(no subject)

[sebastienne]

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

Comments

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

Fucktard!

[stronglight.livejournal.com]

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.

[sushi-radical.livejournal.com]

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

[billyphatu.livejournal.com]

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

[billyphatu.livejournal.com]

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.

[vampire-kitten.livejournal.com]

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.

[neoanjou.livejournal.com]

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...

[potatofiend.livejournal.com]

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

[withiel.livejournal.com]

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.

[the-tavaro.livejournal.com]

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]

[neoanjou.livejournal.com]

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."