The New York Times whitewashes criticism of flawed bisexuality article,

by carefully selecting which 'Letters' to Publish

HBI member Chandler Burr emerges as Bailey's new spokesman


Investigative notes Filed 7-22-05
[V 7-22-05]
by Lynn Conway


On July 12, 2005, the New York Times published six short letters to the editors about their July 5, 2005 article entitled "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisted."

The authors of the selected letters were: Joan Roughgarden, John Craig, Ken Forsberg, Chandler Burr, Paul Burns,and Catherine Gaffney.

None of the selected letters mentioned Mr. Bailey's controversial history, i.e. that he was a disgraced academic who had been forced to resign as Chairman of the Psychology Department at Northwestern University following an investigation into his research misconduct.

None of the selected letters mentioned that Bailey had made an earlier similar attack on the identities of transsexual women, and thus that his new attack on yet another sexual minority appears sociopathic to many observers.

None of the letters mentioned the GLAAD and FAIR Alerts about the shoddy journalism and suspect science in the article, even though those national alerts from widely respected groups had been available for several days and had been mentioned in many letters to the editors.

Instead, the selected letters presented a range of non-controversial comments about the article (see below).

Roughgarden, Craig, Forsberg and Burns were negative about the article, but for reasons other than the above. Gaffney contributed a humorous reflection. However, Burr wrote a strongly supportive letter for Bailey, in which he scathingly attacked Bailey's critics, calling them "hysterical - and anti-science".

By NOT including any letters that mentioned Bailey's controversial history, his forced resignation, his earlier attack on the identities of transsexual women, or the GLAAD or FAIR alerts, this letter-selection by the Times editors amounts to a whitewashing of the very widespread LGBT community criticism of the article.



HBI member Chandler Burr emerges as Bailey's new spokesman:

By writing his letter (below), Chandler Burr emerges as Bailey's proxy and spokesman in this new controversy. Bailey likely hopes that by having a well-known gay man as his spokesman and defender, he can blunt gay criticism of his bisexuality "science".

Burr is an old-guard (Fourattist) conservative gay man who has written a series of controversy books supporting Dean Hamer's and Simon LeVay's "gay gene" theory. For that theory to be valid, there cannot be a continuum of gender or sexual orientation. Instead those men insist that gender and orientation are "bi-polar", i.e., that people are only male or female, gay or straight, with nothing in between (except "liars"). This is the ideological framework from within which their scientific attacks on the identities of transsexual women and bisexual men have arisen, for trans women and bi-men cannot exist under their theory.

Burr is an advocate and book-writing spokesman for the "gay gene" world view, and is tightly connected with LeVay, Hamer, Bailey and Blanchard. It seems likely that Benedict Carey would already have known him, since they are both visible gay men and Burr is also an "employee" of the Times (see below). Carey would almost certainly have known that Burr had sent a letter to the editors (being alerted by either Bailey or Burr), even possibly coordinating with Burr on the writing and tone of the letter and suggesting that his editors publish Burr's letter.

The fact that the Times included the title of (and thus promoted) Burr's now outdated 1996 book, which supports the LeVay-Hamer theory that bisexuality 'does not exist', is further evidence of inside bias. For, in contrast, the editors did NOT include the title of Professor Roughgarden's new 2004 book (Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People) which presents a large amount of more recent scientific (biological) evidence for gender and orientation diversity in people.

Furthermore, we find on Mr. Burr's own website that he is "The New York Times' writer on scent". Thus Mr. Burr has an employee relationship with the New York Times.

Doesn't it seem odd that an employee was allowed to plant a scathing attack on critics of Mr. Carey's New York Times' article in a letter to the editor? Especially since that employee's letter that was apparently the only one the Times could find that approved of the article? Talk about bias and conflict of interest!


In his letter, Chandler Burr takes the exact stance that we predicted would be used by Bailey's ardent supporters: Burr tries to shift attention away from Bailey's shoddy science and his bizarre interpretations of mediocre data by attacking all of Bailey's critics as being "hysterical" and "anti-science".

