Saturday, 24 April 2010

Idle wossnames

I've been looking at the upcoming NUS LGBT conference.  As ever, NUS is a source of despair if you're an activist interested in getting things done rather than furthering a career in centre-right politics.

So we have an order paper for the weekend of the various weighty motions to be debated.  Given the B in LGBT is the least well supported strand in mainstream LGBT work, what do they have to say about it?  What proposals, opinions, and tasks for their executive and huge membership in the coming year?

Erm... not a lot.  The 'b' word does crop up, but the only place where it is meaningfully used is in a motion that sucks up to biphobia, redefining the remits of the bi space at conference, and it would seem to be doing so in capitulation to the biphobic "bi=binary" myth.
Conference resolves: The Bisexual Representative may may define as bisexual, or otherwise define as being romantically/sexually interested across the gender spectrum.
Now, that's changing the definition of the bisexual rep so that - unlike the other specific positions NUS sets aside - the holder need not identify as bisexual, and is an amendment that is entirely in response to biphobic nonsense.

Will it make a difference though?  NUS LGBT doesn't have a great track record on having bi reps who ever seem to do anything related to their remit.  The bi place seems to be treated more as a way onto the national exec and a springboard to other positions rather than a position from which to enable work, communication and change targeted at and for bi students or bis in general. There have been exceptions to that rule but in ten years of watching, they seem to happen about once in five years...

No comments:

Post a Comment