Edit: Thanks a lot for fixing the title, whomever did that! The typo in the title was really embarrassing :)
When Katie Salmon left Love Island, in 2016, having been in the show's first, and only, same-sex relationship, with fellow contestant Sophie Graydon, she was unsure what the reaction would be from her family.
What she did not expect was to face biphobia from her own LGBT community in Liverpool, she says, many of whom accused her of doing it for publicity.
"I felt like they all doubted [that I was bi], were criticising me," she tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.
"For men, it's presumed [bisexual men] are on their way to being gay. And for women, it's presumed that [bisexual women] are trying it out."
The charity's research suggests 27% of bi women and 18% of bi men have experienced biphobia from within the LGBT community.
Edit: Thanks a lot for fixing the title, whomever did that! The typo in the title was really embarrassing :)
I'm honestly surprised the numbers are that low. I wonder what questions they asked that would indicate that someone had experienced biphobia. Personally experienced or witnessed? What if it...
I'm honestly surprised the numbers are that low. I wonder what questions they asked that would indicate that someone had experienced biphobia. Personally experienced or witnessed? What if it wasn't threatening, but merely slightly alienating? What if you were unable to separate the action from the individual (someone who's an asshole stating something asshole-ish is easier to brush off than someone who seems nice).
Seems to me that the bi folk's "convergence" make them uncomfortable, given they pursue identity politics, and the "unclear" identity of the bisexuals is at odds with a movement where people build...
It's bizarre to me that this is even an issue, I have no idea what the mindset of the LGBT* people who come up with all this stuff actually is.
Seems to me that the bi folk's "convergence" make them uncomfortable, given they pursue identity politics, and the "unclear" identity of the bisexuals is at odds with a movement where people build and politicise their identity on certain sexual behaviour. They are "non-binary", but ternary or Nary for some value of N.
This sort of thing is why I don't like identity politics. I'm not heterosexual or cis male or any other adjectives, I'm just attracted to females so far. If I have some romantic relation to a guy, sexual or not, do I have to switch to a different identity? Am I a different person? Am I gay? When do I become gay? Is it the first time when I feel attraction to another person of the same sex? Does it need to be repeated? Or do I have to have had sex with a guy? What constitutes sex with a guy? It's all these complicated and vague questions that have even more complicated and vague answers, and many more similar stuff. Categorising all these into non overlapping categories ever-increasing in number and building identities on these is just like what nationalism is: a boring game of abstract borders that hurts everybody. I'm all for people living love and sexuality like they desire and for defending our right to do so against the traditional gender and sexuality imposed on us, but identity politics and all this categorisation and these adjectives can go to hell. That's why I always answer things like "Are you ...ist / ...al?" as "I think / like to do as such and as such." or "I'm attracted to ..." etc. The inverse, which is the status quo, is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly, if I'm honest. And it leads to problems like this.
Anecdotally, I'm yet to meet any girls of my generation who are 100% straight. Bi always seems like the default to me.
I think almost everyone is attracted to same-sex people, at least a bit. That's mostly observation, but also, if it weren't so, why would being not-gay be such a big deal since thousands of years?
Queer people adopt labels because they're both practical, and a way to find a sense of community in a world that marginalises us. Identifying as bi isn't "identity politics", it has nothing to do...
Queer people adopt labels because they're both practical, and a way to find a sense of community in a world that marginalises us. Identifying as bi isn't "identity politics", it has nothing to do with politics, it's just who I am.
This. I'm a lesbian because I'm a woman who's only attracted to women, just like I'm American because I live in America and I'm myopic because my eyes don't focus properly. "Identity politics" is...
This. I'm a lesbian because I'm a woman who's only attracted to women, just like I'm American because I live in America and I'm myopic because my eyes don't focus properly. "Identity politics" is a garbage phrase. These terms just describe our modes of being.
Being lesbian or being of some nationality does not compare that well to being myopic. The last one is objectively an illness, an anomaly, which I happen to have too along with astigmatism and...
Being lesbian or being of some nationality does not compare that well to being myopic. The last one is objectively an illness, an anomaly, which I happen to have too along with astigmatism and which we treat with glasses and/or surgery. The rest, instead, are labels that are social constructs, and unlike myopia, have a huge amount of semiotic baggage that when used attaches one to a certain history and a certain set of stereotypes, among others. (BTW I actually make a distinction between the actual way of being of a person and the identity labels that one assumes, and am referring to the latter; I support total freedom WRT the former).