This is exactly the way that earlier Bailey proxies and spokesmen John Derbyshire, Dan Seligman, Steve Sailer and Stephen Pinker had defended Bailey's attacks on the identities of transsexual women. However, if anything smells "hysterical" and "anti-science" around here, it is Mr. Burr's letter to the Times!

Note that in addition to his "gay gene" ideological connections with LeVay, Hamer Bailey and Blanchard, Chandler Burr is also a member of the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI) (along with Bailey, Blanchard, and many of Bailey's earlier spokesmen Derbyshire, Seligman, Sailer and Pinker).
HBI is the group of racists, anti-immigrationists and genetic superiorists whose activities were exposed by the prestigious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in the Winter 2003 SPLC investigative report entitled:
QUEER SCIENCE: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race.
That should give readers some idea of the kind of person we are dealing with in Mr. Burr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/science/12lett.html?ex=1122004800&en=8527524b4b04e43d&ei=5070
The New York Times Science
Letters
Published: July 12, 2005
Gauging Bisexuality
To the Editor:
Re "Straight, Gay or Lying: Bisexuality Revisited" (July 5):
Results casting doubt on the reality of bisexuality reported are probably incorrect. In the 300 or more known vertebrate species with natural homosexuality, all combine heterosexual with homosexual relations.
Humans are not likely to differ from other species in this regard, including our closest nonhuman relative, the bonobo. Indeed, in all human cultures homosexual expression has been, and is, combined with heterosexual expression.
The data in the article show that 20 percent of the pool having same-sex relations do identify as bisexual.
These people surely aren't all lying. Instead, psychologists should add a fourth possibility to their list: namely, that they are wrong.
Dr. Joan RoughgardenSan FranciscoThe writer is a professor of biology at Stanford.
•

To the Editor:
The study of bisexual males conducted by Toronto and Chicago psychologists may demonstrate that men who identify as bisexual are in fact either mostly homosexual or mostly heterosexual ("Straight, Gay or Lying?"). But it fails to disprove what Freud and Kinsey asserted: that the psychological makeup of most males has a significant bisexual dimension.
I have worked with bisexual men as a professional counselor for 15 years. Most of the men I work with are well-educated upper-middle-class married men - leaders in their businesses and communities. Not one of them has ever identified openly as bisexual. If any did, the consequences would be devastating.
These men would never volunteer for the kind of study the Toronto and Chicago scholars conducted. The study is thus one in which truly bisexual men have screened themselves out.
In ancient Greece, most males passed through distinct homosexual stages in both adolescence and adulthood. How do the study's psychologists account for this undeniable fact?
John CraigFairfax, Va.
•

To the Editor:
The article on bisexuality was interesting, but I confess some amazement that still today, in the year 2005, an article like yours treats women as an afterthought and still makes it into print in a major newspaper ("Straight, Gay or Lying?"). Sure you throw "at least in men" into the second sentence. But you then go on to discuss bisexuality in general based just on the results for males, burying the results for females at the very end of the article.
"Doesn't matter if bisexuality is clear in women; it's what happens in men that really defines the term," you seem to be saying.
Kind of incredible. Freud would have approved. The rest of us expect better from you.
Ken ForsbergMadison, Wis.
•

To the Editor:
Some gay and bisexual advocates are condemning "Straight, Gay or Lying?" regarding a study suggesting that bisexuality may not exist among human males - something those of us familiar with the scientific literature have known since, basically, forever.
Compare this hysterical - and anti-science - reaction to the conservative Christians' anti-science reaction to studies showing that homosexuality is an inborn orientation like left-handedness. They're identical.
The right hates science because the data contradict (in the case of homosexuality) Leviticus; the left because the data contradict the liberal lie that we're environment-created, not hard-wired in any way.
These particular scientific facts are making these advocates scream like members of the extreme right, though it's they who always tells the right to let go of concepts that are contradicted by science.
Chandler BurrNew YorkThe writer is the author of "A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation."
•

