Dr Qazi Rahman. Why have you used him as an expert? He has written a book on it. This is fine, assumedly he did research before writing it, etc, so I can understand why you would seek him out. He said: "Sexual orientation is an 'either. or' phenomena for both genders, more so with men." Would you not, at this point, be doubting the use of him as an expert. If you could find no one else the least you could do is not print this quote. It doesn't make sense. After this gramatical gem you would, obviously, then look over the other things that he had said, namely: "If you have four of five, you would be straight but have gay traits, ie you'd be more feminine." Personally, I would assume that if you got an expert on a subject then they would know about said subject. They would know that, in this instance, sexuality is not determined by how feminine you are. Being feminine does not make you gay. If you are gay then you are not automatically feminine. If I was interviewing this man and I had somehow managed to control my rage at such an idiotic statement, I would not print it in the article. Or maybe I would, and use it as an example of how some view homosexuality and bisexuality and how this needs to be changed. The fact that dear Dr Qazi Rahman does not understand the subject matter and would appear to have come to these conclusions never having spoken to anyone other than heterosexuals should have brought you, as journalists, to the conclusion that he is not the best person to quote in this debate.
Professor Jeffrey Weeks. I am glad that you managed to find someone to argue the opposite side of the argument. The problem is that this expert says that: "Bisexual people have gay and heterosexual phases." He followed this up by exemplifying with George Melly having male and female partners at different times in his life. This argument has two rather obvious logical flaws: 1) Just because George Melly at one point had a male partner, and at one point had a female partner does not mean he went through phases. This would suggest that only if you have a male and a female partner at the same time can you be bisexual. I shall come back to this. Taking another logical step, it would also suggest that while George Melly did not have a partner he had no sex drive at all and found neither men nor women attractive. This is lunacy. 2) This point actually argues back on Jeff here, as bisexuality is clearly possible if George had had a relationship involving two people of differing sexes. Professor Jeffrey Weeks is not a particularly good expert as he contradicts himself and one of his arguments makes no logical sense (although it does make gramatical sense to kudos to him for that).
In short, you have quoted two people who's arguments are logically flawed and claimed to possess scientific evidence that you have not shown us. What is the point in your article? All you have done is possibly offended a large group of bisexuals who are assumedly convinced that they exist and proven to me that you are unaware of how to write a newspaper article.
no subject
"Sexual orientation is an 'either. or' phenomena for both genders, more so with men."
Would you not, at this point, be doubting the use of him as an expert. If you could find no one else the least you could do is not print this quote. It doesn't make sense. After this gramatical gem you would, obviously, then look over the other things that he had said, namely:
"If you have four of five, you would be straight but have gay traits, ie you'd be more feminine."
Personally, I would assume that if you got an expert on a subject then they would know about said subject. They would know that, in this instance, sexuality is not determined by how feminine you are. Being feminine does not make you gay. If you are gay then you are not automatically feminine. If I was interviewing this man and I had somehow managed to control my rage at such an idiotic statement, I would not print it in the article. Or maybe I would, and use it as an example of how some view homosexuality and bisexuality and how this needs to be changed.
The fact that dear Dr Qazi Rahman does not understand the subject matter and would appear to have come to these conclusions never having spoken to anyone other than heterosexuals should have brought you, as journalists, to the conclusion that he is not the best person to quote in this debate.
Professor Jeffrey Weeks. I am glad that you managed to find someone to argue the opposite side of the argument. The problem is that this expert says that:
"Bisexual people have gay and heterosexual phases."
He followed this up by exemplifying with George Melly having male and female partners at different times in his life. This argument has two rather obvious logical flaws:
1) Just because George Melly at one point had a male partner, and at one point had a female partner does not mean he went through phases. This would suggest that only if you have a male and a female partner at the same time can you be bisexual. I shall come back to this. Taking another logical step, it would also suggest that while George Melly did not have a partner he had no sex drive at all and found neither men nor women attractive. This is lunacy.
2) This point actually argues back on Jeff here, as bisexuality is clearly possible if George had had a relationship involving two people of differing sexes.
Professor Jeffrey Weeks is not a particularly good expert as he contradicts himself and one of his arguments makes no logical sense (although it does make gramatical sense to kudos to him for that).
In short, you have quoted two people who's arguments are logically flawed and claimed to possess scientific evidence that you have not shown us. What is the point in your article?
All you have done is possibly offended a large group of bisexuals who are assumedly convinced that they exist and proven to me that you are unaware of how to write a newspaper article.
In anxious anticipation of an explanation,
Tavaro