Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/he...wanted=1&8hpib


This pretty much sums up what I read in a book on the subject. Women's sexuality is fluid and dynamic whereas mens sexuality is fixed. At the time the author had no real answer to bisexual men other than that they are not as statistically relevent as bisexual women. Look at it like this: women who like other women are -in fact -getting another partner to help with the child rearing. This can be a very positive thing in a harsh climate which requires multiple partners.

On the other hand -there is no real genetic benefit for men to team up. I think that people are always talking about nature vs. nurture -and in the case of male bisexuality I believe it is nurture. Or rather just gay men staying in the closet longer. That's my opinion anyways.

Put this front and center. I think it's the most responsible statement in the whole article.

Secondly...genetic rationale for male homosexual attraction is actually pretty well theorized. Extra providers or "uncle" figures who share about 1/4 of the DNA of the involved children can be of genetic benifit.

And this is to Astro. Why do you think that it's okay to title this entry to make a blanket accusation against the male bi community?

Did you read the whole article or just find one little piece of it that you like?

And what "blanket accusation" are you talking about?

Im confused, the study showed people porn....is everbody automatically attracted to someone in porn because of their SEX? I know when I watch porn I very seldom see anyone Im attracted to....most of the guys in porn films make me laugh and wouldnt attract me under any circumstances.

How is it possible to create a study to determine whether a group of people actually exists, when it is already known that such a group actually exists? I don't care about one study. I know for a fact that bisexual men exist. It seems that measuring arousal wouldn't be the most accurate way to determine who someone is going to fuck. I don't get an erection every time i see a picture of a naked woman, does that mean i'm lying when i classify myself as primarily straight, or does that mean that said picture fails to capture what i find arousing in women?

Remember that the article said that about 1/3 of all men from each group had no reaction at all to the stimulus. So if you personally aren't getting into the scientists' porn -then you would fall outside the study.

exactly. one third had no arousal. one third of the total population is statistically too large to ignore. there is something flawed in taking the findings from two thirds and applying them to the entire population.

for example:
two thirds of my neighborhood is white. one third is not. should i generalize about the entire neighborhood based only on the white residents?
no.

interesting study. but it's shown that the methodology needs to be reworked.

Actually, no.

The scientists are studying the portion of people that they can study... If you were to make the white/black metaphor -there would be something to be gained by studying psychological effects on some people and not others.

Hey, at least they didn't put their heads in a cat scanner.

"New Studies suggest that Bi-men are lying"

Am i a liar? Does this article of yours prove it?

And yes. I read the whole thing. Reductionist explanation for what is without a doubt such a complex and varied phenomenon (as any human sexuality is) is simply not good science, nor social practice.

If you have a question about what the nature of male bisexuality is...ask. Do you really think that a single study has more to say than the lived experience of the bi community?

As a bisexual I find this study utterly confusing... I sincerely feel attraction to both sexes. Although I live an entirely heterosexual lifestyle, i doubt that the attraction I feel towards men is just me lying to myself. I am basicly in the same place as John Campbell describes himself in the article, and I am very skeptical of the study.

That's not the point. Perhaps one enjoys the look of a woman and the smell of a man. Perhaps a picture of a man is enough to get aroused, but only the prospect of an immediate sexual encounter with a woman is enough to get aroused. This study only confirms that most people aren't bisexual when it comes to porn. This is a far cry from anything resembling evidence that bisexuals don't really exist or are liars.

I think the article rightly points out a lot of the flaws in the study, not to mention interpretation of the study. I thought this sentence was interesting, though:

If they're showing four times as much to one or the other, that presumes that they must be showing at least some arousal to the non-preferred sex; I know shit about statistics, but if you're showing 4X=Y, doesn't X have to be nonzero for Y to be nonzero? Doesn't that sort of suggest the old assertion that everyone's bisexual to some extent - even just a leeeetle - rather than that people fall into a strictly binary pattern?

I'd be interested to see what fMRI studies showed - you'd think that would capture a more complex picture than just whether your dick gets hard or not.

