sebastienne | (no subject)

Fucktard!

I think they have too much faith in the intelligence of their readers. Someone should explain to them (slowly) just how full the world is of morons.

I agree with this. Although his comment is accurate for people who read and think about things what they present is two people's opinions on things. 50% think bisexuality doesn't exist. The one example they have disagrees with him but that's just one person. I think if they had made just a little bit more comment on how prevalent these views were and how many people shared them then I'd have been fine with it but its just a blatant abuse of marketing and statistics. I see where the guy is coming from and I think possibly the complaint letter was wrong to give him that chance to say "we did not tell them this" since they didn't. I dunno. Big mess really. Crap article and stuff.

FYI - Qazi's info! (http://www.borngayprocon.org/BiosInd/Rahman.htm)

To: Qazi Rahman

"Hi,

I'm writing regarding your interview in the London Metro (24/7/06 edition) in the article "does a gay gene exist?". You are reported as suggesting that the existance of bisexuality is a matter of considerable debate, and that "some studies" had reported that it didn't - I was wondering if you could send me brief details of those studies, as the area is one of interest to me.

Also, you state that "Sexual orientation is an 'either, or' phenomena for both genders, more so with men." I was hoping that you could clarify that statement, as it seems logically impossible when worded in such a manner?

On a personal level, I would say that bisexuality most definately does exist, being bisexual myself, and also find that the way in which your statement was presented (although this isn't really your fault) made your opinions on the matter seem like an offensive denial of a percentage of people's sexuality - Whether you believe in bisexuality or not, you must surely recognise that many people identify as bisexuals, and without full context (ie: in the article) your views come across as very derisive.

Thanks in advance for any help,
Ashley /surname/"

i love you.

http://www.bicommunitynews.co.uk/74/men.html

Oh yeah, and don't take anything printed in the Metro to heart. It is the most hashed-together daily publication anywhere in the country, with a team that is lethargic in an equal proportion. The Metro is just a control device to take some people's minds off of the state of the Underground service. They often do these little features about health and sexuality, and it usually just a patched together excuse of an informative and educational article by an inexperienced and ignorant young "journalist" who would rather be at home watching Friends all day. I can guarantee that 80% of those who read the article won't even remember it this time tomorrow.

Is not the Metro a good indicator, though - despite the fact that it is utterly unscientific - of what a not-inconsiderable number of people do think of bisexuals?
The two statements made in the Metro (either that bisexuality does not exist, or that it only exists in phases, and is entwined with unfaithfulness/a lack of self-knowledge) are two opinions shared by not only a large proportion of people who identify as heterosexuals, but also (as a full afternoon's discussion at the Oxford QR kicked home to me) amongst people who identify as homosexuals - and not only amongst the unwashed masses who read the Metro on their blue-collared commute, but amongst people who perhaps should be a little more enlightened?
Reading articles like this makes me wonder if organisations like Stonewall are perhaps going to have to concentrate their fire in the future to overcome what seems, at the moment, to be a much greater level of prejudice (at least in the UK) towards those people who self-identify as bisexual.
love C.H.
PS on a happier note, let's do lunch at some point this week or next?

Thinking on this over lunch - write back complaining that he did not address the issues you raised, and was rude/flippant to boot and copy in his editor.

That's what makes ME angry, even more so than the article. The article is tosh, but it's tosh representative of what a certain strand of scientists think. Scientists have a right to uphold certain opinions that are tosh. This is sort of the basis of science. It sucks, and I'd like to kick them, but the real damage is done not by scientists but idiot journalists.

But that guy had NO RIGHT to be rude or flippant to you, and he was BOTH. COPY HIS EDITOR. I will write from work tomorrow. *nods*

Meh - Wikipedia - Metro: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28Associated_Metro_Limited%29)

"Metro is the trading name of a free newspaper, published by Associated Newspapers (part of Daily Mail and General Trust)"

Explains a lot...

Well, that's arse dribble, isn't it? *goes off to send further critical email to them*

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.

