{"id":6386,"date":"2016-05-17T08:45:03","date_gmt":"2016-05-17T08:45:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uncharted-worlds.org\/blog\/?p=1405"},"modified":"2016-05-17T08:45:03","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T08:45:03","slug":"bi-erasure-and-the-many-names-of-may-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bimedia.org\/blogs\/2016\/05\/bi-erasure-and-the-many-names-of-may-17\/","title":{"rendered":"Bi erasure and the many names of May 17"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"On<\/a>\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tDebates over the IDAHo((Bi)T) acronym overlap with bi erasure. Actions beyond the name can reveal which is which.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

It’s an anniversary today.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\tOn May 17, 1990<\/a>, the World Health Organization declassified same-sex attraction as a mental disorder, stating that “homosexuality is not a disease, a disturbance or a perversion.”\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\t\t\tAround 2004 or 2005, some people developed the idea<\/a> of marking and remembering the anniversary date, 17 May, under the name “International Day Against Homophobia” – IDAHo.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>Evolution, expansion, recognition<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tOver subsequent years, people pointed out missing elements in that name and acronym.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tOfficially now, the acronym is IDAHOT, while the name is “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia”, with a subtitle of “A Worldwide [or Global] Celebration of Sexual and Gender Identities”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe official site explains<\/a>:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tIn 2009, Transphobia was added explicitly in the title of the name, in the recognition of the very different issues at stake between sexual orientation and gender expression. “IDAHOT” became another popular acronym used alongside the initial one.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tSince 2015, biphobia is added to the title, to acknowledge the specific issues faced by bisexual people.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\nAt the level of our Committee, we have kept the acronym ‘IDAHOT’, which we’ve been consolidating for years. We acknowledge this is an imperfect solution, but a necessity for communications consistency. We totally support other organisations who adapt the name of the day to their contexts and their priorities. In the UK for examples, the Day is increasingly known as IDAHOBiT, in Latin America Lesbophobia is almost systematically included and placed first, etc.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tTo ensure even more inclusion and reflect the diversity of sexual and gender minorities, we have created at global level the baseline “A global celebration of sexual and gender diversities”. This is probably the only “solution” to the issue of inclusion and reflection of other diversities, such as Queer, Asexual, Pansexual and regional identities such as Hijras, Weres, Two-Spirit, etc.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tThe Day is not one central trademarked brand and everyone is free to communicate as they wish. This creates inconsistency but this is the cost to bear for large ownership.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\t\t\tI’ve seen three versions of the acronym at different times: IDAHo, IDAHoT, and – as the official site also acknowledges – IDAHoBiT.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>A story from last year<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tIn Nottingham, where I live, 2015 was the first time – as far as I know – that there’d been an event to mark the day. My write-up of that gathering is here<\/a>.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tSince I’m talking about the name now, I’ll tell you another story from last year…\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tRewind back to about March 2015. An initial announcement went round, using the name “IDAHO Day”.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tSoon after that, Hannah, then-organiser of local bi group BiTopia<\/a>, went to a meeting to help to plan the gathering. Hannah explained that calling the day IDAHoBiT<\/strong> was another option, and that bi people were likely to perceive that name as recognising and including us<\/strong>.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tFrom then on, most or all of the info about the Nottingham 2015 event did use “IDAHoBiT” as its name. It seemed like a successful accomplishment of communication.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tLater on, though, I heard in a roundabout way that some people in the area had objected<\/strong> to that version of the name. Apparently, it was perceived as making the event vulnerable to piss-takes about hobbits.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t(When I did the earlier write-up, I hadn’t yet heard this part of the story.)\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tWhat I heard after the day – and don’t have any reason to disbelieve – was that some people had declined to get involved with the event, purely because of the name<\/em>.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tI didn’t get the impression it was a personal<\/em> objection, exactly. I think it was more like: them believing they wouldn’t be able to elicit respect for the idea of the day, within their professional or social networks, if it were described under that potentially-comical<\/strong> name.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe official site, too, has a footnote on down sides of the “hobbit” sound-alikey connotations<\/strong>:\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t*Consultations on the name with activists in 120 countries have concluded that the reference to hobbits might be clever for some parts of the world, but were seen elsewhere as an imposition of Western values. In many places where people are facing daily life threats, this proposal was considered highly inappropriate.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\t\t\tAt one point, I was invited to express an opinion on all this, and I did some thinking about it. I doubt I’m the only person dealing with similar dynamics, so I thought it might be useful to share where I got to.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>Ambiguity<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tHere we have a name dilemma. And some people think that removing the “Bi” part is an OK solution<\/strong> to it.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tI don’t think that’s pure chance. Oh no indeed.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tIt lines up with a long and wrong tradition of “But bi people only experience prejudice when they’re expressing their Gay Side!”\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tIt lines up with bi erasure.<\/strong>\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tBut, unlike some<\/em> situations where that’s true, I feel there’s some ambiguity in this particular case. That is: in my own personal opinion, IDAHoBiT genuinely is a clunky name as well. Would anyone choose that name if they were starting from scratch? I doubt it.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tThe original smooth, clever neatness of “Idaho” now has inelegant lumps of history embedded in it: a history familiar to many of us, of struggles to be seen and valued.\n\t\t<\/p>\n

<\/a>Reservations<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tThe fact is, I’m not that fond of any<\/em> of those possible acronyms: not IDAHo, not IDAHoT, not IDAHoBiT.\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n