She was my senior thesis advisor.

That's really all I have to contribute.

One of my best friend had one of the main researchers on that project in Northwestern as a TA. He said another off shoot of the research was that women showed "general arousal" meaning that women were giving measurable responses to hetro porn, gay porn (both guy on guy, and lesbian), and even video clips of dogs having sex! I guess their equipment is pretty sensitive, because they are definitely not measuring conscious arousal ;)

Martin, its not saying that 100% of bisexual men are really homosexual. Its simply saying that in this study it seems that men are much more arroused by one sex or the other. Dont be offended by it...


No one can tell you what you feel.

I'm not worried that an article is going to destroy my idenity. I know what i think, feel, and how my sexual idenity is a part of me. Well...i know about as much as the next person does. Which is to say enought for day to day operation and a reasonable certainty, but still leaving enough to think about and post in tilted sexuality from time to time.

What i'm bitching about is that someone feels that its okay to post this article under a title that makes a patently false accusation about an already tread upon minority group. I don't think that should be acceptable to this community. And i'm saying as much. Offended has nothing to do with it. This is about my opinion about what the standards of the community ought to be, and sharing that opinion.

i agree with martinguerre, the thread's title is accusatory and judgmental. however, that has nothing to do with the actual study.

my response to the article is that it will just make people think, even more than they already do, that sexuality in males is somehow different than sexuality in females. there is a lot more at work in sexual identity than reporting what you think about yourself then watching porn.

oh well, whatever makes it easier to categorize people, i guess.

It looks to me like the title of this post reflects the title of the article.

Title of Post: New Studies suggest that Bi-men are lying
Title of Article: Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited

In fact the first few paragraphs of the article are reflected in the title of the post as well.
Astrocloud is not saying that bisexual men are lying. He is just saying that there is a new study is suggesting that.

I don't believe that Astrocloud is caliming that the article or study are accurate.
I also don't believe that Astrocloud is claiming belief in the article.

I assume that Astrocloud wanted to hear what everyone had to say about the study.

But...Maybe I am misunderstanding the title of the post.

The title isn't an issue to me, the article is. Without going through and restating what most have already said, I find it extremely unfocused and quite stupid (if I may use that word). The study just doesn't make sense. Lurkette sums this up pretty well as she made great points. Stats are just stats. They don't mean shit. Anyone can create a stat tree to reflect whatever they want it to reflect. It's that simple.

The thread title isn't offensive at all!!

"Study suggests men are stupid."
-- SUGGESTS. Offense to this would be from insecurity, nothing more.

On a side note, suggest looks REALLY wierd after you type it enough times..

I second or fifth the notion that this study really shows nothing more than a correlation (not causation) between porn attraction and percieved sexuality; nothing conclusive, of course.

Well, actually the article says things like 40% of all men who now identify themselves as gay -used to identify themselves as bi. The lie which they are suggesting is that bi men are lying to themselves. Sorry if this seems hurtful or pretentious -if you can't talk about it without being defensive then perhaps there might be some truth to it.

Statements like this indicate that you didn't read the whole article. There was more than one study done. This is not a "single study" -this is the amalgamation of several studies as well as individual observation. If you care to disagree then please disagree with the substance rather than attack me -the messenger.

New evidence suggests that board member has committed mass murder!

Jinnkai? Tell me that that isn't inflammatory, and i'll buy your thesis. The title is clearly making a statement, and it's not just about fact. It's about framing the issue. It is about taking data about arousal, and making a moral statement concerning it.

Astro: I read the whole article. If you want to parse my grammer and not read my content, that's fine. But what you're doing here is a disservice to the discussion. You don't start with a question. You started with an insulting and inflammatory statement that i don't respect because it has nothing to do with how men actually experience and identify bisexuality. Some of this identification has to do with social pressure, and many men transition in to homosexual idenitification. But there is such a thing as male bisexuality. I'm living it. And if you wanted to know something about it...there are several of us here you could have asked. You didn't.

