The understating of the fluidity of sexual orientation

[Bad Lieutenant]

What was that argument you were making in the past about monogamy causing homosexuality?

Polygyny being legal and polyandry being punishable by severe measures maintains sexist gender roles and so could lead to less gender role model identity confusion.

 

[RandFan]

The studies show people aren't born gay...

Fatuous. A misstatement of the science. Pinker, a sociobilogist who is a proponent for nature AND nurture spends much of his book The Blank Slate arguing against such simplistic claims about homosexuality and he cites his sources.

ETA: That's a searchable online book. Search for "gay" for the claims and sources.

 

[RandFan]

What was that argument you were making in the past about monogamy causing homosexuality?

Polygyny being legal and polyamory being punishable by severe measures maintains sexist gender roles and so could lead to less gender role model identity confusion.

This strikes me as a non sequitur but I'll bite. Could you A.) Explain the mechanisms? B.) Cite a source?

 

[Alan]

Do you think compulsory polygyny would be a good thing?

Saying polyamory would be severely punished suggests you mean polyandry? Why?

 

[Dessi]

This is getting really boring now. You're the one sticking their head in the sand and/or attempting to pass off your perception of the gay rights movement's agenda as science/logic/reason. The studies show people aren't born gay so it must be due to later environmental influences; 1+1=2. All I've done is put forward one hypothesis that could explain some homosexuality; you've done nothing but pretend the study by Bailey et al in 2000 never took place. Pathetic.

~Bailey, Michael J., Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 3, 524-536.

I'll state categorically that Michael J Bailey isn't exactly uncontroversial. He's a very recognizable name in the transgender community for writing a book called "The Man who would be Queen: the Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" stating that transgender women are extremely effeminate homosexual men OR sexually perverted men who are aroused by the image of themselves as a woman, makes numerous and very nasty transphobic generalizations of transwomen.

Numerous times throughout the book, he makes inflammatory statements toward bisexual men for some reason, his favorite being that they are either "gay, straight, or lying". His theories on homosexuality are universally challenged and rejected by every institute of human sexuality.

The man publishes junk science with a very obvious political agenda to malign gay and transgender people. No surprise you're not turning any heads citing his studies. Go back to Freud, at least people respect him.

 

[Alan]

There was a time when I really didn't like J Michael Bailey, but I've been made aware that some of the claims made about him are not true. A link to a PDF about him regarding claims of misconduct can be found in the bottom right box here: http://bibrain.org/

He's been involved with some studies that contradicted his findings regarding male bisexuality. One of which is at the above site and he was part of that one that got a lot of publicity earlier this year.

I strongly object to some of the things he's done, but I don't think he's quite the ideologically-driven villain he's sometimes portrayed as.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Fatuous. A misstatement of the science. Pinker, a sociobilogist who is a proponent for nature AND nurture spends much of his book The Blank Slate arguing against such simplistic claims about homosexuality and he cites his sources.

ETA: That's a searchable online book. Search for "gay" for the claims and sources.

Where did I write that nobody is genetically predisposed toward homosexuality? For someone who is critical of those who put forward uncited ideas you certainly posses a vivid imagination.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Do you think compulsory polygyny would be a good thing?

Saying polyamory would be severely punished suggests you mean polyandry? Why?

Compulsory?! Who'd have thought of such a thing
I'm not sure if polygyny is a good idea. Beats me. Thanks for pointing out my error.

 

[RandFan]

There was a time when I really didn't like J Michael Bailey, but I've been made aware that some of the claims made about him are not true. A link to a PDF about him regarding claims of misconduct can be found in the bottom right box here: http://bibrain.org/

He's been involved with some studies that contradicted his findings regarding male bisexuality. One of which is at the above site and he was part of that one that got a lot of publicity earlier this year.

I strongly object to some of the things he's done, but I don't think he's quite the ideologically-driven villain he's sometimes portrayed as.

Thanks. Great video (short as it is). I first encountered the study in 2009. Whats great about the study is the counter intuitive data. Consider the female data (also featured in Bi The Way:

What Women Want (Maybe)

What really matters to women, Dr. Chivers said, at least in the somewhat artificial setting of watching movies while intimately hooked up to a device called a photoplethysmograph, is not the gender of the actor, but the degree of sensuality. Even more than the naked exercisers, they were aroused by videos of masturbation, and more still by graphic videos of couples making love. Women with women, men with men, men with women: it did not seem to matter much to her female subjects, Dr. Chivers said.

“Women physically don’t seem to differentiate between genders in their sex responses, at least heterosexual women don’t,” she said. “For heterosexual women, gender didn’t matter. They responded to the level of activity.”

