Ustwo

Really? I don't see any Bi-bashing, but an intellectual examination of an asepct of human sexuality, nor did the study imply that there was no bisexuality in males.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Cervantes

[QUOTE]These men do not know what they want (their animal brain does) and perhaps they are exploring and comming to grips with what they are.[QUOTE]

That was rather harsh, did you mean all bisexuals by this or did you mean the homosexuals that first identifies themselves as bi? If you meant all bisexuals you pretty much disqualifies their sexuality.

It is true that many both hetrosexuals and homosexuals at some point identifies themselves as bi as a means to explore but that doesn't mean that all bisexuals are homo or hetro.

Realise that this is very sensitive ground for some people, I tend to take the bisexuals side since I've been friends with several for quiet some time and I've seen what they have to put up with from both hetro and homosexuals.

Maybe bashing was a bit over the top but the study has so many obvious flaws that no serious deduction can be made, yet I see that some already have and that was what I was reacting against.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

Ustwo

[QUOTE=Cervantes]Ya it was a bit, but I do understand the emotional aspect.

I suppose my take on the research is that it is not flawed, but just incomplete. Most studies can only look at one aspect of a question, and what they looked at was visual stimulation. What this shows is there is more to look at in at least male bisexuality beyond what people say they are.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

immediate erectile response does not signify what they "really" want, i would counter. other studies have confirmed that men with high levels of homophobia often show erectile response to gay pr0n. now, assuming there are some self-haters out there...i'm not going to suggest that each of them "really" want to be with men. it may be fear based, it may be unresolved(non-identified) bisexual orientation...whatever. but i don't think that we can reduce these questions to a measuring of what angle a person's dick is at a given moment in time.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

If someone has a high level of homophobia and gets a woody watching gay porn, I think that narrows down the problem a bit.

Your penis has a mind of its own so to speak. Claiming that the most obvious sign of male sexual arousal means nothing seems a bit far fetched.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

i'm not saying it means nothing. what i am saying is that it's not the final arbiter of sexual orientation.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Astrocloud

Actually the study is flawed in that there is a sampling error. The study only picks readers of some public paper -and then only volunteers. To really make an unconditional and overwhelming study, however, -would be to pick bisexual, heterosexual and homosexual males completely by random. Since many people (especially homo and bisexual males) keep their identity a secret -it would be very hard if not impossible to make a proper study.

Ustwo

Sample bias is always difficult if not impossible to eliminate in a study like this. It is possible to argue that only the more ‘gay’ bisexual males would be looking in the magazines/paper where they posted they were looking for test subjects. Another issue is who would show up. Its possible that those with confusion to their own sexuality would be the ones more willing to ‘test’ it out of their own desire to understand themselves better. That being said the biggest issue is the sample size. They have around 30 of each 'type' and that is barely adequate to be a statistically significant sample. Its enough but it could be better.

Despite possible design flaws, one shouldn't dismiss the data as false just because one disagrees emotionally with the results. It gives an avenue for further exploration into the subject.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

analog

**MOD NOTE:**

1. The title was formed using the tone of the article. The article is about the study, and the verbiage used in the title of this thread is in evidence in the article. Astrocloud was using the words used in the article- not his own opinion, his thoughts on the subject, or personal agenda.

2. I believe the usage of the term "lying" to mean "to themselves", and not outwardly using a mistruth to deceive. There are those who disagree with that line of thinking- and even if it means "to themselves", there are those who believe that, in itself, to be inflammatory. Either are up to you, they are your opinions. Grow up and stop bickering about it, please. Move on, or face it in serious conversation. Saying "are you calling me a liar" and "if you can't talk about it without being defensive..." are little digs. We all know better than that, we should act like it.

3. STOP TAKING EVERYTHING PERSONALLY. SERIOUSLY. I don't care if you're gay, lesbian, bi, straight, or mormon. Just because this is a conversation that strikes home (no matter your orientation) doesn't mean you can get bent out of shape and bicker back and forth. There are plenty of other "personal" topics where people don't freak out and take out their frustrations on each other. So stop.

Thank you, and enjoy the rest of the thread.

- analog.

PS: I'm changing the title of the thread to avoid any further concern with the intentions of the poster, for those who are just reading titles and moving on. My main point in changing the title is to show that it meant nothing other than a summation of the article which is posted. In my opinion, the tone/wording of the article's real title is way worse than what Astrocloud put up, I think he did it a service by changing it... but that's what happens when you get what you ask for, it's not always better than what you had. For the sake of historical reference, the old title was this:

Any further questions/comments, PM me.

Xazy

You would think, you would hope that the New York Times would do a
little research of its own before splashing the work of Dr. J.
Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the
study's lead author. But no. It took threader Kathleen to alert me
to what the NYT should have known before presenting this study
uncritically.

1. Dr. J. Michael Bailey had to step down from the chairmanship of
the psychology dept. at Northwestern just last year because of
ethics charges related to earlier research.

