The NYT covers the "science discovers bisexual men exist" story. Science reporter David Tuller overlooks the science-proves-bi-guys-exist-by-doing-exactly-what-bi-activists-condemn-as-biphobic angle—the angle I ran with in this post about the study last week—focusing instead on the there's-just-no-pleasing-some-people angle:
A widely publicized study published in 2005, also by researchers at Northwestern, reported that “with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists.” That conclusion outraged bisexual men and women, who said it appeared to support a stereotype of bisexual men as closeted homosexuals. In the new study, published online in the journal Biological Psychology, the researchers relied on more stringent criteria for selecting participants....
The new Northwestern study was financed in part by the American Institute of Bisexuality, a group that promotes research and education regarding bisexuality. Still, advocates expressed mixed feelings about the research. Jim Larsen, 53, a chairman of the Bisexual Organizing Project, a Minnesota-based advocacy group, said the findings could help bisexuals still struggling to accept themselves.
“It’s great that they’ve come out with affirmation that bisexuality exists,” he said. “Having said that, they’re proving what we in the community already know. It’s insulting. I think it’s unfortunate that anyone doubts an individual who says, 'This is what I am and who I am.'"
Yeah, it's unfortunate when anyone doubts an individual who says "this is what I am and who I am." I mean, think of how much Ted Haggard, Phillip Hinkle, and Marcus Bachmann have suffered, right? But it was only after researchers dropped guys from the study that they didn't actually believe to be bi—it was only after they acted on the doubts they had about some guys who claimed to be bi—that they were able to get this data. So... doubt's a double-edged sword.