I don't believe in god or religion. But if I say that I'm an atheist, I say more than just stating what I don't believe in. I associate myself to many persons, a huge set of arguments, views, theories, etc. Thus, saying "I don't believe in god" or "I am an atheist" is very different, not unlike how the declarations "I am from the US" and "I'm an American" are so.
Whereas when I say that I'm an atheist, literally all I'm saying is that I don't believe in any gods. Not believing in a god and being attracted to one's own gender are both statistical outliers,...
Whereas when I say that I'm an atheist, literally all I'm saying is that I don't believe in any gods. Not believing in a god and being attracted to one's own gender are both statistical outliers, and both classes face discrimination (homosexuality moreso than atheism, in my opinion), so it's helpful to have a shorthand way of referring to them.
I don't know if I should respond to you defending my position, because I can see where the discussion will lead to if I do so and am afraid of unnecessarily offending you. Part of what I would've...
I don't know if I should respond to you defending my position, because I can see where the discussion will lead to if I do so and am afraid of unnecessarily offending you. Part of what I would've said should be deducible from what I've already said anyways, so I'll suffice to say that I respect your view, but I disagree.
I can respectfully disagree here because I'm talking about social institiutions based on sex/gender and labels associated to them, at philosophical, semantic and semiotic level. I have no...
I can respectfully disagree here because I'm talking about social institiutions based on sex/gender and labels associated to them, at philosophical, semantic and semiotic level. I have no objection to actual lifestyles, preferences, inclinations, orientations etc. of people who choose to use those labels. I think identifying with these labels can not be done separately from identifying with the historical baggage of them too (because the former implies the latter), and is thus detrimental to one's general freedom.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd think them to be detrimental. I feel like the people who actually identify with the label are the ones who get to make that decision, personally.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd think them to be detrimental. I feel like the people who actually identify with the label are the ones who get to make that decision, personally.
I'm not really offended, your position just doesn't make much sense. I'm telling you I choose the label bisexual for apolotical reasons, and from what I understand you're disagreeing with that....
I'm not really offended, your position just doesn't make much sense. I'm telling you I choose the label bisexual for apolotical reasons, and from what I understand you're disagreeing with that. You cannot disagree with my lived experience, that doesn't make any sense.
Some people view it that way, but there's a large portion of LGBT society that views labels as fuzzy and more for convenience than anything else, and these people tend to avoid forcing labels on...
Some people view it that way, but there's a large portion of LGBT society that views labels as fuzzy and more for convenience than anything else, and these people tend to avoid forcing labels on others so long as the labels one is using aren't entirely misused. It's easier to say "I'm mostly straight" than it is to say "I'm a man who is primarily attracted to women but has found a few men who attract me." When we need to be more specific, we use the phrases you mentioned.
But the labels are still important, because they help identify shared experiences. No, not every gay man shares the same experiences, but they tend to share a lot of them. Taking away the label only makes it more difficult to identify those experiences.
As an example, I'm attracted to both men and women, but I have a very strong preference for women. While you might say that I'm technically bisexual, I tend to use the word lesbian for myself because there are few men I'm actually attracted to. I identify with a lot of "lesbian" experiences in part because I adopt the label "lesbian" but primarily because the experiences have nothing to do with the label and everything to do with our shared experiences as women who primarily love women.
I'm curious about your use of "non-binary". Being bi doesn't make you the least bit nonbinary. Nonbinary has to do with gender, and being bi has to do with sexuality and romance. They are not...
I'm curious about your use of "non-binary". Being bi doesn't make you the least bit nonbinary. Nonbinary has to do with gender, and being bi has to do with sexuality and romance. They are not related at all.
My use of non-binary is erroneous, now I realise, sorry. I originally wanted to say that sometimes (or possibly often) LGBTQ+ folks and supporters can be as intolerant of gray areas as others, and...
My use of non-binary is erroneous, now I realise, sorry. I originally wanted to say that sometimes (or possibly often) LGBTQ+ folks and supporters can be as intolerant of gray areas as others, and that might be linked to both some stereotypical prejudices in the community and an existencial fear.
I strongly disagree. If I tell you I am a homosexual man, I have efficiently told you my gender and my sexuality with no ambiguity. If I tell you I'm attracted to men, there is ambiguity: am I...