2. Bailey has been linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called
the Human Biodiversity Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center

3. Bailey's previous attention-getter was a book on transgenders
that extrapolated from about nine transgenders he claimed to
befriend into a study. Many of the people profiled claimed
convincingly they had no idea they were part of a research study. (A
violation of ethics.) One claimed Bailey slept with them. (Also a
violation.) Though ostensibly science, it contained no footnotes.
This book led to the investigation of Bailey that resulted in his
stepping down as chair, though he remains a professor at
Northwestern. The Chronicle of Higher Education profiled Bailey and
the controversy, all but labeling him as a closet case.

4. Bailey claims to be gay-friendly but is so at odds with the GLBT
community at Northwestern that campus groups urge people NOT to
cooperate with his studies. Gee, think that might make any research
he does there harder to accept as valid? (Bailey has reportedly
found it difficult to recruit people for his research.) The Chicago
Free Press paints a rather sad picture of Bailey trying to convince
people he isn't anti-gay or biased by calling for a public meeting
virtually no one attended, just weeks before the New York Times
would treat his latest research as front-page of the Science section
newsworthy.

5. Some of Bailey's more silly and offensive comments that should
raise red flags for anyone wondering about his bias: most
transexuals are "especially motivated" to shoplift and "especially
suited to prostitution." Bailey says that if it became possible to
genetically identify a fetus as "gay" and a parent chose to abort
because they wanted a straight child, this would be "morally
neutral." Yep, gay eugenics. Aborting gay fetuses wouldn't do anyone
harm, he says. He's not anti-gay, just "pro-parental liberty."

I am furious that I had to find out all this stuff on my own by
having a threader point me in the right direction. I'm not saying no
one should ever report on anything Bailey ever does in the future,
but is it too much to ask for context and a little background?


Please note this is just some quick information I had found online on Bailey.

Redlemon

Xazy, is that your own words or copied from a website? Very interesting either way, but if it's somebody else's, I'd like to see the link. (You can also put copied text in {quote}{/quote} tags for easier parsing.)

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Cervantes

The text Xazy posted:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005...rominence.html


Some other links about "Dr." J. Michael Bailey.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...FGE%202005.htm
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...RE-BAILEY.html
http://www.queerday.com/2005/jul/07/...el_bailey.html
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/eli-coleman.html
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i41/41a00801.htm


This one is specificly interesting:
http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/profes...egulation.html
Searchspiders are your friends, don't be afraid to consult them.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

martinguerre

well, hot damn. i know this doesn't entirely and immediately discredit the results of the study, but it does give pause for thought. to be honest? i'm glad this new stuff got posted. thank you, xazy.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

I'm glad you pointed that out, Xazy. I knew that name and type of argument rang a bell.

Bailey's book on MTF Transsexuals, The Man Who Would Be Queen (an inflammatory title to begin with) had a similarly structured argument to the article linked above.

It essentially cliamed that there are two distinct categories of MTF transsexuals, "homosexual transexuals" (a laugher of a description), and "autogynephillic transsexuals". The science was flawed, and the labels themselves both inaccurate and offensive, but what strikes me about it as it relates to this article is that he claimed that those in the second group, "autogynephyllic" transsexuals, frequently made false cliams about their sexual orientation or history, claiming to have characteristics assigned to both groups.

In other words they were either homosexual, autogynephillic, or lying.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Ustwo

While I never heard of this guy prior to this, what I see looks more like a witch hunt against him for saying things that the gay community disagrees with. From what I can gather, his major crime was not having proper documentation for human research (and in a University that IS a major crime). The claims against him that I could find were mostly character assasination, not a refuting of his science.

In the bi-sexual study cited here, and to someone who has done his own share of published research, his methods and conclusions look sound. I would like to read the full paper, but at least on the surface it seems ok.

Also note he is NOT the only researcher involved and it was in agreement with the 1979 study.

So while its fun to demonize someone, it is being turned into a political argument, not a scientific one.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

I'm confused here. He doesn't have proper research documentation, and may have committed severe ethical breaches in performing research. This is not a major cause for concern?

As gilda notes, the language he uses isn't just "not PC" but is patently derogatory. It's kind of like seeing a study on persons of African descent titled with the N word. It indicates that *whatever* else is inside, the study most likely contains viewpoints that are outdated and harmful.

As i said before....this doesn't entirely discount the study But it gives pause for consideration, and places a burden on study proponents to get this research out from under the shadow of bailey's unethical practices.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

That was in the transsexual study (not the current study) and it is a cause for concern but it is more due to the ethics involved than the research itself. Also while he seems to have been at fault there, I do have some sympathy for him in that recently 'they' came down VERY hard on human research projects and many good researchers got into trouble. At the University of Il while I was in the middle of my masters research the agency who regulates this stuff (I forget which one) did a review of the University research projects, found faults in how consent was given and shut down ALL human research. It didn't matter if it was a survey or an invasive procedure, they shut it down. All projects had to be re-reviewed and I know one good student who got in very hot water over his research. Mind you it wasn't that anything really wrong was done, but procedure is everything. Thank god I wasn't doing human research at the time


I don't think not being PC is a crime, or proves you are a bad researcher.