I'm attacking the messenger for the content that you're responsible for. Also...if you ever think that it's okay to tell me from across the internet what my sexual orientation is again...i will know that you are simply not worth talking to. That sort of armchair pyschology crap is insulting...but mostly to the person who's trying to get away with it.

Repeat:

Sorry if this seems hurtful or pretentious -if you can't talk about it without being defensive then perhaps there might be some truth to it.

Inflammatory? Not at all.. it grabs my attention, like any good reporter knows. Half of "how good your story is" is in the title.

For your metaphor:


If I took a survey that said...

[] I have murdered someone today.
[] I haven't murdered someone today.

If one person responded that they HAD been a murderer today, but there had been no homicides, I could have a story title: "Study suggests that people lie about murder!"

Are you certain that Astrocloud isn't on to something?

It would be interesting to see the brain activity taking place through a functional MRI in addition to a tumescence monitor. Recent investigation of female arousal using fMRI analysis has allowed researchers to more objectively establish physiological arousal mechanisms. And on a related note, I would be interested in knowing what percentage of men who identify themselves as bisexual have had a history of sexual abuse. It is my guess that is (proportionally) higher than those who identify exclusively as heterosexual or homosexual.

Concerning the argument above, I don't think anyone has claimed true bisexuality in men is nonexistent. Research just seems to be showing that it is far less common among males. I wouldn't call the evidence conclusive by any means, but it's nothing to get upset about. "Lying" is probably not the write word, though.

I think everyone's Bi its just a matter of how much.

Lying certainly isn't the right word. Despite claims otherwise, it is a word that carries with it a moral judgement. It implies deceit, or at very least a lack of self-knowledge.

what appears to the the focus of the article is that many men who may later identify as homosexual have a period in their lives in which they identify as bi. instead of focusing on the social pressures and mechanisms that make it hard for men to claim a gay idenity, the rhetoric is on "lying." instead of looking at how this percieved idea of "transition" affects those men who identify as bi for a majority of their lives, the assumption is that some men "haven't got the memo" yet that they are in fact gay.

All the article really established is that men who identify as bi don't tend to respond to lesbian porn. If I'm reading it right, many of the hetero identified men didn't respond to the lesbian porn. To deduce from this that they aren't attracted to women is faulty reasoning. A lot of sexual attraction comes from signals other than visual; scent and touch plays a big part.

Many who aren't in the sexual mainstream go through periods of defining ourselves in different ways as a way of exploring who we are. This does not mean that we are or were lying, either to ourselves, or to others as the statement in the study implies, merely that our perceptions of ourselves can change over time.

I think anytime you make generalizations about human sexuality you are going to be wrong. It doesn't lend itself to simplification.

I think lying is a poor choice of words, but it was chosen by the author of the article quoted, reusing it in a forum topic would seen fair.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Don't men lie more often regarding questions about sex? (Always thought we did.) Don't men also tend to tie their self-worth to the classic father, head of the household image? In my corner of the world, society has always been kinder to gay women than men. It's changing, slowly, but you do not see any male/male affection in public. I'm presuming men in the study have ego's, and whatever effect that has on their social interaction. Isn't the study just picking up on this?

Not suggesting bi men don't exist, I'm just suggesting that the percentages could be skewed by how men and women associate sexual orientation to self-image.

I have to call bullshit on this article. Since my adolesance I have been attracted to members of both sex. I've had great sex with women, I've had great sex with men. I feel no emotional attachment towards men at all, its just sex. I like lesbians too (had a three some with 2 bi chicks the other night actually :D)

I might just be a nympo... :lol:

gh0ti, you're lying, and i'll use science to prove it

Nowhere does it say "Lesbian Porn" it says erotica containing "only women". The images are probably of women masturbating. We won't know the exact details of the study until next month when it is published. And only then if someone here coughs up the money for the article. (Or visits their local college library).


