(no subject)

So, bisexuality doesn't exist. It says so in the paper. The "expert" Dr Qazi Rahman (from that hallowed institution, the University of East London, no less) tells us:

"Those who don't believe in a gay gene ask: "What about the bisexuals?". It's quite controversial as to whether bisexuality exists. Some studies say it doesn't and I don't think it does either. Sexual orientation is an 'either, or' phenomenon for both genders, more so for men."

1. Sexual orientation binaries are absolute, but more absolute for some than for others.
2. Bisexuality does not exist because some studies say so and I, who am not bisexual, proclaim that it is the case.
3. We can ignore the people who claim to be bisexual, they must all be deluded or greedy or indecisive.

Also, apparently, "Bisexual people have gay and heterosexual phases. George Melly, the jazz musician, is bisexual. He was gay, then married and had affairs." - Prof. Jeffrey Weeks. Because obviously, if we're in a relationship with someone of gender x, we are, at that time, only attracted to members of gender x.. (heh, guess that makes me practically asexual).. not to mention the use one person's experiences as a model for all non-monosexual orientations...

OK, so I know I was bitching about the invisibility of spectrum sexualities, but this is just taking the piss. E-mail health@ukmetro.co.uk and let them know what you think about their printing this damaging bullshit.

(no subject)

From: emma.lewis@college.oxford.ac.uk
To: health@ukmetro.co.uk

I write in relation to the article publiched on page 17 of the Monday, July 24, 2006 Metro, entitled "Does a gay gene exist?".

In it, Dr Qazi Rahman says "It's quite controversial as to whether bisexuality exists. Some studies say it doesn't and I don't think it does either". Can any citations be provided for studies which conclude that all people who identify as bisexual are in some way deluded? This seems to me to be a most offensive assertion, effectively denying the validity of the self-identification of a large number of Londoners. It also seems to me to be biased: why does Dr Rahman focus on the few studies which apparently conclude that bisexuality does not exist, rather than, for example, research which suggests that "monosexual" orientations (homosexuality and heterosexuality) are in the minority, with most people capable of attraction to all genders in some degree. (For example, the results found by Kinsey in his massive American study).

I, myself, do not see the controversy over the existence of bisexuality that Dr Rahman claims. All I see is that I know many people who identify as bisexual, who are not going to stop finding themselves sexually and romantically attracted to all genders simply because Dr Rahman has told them they do not exist.

I find it irresponsible that Metro would publish such misleading views in a newspaper read by millions of Londoners, many of whom identify as bisexual. In a time when discussion of "gay and lesbian" rights are becoming more and more commonplace, the invisibility of non-monosexual orientations is becoming more and more of an issue. I feel let down that Metro sees fit to add to this ignorance.

Can you explain in any way how Metro felt it was justified in telling any proportion of its readership (I will not get into wrangling about percentages, but surely it is obvious that at least some of Metro's readership identifies as bisexual?) that it did not exist?

Yours, in expectation of an explanation,

Emma Lewis.

(no subject)

That article in full:

SEXUALITY: A NEW STUDY HAS REIGNITED THE DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS DETERMINED BY OUR DNA BLUEPRINT.

( Does a gay gene exist? )

(no subject)

Hi Emma,

We did not 'tell any proportion of our readership that it did not exist.'
We reported the opinions of one person. That is what newspapers do. We
also reported the views of someone else who disagreed with him and quoted
George melly as a well-known example of a bisexual - again, hardly a
denial that bisexuals exist. We suspect that our readers have enough
intelligence to make up their own minds on such issues.

regards

Kieran Meeke
Features Editor

(no subject)

Thanks, everyone who's written to the Metro - but I'm beginning to worry that the health@ukmetro.co.uk is a dustbin email address. Would you all mind terribly forwarding your responses to features@ukmetro.co.uk ? That is the address from which I got the snotty response, and I think that Kieran Meeke is the one who needs to hear all your witty and wonderful arguments.

Much love to all of you! I've actually been moved by the response you've all shown to this. Which makes me soppy, I suppose... oh well.

ETA: My reply to him:

cc: His Editor (thanks for that suggestion, folks!)

Hi Kieran,

I'm sorry, I admit it was too extreme of me to assert that you told any proportion of your readership that they did not exist. I agree that any discerning reader would be able to dismiss Dr Rahman's opinions. However, I have encountered too much bigotry and ignorance to have as much faith in the general public as you seem to. Biphobia is a very real phenomenon(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphobia), and bisexuality suffers many stereotypes (greediness, indecision, denial) from which homosexuality is free. After this article, someone who already holds even mildly biphobic attitudes will be able to add "but you don't really exist" (Dr Rahmann) and "you just go through straight and gay phases" (Prof Weeks)to their arsenal of ignorance.

I would also like to express how inappropriate I found your response. Rather than addressing the points raised in my e-mail, you were flippant and rude. Even if you disagreed with the thrust of my coresspondance, I feel that dismissing my criticism without consideration and in such a disrespectful manner was uncalled for.

I always through that reporting "the opinions of one person" is not, as you claim, "what newspapers do". I was under the impression that newspapers attempted to present news, that is to say, measured and balanced reports of what is going on in the world. While you did, indeed, present a balanced view of whether or not there is a gay gene, I feel that your treatment of bisexuality was far from balanced, and that this issue requires further consideration.

regards,

Emma Lewis