The inclusion of bisexual men on the funding proposals for health promotion but not the actual work seeps down, even to places that should go 'hang on..'
So recently, a number of people have been linking to an online survey from an MSc student at Huddersfield on using mobile 'apps' to deliver health promotion to men who have sex with men:
And the survey itself opens by twice talking about 'men who have sex with men' rather than, for example, 'gay men' or 'gay and bisexual men'. (CW awful typography!)
So the appeal for survey participants and the intro are inclusive, based on behaviour not identity, but..
.. when we come to the questions, it suddenly goes all gay-only, despite asking about 'sexual partners' with no qualifications about their gender:
If it only meant 'male' partners, WTF doesn't it say so?
This one has the most fail:
.. not only does it miss out things like 'work', 'parties', 'print ads', 'friends', 'sex work', 'school / college', 'via existing partners' etc etc etc, the pubs and clubs have to be gay or it's all 'not applicable'. How the author thought people got laid before online social media and GPS-using phone apps, I don't know. Perhaps they're too young to know.
In any case, why did their supervisors clear this? Either only be interested in exclusively gay men and say so up front or ask questions that are relevant to bisexually behaving men too. The advantage of the latter is that you can then look at the difference between the two groups.
This is what erasure looks like.