To the Editor:
Re "Straight, Gay or Lying?": The headline is not only disrespectful but also unprofessional in its insinuation. No, those of us living outside the boxes of gay and straight are not "lying," thank you very much! Many of us have struggled to stay open to ourselves in an increasingly, and oppressively, black-and-white, reductionistic world.
Paul BurnsSt. Johnsbury, Vt.
•

To the Editor:
Re "Straight, Gay or Lying?": If our sexual preferences were best detected by who we look at in pornography, wouldn't pretty much everyone be attracted to mildly unattractive people who live on the West Coast and lack acting talent?
Catherine GaffneyPhiladelphia


LynnConway.com > TS Information > Bailey Investigation > Bi-Sexuality Revisited > Letters to editor 7-12-05

Women give way to men in WCD ministry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published on November 23 2009 ,Page 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEX CHANGE Most senior bureaucrats in the women and child development ministry are men, this wasn't the case 5 months ago

Chetan Chauhan

chetan@hindustantimes.com
NEW DELHI:

The women and child development ministry has seen a change in the gender composition of its senior officers.
Men have replaced women in more than 80 per cent of the positions the latter held.

Of the top five officials in the ministry -- joint secretary and above -- four are men now, as against only one five months ago.

Women and Child Development Minister Krishna Tirath said: "Both men and women are efficient and can deliver equally well."

The previous women and child development minister, Renuka Chowdhury, believed that women understood issues related to women and children better than men did.

Till June 2009 Anil Kumar, the then secretary, was the only male officer in the ministry.
People under him were women -- Additional Secretary Vijayalakshmi K. Gupta, and Joint Secretaries Lovleen Kackar, Kiran Chadda, Manjula Krishnan and Pradeep Bolina.

The change started with Lovleen Kackar completing her five-year central deputation and returning to her parent cadre, Madhya Pradesh.

Shreeranjan, a 1985 batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the AssamMeghalaya cadre, who goes by one name, replaced her.

After her, Kiran Chadda, a central secretariat service officer, went on a long leave and was replaced by Sudhir Kumar, a Bihar cadre IAS officer of the 1982 batch.

Recently, Manjula Krishnan was promoted as additional secretary and posted in the rural development ministry as economic advisor.

No one has filled in for her in the women and child development ministry.

Bolina will retire by the end of this year.

"If her (Bolina's) replacement is also a male officer, the top rung of the ministry will be all men for the first time since it came into being in 2005," said a senior ministry official, not willing to be quoted as he is not authorised to speak to the media.

Women officers in the ministry have taken a stand against the government. Deepa Jain Singh, as secretary, protested when the department of personnel and training (DoPT) wanted women officers to submit details of their menstrual cycle. After her protest, the department withdrew the order.

Kackar had criticised the Madhya Pradesh government for the malnutrition deaths in the state in 2008.

The women and child development ministry has seen a change in the gender composition of its senior officers.
Men have replaced women in more than 80 per cent of the positions the latter held.

Of the top five officials in the ministry -- joint secretary and above -- four are men now, as against only one five months ago.

Women and Child Development Minister Krishna Tirath said: "Both men and women are efficient and can deliver equally well."

The previous women and child development minister, Renuka Chowdhury, believed that women understood issues related to women and children better than men did.

Till June 2009 Anil Kumar, the then secretary, was the only male officer in the ministry.
People under him were women -- Additional Secretary Vijayalakshmi K. Gupta, and Joint Secretaries Lovleen Kackar, Kiran Chadda, Manjula Krishnan and Pradeep Bolina.

The change started with Lovleen Kackar completing her five-year central deputation and returning to her parent cadre, Madhya Pradesh.

