The other day when British diving champion, Tom Daley, posted a YouTube video announcing that he was in a same sex relationship with a man my Facebook news stream went into minor meltdown. Jokingly I posted;

“This will be a tricky one for the Australian Christian Lobby as thousands of gays convert, having seen the power of prayer. Yes, Tom Daley just came out as bisexual.”

One friend posted a comment commending me for describing Daley as bisexual, noting that most people were calling him gay. In his video Daley had said that he had previously dated and that he still fancied girls.

A few moments later another friend commented and highlighted that Daley had never used the phrase ‘bisexual’ and argued that Daley had come out via YouTube so no labels could be applied to him.

I looked back at what I’d written and thought about how automatic we are to put labels on sexuality, and also how hard it is to effectively communicate information with using specific descriptors.

Immediately I thought of another online conversation from earlier in the week. I’d posted an opinion piece about the marriage equality movement on the OUTinPerth website. A vibrant debate had followed on Facebook. During the discussion there were various comments from readers about what my political affiliation was, in the conversation I was called a ‘Conservative’ and a ‘Liberal’ and a ‘Labor Right’.

As the discussion continued one reader demanded to know of another exactly what kind of a lefty they were, offering a slew of labels from Trotsky-ism, Leninist, Communist, Socialist… there was a long list of categories.

Why is it we argue for our sexuality to be free of labels and treated as fluid – sliding up and down a scale -but insist that our political positions be locked in concrete?

Graeme Watson

editor@outinperth.com