That's why I always answer things like "Are you ...ist / ...al?" as "I think / like to do as such and as such." or "I'm attracted to ..." etc. The inverse, which is the status quo, is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly, if I'm honest.
I strongly disagree. If I tell you I am a homosexual man, I have efficiently told you my gender and my sexuality with no ambiguity. If I tell you I'm attracted to men, there is ambiguity: am I attracted only to men, am I attracted mostly to men, am I attracted occasionally to men? But, if I say I'm homosexual, you know exactly what that means.
I understand that some people prefer not to use labels - and more power to them - but labels are not inefficient, unproductive, backwards, or a bit silly.
That's not something that I disagree. The part that you quoted is not limited to terms about gender and sexuality. It's true that some of these terms are more clear than others, but still, most of...
I strongly disagree. If I tell you I am a homosexual man, I have efficiently told you my gender and my sexuality with no ambiguity. If I tell you I'm attracted to men, there is ambiguity: am I attracted only to men, am I attracted mostly to men, am I attracted occasionally to men? But, if I say I'm homosexual, you know exactly what that means.
That's not something that I disagree. The part that you quoted is not limited to terms about gender and sexuality. It's true that some of these terms are more clear than others, but still, most of these are not scientific terms with clear definitions. Saying something like "I'm a leftist" or "I'm a gay man" does communicate a core meaning, but both terms mean something different for almost all users, and has an historical baggage attached to them. Saying "I'm a leftist" is inefficient and unproductive because it does not communicate something clearly (if at all) defined. "Homosexual man" is certainly way more clear, almost scientific, but also different from "gay male". Some terms are clear and some are not, and each of them have some set of problems. But what's common is that they mean way more things than what one wants to communicate, and bring in a historical baggage.
You said that the status quo - using labels - "is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly". It sure seems like you disagree with me when I say that using labels is none of those...
That's not something that I disagree.
You said that the status quo - using labels - "is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly". It sure seems like you disagree with me when I say that using labels is none of those things. Even if you're not disagreeing with me, I'm certainly disagreeing with you!
The part that you quoted is not limited to terms about gender and sexuality.
We're in a topic about bisexuality and we're discussing labels that non-heterosexual people use; it's not hard to assume that you're also discussing labels related to gender and sexuality - especially when you didn't say you were stepping outside that range of traits.
"Homosexual man" is certainly way more clear, almost scientific, but also different from "gay male".
As someone who considers myself a homosexual man and a gay male, I'm not sure what the difference is. To me, they're synonymous. Would you care to enlighten me as to the difference? For example, what traits, qualities, or behaviours would make someone a homosexual man but not a gay male, and what traits, qualities, or behaviours would make someone a gay male but not a homosexual man?
Some terms are clear and some are not, and each of them have some set of problems.
All language comes with problems. As I indicated in my previous comment, even describing your attractions functionally ("I'm attracted to...") is open to ambiguity and requires clarification. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that labelling oneself as homosexual "is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly". It's none of those things.
I'm the OP and I know what I posted. I brought in an example involving religious belief in order to clarify that, in another comment. With regards to "inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a...
I'm the OP and I know what I posted. I brought in an example involving religious belief in order to clarify that, in another comment. With regards to "inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly", different parts of that apply to different types of identity, and admittedly that list of adjectives is far from comprehensive. But none of us here comment with scientific rigor, so I guess that's excusable.
As for the rest of the questions, I think my stance is quite clear so far and I don't think you're open to counterarguments anyways (given your combative style), so me elaborating even more is not of much use IMO. But I can clarify the following, if you like clear statements so much: I'm opposed to "labelling oneself" rather than "labelling oneself as [something]".
I will not comment on this (neither in responding to you nor anybody else) further because this is completely related to my personal views and has almost nothing to do with the actual topic itself which I think is very interesing and important; this sub-thread is detracting from what actually needs to be discussed.
It comes from reality. I have met and known, as well as heard of, men like this. They start out believing they're straight, because... well... isn't that what all men are? That's just normal,...
"For men, it's presumed [bisexual men] are on their way to being gay. And for women, it's presumed that [bisexual women] are trying it out."
This genuinely makes no sense to me at all. Where does it come from?
It comes from reality. I have met and known, as well as heard of, men like this.
They start out believing they're straight, because... well... isn't that what all men are? That's just normal, isn't it? Then they realise they have feelings for other men. Well, if they like women and men, they must be bisexual! So they're bisexual. Then, after they've been with a few men, they realise they're not interested in women - and never really were interested in women. They just "liked" women because they thought that was normal. But they don't like women and they never did. They're actually gay, but they were deluding themselves.
