality are in fact outright experiences of discrimination, are only ever just acknowledged. Racism becomes diluted to ‘microaaggression’ and ‘cultural appropriation’ almost as if that is an optional form of being discriminated against. It is as if we, queers of colour, choose to feel discriminated, hence actual change to create decolonised queer spaces become optional. That is all too convenient to white LGBT types. It suits them that we have done our job and contributed. And they have done their bit, they have acknowledged us. So the matter is closed.

Except that for us, queers of colour – the discrimination is ongoing. So each year, we have to do the same, contribute and be muted. It goes on until it becomes all too much for queers of colour. Then sometimes we let the less worse things slide. At other times, we get traumatised, burnt out and angry. Or just angry. Often we need to distance ourselves and take breaks whilst we carry on being racially discriminated against. All the while the racism never stops and nor do the white excuses. Hence, for us the racism never ends.

If we demand our rights, we are told that we are insensitive and unreasonable. We are told to appreciate that Bicon ‘is run by volunteers’. We are told that it takes a lot to organise an event. We are told that organisers get burnt out. We are told that it is a structural issue. All in all, we are told many things and are reduced to feel like misunderstanding children.  At the end of the day, all those things we are told are white excuses for racial bias. Respectability for the structure and the ‘volunteers’ outweigh our struggle to exist safely as bisexuals/queers of colour.

Bicon has been going for over 30 years, yet people of colour still face the brunt of bi-racism. I have been involved in political work since I was seventeen years old so I understand the dynamics of oppression. I have experienced such exclusive behaviours far too much. So for it to happen again, for me, is unacceptable.This is why I have made my decision.

Bicon and its white apologists are not worth my time. In an act of decolonised queer self-love, Bicon will never be graced by my powerful and important presence. Not until, real action occurs. By that I mean at least 1) a consistent increase of Bis of Colour year on year 2) a stronger decolonised code of conduct 3) the proper enforcement of the code of conduct 4) the end to cultural appropriation 4) POC focused session *run* by POCs 5) intersectionality.  

I encourage other queers of colour and their allies to demand the same. We need to stand up and own our power. It is an act of self-love to break an abusive relationship. People of colour everywhere deserve to be respected and valued. Until those changes in Bicon happen, we should stand up and demand change. Bicon’s reward would be our presence. And until then we will thrive by organising together our own events as queers of colour – in a decolonised act of self-love.

See It. Hear It. Report It. FA films help rid football of discrimination.

See It. Hear It. Report It. FA films help rid football of discrimination.

We all want to feel welcome and safe at football matches, whether we are on the pitch, in the dugout, or in the stands. Anti-LGBT discrimination, be it ‘banter’ between players and coaches or more blatant chanting from spectators can often lead to us feeling uncomfortable or even threatened. As an FA disciplinary chair and […]
“Bisexuality does exist, it is not a fiction, nor is it a phase”, my key message to Civil Service equality conference

“Bisexuality does exist, it is not a fiction, nor is it a phase”, my key message to Civil Service equality conference

I had the privilege of giving a keynote address to today’s Civil Service Rainbow Alliance (the national LGB&T staff network) conference at the Ministry of Defence. Also on the programme were Sir Bob Kerslake, Head of the Civil Service; Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions; Liz Bingham, managing Partner at EY; and Peter Tatchell […]
In memory of Harvey Milk – defending principles, fighting prejudice

In memory of Harvey Milk – defending principles, fighting prejudice

Yesterday evening, my partner and I watched the 2008 film Milk, which tells the story of the political career of San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay elected public official. Milk was an inspirational figure who overcame prejudice and even violence during his campaigns to be elected, but was ultimately assassinated in […]
On being bisexual – my appearance on Radio 4

On being bisexual – my appearance on Radio 4

On Monday this week, I accepted an invitation to be interviewed by Eddie Mair on Radio 4’s PM programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0367mxn – minutes 46-52) to give a response to the decision of Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski to come out as bisexual. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tory-mp-daniel-kawczynski-comes-out-as-bisexual-8680343.html)  I guess I was asked to appear because I, like Mr Kawczynski, am also an elected […]
A critique of the coverage following the lifting of the lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men

A critique of the coverage following the lifting of the lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men

For those of you who don't already know, last week it was announced there would no longer be a lifetime ban on men who have had oral or anal sex with men (MSM) giving blood. Men will now be able to give blood a year after they last had sex with another man.