Shreeranjan, a 1985 batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the AssamMeghalaya cadre, who goes by one name, replaced her.

After her, Kiran Chadda, a central secretariat service officer, went on a long leave and was replaced by Sudhir Kumar, a Bihar cadre IAS officer of the 1982 batch.

Recently, Manjula Krishnan was promoted as additional secretary and posted in the rural development ministry as economic advisor.

No one has filled in for her in the women and child development ministry.

Bolina will retire by the end of this year.

"If her (Bolina's) replacement is also a male officer, the top rung of the ministry will be all men for the first time since it came into being in 2005," said a senior ministry official, not willing to be quoted as he is not authorised to speak to the media.

Women officers in the ministry have taken a stand against the government. Deepa Jain Singh, as secretary, protested when the department of personnel and training (DoPT) wanted women officers to submit details of their menstrual cycle. After her protest, the department withdrew the order.

Kackar had criticised the Madhya Pradesh government for the malnutrition deaths in the state in 2008.


TOP


www.pressmart.com www.pressmart.com

Non-ladies' coupe

Editorial page (Comment), Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Friday, June 19, 2009\

After all, even men need protection from, you guessed it, women

Authorities in Tokyo seem to be fumbling in the dark in response to a strange request. Male commuters, tired of being left in the lurch by the heaving and rolling of high-speed train carriages, are requesting men-only compartments to avoid being charged with 'accidentally' groping women. They figure they're equally entitled to a refuge of their own as insurance against the vagaries of general compartments.
This comes after the Tokyo High Court overturned an earlier ruling last week that had sentenced a 23 year-old man to prison for groping a high-school girl on a Tokyo train, and follows the Japanese Supreme Court's view that 'careful judgements' be made in such cases. Taking the matter into their own hands are a few shareholders of Seibu Holdings, which runs trains in the Tokyo area, who have petitioned for separate carriages in response to reserved spaces for women-during rush hour.
Now, this desperate clutching at straws might seem a tad too much for the brave of this land, long used to the rough and tumble of public transport. With feisty Indian aunties only too happy to reply with a well-placed hand (better known as a thappar) for a misplaced one, one might think it would send the Indian male running for cover. But our plucky commuters have repeaqtedly proven the age-old dictum 'survival of the grittiest'. It seems unlikely that the Tokyo request will be granted, but we have to hand it to the men for trying to even the field a little.

Young Mumbai doesn’t want kissing in public

COMMENT ON THIS !

	Be the first to comment Your Views! Comment Login to comment

Naomi Canton, Hindustan Times

Email Author

Mumbai, February 06, 2009

First Published: 13:17 IST(6/2/2009)

Last Updated: 13:19 IST(6/2/2009)

	Print

Worried globalisation is corrupting the minds of the youth? Well, don’t be.

This week the Supreme Court set a precedent after ruling that a married couple kissing in public did not amount to “obscenity”, but Mumbai’s GenNext are horrified.

They say kissing in public is against Indian culture, offensive to elders and an imported western custom that should be banned.

At Mithibai College in suburban Vile Parle, Priyanka Patil (16), a first year student at NM College, from Kandivli, said kissing in public could corrupt the minds of young people, while Sonali Shah (18), a student from Borivli, said it would hurt the sentiments of elders.

Esha Shah (18), a student at the Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management and Engineering, from Goregaon, said it was “western culture”. “We want to keep Indian culture. We don’t want to be western.”

Sitting on the steps outside Fun Republic, a multiplex in suburban Andheri, Class XI Hemangini Deshmukh (16), said: “Its against sanskar (the right way to live) to kiss in public. I would not like to see anyone doing it.” His friend Keyur Buddhdev (17), also from Andheri, said: “You have to show respect to older people.”

Sohit Sarkar (25), a creative head in a TV company, added: “It will take time for India to digest this thing.”

The older business crowd was also appalled. “We want to save Indian culture. This is what westerners do,” said Kirtishwar Kishore (29) a marketing professional from Chembur. “The most important aspect of Indian culture is giving respect to elders.”