Yours in anticipation of an explanation,
W.Black.

oh, THANK YOU! this is of great shininess.

if you could forward this to features@ukmetro.co.uk, the address I got the snotty reply from, I'd be much obliged.

the woman who edited the article gave me a nice apologetic reply, said she'd forward my opinions to Dr Rahman. I've had nothing from health@ukmetro.co.uk, but the features editor was a wanker at me. So yes.. contrary opinions to him would be appreciated.

oooh can we see what she wrote in apology?

well, less snotty and more reasonable...

Hi Emma,
Thank you for your email.

When we decided to publish the article we were aware that some of the
statements were quite controversial. But, as you can clearly see from the
piece, these views are held by Dr Qazi Rahman and not Metro.

To ensure our readers were completely clear of this fact, we presented the
debate in the 'for' and 'against' form as opposed to our standard story
structure. I did not in anyway want to be seen siding with either Dr Qazi
Rahman or Prof Jeffrey Weeks, and I am confident that readers will see
that we were simply reporting on what is a very interesting argument.

Surely we would have been more ignorant by ignoring the debate altogether?

We do appreciate all our readers comments and I will be forwarding all
feedback to Qazi Rahman.

and I believe his editor's address is kenny.campbell@ukmetro.co.uk.

Having read an article published on page 17 of the Monday, July 24, 2006 Metro concerning gay genes and the existence of bisexuality I felt it best to send you an email. In my opinion the article requires serious reworking as it could very easily give readers the wrong idea with regards to the debate and makes use of incredible rules of grammar that I hitherto had not known existed.

The first problem I encountered when reading the article was the lack of evidence. Assumedly these scientists in Ontario have some sort of proof or at least some data to lead us to believe that their theory is viable? I believe the sentence ran:
"They claim that antibodies produced in the womb affect a foetus's developing brain. The mother's body may regard a male foetus as 'foreign' compared with a female one, prompting a chemical reaction in her that gets progressively stronger with each male child. So, the more older brothers you have, the higher the chance you'll be gay."
I am assuming that the science that these scientists were using was statistics. It sounds like they've gleaned some statistical information off of the populace which lead them to believe that "the more older brothers you have, the higher chance you'll be gay." And to explain this they have used a, in my opinion, half-baked idea concerning a mother biologically considering their own child to be a foreign entity depending upon its sex. Logically this makes absolutely no sense. As I see it, the entire point of nature is to make more nature. It would be incredibly idiotic for a creature to chemically alter the way it nurtures its offspring in the womb because it perceives it be foreign. If this were the case then it would lead to a large and rather dramatic flaw in the natural system. I am not saying that this is not the case, as I am not in point of fact a biologist, what I am saying is that for such an immensely important scientific 'breakthrough' it may have proven wiser to offer up some sort of scientific evidence, which the article does, in fact, claim the scientists possess.
It also gives absolutely no explanation for lesbians, which concerns me as lesbians are an important part of the homosexual populace.
If it turns out that these scientists don't really have any evidence, but have a theory, logical or otherwise, would it not be better to say explicitly that it is a theory and has only been proven through statistics which are noteably unreliable, or even better: not include it in the article at all and find some other study with scientific merit and things?

I shall move on as I feel I have laboured the point enough.

[though I shall in fact move on in the next comment as I am too wordy, like]

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.

In anxious anticipation of an explanation,

Tavaro

ooh, thank you! you are wonderfully articulate :) if you want to send it to the guy who sent me the rude response, and seems to require re-educating, he can be reached at "features@ukmetro.co.uk".

from your location, and friends list, i'm assuming you're a reprobate... which one?

The Craig-shaped one, I do believe.

If you want matrial to quote at people check out: Wikipedia - Biphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphobia)

Particulaly the paragraph:

"A 2005 study claimed that a sample of men self-identifying as bisexual did not respond equally to gay pornographic material involving only men, and only women, but instead showed four times more arousal to one than the other. However, bisexuality does not imply equal attraction towards both genders. In addition, opponents claim that genital arousal to homosexual pornographic material is not a good indicator of orientation. They also point out that the study showed a third of men had no arousal, and ask why this doesn't mean that one third of men are really asexual. LGBT advocates subsequently attacked the study and the New York Times article which reported it as flawed and biphobic."