Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:46:50 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 635

In this issue:
                    for our friends at U. of Alaska
                               to Graham
                          OLTL Friday, Aug 14
                            Levis commercial
                          finding a balance...
                     Alan Turing/Breaking the Code

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:46:32 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      for our friends at U. of Alaska

I'm going to address the letter written by an anti-gay alumnus of U of
Alaska that speaks against a proposed antidiscrimination rule, and I'm
addressing here the statistical comments that were made.

First off, it's almost impossible to get a random sample of gay or lesbian
subjects, because the only way we can know that they are gay or lesbian is
if they say so, and many will not say so because of the kind of discrimination
the University seeks to outlaw.

Therefore, almost all the studies that have been done have been biased:
The studies on frequency of sex among gay men usually come either from Public
Health Service offices (where sexually transmitted diseases are treated);
this is anything but a random sample of the gay population!  (In addition, I've
never met anyone who comes even close to the numbers that are usually talked
about.  Whoever is pulling up the average must be having so much sex he doesn't
even have time to eat or sleep.)  Other studies (such as Bieber's, I believe)
use samples drawn from pyschotherapy patients -- again, it would be hard to
show that this is a random sample, and it is easy to see that any numbers you
get from this sample, as from the PHS samples, are likely to be systematically
incorrect in a flagrantly anti-gay way.

I don't know where this man got his figures on percentages of homosexuals in
the population but they literally don't add up.  96% strait, 4% bi-sexual,
1-3% exclusively homosexual, add up to 101-103%.  A report published in
*Science* (about as respectable as a scientific journal gets) January 20, 1989,
said that 20 percent of all men had engaged in at least one homosexual meeting
leading to orgasm (this was 30 percent for college grads).  They did say that
3% had been exclusively homosexual for the previous year, but they did not
(if I understand the wording of the paper) include those exclusively homosexual
men who were celibate during the year.  The paper admitted that their figures
were, if anything, underestimates, because of the self-disclosure problem
noted above.

As others on this network have written, the study that claims that gay people
earn more money than straits is also biased in its sampling, because the sample
is drawn from the readership of specific national magazines.  If we wanted to
find out how much money the average heterosexual makes, would it be reasonable
to draw our sample from the Wall Street Journal's readership (assuming that we
could correct for the fraction of WSJ readers who are gay)?

The interesting thing about Simon LeVay's study (and a few others like it) is
that these same biases work in LeVay's favor (for the most part).  Since some
of the supposedly heterosexual brains may be homosexual, then the difference
that does come through is big enough to shine through the fog!  A more recent
study (1992) shows that a different portion of the brain (the anterior
commissure) is larger among gay men than among strait men.  I will admit that
the fact that these brains come to us via the AIDS epidemic means that the
study should be redone with a broader base.

By the way, your anti-gay writer's comment that there was some overlap between
the two groups on size of the small nodule studied by Dr. LeVay is not very
important:  In all the statistical work I've done, I've almost never come
across an example where *all* the members of population A have higher scores
than *all* the members of population B; this is because there are always
additional factors that also may be involved.  For example, when studying
what kind of mathematics curriculum is better, it is unreasonable to
expect that every single student in one class will do better than every single
member of the other class, even if the one curriculum is ultimately proved to
be the better one.  Likewise, even the salary study your writer friend refers
to surely does not show that *every* homosexual -- even the ones in the highly
biased sample they used -- has a higher salary than *every* heterosexual.

Your friend ignores a different study that looks at gay men and their siblings.
This study received great national publicity (but I don't remember its source
so you will have to look up something like Psychological Abstracts to get it).
In the sample used, if a gay man had an identical twin, then the probability
52 percent that the other twin was gay.  If the gay man had a fraternal (non-
identical) twin, then the probability was around 25 percent.  Here, it is clear
that the genetic difference between the fraternal twins is greater than than
the environmental difference, and it seems more reasonable to say that the
genetic difference is the important correlate.  (I must add, here, that while
it is still true that this sample cannot be truly random for the same reasons
given above -- unwillingness for self-disclosure -- there is less reason to
think that whaver non-randomness this causes will have any effect on the
outcome of the experiment.  That is, we don't think that closet gay twins
are significantly more likely to have strait twin brothers than openly gay
twins are.)