The internal journey is of a man starting out by assuming he's straight, and then gradually discovering he's actually gay. The external view looks like a man who starts out heterosexual and passes through bisexuality on his way to being homosexual. It happens commonly enough to be a stereotype: bisexual men are just gay men in denial.
It might be weird to you but, like I said, it's based on enough real examples to have become a common stereotype. Just because you don't understand this way of thinking and don't buy into this...
To assume it's a transitional state is weird to me.
It might be weird to you but, like I said, it's based on enough real examples to have become a common stereotype. Just because you don't understand this way of thinking and don't buy into this stereotype, that doesn't mean other people don't think this way.
My preferences are not the same as my sexuality. I am attracted to men, and have always been attracted to men: my sexuality has never changed. Meanwhile, my preferences about the type of men I...
People's preferences just tend to change over time,
My preferences are not the same as my sexuality. I am attracted to men, and have always been attracted to men: my sexuality has never changed. Meanwhile, my preferences about the type of men I like may change over time. However, liking twinks or liking bears (for instance) does not affect my sexuality, which remains the same: once a homosexual, always a homosexual!
There's a difference between believing oneself to be a heterosexual and calling oneself a homosexual, and then gradually discovering that one is not a heterosexual, and finding one's actual sexual...
There's a difference between believing oneself to be a heterosexual and calling oneself a homosexual, and then gradually discovering that one is not a heterosexual, and finding one's actual sexual attraction changing. There's a reason they're called "latent homosexuals": the homosexuality (or bisexuality, as the case may be) is already there, lying dormant, waiting to be discovered.
I think what @Nephrited meant was the negative prejudice towards bisexuals in general counting them as an "intermediary form" of some sort. At least that's what that quote denotes in context of...
I think what @Nephrited meant was the negative prejudice towards bisexuals in general counting them as an "intermediary form" of some sort. At least that's what that quote denotes in context of the article.
People trying to justify their own mindset against others, really. They struggled (at some point) with their own sexuality and whether they liked men or women so they think it's a similar struggle...
This genuinely makes no sense to me at all. Where does it come from?
People trying to justify their own mindset against others, really. They struggled (at some point) with their own sexuality and whether they liked men or women so they think it's a similar struggle with which the bisexual person has not completely resolved the issue yet.
Or at least, that's what it's seemed like to me. I don't really understand how people can be straight, or monogamous for that matter, so even my understanding of the straight or gay mindset might be flawed.
Edit: Thanks a lot for fixing the title, whomever did that! The typo in the title was really embarrassing :)
I'm honestly surprised the numbers are that low. I wonder what questions they asked that would indicate that someone had experienced biphobia. Personally experienced or witnessed? What if it wasn't threatening, but merely slightly alienating? What if you were unable to separate the action from the individual (someone who's an asshole stating something asshole-ish is easier to brush off than someone who seems nice).
Seems to me that the bi folk's "convergence" make them uncomfortable, given they pursue identity politics, and the "unclear" identity of the bisexuals is at odds with a movement where people build and politicise their identity on certain sexual behaviour. They are "non-binary", but ternary or Nary for some value of N.
This sort of thing is why I don't like identity politics. I'm not heterosexual or cis male or any other adjectives, I'm just attracted to females so far. If I have some romantic relation to a guy, sexual or not, do I have to switch to a different identity? Am I a different person? Am I gay? When do I become gay? Is it the first time when I feel attraction to another person of the same sex? Does it need to be repeated? Or do I have to have had sex with a guy? What constitutes sex with a guy? It's all these complicated and vague questions that have even more complicated and vague answers, and many more similar stuff. Categorising all these into non overlapping categories ever-increasing in number and building identities on these is just like what nationalism is: a boring game of abstract borders that hurts everybody. I'm all for people living love and sexuality like they desire and for defending our right to do so against the traditional gender and sexuality imposed on us, but identity politics and all this categorisation and these adjectives can go to hell. That's why I always answer things like "Are you ...ist / ...al?" as "I think / like to do as such and as such." or "I'm attracted to ..." etc. The inverse, which is the status quo, is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly, if I'm honest. And it leads to problems like this.
I think almost everyone is attracted to same-sex people, at least a bit. That's mostly observation, but also, if it weren't so, why would being not-gay be such a big deal since thousands of years?