But the youth agreed it should not be a criminal offence.

However, there was also the odd detractor.

“I think kissing in public is fine. It is against Indian culture but I don’t mind,” said Prerna Singh (15), a student from Sathaye College, who lives in Andheri.

“I kiss my girlfriend in public,” said Rahul Pandey (18), a first year BSc student at Mithibai College, also from Andheri. “And I’ve never been arrested. I kiss her in the middle of the street. Obviously you should not go further than a kiss.”

However they were in the minority. The one thing students were unified on: they did not want to see Valentine’s Day banned.

Avani Jain (16), of NM College, who lives in Andheri, said: “Valentine’s Day is about the people you love – your friends and family. It’s not about couples.”

Dukhtaran sound V-Day warning in Valley

COMMENT ON THIS !

	Be the first to comment Your Views! Comment Login to comment

Aurangzeb Naqshbandi, Hindustan Times

Email Author

New Delhi, February 06, 2009

First Published: 13:11 IST(6/2/2009)

Last Updated: 13:13 IST(6/2/2009)

	Print

Both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists seem to agree on one point — moral policing, and Valentine’s Day is the busiest time of the year for them.

After anonymous hoardings in Srinagar city warned couples of dire consequences, it is now the turn of Dukhtaran-e-Millat (the daughters of faith). The Kashmiri women separatist group has asked shopkeepers not to sell gifts or cards for Valentine’s Day.

In its “appeal”, the outfit also asked restaurant and hotel owners not to organise parties. “Valentine’s Day celebrations are against our culture and religion,” outfit chief Aasiya Andrabi said.

The managements of Mughal and botanical gardens have been told not to let couples in on February 14.

“Such celebrations lead to immorality; these are part of the West’ cultural invasion,” she said.

Several right-wing Hindu organisations like the Shiv Sena and Sri Rama Sene have already warned youngsters against Valentine’s Day celebrations.

Andrabi, an executive of the Forum Against Social Evils, has been at the forefront of protests for the last few years. She and members of her outfit raid shops, confiscate cards and chase away couples.

Now, Couples have nothing to fear from police

COMMENT ON THIS !

	Be the first to comment Your Views! Comment Login to comment

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times

Email Author

New Delhi, February 03, 2009

First Published: 23:23 IST(3/2/2009)

Last Updated: 23:24 IST(3/2/2009)

The Delhi Police on Tuesday said they would take stern action against the two policemen who had booked a married couple in Dwarka for "sitting in an objectionable position near a Metro pillar and kissing," last year.

The Delhi High Court had stayed criminal proceedings against the married couple on Monday and also issued a notice to the Delhi Police.

On Tuesday, the police chief while addressing a press conference said that he was against "moral policing" and would suspend his men if they were found harassing couples in public places.

"We are no moral police. I will take strict action against policemen who harass couples in public places," said Y.S. Dadwal, commissioner of police. He also added that he had given strict instructions to his men not to initiate action against couples sitting in parks.

Delhi Police had registered only three cases under Section 294 IPC (Obscene Act) all over the city last year.

Dadwal added in the past also he had taken action against policemen who were harassing couples.

"The police does not look for opportunities to book couples sitting in parks. We are here to act as helping agents. We are here to protect couples not harass them. If anyone (policeman) found guilty would not be spared," said Dadwal.

The police chief said his force would take adequate measures to ensure that couples sitting in parks do not face any problems.

......