Also, I can't find the data and this is from memory, but in the early years of the AIDS crises researchers were studying habits of gay men and found an anomaly. A percentage of men contacted at bath houses didn't identify as gay. They were married and had no desire to have non sexual intimacy with men but preferred that with women (as is supported at the end of the video). I've not seen the full length video but I will now do so.


So, we have sexual identity, preference, and behavior. Then we have sex drive, Romantic love, attachment. Like I said, a complex dynamic.

 

[RandFan]

Where did I write that nobody is genetically predisposed toward homosexuality? For someone who is critical of those who put forward uncited ideas you certainly posses a vivid imagination.

No. Please stick to what I'm saying. I'll stick to what you say, and you said.

The studies show people aren't born gay...

I'm disputing this statement as overly simplistic. Just because Pinker is a proponent for nature and nurture does not mean he claims that there is not some percentage of people who are born gay. It's a fatuous statement.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

I'll state categorically that Michael J Bailey isn't exactly uncontroversial. He's a very recognizable name in the transgender community for writing a book called "The Man who would be Queen: the Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism" stating that transgender women are extremely effeminate homosexual men OR sexually perverted men who are aroused by the image of themselves as a woman, makes numerous and very nasty transphobic generalizations of transwomen.

Numerous times throughout the book, he makes inflammatory statements toward bisexual men for some reason, his favorite being that they are either "gay, straight, or lying". His theories on homosexuality are universally challenged and rejected by every institute of human sexuality.

The man publishes junk science with a very obvious political agenda to malign gay and transgender people. No surprise you're not turning any heads citing his studies. Go back to Freud, at least people respect him.

Hmmmm, looks like I've got a lot of reading to do then, although I would point out that whether or not one respects the individual is largely irrelevant, the veracity of the research is all that matters. You may see an obvious anti-LGBT political agenda but I have to say I see exactly the opposite from some people. Nobody respects him you say? Junk science doesn't usually make it into prestigious journals but I suppose it's possible.

So he makes inflammatory statements...so what? The truth can be inflammatory; it's only the politically motivated who edit harsh reality in order to appease the interests of the audience. If a researcher makes inflammatory findings I'd take that more as a sign of the veracity of their research TBH. That comment about bisexual men seems quite crazy though...oh wait, he didn't say that at all according to the article:

"You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

No. Please stick to what I'm saying. I'll stick to what you say, and you said.

I'm disputing this statement as overly simplistic. Just because Pinker is a proponent for nature and nurture does not mean he claims that there is not some percentage of people who are born gay. It's a fatuous statement.

Well, sooner or later it's necessary to get off the fence and use simple language - yes it's a complex weave and we could spend all eternity marvelling in awe but the facts as I understand them are that the environment can cause any person to be straight (perhaps only if those environmental influences occur at a particular time) so it seems fair to just quash the "born gay" myth wherever possible.

 

[RandFan]

Well, sooner or later it's necessary to get off the fence and use simple language - yes it's a complex weave and we could spend all eternity marvelling in awe but the facts as I understand them are that the environment can cause any person to be straight (perhaps only if those environmental influences occur at a particular time) so it seems fair to just quash the "born gay" myth wherever possible.

Citation? Again, this is something I'm interested in. I don't claim expertise but I do claim familiarity. I don't have these facts you claim. Please to demonstrate them? And don't tell me to look. I have.

BTW: In the Prop 8 trial the defendants damn well knew they would be expected to provide scientific evidence that people can become straight. They presented NO evidence. The Plaintiffs on the other hand DID provide scientific evidence contradicting this claim. The law firm was no second rate firm. Please to tell me why these facts were not forth coming?

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Saying polyamory would be severely punished suggests you mean polyandry? Why?

I suppose we're basically talking about adultery. In Pakistan adulterers get jail time. Like I said, I don't really know if I'm in favour of any of that stuff I just meant that it plausibly serves to create distinct gender roles...the severe punishment part might "hammer home" the message.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

the facts as I understand them are that the environment can cause any person to be straight (perhaps only if those environmental influences occur at a particular time).

Citation? Again, this is something I'm interested in. I don't claim expertise but I do claim familiarity. I don't have these facts you claim. Please to demonstrate them? And don't tell me to look. I have.

Just that Bailey 2000 study is enough, isn't it? Environment holds the ace of spades. I don't need to drag in all the in-uterine androgen uptake and "gay brain" stuff really IMO.

BTW: In the Prop 8 trial the defendants damn well knew they would be expected to provide scientific evidence that people can become straight. They presented NO evidence. The Plaintiffs on the other hand DID provide scientific evidence contradicting this claim. The law firm was no second rate firm. Please to tell me why these facts were not forth coming?

