FUFBUF
Global Gay Nation => Gay Identity - Queer as Volk? => Topic started by: Feral on June 18, 2007, 08:19:00 PM
-
New York Magazine has an entirely readable round-up (http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/) of many of the findings regarding biological determinism in orientation. While the piece is rather long, take heart -- it could have been twice as long had it treated any of the more subtle (and more interesting) neurological studies. An excerpt:
At first read, their findings seem like a string of unlinked, esoteric observations. Statistically, for instance, gay men and lesbians have about a 50 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight men or women. The relative lengths of our fingers offer another hint: The index fingers of most straight men are shorter than their ring fingers, while for most women they are closer in length, or even reversed in ratio. But some researchers have noted that gay men are likely to have finger-length ratios more in line with those of straight women, and a study of self-described “butch” lesbians showed significantly masculinized ratios. The same goes for the way we hear, the way we process spatial reasoning, and even the ring of our voices. One study, involving tape-recordings of gay and straight men, found that 75 percent of gay men sounded gay to a general audience. It’s unclear what the listeners responded to, whether there is a recognized gay “accent” or vocal quality. And there is no hint as to whether this idiosyncrasy is owed to biology or cultural influences—only that it’s unmistakable. What is there in Rufus Wainwright’s “uninhibited, yearning, ugly-duckling voice,” as the Los Angeles Times wrote a few weeks ago, that we recognize as uniquely gay? Does biology account for Rosie O’Donnell’s crisp trumpet and Charles Nelson Reilly’s gnyuck-gnyuck-gnyuck?
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g156/coraldog/Pics/fingers.jpg)
-
That's crazy! Wow! My fingers are just like that (om the right). I never knew this... (although I am not left-handed, but I *am* somewhat ambidextrous.)
-
Colbert interviews David France, author of "The Science of Gaydar"
*click* (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Colbert_guest_Gaydar_real_0627.html) (video available @ link)
-
That's crazy! Wow! My fingers are just like that (om the right). I never knew this... (although I am not left-handed, but I *am* somewhat ambidextrous.)
There you have it then.
I, alas, am afflicted with 'het-fingers.'
-
Step by step, researcher looks for sexuality clues (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/26/sexuality/index.html?section=cnn_latest)
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Can you tell whether someone's gay just by the way he or she walks?
Yeah.
They're studying this?
As with the speech investigations, people have a remarkably good success rate for telling whether a person is gay or not. (All the more remarkable since, statistically speaking, we're talking about people who cannot tell you what month 9/11 happened in.)
Scientists puzzle me. It is not interesting that people can tell if a person is gay by the way they speak or walk. It would be interesting to know why they can tell.
P.S
Beware of the cheese.
-
I, alas, am afflicted with 'het-fingers.'
What about your hair-whirl? =))
Seriously, it seems that we are coming closer to a set of simple biological tokens for a non-invasive, affordable Gay diagnostics. If one particular token does not suffice for the 95% identification of a Gay individual, it is very probable that the occurence of 2 or 3 of such tokens might amount to the necessary certainty. This is practical for our argumentation on behalf of the Gay peoplehood, but I shudder on the mere though of consequences in some regions of the world. But still, I never finish to get exited by nature - it is simply amazing what corellations can be discovered.
This research has actually brought me to examining my own body for some gay tokens. Unfortunately, my handedness, fingers and hair whirls are entirely het-looking. :( Good news, by my voice I am always identified as "Frau Z." by telephone researchers, marketers and other telephone mobsters. :wink:
-
Ah, but what of your walking? I should probably have put the post in this thread (that would have been entirely sensible of me, which is also the likely reason why I failed to do so... Imagine: ME, being sensible).
As for my hair whorl... alas, it has been many decades since most evidence of it fell from my head. forensic anthropologists tell me that the fossil record indicates that it was counter-clockwise. I understand there is photographic evidence (yes... they ARE daguerreotypes) that this ornery counter-clockwise whorl caused great rooster-like plumes to disrupt just about any hairstyle imaginable... until some genius recognized the possibility that my hair might be parted on the other side. (It was a great day for some, this realization... amazing, the things that can surprise the simple.)
-
Ah, but what of your walking?
Hastily hurrying forwards like the White Rabbit, I am probably *the* fastest long-distance walker in the neighbourhood. The only moments when I walk in the typical sluggish manner of our folk, is when I purposefully choose to slow down and enjoy the back-sight of a particularly well-shaped laddy. :oops:
-
LOL
The ability of a lad to alter one's gait must surely be an identifying characteristic of the Gay walk. ;) In this case, I suspect a simpler aesthetic explanation is in order and that we need not trouble the scholars with this phenomenon.