Queer people adopt labels because they're both practical, and a way to find a sense of community in a world that marginalises us. Identifying as bi isn't "identity politics", it has nothing to do with politics, it's just who I am.
This. I'm a lesbian because I'm a woman who's only attracted to women, just like I'm American because I live in America and I'm myopic because my eyes don't focus properly. "Identity politics" is a garbage phrase. These terms just describe our modes of being.
Being lesbian or being of some nationality does not compare that well to being myopic. The last one is objectively an illness, an anomaly, which I happen to have too along with astigmatism and which we treat with glasses and/or surgery. The rest, instead, are labels that are social constructs, and unlike myopia, have a huge amount of semiotic baggage that when used attaches one to a certain history and a certain set of stereotypes, among others. (BTW I actually make a distinction between the actual way of being of a person and the identity labels that one assumes, and am referring to the latter; I support total freedom WRT the former).
I don't believe in god or religion. But if I say that I'm an atheist, I say more than just stating what I don't believe in. I associate myself to many persons, a huge set of arguments, views, theories, etc. Thus, saying "I don't believe in god" or "I am an atheist" is very different, not unlike how the declarations "I am from the US" and "I'm an American" are so.
Whereas when I say that I'm an atheist, literally all I'm saying is that I don't believe in any gods. Not believing in a god and being attracted to one's own gender are both statistical outliers, and both classes face discrimination (homosexuality moreso than atheism, in my opinion), so it's helpful to have a shorthand way of referring to them.
I don't know if I should respond to you defending my position, because I can see where the discussion will lead to if I do so and am afraid of unnecessarily offending you. Part of what I would've said should be deducible from what I've already said anyways, so I'll suffice to say that I respect your view, but I disagree.
Not trying to stoke the fire, but I don't really understand one can "respectfully disagree" here. You're saying it is identity politics?
I can respectfully disagree here because I'm talking about social institiutions based on sex/gender and labels associated to them, at philosophical, semantic and semiotic level. I have no objection to actual lifestyles, preferences, inclinations, orientations etc. of people who choose to use those labels. I think identifying with these labels can not be done separately from identifying with the historical baggage of them too (because the former implies the latter), and is thus detrimental to one's general freedom.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd think them to be detrimental. I feel like the people who actually identify with the label are the ones who get to make that decision, personally.
I'm not really offended, your position just doesn't make much sense. I'm telling you I choose the label bisexual for apolotical reasons, and from what I understand you're disagreeing with that. You cannot disagree with my lived experience, that doesn't make any sense.
Some people view it that way, but there's a large portion of LGBT society that views labels as fuzzy and more for convenience than anything else, and these people tend to avoid forcing labels on others so long as the labels one is using aren't entirely misused. It's easier to say "I'm mostly straight" than it is to say "I'm a man who is primarily attracted to women but has found a few men who attract me." When we need to be more specific, we use the phrases you mentioned.
But the labels are still important, because they help identify shared experiences. No, not every gay man shares the same experiences, but they tend to share a lot of them. Taking away the label only makes it more difficult to identify those experiences.
As an example, I'm attracted to both men and women, but I have a very strong preference for women. While you might say that I'm technically bisexual, I tend to use the word lesbian for myself because there are few men I'm actually attracted to. I identify with a lot of "lesbian" experiences in part because I adopt the label "lesbian" but primarily because the experiences have nothing to do with the label and everything to do with our shared experiences as women who primarily love women.
I'm curious about your use of "non-binary". Being bi doesn't make you the least bit nonbinary. Nonbinary has to do with gender, and being bi has to do with sexuality and romance. They are not related at all.
My use of non-binary is erroneous, now I realise, sorry. I originally wanted to say that sometimes (or possibly often) LGBTQ+ folks and supporters can be as intolerant of gray areas as others, and that might be linked to both some stereotypical prejudices in the community and an existencial fear.
I strongly disagree. If I tell you I am a homosexual man, I have efficiently told you my gender and my sexuality with no ambiguity. If I tell you I'm attracted to men, there is ambiguity: am I attracted only to men, am I attracted mostly to men, am I attracted occasionally to men? But, if I say I'm homosexual, you know exactly what that means.
I understand that some people prefer not to use labels - and more power to them - but labels are not inefficient, unproductive, backwards, or a bit silly.