First of all: I welcome this change. In 2004 I collected signatures to ask the National Blood Service to review their policies as I felt at the time it was unnecessarily discriminatory. Since then however, I have changed my mind somewhat. Being able to give blood shouldn't about the feelings of the donors but about the health of those who receive the blood. MSM make up a significant proportion of those living with HIV, when compared to the proportion of the total population who are MSM. Because of this, I can understand why evidence had to be looked at before lifting the lifetime ban. If the recent study had found that the lifetime ban had remained in place in order to secure the blood supply, I would have supported this as long as the evidence had supported this. I do think that there is room for improvement though. As it stands now, a gay man in a committed relationship will still not be able to give blood, even if both partners have been faithful for the last 12 months. I'd be in favour of a further change which only ban those who have had a new partner in the last 12 months. However, if there isn't any evidence to support this change, then I can accept that it can't be made. Chris Ward, a writer for Lib Dem Voice appears to share my views and writes about them more eloquently here. This doesn't mean I think that all gay men are inherently at risk from being infected with HIV. In fact, I think it's nonsensical that a committed gay couple still can't give blood whereas a man or a woman who sleeps with a different partner of the opposite sex each week will be able to.

The coverage for this change has been mixed. Even the best article about it have been misleading, at least as far as the headline goes:

From Pink News: One-year blood donation deferral for UK gay men
The headline implies the new policy only applies to those men who identify as gay. However, it doesn't. Thanks to this change, men who now identify as straight who experimented in his youth will now be able to give blood. Thankfully though it goes on to rectify this in the very first paragraph:
The Department of Health has announced it will remove the lifetime blood donation ban on any man who has ever had gay sex.
I can forgive the headline because the alternative would have been almost as long winded as my own.

However, unsurprisingly, the coverage from The Mail and the Telegraph hasn't been as good. The problems with The Mail's coverage starts with the laughable headline:
Lifetime blood donor ban for gay men lifted - as long as they haven't had sex for a year
The lifetime blood donor ban for MSM has been lifted and replaced with a one-year deferral. To try and say that a lifetime ban would still be in place if the man has had sex in the past year is simply wrong and logically non-sensical. Not only that, this rule wouldn't stop bisexual men who have had sex with women in the past year. Also, gay men occasionally have sex with women. It's not the norm but it happens. Those men who identify as gay who for some reason have only had sex with a woman or women in the past year would not be banned under the new rules.

The writer just refused to qualify throughout the article that the lifetime ban didn't just impact gay and bisexual men but also men and those who may have experimented in their youth and those who didn't have much choice in the matter. The Mail also seems to break basic rules of writing articles, saying that LGB organisations welcome the changes in the paragraph directly before this one:
Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: 'The lifetime ban on gay men donating blood has been at the centre of much controversy and debate in recent years, particularly as it became clear that this rule and current science were completely out of sync."
The NAT isn't an LGBT rights' organisation, it never has been. From its 'about us' page:
NAT is the UK's leading charity dedicated to transforming society's response to HIV. We provide fresh thinking, expertise and practical resources. We champion the rights of people living with HIV and campaign for change.
A better quote to follow the previous paragraph would have been from Stonewall's statement, which they have very helpfully provided on their website. They also make a massive clanger:
Most new HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infections in the UK still result from men having sex with men.
In the latest statistics I can find (from 2010) MSM only made up 39% of those newly diagnosed with HIV. But research, what's that Mail?

I didn't think it'd be possible for anyone to outdo The Mail's bad journalism but somehow on this occasion, the Telegraph rose to the challenge.