-
My gaydar came with some useful attachments...
1. cockometer (rhymes with "odometer")
2. hagometer
3. topometer
4. bottometer
5. flopometer
6. kinkometer
7. quickcometer
and of course the all important (and standard issue)
8. closetometer
-
Oh my ... straight to the Hall of Fame for that one!
-
LOL (http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=4&STORY_ID=3348&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=7)
Naturally, I tested France's findings on myself.
Since there's a bald spot where my hair "whorl" is, I couldn't tell what direction it grows in. And as for the ridges on my fingertips, if I could see those I wouldn't need to use The Force to hook up.
But my index finger is longer than my ring finger. That would explain my affinity for dick.
Still, subtle genetic hints serve no purpose on Davie St. If I'm looking at a man's hands it's not to determine whether or not he's gay, and by the time I'm staring at the back of his head, we've pretty much established he's a bottom.
So much for science. Thanks for nothing, Einstein.
If science has proved anything, it's that there's no such thing as a sure thing. Unless Apple invents the iHomo, I'll just have to learn not to get embarrassed when I occasionally cruise the odd straight guy.
-
Strange how everyone seems to want to turn such research to diagnostics. No matter how many caveats are given, no matter how many explanations of what the findings mean (and don't mean), it always comes down to a game of 'spot the homo.'
I recollect that I once said "never, ever underestimate the importance of getting laid." I wasn't kidding.
-
Here's some more "research" for ya...
Self explanatory.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb72/bxmuchacho/sexiest.jpg)
Cock size percentages per capita of the overall male population.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb72/bxmuchacho/magicstyk.jpg)
-
Ummm... whose "measuring stick" are you using in that first graph, Rain? ;) :P
-
Ummm... whose "measuring stick" are you using in that first graph, Rain?
Ooh...I should be so lucky.
-
Rain, unless this is your original research, =)) pleeeaaase indicate your sources! Me courious of the research methodes and additional informations.
-
Good question, Van. My source was a horny homo friend of mine who emailed it to me without explanation. So, I've been conducting my own investigative research to see if the results hold up.
Don't quote me on this...but on some preliminary surveys I've conducted the results tend to suggest that the measurements of the first survey were artificially inflated. On the second survey, however, the results seem to nail it.
-
LOL
See those peculiar dips in the graph at 5.75, 6.25, 6.75. and 7.25? Almost certainly they reflect the tendency for people to round up to the nearest half inch rather than the nearest quarter inch.
I still must protest -- this perfectly reasonable distribution of sizes does not reflect my experience. The average size shown in this graph more properly describes the lower end of my (admittedly limited) test sample. Nonetheless, it pretty much encapsulates the scientific consensus on this subject.
-
I do gather from the punctuation marks in the second survey that it was a European study. After all, Americans and Canadians generally use the period as the decimal marker, Europeans prefer the comma. So maybe...and this is just my guess...those sizes are typically European.
-
I missed the cute little commas. This must be the data from the German condom manufacturer -- a good study, that one. They did not rely on self-reporting.
-
I do gather from the punctuation marks in the second survey that it was a European study. After all, Americans and Canadians generally use the period as the decimal marker, Europeans prefer the comma. So maybe...and this is just my guess...those sizes are typically European.
Depends basically on the journal where one is going to publish the stuff. The molds at the quarter-inches suggest that the original research data were collected by researches native to the US or UK - Europeans use metric measures. Thus, whoever sponsored the research, the researchers themselves were not from continental Europe...
-
Europeans use metric measures. Thus, whoever sponsored the research, the researchers themselves were not from continental Europe...
My guess is Britain. I hate to sound like an international size-queen, but my experience with Europe suggests that continental cock is bigger and nicer looking than British cock.
Foreskin does a lot to enhance the beauty of the male member.
-
[..] but my experience with Europe suggests that continental cock is bigger and nicer looking than British cock.
Statistically relevant experience [i.e. sample ~ 1,000 p.]? :lol:
-
File this one under "DUH!"...LOL
Male And Female Disconnect In Preferred Online Dating Websites
Matchmaking Websites eHarmony and Love Access Attract the Most Women
NEW YORK, February 14, 2007 – Hitwise, the world's leading online competitive intelligence service, announced today that while the gender profile of visitors to the Hitwise online dating category was nearly equal, at 50.8 percent male and 49.2 percent female, many sites within the category exhibit an imbalance of male and female visitors.