The writer says that psychologists agree that homosexuality is learned.  The
American Psychological Association says that it is not a disease, and that
therapists should not be treating people for it.  While some psychologists
may disagree with the APA (especially those such as Bieber who make their
living from "curing" homosexuals), they do not seem to have the ear of the
profession in general.  (Side reference:  An academic gay man who has written
an autobiography about his attempts at curing his "condition:"  Martin
Duberman, in _Cures: A Gay Man's Odyssey_.  What you may learn from this is
that the attempts at curing a gay man are easily as perverted as whatever one
may think of homosexuality.  I'm thinking especially of "aversion therapy,"
which comes right out of "A Clockwork Orange."

Something you might add:  There is another set of statistics that every
Regent should know, because the report was commissioned by the US Department
of Justice (in 1986).  It looked into the reporting and treating of Hate
Crimes, and the report -- though it was never printed by the government and
had to be published elsewhere (The Abt Report) -- shows that persons perceived
to be homosexual are more likely than any other group to be the targets of
violence.  Furthermore, police and prosecutors are singularly unable (and
sometimes unwilling) to fight the Hate Crimes.  You can get a copy of the
report from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in D.C.  (Call
202-555-1212 to get their number.)  Antidiscrimination legislation sends an
additional signal to would-be attackers that society does not countenance
such behavior.

Finally, even if one proved that homosexuality was a chosen condition, would
that make homosexuals any less deserving of equality than fundamentalists
(who not only have chosen their condition -- as they frequently say -- but
also unashamedly recruit -- the sin they charge us with) ?

Gabriel Lampert
Department of Mathematics
New Mexico State University
g9348712@nmsuvm1.nmsu.edu
g9348712@nmsuvm1             --- bitnet

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:36:30 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712%NMSUVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      to Graham

I sent you the story late last week.  I'll try again.    G

------------------------------

From: manz@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett {Druid Queen} Manz)
Subject: OLTL Friday, Aug 14
Keywords: soap, gay, billy, plot
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: 	Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:39:46 -0600

OLTL Plot Summary, Friday, Aug 14

   In the first scene today, Marty shows up at the theatre where Billy
is hiding, with Joey and Alana.  Billy does not appear to be there.
They call out for him, trying to find him.  A  big pile of clothes and
stuff on the floor begins moving.

    Cut to the vestry office.  Vicki and Andrew are talking about the
upcoming vestry meeting, at which Andrew's fate is to be determined.
They are very concerned about the outcome.  They feel that if Marty
would come forward with the truth about starting the rumours that
Andrew's position would be much better.  Jonathan shows up.  Andrew
introduces him to Vicki, not quite sure how to refer to him.
Jonathan offers the phrase `longtime companion.'   Conversation leads
to the subject of Andrew's father, who is coming to talk to Andrew
later, not aware that Jonathan is in town.

    Cut back to the theatre.  The pile of clothes turns out to be, in
fact, Billy.  Joey greets him with "So what are you supposed to be?"
Bily replies "Good question.  What am I supposed to be?  Star of
the swim team, that's good.  President of calss, that's OK too.  But
Gay?  Definitely not Gay, at least if you ask my parents."

    Marty accues him of self pity, and sais that's her "cue to exit."
As she turns to leave Billy thanks her for bringing Joey and Alana,
and asks him if she's reconsidered telling the truth about Andrew.
She says "Sorry.  One good deed a day is my limit.  Anything else
and I might have a siezure or something."  She leaves.

    Joey and Alana tell Billy how worried they've been and that
they're glad to see him.  Joey pulls some food out of his knapsack
and gives it to Billy.  He asks Billy how bad it was with his folks.
Billy says it was worse than he'd thought it could be.  They all
swaer an oath to "never be like our parents."

    Back to the vestry.  Sloan has just arrived.  He thinks the
meeting has something to do with Andrew and Cassie's relationship.
Then Jonathan comes in.  Andrew tries to explain about the quilt
panel.  Sloan has gotten very stiff and cold (oooh, if looks could
kill!)  Sloan becomes very angry, still refusing to accept that
William died of AIDS.  He doesn't even acknowledge Jonathan's
presence.  "I'm glad to hear everything's going well between
you and Cassie," he says and turns to leave.  Andrew emplores him
to stop ignoring Jonathan. "This is the man that William loved," he
says.  "This is the man that was with William until the day he died,
and that's a lot more than I can say for some of us that are in this
room."  Sloan still will not budge.  "Why do you insist on force-feeding
me this garbage?  I'm sick enough.  I don't need your help."

    Andrew appologizes to Jonathan.  Jonathan says he didn't expect
anything else.

