Straight, Gay or Lying?

I know "Valued Poster" is the default setting for folks that don't purchase premium access, or contribute to the site with reviews, but in the case of Marshall, I really hope the staff around here would consider fixing that under his handle.

It kinda comes across as false advertising.

...I think people who label themselves bi-sexual are confusing their sexual and non-sexual motivations for having gay sex......
Originally Posted by Marshall

No confusion here. I know what I like, desire and enjoy doing. I never bought into the psychological term "Gender Identity Disorder". This is a term for "sexual confusion" if I remember correctly for gay people. I really do believe they are born this way and the brain is wired in that direction. There is so much we still don't understand about the brain, so I would never assume that a person just chooses to be gay or bisexual for that matter. Now that I have had a chance to read Nina's post earlier, I am starting to wonder if this "so called study" isn't in fact another fanatical warring on gays and bisexuals. All it has done is muddy the water once again on the subject and confuse more people.

I know "Valued Poster" is the default setting for folks that don't purchase premium access, or contribute to the site with reviews, but in the case of Marshall, I really hope the staff around here would consider fixing that under his handle.

It kinda comes across as false advertising. Originally Posted by phatdaty

[In my best WTF voice]...Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....[pause...pause....wait for it]...he was wrong alot [sic]

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...207-05-05.html

J. Michael Bailey attacks the identities of yet another sexual minority group:
He claims that the plethysmograph proves bisexual men are "lying",
and that most are just gay men after all.


Here he goes again. This is such a familiar pattern:

Having been burned by exposure of his research misconduct while attacking the identities of transsexual women, J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University has moved on to attack yet another sexual minority group. In this case the group is self-identified bisexual men, who number in the millions.

Bailey and his graduate student Gerulf Rieger (whom he is grooming for a similar career in "science by press release") are claiming to have proven that bisexual men are "lying" about their identities, as reported in the New York Times science section on July 5, 2005. Mr. Bailey bases this claim on further applications of pseudoscience in the form of plethysmograph arousal tests.

Mr. Bailey's "discovery" is now being widely announced in the media, and promises to provoke a new storm of controversy. However, he thrives on controversy and will likely exploit news of it as evidence at Northwestern University that he is "doing important work" - as a substitute for publications in respected journals. The controversy can thus advance both Mr. Bailey's notoriety and scientific career, and those of his promoters and supporters at CAMH (the notorious Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto; formerly known as the Clarke Institute) and at NIH (National Institutes of Health).

Nevertheless, if the past investigations of Mr. Bailey's psuedoscientific defamations of transsexual women are a guide, we'd expect that criticisms of his bisexuality research will be countered with personal attacks on bisexual critics as being "gay men in denial". Other critics will be dismissed as being either "anti-science" or as having inadequate credentials. Thus bisexual men should be forewarned that Mr. Bailey intensely dislikes any criticism of his work, and responds accordingly,


What kind of intellectual milieu generates such strange pseudoscience? During the investigations of Bailey's defamation of trans women, we learned that he works closely with a clique of rather conservative, mostly older-generation gay psychologists, academics and pundits - men like Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer (NIH), Ray Blanchard (CAMH), James Cantor (CAMH), etc.
Those men love Bailey, in his role as their "straight man" spokesman, for his vicious Fourattist denials of the existence of transsexualism, as in his 2003 book "The Man Who Would Be Queen". As we know, the gay elite of that generation view postop trans women as "crazy queens" who are gay men and who should have been satisfied staying that way. Here's a classic statement by old-time gay thought-leader Fouratt, which well conveys such men's misplaced paranoia about transsexualism:

"Modern medicine is once again trying to cure us of our desire for same sex love. Our gender variant gay and lesbian population is under intense pressure to deny their homosexuality and to take all physical, hormonal and emotional steps in order to be accepted into heterosexual society." - Jim Fouratt
It's likely that such men love Bailey even more for his pseudoscientific denial of bisexuality. After all, there are many more people who identify as bisexual than as transsexual, thus bisexuality represents a much bigger threat to their narrow conception of gay male identity.

Also recall that LeVay and Hamer claim to have discovered the existence of a gay gene. Could it be that the existence of anything other than a very narrow notion of gay maleness would put at risk Hamer's and LeVay's claims to scientific fame? Or could their certainty of the existence of the "gay gene" possibly bias and compel them to project a narrow concept of gayness onto anyone who is not totally straight?

Whatever their motives, it must be reassuring to this clique that in Mr. Bailey's hands the plethysmograph can identify all those liars out there - the millions upon millions of liars - in all their rich variations and cultural diversity all around the world.

Even so, it's surprising that Mr. Bailey retains strong support from this clique. These men must be well aware of Bailey's work in homosexual eugenics, including his recent bizarre attempt to defend homosexual eugenics (more) in a widely announced seminar at Northwestern (a seminar that was widely shunned, with almost no one attending). What's wrong with this picture? Lots.


Meantime, how is it that Bailey gets such press coverage anyways?