The truth is that many of these models may have been unattractive to the study participants. I suppose that is one way of manipulating the outcome. However, it is interesting to note that at least 2/3 of the respective self proclaming "sexual type" (ie homo, hetero or bi) had a positive reaction to the porn.

i think this brings up an interesting issue now...

it's widely held that men are more visually cued in terms of sexuality. i think it might be more illustrative to survey the contents of bi men's porn, and what the gender balance is. i've got a "type" when it comes to men, and a type for women, etc... as i suspect most men do in their target gender(s).

just because we're not choosy about gender doesn't mean we're not discerning. :)

I have to agree that the title was poorly chosen even if the word was used in the article, it makes a generalization and an accusation that is uncalled for. A better title would be: "Study suggests that fewer men than reported are actually bisexual" or something like that. The title reminds me too much of the type of title you see in the tabloids. I agree with martinguerre in that it isn't really up to par with the usual standard of the TFP.
I'm not attacking you though, everybody makes mistakes and since you might not be able to put yourself in the shoes of a bisexual and experience the blows you recive from both hetro- and homosexuals, it is hard to see why this is such a sensitive subject.

Anyway on the topic at hand: The methods, material used in the study and the results are all questioned with merit. There are several flaws in the studies that makes the results too uncetain to make any serious deduction. The only thing they mannaged to establish is that arousal from visual stimuli is uncertain and that bi-men are more prone to be aroused by male nudity than female, there is, by far, too little (or rather none) material evidence giving merit to the claim that bisexuality doesn't exist.

As said before in the thread there are so many other things that can trigger an attraction than looks, sexual activity or nudity.
Smells, voices, personalities etc. play just as big a role in sexual attraction.

This "study" is also a very hard blow to the closet gays who uses a bisexual identity to "ease" into their official gay identity. If they don't have this "safe" haven they are just left with a lot of stress that is completly unnecesary.

If bisexual is thought to mean closet gay then a lot of people whose sexual identity is true bisexuality is going to have a living hell in social situations where their sexuality plays a part.

Personally I think that this is something that shouldn't be published before we know a lot more. A lot of people is going to get offended and hurt by the premature conclusions that may arise from this article. There are too many misconceptions seen as truth in the world already.

Here's a semi-related followup newsstory:
Bisexual women "pressured to be lesbians"

While there is wiggle room in design, and you could claim that perhaps bisexual men do not find lesbian porn stimulating but they do find male-male porn stimulating (and I think this is a bit of a reach, as 'straight' bi ment find it stimulating but they do not get stimulated by the male-male porn), I do not find the results surprising.

I've always felt that male bisexuality was more of a learned response, and that they were either gay or straight.

On the other hand I do believe that female bisexuality is quite real and I would like to see how a similar study worked on them. Part of the problem would be that while men are known for being easily, visually stimulated, the same does not apply for most women so the study would have to have a different design.

Edit: Opps I didn't read the last bit of the article, and it seems they 'agree' with my bisexuality in women theory. 1.5% bisexual is a TAD low though :lol:

redlemon...i think that article has a lot of good points. As Hudson notes, external support of the person-feeling at home in community, etc, has a lot to do with their well being. i entirely agree with her statement:

“The onus is on professional and academic psychologists to recognise that enduring bisexual identities do exist, and to ensure that they challenge the stigma that so often renders bisexual identities invisible or portrays them in negative ways,” she said.

perhaps the original article researchers should release the standards at which they think that they would have "proved" biaffective orientations did exist. Exactly even amounts of arousal? 45/55? 70/30? Did other gender specific stimuli provide arousal? If so, in what ratio?

I've said much of this before, but everytime i re-read the original study, the more the design strikes me as really incomplete.

I don't think the study implies lying, and in fact it fits in very well with what you say. 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. I find it telling that 40% of all gay men described themselves as bisexual at some point.

It seems that this thread has turned into a bi-bashing thread. None of the bisexuals I know is fully 50-50, that doesn't mean that they aren't bisexual or that bisexuality is a lie.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

**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. :)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :cool:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

*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.