Maybe because the investigation into the efficacy of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) by the APA excluded all one on one psychotherapeutic reports of successful SOCE under the (likely politically motivated) excuse that they were not experimentally rugged, leading to those reports being universally discredited?

Maybe because the environmental factors which cause SOC have not been identified by practitioners yet?

Maybe because anybody who really wants to change just does so overnight, like maybe how anybody who wants to engage in bestiality just does so, and so these people never go through SOCE?

Maybe because Sexual Orientation (often?) becomes fixed through environmental factors at a certain point and is then imutable?

Wow; that's quite a few reasons...I'd never really thought about it before. Cheers.

 

[RandFan]

I suppose we're basically talking about adultery. In Pakistan adulterers get jail time. Like I said, I don't really know if I'm in favour of any of that stuff I just meant that it plausibly serves to create distinct gender roles...the severe punishment part might "hammer home" the message.

Iran has those "distinct" gender roles and they hang homosexuals. Oddly enough there are gays and lesbians in Iran. We know because Iran HANGS homosexuals.

 

[Alan]

Hmmmm, looks like I've got a lot of reading to do then, although I would point out that whether or not one respects the individual is largely irrelevant, the veracity of the research is all that matters. You may see an obvious anti-LGBT political agenda but I have to say I see exactly the opposite from some people. Nobody respects him you say? Junk science doesn't usually make it into prestigious journals but I suppose it's possible.

So he makes inflammatory statements...so what? The truth can be inflammatory; it's only the politically motivated who edit harsh reality in order to appease the interests of the audience. If a researcher makes inflammatory findings I'd take that more as a sign of the veracity of their research TBH. That comment about bisexual men seems quite crazy though...oh wait, he didn't say that at all according to the article:

He has said it. He said in the video I linked to at www.bibrain.org about how he kind-of regrets saying (repeating) it. From 30 seconds in.


Also, his controversial research is often contradicted by other studies (including by some he has conducted or been involved with).

 

[RandFan]

Just that Bailey 2000 study is enough, isn't it?

Because? In any event no. Like I said, Pinker dispels the notion and cites his sources.

Environment holds the ace of spades.

Absolutely not. Again, Pinker dispels this myth.

I don't need to drag in all the in-uterine androgen uptake and "gay brain" stuff really IMO.

It most certainly could not possibly prove your point as that is only a single factor for a percentage of the gay popilation.

Maybe because the investigation into the efficacy of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) by the APA excluded all one on one psychotherapeutic reports of successful SOCE under the (likely politically motivated) excuse that they were not experimentally rugged, leading to those reports being universally discredited?

Maybe? Evidence? Why didn't the defense advance this hypothesis?

Maybe because the environmental factors which cause SOC have not been identified by practitioners yet?

Maybe aliens and god just haven't been discovered yet.

Maybe because anybody who really wants to change just does so overnight, like maybe how anybody who wants to engage in bestiality just does so, and so these people never go through SOCE?

The people who pray and fast to avoid being disenfranchised? The people who go through therapy and suffer? The people who kill themselves?

Maybe because Sexual Orientation (often?) becomes fixed through environmental factors at a certain point and is then imutable?

Maybe aliens have really good cloaking devices. Maybe Bigfoot is magic. Maybe Lochness is a genie.

Wow; that's quite a few reasons...I'd never really thought about it before. Cheers.

The biggest problem with this speculation is that real data from real experts WAS presented. Speculation in the face of facts is worthless for science. But it is proof of a fertile imagination. Cheers.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Iran has those "distinct" gender roles and they hang homosexuals. Oddly enough there are gays and lesbians in Iran. We know because Iran HANGS homosexuals.

I know, it's ********** up. I doubt gender role model identity confusion is the only cause of homosexuality and I also doubt the sexist gender roles pervade any current societies fully. In fact, seeing a documentary on the Iranian divorce courts the women seemed very strong willed indeed; the men seemed to be the meek and mild ones; hardly traditional gender roles by western standards anyway. I guess they hadn't been following their Quran properly, which is a good thing I suppose...or maybe it was just the type of woman who featured in the documentary.

 

[RandFan]

I know, it's ********** up. I doubt gender role model identity confusion is the only cause of homosexuality and I also doubt the sexist gender roles pervade any current societies fully. In fact, seeing a documentary on the Iranian divorce courts the women seemed very strong willed indeed; the men seemed to be the meek and mild ones; hardly traditional gender roles by western standards anyway. I guess they hadn't been following their Quran properly, which is a good thing I suppose...or maybe it was just the type of woman who featured in the documentary.

Ad hoc rationalization. What we need is evidence.