Even the headline is an amazing example of scaremongering:
Gay men can give blood after discrimination claims
Coming from The Telegraph one instantly gets the impression the paper thinks this is "a bad thing" which must be stopped. It seems to suggest the reason why the lifetime ban has been lifted because of pesky homosexuals demanding their pint of blood to be sucked from their arteries. This could not be further from the truth if it tried. Yes, some gay men have been campaigning for the blood ban to be re-examined, including Peter Tatchell (more on him later). However, what lead to the change was a study of empirical evidence by The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SABTO) which concluded there would be no higher risk of people acquiring HIV and other blood borne viruses with a one year deferral when compared to a lifetime ban. They also included this lovely paragraph:
It is not thought that the change will result in large numbers of new donors, however, since most homosexual men are sexually active.
Yeah, those pesky homosexual men, they're all at it, unlike the... er... rest of humanity? Unlike in The Mail's article, bisexual men aren't even mentioned here.

I haven't found some of the response from gay rights' campaigners to be altogether helpful either. For instance Peter Tatchell wrote in the Guardian last Friday to say that the changes should go further:
Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate.
I completely agree with him here, but what SABTO needs is data to prove this, not rhetoric. So what I think would be more helpful would be to ask for the next study to examine allowing those in committed relationships to give blood, rather than insisting the change must happen regardless.

In Stonewall's statement, their CEO Ben Summerskill is quoted as saying:
To retain a blanket ban on any man who has had sex with another man in the last year, even if he has only had oral sex, remains disproportionate on the basis of available evidence.
However, if you actually read SABTO's report which was published by the Department of Health it says:
The risk with oral sex is very low but HIV transmission does occur, however, given the lack of data it is difficult to make summary estimates for the transmission risk through oral sex.
So according to the official report, no such data relating to oral sex exists. However, the rest of the statement seems quite sensible:
Stonewall will continue to push for a donation system based on the real risks a potential donor poses. People wanting to donate blood should be asked similar questions - irrespective of their sexual orientation - that accurately assess their level of risk of infection.
I'd welcome this, although the donor questionnaire might get a bit busy. Perhaps another study is required? (I perhaps should have mentioned I'm an analyst at heart ;-))

I never thought I'd say this: congratulations to the coalition for coming to a good decision. You're not there yet, but maybe as more evidence becomes available you'll get there eventually.
A critique of the coverage following the lifting of the lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men

A critique of the coverage following the lifting of the lifetime ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men

For those of you who don't already know, last week it was announced there would no longer be a lifetime ban on men who have had oral or anal sex with men (MSM) giving blood. Men will now be able to give blood a year after they last had sex with another man.


First of all: I welcome this change. In 2004 I collected signatures to ask the National Blood Service to review their policies as I felt at the time it was unnecessarily discriminatory. Since then however, I have changed my mind somewhat. Being able to give blood shouldn't about the feelings of the donors but about the health of those who receive the blood. MSM make up a significant proportion of those living with HIV, when compared to the proportion of the total population who are MSM. Because of this, I can understand why evidence had to be looked at before lifting the lifetime ban. If the recent study had found that the lifetime ban had remained in place in order to secure the blood supply, I would have supported this as long as the evidence had supported this. I do think that there is room for improvement though. As it stands now, a gay man in a committed relationship will still not be able to give blood, even if both partners have been faithful for the last 12 months. I'd be in favour of a further change which only ban those who have had a new partner in the last 12 months. However, if there isn't any evidence to support this change, then I can accept that it can't be made. Chris Ward, a writer for Lib Dem Voice appears to share my views and writes about them more eloquently here. This doesn't mean I think that all gay men are inherently at risk from being infected with HIV. In fact, I think it's nonsensical that a committed gay couple still can't give blood whereas a man or a woman who sleeps with a different partner of the opposite sex each week will be able to.

The coverage for this change has been mixed. Even the best article about it have been misleading, at least as far as the headline goes:

From Pink News: One-year blood donation deferral for UK gay men
The headline implies the new policy only applies to those men who identify as gay. However, it doesn't. Thanks to this change, men who now identify as straight who experimented in his youth will now be able to give blood. Thankfully though it goes on to rectify this in the very first paragraph:
The Department of Health has announced it will remove the lifetime blood donation ban on any man who has ever had gay sex.
I can forgive the headline because the alternative would have been almost as long winded as my own.

