Further Ways the Spearhead Article is Made of Fail

He seems to have a problem mostly with male-male homosexual relationships, and believes that their presence in sci-fi is purely for the titillation of a show's female viewers. He doesn't seem to have a problem with lesbian relationships...Perhaps because he believes these exist solely for the titillation of a show's male viewers? (And he's OK with that kind of titillation!) These relationships may, in fact, actually be there for the representation of homosexual relationships. Because it's not actually all about the heterosexual people all the time.
Granted, many of these homosexual, (both lesbian and gay), relationships do turn out to be very flawed representations, and are more about "OMG, boys/girls kissing! How HAWT!" than about a complicated relationship between two people who happen to share a gender. Of course, the "complicated relationship" part is also, apparently, what throws this writer off. He claims they do not exist in "real sci-fi." So, the complicated dynamic between, say, McCoy and Spock, (Spock's cold logic, which often covered up violent emotions, juxtaposed against McCoy's irascible nature, which nonetheless co-existed with his devotion to the Hippocratic oath), didn't exist? Despite the fact that it was often at the heart of the issues within an episode or film? OK, then.
Now, if he has problems with badly-written relationships, particularly romantic ones, I can agree with that. I know that many of the tropes used in romantic relationships, (love triangles and unattainable beloveds, for example), that have found their way into sci-fi bother most women sci-fi fans, as well. (I'm looking at you, Stargate : SG-1. Let me tell you, nobody cared about Sam's engagement, and it took away from valuable science-fiction time.)
The other problem I have is that people in the comments keep bringing up "hard" science-fiction, but in the article,
it's all about Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Dr Who. None of those have ever been "hard" sci-fi. Ever. Even the original Battlestar had a lot more to do with fantasy, (but fantasy with robots), than it had to do with any actual science. Same with Dr Who, as the Doctor is really more a mythical being than anything else. Sure, writers occasionally like to throw in various theories on the nature of time and space in there, (with the end-result being that the Doctor has made many contradictory statements about space and time over the years), but there's rarely actual, physical science in there. The same is often true of Star Trek. Sure, they often get the words right, but many of the things done or said in any given episode of Star Trek are not possible. It is true that these are not "hard" sci-fi, and it is also true that these tend to lay a strong focus on relationships.
Now, it's true that hard sci-fi is rarely about relationships. It's usually about humanity in general. Or, it's about the psychology of a certain individual. Sci-fi, whether "hard" or "soft," is less about the actual science than the effects of the science on people, whether on a grand scale or a more personal one. It doesn't matter if you're watching Star Wars or Sunshine, it's the characters, and how they are affected, that is the real story. If the author of this particular article truly feels that recent endeavors has become too "soft," and focuses more on relationships, (especially romantic), to the detriment of other, "harder" forms of science fiction, well, that, I agree with. However, the article lays the blame for this at the feet of women and homosexual viewers of sci-fi, and the more I re-read the post, and read the comments, the more I see the article as merely an excuse to lay the blame on people who don't deserve it.

And now, I swear to God, I am done with it.