Other barriers to participation in LGBTI+ spaces
Another reason given for not accessing services was experiencing other kinds of discrimination for those with more than one marginalised identity:
“Ageism, transphobia, ableism and antisemitism are common in my experience within queer spaces.”
88% of respondents indicated that they had experienced other forms of discrimination whilst using LGBT+ services. This highlights the importance of, and need for, an intersectional approach in LGBT+ spaces, including in codes of conduct for those using the space.
As above, for many people, LGBT+ services include commercial services, such as clubs, pubs and events. This may explain some responses about lack of accessibility for example.
“Most queer spaces are by default inaccessible to disabled people. Even when things are booked on a sessional basis they are often booked in inaccessible venues.”
“General lack of disabled access, especially at Prides.”
Not feeling a sense of belonging to the wider LGBT+ community was cited as a barrier to accessing LGBT+ services and groups. Many felt that they had to be ‘visibly queer’ to avoid being questioned about their sexuality.
“I never really felt fully part of the queer community, but I feel slightly more of a sense of belonging now that I have a partner of the same gender as me. When I was straight passing (because I was with a man and I am a woman), I had no queer friends and felt like an imposter in queer settings. I still sometimes feel like I’m not queer enough or that people see me that way.”
“I have friends who are LGBT+ but I don’t feel part of a community. I feel because I am married (to a bi man, I’m female) that I wouldn’t be accepted and I feel some would consider me a straight person invading a queer space.”
In common with the wider LGBTI+ community, a lack of availability or awareness of LGBTI+ services in their areas was an issue for many bi+ community members we engaged with. Rural areas may not have LGBTI+ specific services locally or have limited coverage.
Many people in rural areas are used to having to travel to centres of population if they want to access LGBTI+ services but this is not sufficient. Rural communities need LGBTI+ services which can meet their needs where they are. We are aware that LGBTI+ charities are working hard to tackle this, and this work needs to continue.
Age was another factor that was mentioned, with a lack of specific groups for LGBTI+ older people. Of those groups which do exist, these are often felt to be heavily focused on cisgender gay men, meaning that older bi+ people, especially women and trans/non-binary people, are left with no inclusive services.
Organisations which nominally include bi+ people can often, consciously or unconsciously, erase bi+ identities and fail to serve bi+ people. For example, an organisation which relies on user-led groups might frequently advertise their gay men’s choir and lesbian book group, but not make clear that these groups would welcome bi+ people. They may also not advertise any bi+ specific groups, because no-one has offered to run them. The organisation may well be happy to accept volunteers to run bi+ groups, but the lack of bi+ mentions in the publicity might reduce engagement from bi+ people before they even get through the doors. This means that without conscious effort, the gap in service provision will never be filled.
So, although incidences of bi+ exclusion, bi+ erasure, lack of bi+ visibility and/or biphobia in LGBTI+ services are becoming less common, and more bi+ people feel a sense of belonging to the wider LGBTI+ community, there are still many gaps to effective inclusion. LGBTI+ services that want to offer bi+ spaces might also need to work to regain trust from people who experienced biphobia in LGBTI+ spaces in the past.
