Petrelis Files

Dear Peter:

Thanks so much for contacting the UK doctors group about their offensive listing for "gay bowel syndrome." They really should just delete it and come into the modern medical age.

Should we launch a campaign asking friends and supporters to contact the UK group and pressure them to remove the listing?

My campaign against MSN Encarta got some support today from a gay medical group in DC. It's going to take some time to get US groups to understand why we have to eliminate the term from Microsoft's MSN dictionary.

It seems as though MSN updated its dictionary in the last two months, which is why it's now showing up on searches I perform.

By the way, what do you know about the Bloomsbury Publishing firm? They're the company responsible for providing Bill Gate's MSN Encarta with content, so they're the ones responsible, I think, for the "gay bowel syndrome" listing.

This what what appears on the MSN site: "Encarta World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc."

I'd love to know where the Bloomsbury publishers got their fictional information on this nonexistent syndrome.

Best,
Michael

-

March 21, 2005
From: peter@tatchell.freeserve.co.uk
Hi Michael,


I finally got around to doing something on the GBS issue. Sorry, it has taken so long (every day I am overwhelmed with campaign commitments). Hopefully this will swing it.

Thanks for raising and pushing this issue – and getting some progress.

Solidarity! Peter

-

To: Editor GP Notebook


Dear Damian,

Thanks very much for getting in touch. I had been meaning to contact GP Notebook for some time, but always got diverted by some pressing campaign crisis.

In answer to your question: the term "gay bowel syndrome" (GBS) is regarded by gay people as offensive and homophobic. We at OutRage! have received a number of complaints about it over the years.

I think Mr Petrelis is correct. His criticisms are shared by the wider gay community, as well as by gay health-care professionals and gay rights organisations.

The infections GBS refers to are not confined to gay people and therefore should not be labelled as a gay condition. Some heterosexuals get these infections too, and some homosexuals never do.

To suggest it is a uniquely gay condition is clearly misleading and could perpetuate homophobic stereotypes; playing into the hands of those who want to smear and denigrate gay people. GBS has already been cited in homophobic political tracts that stir up hatred against, and fear of, gay men. A cause for anxiety and regret on your part, I am sure.

It is, of course, also scientifically questionable whether the range of infections involved constitute a syndrome and whether they are confined to the bowel.

The National Health Service does not appear to recognise GBS as a legitimate medical condition.

The spokesperson for the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York makes a good point when he says that no one would tolerate sickle cell aenemia being labelled African American sickle cell disease just because in the US it primarily affects African Americans. That would be deemed racist. Well, the same goes for GBS. It seen as a loaded and prejudiced term.

I would therefore respectfully ask you to delete the word gay from the title and delete from the text any suggestion that these infections are restricted to gay men.

Although I personally doubt that the infections are confined to the bowel or that they constitute a genuine medical syndrome, I could live with a revised title like Infected Bowel Syndrome or Infected Intestinal Syndrome or Parasitic Bowel Syndrome.

I hope you will feel able to take on board these suggestions, and end the offence caused.

Thank you again for getting in touch.

Best wishes, Peter Tatchell, OutRage!, London 020 7403 1790

-

Message date : Mar 21 2005, 09:39 PM

From : "Damian Crowther"

To : peter@tatchell.freeserve.co.uk

Dear Mr Tatchell

I am part of a team that runs GPnotebook, a popular UK medical website. We have had correspondence with some US gay rights worker who objects to the term “gay bowel” :

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302963.html


This refers to our page:

http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-603586526

Bearing in mind that we have absolutely no interest in stigmatizing homosexuality or homosexuals – and also that the term “gay bowel” does exist and that medical students/doctors will want to know what it means – do you think that this content is offensive?


I would welcome your opinion as we are confused about the rather aggressive comments from the other side of the atlantic.

Best wishes,

Damian Crowther

GPnotebook


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


From: MPetrelis@aol.com [mailto:MPetrelis@aol.com]
Sent: 22 December 2004 20:37
To: peter@tatchell.freeserve.co.uk
Subject: UK docs admit "gay bowel syndrome" obsolete



http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/



December 22, 2004



GPnotebook.co.uk
c/o Dr Damian C. Crowther
The Cambridge Institute for Medical Research
Hills Road
Cambridge, UK, CB2 2XY



Dear Dr. Crowther:



I see your web site has again changed its listing for the nonexistent "gay bowel syndrome."



The site now refers to this "syndrome" as "obsolete, and potentially offensive."

>>This is an obsolete, and potentially offensive term, used to refer to a collection of sexually-transmitted enteric infections in HIV infected homosexuals (1, 2).

>>The infective organisms included in this "syndrome" included Shigella, Giardia, Campylobacter-like organisms, Entamoeba, Chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis. (Source: http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-603586526)

Since you're now acknowledging it's obsolete, why not simply remove all references to "gay bowel syndrome" from the GP Notebook?

Sincerely,

Michael Petrelis