[I meant to post this last week, but seem to have been too busy to get round to it] On the Monday after MOW, the coverage in U.K. newspapers wasn't exactly huge, but the three main quality national papers (The Times, The Guardian and The Independent) all carried some small, and reasonably accurate, report of the march, although not on the front page. People who were worried that the 300,000 figure would be the one to be reported everywhere may be interested to know that the Independent report said over a million [without referring to any dispute about numbers], and I think those other two papers also reported that sort of figure. ANYWAY, in addition to its report, the Independent carried a surprisingly negative editorial [details follow]. I often mean to write in when I read or hear something like that but very rarely do; this time I actually got my ass in gear and got it done. I was both surprised and very chuffed when I saw my letter right at the top of the letters page on Thursday; it felt great to have made a tiny contribution. I guess they must have got quite a lot of letters opposing their editorial since there were two more below mine, together with a big picture from the march. Some of the key information in my letter came from a Toronto Star article posted here by Ronald Chaplin, so thanks Ron, and thanks to soc.motss! For those who may be interested here is a copy of the editorial [typos mine], followed by a copy of my letter as it appeared [they made a few very minor changes, just so it conformed to house style]. -------------Independent editorial 26/4/93----------------- An Aggressive Step in the Wrong Direction Yesterday's march by homosexuals in Washington is likely to prove counter-productive. President Clinton needs no reminding that he has been unable to fulfil his election campaign pledge to lift the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. His early, blundering and naive attempts to do so met fierce opposition both in Congress and at the Pentagon, from Democrats as much as from Republicans. He was forced to retreat. The Senate is holding hearings and a mid-July deadline has been set for some sort of conclusion. In the three months of the Clinton presidency, the issue has aroused strong emotions across the nation. Homosexuals have no need to remind the United States of their existence. Mr Clinton wants to keep his promise. But he has learnt, painfully, that a discreet approach may well prove more effective. The most likely consequence of the Washington march will be to strengthen the homophobic backlash and make the President's task more difficult. If new findings by the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center in Seattle are to be believed, yesterday's huge turnout represented a higher proportion of the nation's homosexuals than might previously have been thought. The centre's study, considered one of the most thorough ever conducted on male sexual behaviour, found that only 1 per cent of those surveyed considered themselves exclusively homosexual. Hitherto the assumption has been that Alfred Kinsey, of the eponymous 1948 report, was right in putting the figure at 10 per cent. Studies in Europe have tended to opt for between 1 and 4 per cent. There are no signs that the US quarterly magazine called "10 Per Cent" is planning to adjust its title. But if the new figure gains widespread credence, it will inevitably affect public perception of the strength of the homosexual lobby. A drastic shrinkage in estimates of the homosexual population, and therefore of the gay vote, could in turn influence the public debate about other items on the activists' agenda, and President Clinton's attitude to those issues. They include repealing laws outlawing sodomy between consenting adults in 24 states; extending spouses' rights to homosexual partners; and preventing seven more states from following Colorado's example in forbidding laws that protect gays from discrimination. Mr Clinton has already done the homosexual community a great service by being --- uniquely among US presidential candidates --- happy to be identified as supporting their cause. It matters not that his main aim was to secure their votes; in seeking to gain the "pink vote" he could easily have suffered a net loss if swathes of majority opinion had been alienated by such a display of sympathy. American homosexuals now have a friend in the White House, one who is prepared to meet leaders of their organisations. That is worth a lot. He may not be a wholly reliable friend. He may not deliver on all his promises. He may choose to be elsewhere (in Boston) on the day of their big march. But for all that, he is a friend, and one whom it would be a mistake to alienate by using injudiciously aggressive tactics. -------------------- end of editorial -------- ---------------------start of letter ---------- Sir: It is extraordinary of you to describe (editorial, April 26) last weekend's March on Washington, a peaceful and legal demonstration for lesbian and gay rights, as aggressive and counter-productive. ("An aggressive step in the wrong direction", 26 April). Shows of support of this huge size (more than 1 million people) send their own unique message to politicians, as well as being invaluable morale--boosters to the campaigners, and they have undoubtedly been a key factor in the success of previous great civil rights movements. Behind-the-scenes lobbying belongs alongside, not in place of, these mass tactics; this is not altered by the presence of one sympathiser (albeit the most important one) among Washington's politicians. Large-scale visibility is maybe even more important to lesbian and gay campaigners that to others: it is largely because so many gay people are hidden that their needs and their rights are ignored. Furthermore, the sight of large numbers of gay people, happy and confident, can be an immense comfort to those who are in the process of coming out, a process which is often all too difficult and traumatic. Indeed, the real message of the Battelle study on sexual behaviour to which you refer is simply that few homosexuals are "out" to the point of their being open with someone who telephones them, out of the blue, claiming to be an independent researcher who wants to ask them some very personal questions. Is this surprising when gay sex is widely regarded as sinful and is actually illegal in half the states of the union? Although you choose not to point this out, the Battelle study has been widely criticised. Dr Ted McIlvenna, president of the Institute for Advanced Study in Human Sexuality in San Francisco, for example, has described the study not only as scientific hogwash but also as "almost a homophobic diatribe". A sound study requires one to ensure that all participants can trust the interviewers and trust the anonymity of the data, and such studies give very different results to those of the Battelle report. The preliminary findings of the institute's own report, which began in 1970 and includes more than 90,000 people, suggest that 4 per cent of men are exclusively homosexual and a further 6 per cent predominately homosexual. It is worth pointing out that Kinsey's figures are very similar to these; they certainly did not claim 10 per cent of men are exclusively homosexual as your editorial suggests. Yours faithfully, ALAN M. STACEY Cambridge 27 April ------------------------ end of letter --------------- (Incidentally, I'm now not certain that the Battelle survey was conducted by phone since I've now seen contradictory information about this --- not that it really matters since the same criticisms can be made of a random without-warning face-to-face survey) Cheers, Alan. Trinity College, Cambridge. T* C1 L1 h++(hl) d- a-- w+ c- y(+) e+ g t+ s+(+) m1 m2(+)