An examination of the top 100 websites in the Hitwise Lifestyle – Dating Category by gender reveals that the website with the largest percentage of female visitors for the week ending February 10, 2007 was Love Access (www.loveaccess.com), which comprised 87.4 percent female visitors. Other websites that were comprised of more than 70 percent female visitors in that period were SeniorPeopleMeet.com, proving that older women are adopting online dating faster than older men, CatholicMatch.com, a website for connecting Catholics, and Don't Date Him Girl! (www.dontdatehimgirl.com), a website where women can post warnings about bad experiences with men they met online. EHarmony.com also showed a large female visitor base of 68.6 percent and received the largest market share of visits for the week ending February 10, 2007.
The top 100 dating websites with the largest portion of male visitors for the week ending February 10, 2007 were Gay online dating websites including ManHunt.com, Adam4Adam.com, and Gay.com. Also ranking high among male visitors were websites focused on matching American men with foreign brides, such as AnastasiaWeb.com and FilipinaHeart.com and Globaladies.com.
Full Article HERE (http://www.hitwise.co.uk/press-center/hitwiseHS2004/valentinesday2007.php)
We should start a section just for lobotomized research studies, factoids, non sequiturs, and just plain ole "you gotta be shittin me!"
-
Statistically relevant experience [i.e. sample ~ 1,000 p.]? :lol:
And we should infer?
Oh my...someone never leaves home without his hood.
-
File this one under "DUH!"...LOL
The top 100 dating websites with the largest portion of male visitors for the week ending February 10, 2007 were Gay online dating websites including ManHunt.com, Adam4Adam.com, and Gay.com.
We should start a section just for lobotomized research studies, factoids, non sequiturs, and just plain ole "you gotta be shittin me!"
Goodness gracious me oh my... men are visiting Gay online dating websites... MEN? Who'd have thunk it? I wonder why it is that more women don't go to Adam4Adam? Oh wait -- let me guess -- they anticipate an unacceptably high failure rate at getting a date? Yes. I'll go with "what is they acticipate an unacceptably high failure rate, Alex."
Most of the "lobotomized research" has a home in Studies, studies, and more studies (http://gayrepublic.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=393), which is usually lurking on page two or three of the Open Forum (because thankfully, stupid studies don't come out every day... just every week or so). The 'you gotta be shittin' me" stuff can go just about anywhere, though highly polished turd-gems probably belong in with the Moran of the week (http://gayrepublic.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=618).
-
Study of gay brothers may find clues about sexuality (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gaygene_bd12aug12,0,5101766.story?coll=chi-900siteindex-fea)
Mierow stumbled upon a chance to help prove that hunch at the Northalsted Market Days festival four years ago. Spotting a banner reading, “Wanted! Gay Men with a Gay Brother,” he stopped by the booth and volunteered for what he thought would be little more than a survey.
Instead, Mierow found himself part of the Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation—the most extensive study yet to search for a genetic basis for homosexuality—embarked upon by a team of Chicago researchers from local universities.
The scientists hope that by gathering DNA samples from 1,000 sets of gay brothers like the Mierows they will be able to find genetic linkages smaller studies failed to detect. They’ll be recruiting brothers again at the Halsted Street festival this weekend.
The results may ignite controversy, the researchers acknowledge, both by providing ammunition in the raging cultural war over homosexuality and by raising fears about ethically questionable applications like genetic profiling and prenatal testing.
But, they argue, the research is essential to our biological understanding of sexual behavior.
“If there are genetic contributions to sexual orientation, they will not remain hidden forever—the march of genetic science can’t be stopped,” said Timothy F. Murphy, bioethicist adviser to the study. “It’s not a question of whether we should or should not do this research, it’s that we make sure we’re prepared to protect people from insidious uses of this science.”
[...]
“In complex gene scenarios, people figured out that you need a larger sample size in order to get reasonable statistical power,” said Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and the leader of the current study.
To increase the chances of finding genetic areas associated with homosexuality, Sanders proposed assembling almost 10 times the sibling pairs of previous studies. The project received funding in 2001 and began recruiting subjects at gay pride festivals, through gay-oriented publications and on the Internet.
So far the Chicago researchers have obtained blood or saliva DNA samples and survey data from more than 600 brother sets, with several hundred other volunteers in the process of submitting one or the other. Sanders hopes to publish his findings from the first wave of DNA samples in a scientific journal sometime next year.
