Yesterday Erin in the Morning reported that the term "bisexual" was getting removed from the national park services pages. It was. They had proof -- but now, they've reverted that change so it is NOT TRUE now. Perhaps it will be again, but PLEASE check before saying it is gone.

Old news: they removed TQ+ from LGBTQ+ -- that happened in February 2025.
As of today, they still have the 'B'. See for yourself:
https://www.nps.gov/ston/
https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/education/new-index.htm

The source wrote the piece well and linked to an archive so people can see the history. They have a snapshot from July 10th with 'bisexual' erased, but as of July 11th, it is back. As I write, the text they cite for the MAIN page (not History) reads:

Before the 1960s, almost everything about living authentically as a lesbian, a bisexual person or a gay man was illegal.

The History page (current | Jun 4 archive } April 19 archive uses LGB) is obliquely worded and has been for months, saying:

Through the 1960s almost everything about living openly as a member of the Stonewall comunity was a violation of law

It still omits transgendered as it has since the February 'purge'.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] EatMyPixelDust@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 18 hours ago

Probably testing the waters some more, we know the christian fascist nutcases behind this stuff don't like anyone who isn't white and cishet and ultimately want to erase everyone else.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I wonder if the change and then quick reversion was due to someone up in the administration seeing the word “bisexual” and thought it was a euphemism for trans people. Like “bi sex? Two sexes? Are these people claiming to be male AND female?” and then ordered the term be removed, only to be informed “no that’s not what the word means” and it got reverted.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

I don't know. A lot of people still don't think bisexual people exist, even in the gay/lesbian community. It's still controversial for conservatives, just not a target of the current administration as it would cover too many people and having "the enemy" be too large of a group means more likelihood of successful revolt or at least enough people getting wise to the fact that it's just a means of controlling them.

[–] guillem@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's tragicomic that this makes sense.

[–] memfree@beehaw.org 8 points 2 days ago

That sounds as likely as any other crazy uninformed reason the Trump team might have.

I do recommend watching those and other government pages because I'm sure this is not the end of the weird edits.