Again, the 'unethical' nature was from another study which lead to a controversial book. My feeling is ANYTHING which doesn't paint the gay/lesbian/trans/bi community in shiny lights will be controversial, blasted by the gay press, and politicized. This study seems to be well done, if its crap I hope that comes out too.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

At the risk of being snide, i'm going to quote back the original line here. Nothing in your response justifies the dismissal of what i'm saying. You may disagree with the application here, but that response is a non sequiter to my original posting.

My feeling is that anything that paints GBLTQ communities in a light that furthers stereotypes and misinformation is going to be contraversial and blasted by the communities that it harms and their allies.

regardless of the particular truth value of the latest research, Bailey has conducted research in unethical and damaging ways. his reports reflect personal bias and subjective language not fit for scientific use. again...whatever the truth value of the claims here, it's a beauty called "repeatable results." Until these claims are verified by researchers who use ethical means of collecting data, and use objective language to interpret their results, i will feel no obligation to take this report as more than speculative.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

As a straight male uninvolved in gay politics beyond what a friend of mine tells me, I did not see the terms as derogatory, and fail to see the insult. If he were using terms like 'faggot', I could see the point, but oddly homosexual transsexual and autogynephillic transsexuals fails to raise my shackles and seems like an over sensitivity issue. If other terms were the derogatory ones and I missed them then I apologize.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

i'm talking about using the term queen. it can have serious potential for causing anger. with in queer communities and trusted allies, there are situations in which it can be used affectionatly. but in scientific research conducted by an "outsider" it has no role. it simply doesn't fit.

you don't expect to hear a social scientest say fag or n****r or queen as a means of categorizing subjects. they aren't the nomenclature of serious research. they are both insults and re-appropriated terms, used only by opponents or in group members in very different ways.

the categories of analysis, beyond the use of queen are rather odd as well. gilda explains this much better than i can, but basically he is introducing a frame of analysis that doesn't fit lived experience of the community he claims to be studying. this is the core issue i had with the study that started this thread. whatever data he may come up with to claim male bi orientation doesn't exist, i happen to know that while it may be more rare than it is self-reported, it cannot be non-existant. And i'm pretty sure it's not *just* me, either. and when a person creating a framework of analysis around queer issues comes up with something wrong in that fashion, my immediate guess is that they did not actually bother to spend enough time to really study what happens in queer communities. there is so much misunderstanding, and a tradition and history of bad analysis....it's not surprising to see such work. it still is dissapointing.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

martinguerre covered the offensive title better than I could, so I'll address the other.

The problem isn't just with the terms themselves, but with applying them inaccurately to those whose life experiences don't match the descriptors, and then claiming dishonesty on the part of those who don't fit the neat categories. Without going into so much detail as to hijack the thread, Bailey describes two distinct, specific etiologies, one for younger transsexuals oriented to men, which he labels "homosexual", and one for older transsexuals oriented to women, whom he labels "autogynephillic".

The first problem here is that the first label is grossly inaccurate and implies that these people are not women, but homosexual men. My sister finds it highly offensive; she is, in her words, a straight woman, is not a gay man, was never a gay man, and was never a gay boy. To call her "homosexual" in any context is to deny her personal experience of having had a female mind and personality her whole life. MTF's oriented to other women, usually those who are older, are homosexual.

More offensive is that the terms are used to illustrate Bailey's theory that MTF transsexuals are actually men who change their sex as a result of a sexual compulsion, in the case of younger transsexuals to have sex with men, and for older transsexuals as a result of a sexual fetish, and not as a result of having a female gender identity, which is the reported life experience of the vast majority of MTF's, and which is the prevalent mainstream theory of transsexuality used by most professionals.

Also offensive is that it denies the life experience of those who don't fit neatly into either category, particularly older MTF's who report feminine behavior as children or no history of sexual arousal to women's clothes / fantasies of being women (autogynephelia), and this is where it ties into the study reported above. His conclusions fit some of the evidence, but not all of it, and so he tries to shoehorn the evidence that doesn't fit into his theory, by forcing inappropriate labels where they don't fit. That's bad science.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

EULA

To add more fire to the flame: only 40% of all the people who at one point say they're gay stay that way their whole life.

Things that suck about being bi:

1. no one believes you; you are 'confused'
2. there is no bi community like there is for homos
3. go to a glbt group with your opposite-sex so, and they'll give you nasty looks
4. no sex in the champagne room

Cervantes

Another article about the same study that isn't as tabloidish and inflamatory:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...g/12310715.htm

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

martinguerre

*nods

that's actually a really good read, and a pretty fair look at the subject.

the problem of elusive definitions is always an issue, since everything we're talking about gets defined in relationship to other things. Bi idenity is always tied in to gay idenity and hetero idenity, but (in my experience) isn't just a combination of the two.

it's not like there's some "pure type" object out there that we can define...the way i view it is that it's a trend line, a best fit over some fairly jagged data.

Edit: i should also say the STD data is really important. It's not just about proving that bi-sexual activity (a different question from idenity) occurs, but that personal responsbility, no matter who you sleep with is of the utmost importance.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16