That's not something that I disagree. The part that you quoted is not limited to terms about gender and sexuality. It's true that some of these terms are more clear than others, but still, most of these are not scientific terms with clear definitions. Saying something like "I'm a leftist" or "I'm a gay man" does communicate a core meaning, but both terms mean something different for almost all users, and has an historical baggage attached to them. Saying "I'm a leftist" is inefficient and unproductive because it does not communicate something clearly (if at all) defined. "Homosexual man" is certainly way more clear, almost scientific, but also different from "gay male". Some terms are clear and some are not, and each of them have some set of problems. But what's common is that they mean way more things than what one wants to communicate, and bring in a historical baggage.
You said that the status quo - using labels - "is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly". It sure seems like you disagree with me when I say that using labels is none of those things. Even if you're not disagreeing with me, I'm certainly disagreeing with you!
We're in a topic about bisexuality and we're discussing labels that non-heterosexual people use; it's not hard to assume that you're also discussing labels related to gender and sexuality - especially when you didn't say you were stepping outside that range of traits.
As someone who considers myself a homosexual man and a gay male, I'm not sure what the difference is. To me, they're synonymous. Would you care to enlighten me as to the difference? For example, what traits, qualities, or behaviours would make someone a homosexual man but not a gay male, and what traits, qualities, or behaviours would make someone a gay male but not a homosexual man?
All language comes with problems. As I indicated in my previous comment, even describing your attractions functionally ("I'm attracted to...") is open to ambiguity and requires clarification. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that labelling oneself as homosexual "is inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly". It's none of those things.
I'm the OP and I know what I posted. I brought in an example involving religious belief in order to clarify that, in another comment. With regards to "inefficient, unproductive, backwards, and a bit silly", different parts of that apply to different types of identity, and admittedly that list of adjectives is far from comprehensive. But none of us here comment with scientific rigor, so I guess that's excusable.
As for the rest of the questions, I think my stance is quite clear so far and I don't think you're open to counterarguments anyways (given your combative style), so me elaborating even more is not of much use IMO. But I can clarify the following, if you like clear statements so much: I'm opposed to "labelling oneself" rather than "labelling oneself as [something]".
I will not comment on this (neither in responding to you nor anybody else) further because this is completely related to my personal views and has almost nothing to do with the actual topic itself which I think is very interesing and important; this sub-thread is detracting from what actually needs to be discussed.
It comes from reality. I have met and known, as well as heard of, men like this.
They start out believing they're straight, because... well... isn't that what all men are? That's just normal, isn't it? Then they realise they have feelings for other men. Well, if they like women and men, they must be bisexual! So they're bisexual. Then, after they've been with a few men, they realise they're not interested in women - and never really were interested in women. They just "liked" women because they thought that was normal. But they don't like women and they never did. They're actually gay, but they were deluding themselves.
The internal journey is of a man starting out by assuming he's straight, and then gradually discovering he's actually gay. The external view looks like a man who starts out heterosexual and passes through bisexuality on his way to being homosexual. It happens commonly enough to be a stereotype: bisexual men are just gay men in denial.
It might be weird to you but, like I said, it's based on enough real examples to have become a common stereotype. Just because you don't understand this way of thinking and don't buy into this stereotype, that doesn't mean other people don't think this way.
My preferences are not the same as my sexuality. I am attracted to men, and have always been attracted to men: my sexuality has never changed. Meanwhile, my preferences about the type of men I like may change over time. However, liking twinks or liking bears (for instance) does not affect my sexuality, which remains the same: once a homosexual, always a homosexual!
or
once a heterosexual, always a heterosexual!
That is not necessarily true. These things can change over time too, towards one or another.
There's a difference between believing oneself to be a heterosexual and calling oneself a homosexual, and then gradually discovering that one is not a heterosexual, and finding one's actual sexual attraction changing. There's a reason they're called "latent homosexuals": the homosexuality (or bisexuality, as the case may be) is already there, lying dormant, waiting to be discovered.
I think what @Nephrited meant was the negative prejudice towards bisexuals in general counting them as an "intermediary form" of some sort. At least that's what that quote denotes in context of the article.
People trying to justify their own mindset against others, really. They struggled (at some point) with their own sexuality and whether they liked men or women so they think it's a similar struggle with which the bisexual person has not completely resolved the issue yet.
Or at least, that's what it's seemed like to me. I don't really understand how people can be straight, or monogamous for that matter, so even my understanding of the straight or gay mindset might be flawed.