We can understand Bailey getting help from his right-wing homophobic journalists friends such as John Derbyshire (National Review), Dan Seligman (Forbes Magazine) and Steve Sailor (VDARE), all of whom jumped to Bailey's defense and viciously attacked the transsexual community on his behalf when Bailey was brought up on research misconduct charges at Northwestern (for which he was later forced to resign his chairmanship).

After all, Mr. Bailey and all three of those Bailey supporters are active members of the "Human Biodiversity Institute" (HBI aka HBES aka HBDG), a "think-tank" exposed by the prestigious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a clique of racists and anti-immigrationists in a 2003 Investigative Report entitled "Queer Science: An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race."

But how is it that that journalists such as Benedict Carey and Dennis Rodkin don't see through Bailey's obvious pseudoscience, nor apparently care a whit about his bashing of sexual minorities? Rodkin even wrote a major feature article in the Chicago Reader defending Bailey's defamation of trans women - right at the time that Chicago was becoming one of the most trans friendly cities in the US - a time when the gay community was much more fully aware of the reality of trans identities. How could these gay writers go so wrong? Could it be that as rather naive and inexperienced journalists they were drawn into this charade upon being "noticed" and getting attention from the self-proclaimed "famous gay scientists" who stand behind Bailey?

If so, let's remind them of Andrea James' recommendation: “I suggest checking out Columbia Journalism Review’s “Blinded by Science” regarding the unfortunate tendency to present crackpot findings for “balance” ”

You might also ponder why Mr. Bailey would widely announce such a defamatory "scientific claim" about how all bisexual men are "lying about their identities", unless his work had been independently repeated and confirmed by other independent research groups?


After all - all we have is this one "new study", which is simply a recently warmed-over version of his old 2002 paper about the same study. That old 2002 study aroused no interest in the scientific community at the time, and has not been scientifically repeated and confirmed by any independent researchers. Nevertheless, is Mr. Bailey claiming that his research is perfect and that we are to believe him, without outside independent confirmations whatsoever?

To put forward such startling claims in the name of "science" based on such tenuous evidence - claims that are causing angst to millions of people worldwide - seems the height of professional irresponsibility. Following as it does on his similarly defamatory accusations that all transsexual women are "lying" (about their personal histories and inner identities) appears to many people to border on sociopathy.

However, Mr. Bailey may have had his reasons. For background on why he may have felt compelled to make these pronouncements when he did, please carefully read the report below from a confidential source (someone who is attending a conference the article was apparently closely timed to coincide with).

To follow this situation, check back from time to time for additions to the list of links above. For more background on Mr. Carey and his work at the New York Times, and discussions of follow-on actions regarding his article, see "How Benedict Carey trolls for 'science stories' for the New York Times". Originally Posted by ninasastri

Thanks for posting this!

Currently I am seeing a very sexy lady whose idea is....

I like sexy people...some of them cum with a cock, others have a pussy

So I guess that makes her an "equal opportunity" gal!

Thanks for posting this! Originally Posted by Natalie

you`re welcome . there are more studies on bisexuality out there. I am one of the researchers on queer sexualities and queer studies. So it was important for me to post this. Bisexuality is a claim that is anyway seen as enemy by both the gay and the straight communities. So no need to bash it any further. Studies like the ones mentioned make it imperative that someone conducting a research makes his bias see-thru , whcih is something that qualitative research does , but never quantitative research. So - when a researcher is having problems with bisexuals , gays, polyamorists or monogamists it has an influence. This is usually focused on with stating from which political side or influence you come from, also including the individuals presented in a research.
It is quite abusive of the power of a researcher to take individuals and make them presented in some way without their consent. Especially when someone identifies himself as bisexual how can you claim the right to tell him he isn`t? Hello?

Since my thesis was on polyamory - here is something i quoted when reflecting my own process in research: Its about power dynamics in research facilities:

"Power is an inevitable dimension of the subjection of research participants’` narratives to the analytical act of interpretation. Researchers usually have an interest in constructing a particular type of (generally academic) knowledge, which is not necessarily shared by all the researched. This may imply the application of certain theories for the reading of informants` accounts. To place these narratives into the context of different theoretical or linguistic systems is an act of translation which inevitably transforms their vernacular (...). Apart from the risk of alienation on the part of the research participants, the work of analysis can also result in serious interpretative conflicts - who does finally control what is said and which version is disseminated in the publication of the research? I think it is fairly obvious that in most forms of research cooperation, its the professional researchers who hold this power of control to a much higher degree. [...] Looking at the research relationship from this critical angle, it is questionable as to whether it can really be described in such egalitarian terms as common in research textbooks. It also throws some doubt on the idealising and mystifying notions of empowerment at the heart of the intention to "giving a voice" to the oppressed or marginalized." (Klesse 2008, S.41).


"The information that i have been in non-monogamous relationships myself [...] may have convinced people that it was rather unlikely that i would write in a dismissive or moralizing way about their sexual lives." (Klesse 2008, S.46)
"Self-disclosure has been extremely important in increasing the visibility and acceptance of sexual minorities." (Barker 2006, S. 292)
...

..........