Arrogant, dismissive little shitwits. Who do we write to to complain about this WANKER?
Also:
This in reference to the article published on page 17 of the Monday, July 24, 2006 Metro, entitled "Does a gay gene exist?".
On reading this particular piece, I was somewhat disturbed by the biased and unscientific arguments being used within. That is to say, the article only acknowledges the existence of bisexuality inasmuch as bi individuals are those who "have gay and heterosexual phases". Firstly, to cite an example of said "phases" based on an individual (in this case George Melly) having both same- and opposite-sex relationships in his or her personal history is an example of an extremely skewed logic: by this model of ascertaining attraction by current partner, bisexuality can of course not exist unless the person in question assiduously seeks out "one of each" in every sexual situation. By this logic, therefore, those without a current partner must be entirely devoid of sexual desire, and those with genderqueer or intersex partners must be... at this point, the method is somewhat reduced to absurdity. Moreover, Dr. Rahman's study surely cannot be cited as an argument for the non-existence of bisexuality, as it appears to have been constructed along binary assumptions; that is, examining a genetic dichotomy between gay and straight individuals, and cannot, scientifically, be considered apposite to bisexuals, as none have apparently been involved in the study. Indeed, one could assume that the existence of a number of genetic triggers for homosexual attraction present in different combinations would be a rather pressing argument for abandoning an "all-or-nothing" model of sexuality. To state that something is an "either/or" phenomenon, for both genders, but more so with males, is both a logical and grammatical absurdity. Moreover, the article's almost complete effacement of female homosexuality and equation of societal gender roles with sexual orientation is not only blinkered and insulting, but perhaps suggests that the reason bisexuals supposedly "don't exist" is the fact that they are difficult to fit into a model of gender and sexuality in which all queer women are wear dungarees and lumberjack shirts, and all queer men are hairdressers and own toy poodles. That is to say, a model of gender and sexuality based entirely on hateful stereotypes and a total misunderstanding of more or less the entire queer community. I am aware that part of the remit of a newspaper is to publish differing opinions, and that the Metro cannot be held responsible for the failings of the Rahman study. However, this article represents an unacceptably bad and biased standard of both science journalism, writing in general, and attempts at understanding people other than straight males.
no subject
Also:
This in reference to the article published on page 17 of the Monday, July 24, 2006 Metro, entitled "Does a gay gene exist?".
On reading this particular piece, I was somewhat disturbed by the biased and unscientific arguments being used within. That is to say, the article only acknowledges the existence of bisexuality inasmuch as bi individuals are those who "have gay and heterosexual phases". Firstly, to cite an example of said "phases" based on an individual (in this case George Melly) having both same- and opposite-sex relationships in his or her personal history is an example of an extremely skewed logic: by this model of ascertaining attraction by current partner, bisexuality can of course not exist unless the person in question assiduously seeks out "one of each" in every sexual situation. By this logic, therefore, those without a current partner must be entirely devoid of sexual desire, and those with genderqueer or intersex partners must be... at this point, the method is somewhat reduced to absurdity.
Moreover, Dr. Rahman's study surely cannot be cited as an argument for the non-existence of bisexuality, as it appears to have been constructed along binary assumptions; that is, examining a genetic dichotomy between gay and straight individuals, and cannot, scientifically, be considered apposite to bisexuals, as none have apparently been involved in the study. Indeed, one could assume that the existence of a number of genetic triggers for homosexual attraction present in different combinations would be a rather pressing argument for abandoning an "all-or-nothing" model of sexuality. To state that something is an "either/or" phenomenon, for both genders, but more so with males, is both a logical and grammatical absurdity. Moreover, the article's almost complete effacement of female homosexuality and equation of societal gender roles with sexual orientation is not only blinkered and insulting, but perhaps suggests that the reason bisexuals supposedly "don't exist" is the fact that they are difficult to fit into a model of gender and sexuality in which all queer women are wear dungarees and lumberjack shirts, and all queer men are hairdressers and own toy poodles. That is to say, a model of gender and sexuality based entirely on hateful stereotypes and a total misunderstanding of more or less the entire queer community. I am aware that part of the remit of a newspaper is to publish differing opinions, and that the Metro cannot be held responsible for the failings of the Rahman study. However, this article represents an unacceptably bad and biased standard of both science journalism, writing in general, and attempts at understanding people other than straight males.
Yours in anticipation of an explanation,
W.Black.