However, unsurprisingly, the coverage from The Mail and the Telegraph hasn't been as good. The problems with The Mail's coverage starts with the laughable headline:
Lifetime blood donor ban for gay men lifted - as long as they haven't had sex for a year
The lifetime blood donor ban for MSM has been lifted and replaced with a one-year deferral. To try and say that a lifetime ban would still be in place if the man has had sex in the past year is simply wrong and logically non-sensical. Not only that, this rule wouldn't stop bisexual men who have had sex with women in the past year. Also, gay men occasionally have sex with women. It's not the norm but it happens. Those men who identify as gay who for some reason have only had sex with a woman or women in the past year would not be banned under the new rules.

The writer just refused to qualify throughout the article that the lifetime ban didn't just impact gay and bisexual men but also men and those who may have experimented in their youth and those who didn't have much choice in the matter. The Mail also seems to break basic rules of writing articles, saying that LGB organisations welcome the changes in the paragraph directly before this one:
Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: 'The lifetime ban on gay men donating blood has been at the centre of much controversy and debate in recent years, particularly as it became clear that this rule and current science were completely out of sync."
The NAT isn't an LGBT rights' organisation, it never has been. From its 'about us' page:
NAT is the UK's leading charity dedicated to transforming society's response to HIV. We provide fresh thinking, expertise and practical resources. We champion the rights of people living with HIV and campaign for change.
A better quote to follow the previous paragraph would have been from Stonewall's statement, which they have very helpfully provided on their website. They also make a massive clanger:
Most new HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infections in the UK still result from men having sex with men.
In the latest statistics I can find (from 2010) MSM only made up 39% of those newly diagnosed with HIV. But research, what's that Mail?

I didn't think it'd be possible for anyone to outdo The Mail's bad journalism but somehow on this occasion, the Telegraph rose to the challenge.

Even the headline is an amazing example of scaremongering:
Gay men can give blood after discrimination claims
Coming from The Telegraph one instantly gets the impression the paper thinks this is "a bad thing" which must be stopped. It seems to suggest the reason why the lifetime ban has been lifted because of pesky homosexuals demanding their pint of blood to be sucked from their arteries. This could not be further from the truth if it tried. Yes, some gay men have been campaigning for the blood ban to be re-examined, including Peter Tatchell (more on him later). However, what lead to the change was a study of empirical evidence by The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SABTO) which concluded there would be no higher risk of people acquiring HIV and other blood borne viruses with a one year deferral when compared to a lifetime ban. They also included this lovely paragraph:
It is not thought that the change will result in large numbers of new donors, however, since most homosexual men are sexually active.
Yeah, those pesky homosexual men, they're all at it, unlike the... er... rest of humanity? Unlike in The Mail's article, bisexual men aren't even mentioned here.

I haven't found some of the response from gay rights' campaigners to be altogether helpful either. For instance Peter Tatchell wrote in the Guardian last Friday to say that the changes should go further:
Most gay and bisexual men do not have HIV and will never have HIV. If they always have safe sex with a condom, have only one partner and test HIV negative, their blood is safe to donate.
I completely agree with him here, but what SABTO needs is data to prove this, not rhetoric. So what I think would be more helpful would be to ask for the next study to examine allowing those in committed relationships to give blood, rather than insisting the change must happen regardless.

In Stonewall's statement, their CEO Ben Summerskill is quoted as saying:
To retain a blanket ban on any man who has had sex with another man in the last year, even if he has only had oral sex, remains disproportionate on the basis of available evidence.
However, if you actually read SABTO's report which was published by the Department of Health it says:
The risk with oral sex is very low but HIV transmission does occur, however, given the lack of data it is difficult to make summary estimates for the transmission risk through oral sex.
So according to the official report, no such data relating to oral sex exists. However, the rest of the statement seems quite sensible:
Stonewall will continue to push for a donation system based on the real risks a potential donor poses. People wanting to donate blood should be asked similar questions - irrespective of their sexual orientation - that accurately assess their level of risk of infection.
I'd welcome this, although the donor questionnaire might get a bit busy. Perhaps another study is required? (I perhaps should have mentioned I'm an analyst at heart ;-))

I never thought I'd say this: congratulations to the coalition for coming to a good decision. You're not there yet, but maybe as more evidence becomes available you'll get there eventually.