Kissing in public by married couple not obscene: HC

2 Feb 2009, 2226 hrs IST, Abhinav Garg, TNN

Print   Email   Discuss  Share  Save  Comment Text:

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has stayed criminal proceedings against a couple wondering how and why an "expression of love by a young married couple" in this case allegedly by stealing kisses in public should attract the charge of obscenity.  Justice S Muralidhar stayed an FIR lodged against one Ajit (name changed) and his wife who were booked by the Dwarka police station cops for allegedly kissing each other under the local Metro station even as they awaited word from their lawyer in connection with registration of theirmarriage.  "The FIR doesn't make a case for offence under Section 294 (obscenity) read with 34 IPC. It is inconceivable how, even if one were to take what is stated in the FIR to be true, an expression of love by a young married couple would attract offence of obscenity and trigger the coercive process of law," observed Justice Muralidhar. The case has been posted for February 25 when the prosecution will have to report about the action taken on the complaint of police harassment lodged by thecouple with the police commissioner.  The newly married duo was picked up by ASI Vidhyadhar Singh of Dwarka police station on September 4 last year after he claimed to have found them "sitting in an objectionable position near a Metro pillar and kissing each other due to which passersby were feeling bad." Even though Ajit told them they were married, the cop hauled them to the police station and arrested them. Later, both were granted bail from the police station itself.  HC was surprised how Singh disregarded the fact that the two were married and registered an FIR for obscenity. Moreover, neither in the FIR nor in the subsequent chargesheet did the police attest any statement of witnesses or 'passersby', leaving no doubt in the mind of the court that charges were cooked up.  Ajit alleged both to the police and the bar council that the lawyer who promised to get the marriage registered connived with Singh to extort money from him and his wife as they were unaware of the intricacies of law.  In his petition before HC seeking quashing of the FIR, Ajit mentioned how, while the couple was being 'interrogated' by the cops, his ATM card was misused to polish off Rs 20,000 from his bank account. He said the couple got married in first week of September last year at an Arya Samaj temple without the knowledge of their respective parents. Therefore, both continued to stay separately as they tried to get the marriage registered and sought services of a lawyer who, as it turns out, cheated them. The petition in fact denies that they were kissing each other and says they were just clicking self portraits on the mobile phone camera.  Arguing their case before HC, the lawyer brought out finer distinctions in the law on what constitutes obscenity. Speaking to Times City, the advocate explained, "Obscenity charges get attracted when the act is so obscene that it encourages depravity or annoys the public. In this case both these contents are missing because the chargesheet is silent on any passersby as originally claimed," he added.

Delhi pepper-spray squads to protect couples on Valentines day

By Andrew Buncombe in Delhi 

Sunday, 1 February 2009

• SHARE
• PRINT ARTICLE
• EMAIL ARTICLE
• TEXT SIZE
  • NORMAL
  • LARGE
  • EXTRA LARGE

For young lovers in Delhi, this Valentines Day could be a little spicier than normal. On February 14, starry-eyed couples in India's capital are to be protected against "moral vigilantes" by volunteers armed with chilli spray and martial arts expertise.

The decision to set up the groups of "pro-young people" units was taken following a recent attack by right-wing Hindu activists on a group of women enjoying a drink in a pub in the southern city of Mangalore, which they deemed “un-Indian” behaviour. The incident has triggered a debate as to what is acceptable behaviour for Indian women in a country that is wrestling with economic and cultural change.

The National Panthers Party (NPP), a political party that is head-quartered in Indian-administered Kashmir, has now taken the decision to set up the protective love squads. The head of the party's Delhi chapter, Sanjoy Sachdev, said last night: "Whoever was responsible for those attacks on the women is breaking the Constitution. Such people should not be allowed in the country."

He added: "Our volunteers will be armed with chilli pepper which we will throw into the eyes of anyone [assaulting young people]. The police can only do so much. Ordinary people have to act against the fundamentalists. We are pro-young people."

The attack on the young women, many of them students, took place at a bar called Amnesia and was carried out a week ago by around three dozen activists from Sri Ram Sena (SRS), or Lord Ram's Army. The women were allegedly molested and beaten by the young men, who took exception to what they said was inappropriate behaviour for Indian women and young people in general. The founder of the group, Pramod Mutalik, the founder of SRS, was arrested but later released on bail.