    Back to the theatre.  Billy is eating the food and talking with
Joey and Alana.  He says "C'mon Joey, you can't tell me your faher
didn't throw a fit about you being friends with me."  Joey says his
father recommended that he stay out of other people's problems.
"Was it a `strng reccomendation' or a complete ban?" asks Billy.
"On what?" asks Joey.  "On me.  On having a homo for a friend."
Alana is shocked.  "would you stop using words like that," she says.
"Why, Alana?  Get used to them.  I'm having to."

    He says that the way his parents reacted he isn't going to
go home.  Alana says "They'll get used to it."  Billy repies "It's
not something you get used to.  All my life they've been telling me
what they had planned for me.  What their dreams were.  They'd list
them off, one by one.  Not once did they ever say `Don't let us down
Bill.  We're planning on you growing up and being a queer.'  Not once."

    Back to the vestry.  Marty walks in to Andrew's office.  Andrew is
not there.  She knocks.  "C'mon in," says Andrew from somewhere off-stage
"Make yourself at home, I'll be there in a second."  She sits down
in front of the desk and has a flashback to her conversation with
Vicki in the previous show.

    Andrew comes in.  He is less than pleased to see her.  He berates
her for all the trouble she's caused.  Billy's disappearance, the
trouble in the police department, and his impending dismissal.  She
says "I'm sorry.  The last time we talked you said you'd help me.
Is that still true?"

    He says "Yes.  If you hang around for a few minute you might be
able to help yourself."  "Are we expecting a visitation?  I just
wouldn't know what to wear to meet the Holy Spirit."

    Andrew tells her about the upcoming vestry meeting, and about the
comittee that has been dredging up every little detail of his private
life.  "Don't they think badly enough of you allready," she asks.
He asks her again to tell the truth.  "Maybe I'll do it for you," she
says.  He says "You should do it because it's the right thing to do."

    Vicki shows up.  Andrew tells her Marty is going to clear her
conscience, and hopefully his name.  Marty says "Let's get this show
on the road.  Don't want to keep those sanctimonious sleazoids
waiting.  Besides, if we wait too long I might lose my nerve."

    The Bishop comes in.  Marty takes the opportunity to come clean
to the Bishop, hoping to avoid the need for the vestry meeting.  She
confesses to the Bishop.  The Bishop says that there is not going to
be a vestry meeting, because most of the vestry members have allready
made their case to him.  He says it is no longer of any concern as to
Andrew's sexuality or refusal to answer questions.  He says that the
issue now is that Andrew is a `trouble maker'.  The Douglases hold
Andrew responsible for Billy's disappearance, and the publicity over
the controversy with the police department.  He offers Andrew a letter
of resignation to be signed, in exchange for which the embarrassing
portfolio of his past that has been colected will not be used.

    Back to the theatre.  Joey and Alana are trying to convince Billy
to go back home.  Billy says "If my parents are so disappointed with
who their son turned out to be maybe they should get a taste of what
it's like to have no son at all."  Joey and Alana offer to go with
him to face his parents.  "You know we'll stick by you Billy," says
Alana.  "Yeah," says Billy.  "But will my parents?"  Joey says that
they might.  That they've had a lot of time to think and are probably
worried sick.

    "They don't even believe me," he says.  "My dad thinks this is
something that's just in my head, that somebody put it there.  My mom
thinks this is something I'll get over like chicken pox.  If I thought
there was any way I could I'd go back home.  If I thought they'd look
me in the eye and see me for who I am, and love me anyway.  But that's
not how it's gonna be with them."

    Cut to a restaraunt.  Sloan is sitting having lunch.  Jonathan
comes in and sits at Sloan's table.  "You can choose not to look at
me, but I think it would take more discipline than even a man of your
military rank to willfully not hear me if I talk to you."  He tells
Sloan that even though he was not able to accept William and the way
he lived that William loved him and forgave him for not being able
to accept him.  Sloan continues to ignore him.  Jonathan goes on,
saying tha WIlliam knew it was too much to hope for Sloan to accept or
understand him, but that he still wanted his love.  "It would mean the
world to me if you would add your name to his quilt panel, because
it would have meant the world to him."