Sanders cautioned a linkage study can single out only regions of the genetic code, not individual genes.
“One of the advantages of linkage studies is that we don’t have to know those things ahead of time,” Sanders said. “It’s a big advantage here because we don’t know about the biology of sexual orientation yet, so we can find the genes first and then study the biology.”
At this point, the researchers do not know what types of genes they may find; they could be related to hormones, sexual development or a completely unexpected system.
[...]
Study volunteer Jason Palmer of Chicago said he hopes evidence of a biological source for homosexuality would change people’s opinions on sexual orientation. “Our strongest opponents are the religious right, many of whom feel that God does not make mistakes,” Palmer said. “So if it’s a genetic factor and proven, perhaps many of them will find an acceptance for homosexuals.”
But some outside observers worry about how proof of a genetic component to homosexuality might be used politically and even medically. “If you do research on any human behaviors that would allow us either to treat the behavior or to prevent it altogether by prenatal testing, you have got to ask yourself serious questions about societal context in which this type of research takes place,” said Udo Schuklenk, a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
Critics fear identifying a biological component will lead to prenatal testing and perhaps even treatments for homosexuality. While both Sanders and Bailey expressed doubt about the scientific feasibility or public demand for such applications, Schuklenk suggested they were not considering the worldwide implications.
“I understand why U.S. gays want to know why gay people are gay and understand where they are coming from—there are legal reasons, and the agenda is progressive within the context of the U.S.,” said Schuklenk. “What worries me is that they show a complete disregard of repercussions of research on the international scale, for gay people in societies where civil rights are not as well-protected.”
-
Very interesting. But look at this from the NY Times some years back: Sniffing Out the Gay Gene. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html?ex=1186977600&en=579259df5b0652bd&ei=5070)
-
The pheromone study WAS an interesting one. One of the more interesting bits (to me) in studies like it is the rather conspicuous absence of evidence for anything resembling a "continuum" of orientations. Mind you, they were not looking for any, and it's rarely surprising when you fail to find something you aren't looking for. It's just kind of noticeable when evidence for something which is supposedly "common knowledge" fails to present itself no matter how many opportunities it has.
-
Nurture Vs Nature Heads To Court (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/07/071808nat.htm)
The issue over whether homosexuality is the result of nature or nurture is likely to be key in a wrongful dismissal suit brought by a former San Jose City College professor who claims she was fired for advocating people chose to be gay.
The conservative Christian Alliance Defense Fund filed the suit this week on behalf of June Sheldon.
The lawsuit alleges that Sheldon was fired in February from her job as a biology professor when a student complained about her answer to a question about the impact of heredity on "homosexual behavior in males and females."
In her answer Sheldon referenced a German study claiming a link between homosexuality and maternal stress.
The student complained to college administrators that the answer was "offensive and unscientific," according to court documents filed this week.
[...]
In its lawsuit the Arizona-based ADF argues that Sheldon was properly providing students with information on the issue of nature versus nurture.
"The textbook itself points out that the causes of homosexual behavior are a subject of debate in the scientific community," ADF attorney David Hacker told the Mercury News. "This teacher did nothing more than explain this fact."
-
Curious reporting there. I'm not too surprised.
The case is Sheldon v. Dhillon et al.
It's early yet. The defendents have yet to be heard.
I am puzzled by all these cryptic references to "a German scientist." They're all over the web on this topic. "A well-known German scientist" turns up as well. It's odd: Günter Dörner is both German and well-known (I had heard of him, at least) and his name appears repeatedly in Ms Sheldon's complaint. I have to wonder why his name is being so pervasively avoided.
-
The student complained to college administrators that the answer was "offensive and unscientific," according to court documents filed this week.
[...]
In its lawsuit the Arizona-based ADF argues that Sheldon was properly providing students with information on the issue of nature versus nurture.
Ah... why am I ever surprised that a case is not as reported in the press? Further perusal of the plaintiff's side of the equation turns up a wee bit more (http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/623e8dec8f5646886946c22b7c0b15fe.pdf?PHPSESSID=b45441b63e3eee366a6e2794b9a3b52f)to the "student complaint" than a disagreement over the validity of Dörner's work. Several other statements were alleged to have been made, statements that I would readily agree were "offensive and unscientific." The plaintiff, however, denies having made them.
That particular tiff will, no doubt, be settled by evidence. It would be convenient if there were evidence.
The plaintiff's suit draws attention to a number of irregularities in this matter that really could amount to a violation of due process. That issue, too, will be settled by evidence.
It's an interesting case.