    Back to the vestry.  The Bishop says he is concerned about Andrew's
relationship with Cassie, who is one of Andrew's parishoners (damned if
you do, damned if you don't :-)  He seems to consider it unethical.
Vicki is shocked that someone is snooping around in Andrew's private
life like this.  "I find this all rather un-Christian, son't you
Bishop?  Spying on people?  Imposing your judgement on their private
lives?  How's you closet Bishop?"  (She's so good at empassioned
speaches like this :-)

    The Bishop syas privacy is no longer the issue.  He says that
Andrew is jeopardizing the integrety of his dioscese, and that he
should resign at once before he does any further harm.

    Andrew tears up the letter of resignation.  "Sorry Bishop.  You
want me out, you're going to have to force me out."

    Suddenly there is an explosion in the outer office.  "Where's
Marty?" asks Vicki.  She's lying unconcious on the floor.  Andrew and
Vicki rush over to her.


    That's it for Friday.  More later...

    BTW, rumour has it that the AIDS memorial quilt will be making an
appearance on the show sometime in the future.  Watch for it.


-
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 My opinions are my own.         |  You can't be proud of who you are
 The truth belongs to everyone.  |  if you're ashamed of what you are.
 Civil Rights Are For Queers!    |  Cruise Men, Not Missiles! - anon

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 8:55 pm EDT (Tue, 18 Aug 92 00:55:45 UT)
From: "Dan O. Neveu" <NEVE6545%FREDONIA.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Organization: State University of New York - College at Fredonia
Subject:      Levis commercial

A friend of mine claims he recently saw a Levis commercial featuring
 two young men (gay couple?). One of them was saying something to the
effect of "yeah, my father has been very accepting of us..." - with his
dad shown smiling off in the background. Subtle enough, but something
most of the strayt audience should be able to figure out.

Has anyone else seen this? I believe he saw it on Canadian TV, which, to
my experience, seems to be more flexible with the content of their
commercials.

 Dan (who will undoubtedly have a sig file by the next posting)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:00 EDT
From: "Kevin P. Micalizzi" <MICALIZZ%ITHACA.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: finding a balance...

I almost feel that I shouldn't be posting this and I should
be leaving room for more meaningful postings, but I have to ask,
How does one find a balance?  There are so many worthwhile
causes and so many injustices that have to be fought.  I
just don't have the time or the resources to "do it all."

I don't know if this posting is springing from an extended
depression or a new genuine anger at the fact that I can't do
very much to help.  Recently there have been many postings about
gross injustices occuring around the nation and around the world.
Everyone is asking us(me!) to respond, but can't seem to fit all
these efforts in my schedule or my budget.  I am on every socially
responsible mailing list, though I can't afford to send money to
half the organizations(I can't even afford books at the moment.)

What's a person to do?  I live my life as well as I can.  I'm a gay
feminist vegetarian who watches every action and speech act in his
own life to ensure that he isn't oppressing others.  I am *out* and
vocal on campus and locally.  HOW do I find a balance?  I am
rapidly losing perspective.  GAYNET is keeping me well informed
about events around the world, but I feel like I have to respond
to all of them!  Can someone please email me(or post) how they
have found a balance.  I even feel bad(to a certain extent) about
posting this long note about my own problem.  I am hoping that
I am not the only person who is feeling this way...but even if
I am, I find it to be a valid concern that I need help with.

thank you in advance for any responses..


in peace and in pride,

-kev

------------------------------

From: Owen Plowman <owen@ca.oracle.com>
Subject: Alan Turing/Breaking the Code
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:48:31 EDT

> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:07:52 -0400
> From: info-25@info.umd.edu
> Subject: alan turing
>
> just curious:
> has anyone seen/heard about "breaking the code"? it's a play alan turing, the
> guy who cracked the german u-boat code and is considered the father of
> computers. he was also a homosexual who was forced to undergo experimental
> hormonal treatments, and later committed suicide. is the play any good?
> is it playing anywhere besides new york? do they have plans to travel?
>
> paula
> info-25@info.umd.edu

I saw this play in January 1990 in Toronto.  It was very good.  I
recommend it.  Much of the play deals with Alan Turing's relationship
with his work and his wife, as far as I recall.  His sexuality is
brought out in the course of the drama as well.

In addition to the play, the book "Alan Turing, the enigma" by Andrew
Hodges is excellent.  It's published by Simon and Schuster and sells
in soft-cover for about U.S. $12.00.
--
Owen Plowman 					      Oracle Corporation Canada
Director, Core Technology Marketing		      40 King Street West
						      Suite 4900, Box 117
(416) 866-8062 x. 250				      Toronto, Ontario
(oplowman@ca.oracle.com)			      M5H 3Y2

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU