The science of sexual orientation.

[Hammock Parties]

Double yew tee eff?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1385230.shtml



CBS) There are few issues as hotly contested — and as poorly understood — as the question of what makes a person gay or straight. It's not only a political, social, and religious question but also a scientific question, one that might someday have an actual, provable answer.

The handful of scientists who work in this under-funded and politically charged field will tell you: That answer is a long way off. But as Lesley Stahl reports, their efforts are already yielding tantalizing clues. One focus of their research is twins.


The bedrooms of 9-year-old twins Adam and Jared couldn't be more different. Jared's room is decked out with camouflage, airplanes, and military toys, while Adam's room sports a pastel canopy, stuffed animals, and white horses.

When Stahl came for a visit, Jared was eager to show her his G.I. Joe collection. "I have ones that say like Marine and SWAT. And then that's where I keep all the guns for 'em," he explained.

Adam was also proud to show off his toys. "This is one of my dolls. Bratz baby," he said.

Adam wears pinkish-purple nail polish, adorned with stars and diamonds.

Asked if he went to school like that, Adam says, "Uh-huh. I just showed them my nails, and they were like, 'Why did you do that?'"

Adam's behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, meaning a child whose interests and behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex. Research shows that kids with extreme gender nonconformity usually grow up to be gay.

Danielle, Adam and Jared's mom, says she began to notice this difference in Adam when he was about 18 months old and began asking for a Barbie doll. Jared, meanwhile, was asking for fire trucks.

Not that much has changed. Jared’s favorite game now is Battlefield 2, Special Forces. As for Adam, he says, "It's called Neopets: The Darkest Faerie."

Asked how he would describe himself to a stranger, Jared says, "I'm a kid who likes G.I. Joes and games and TV."

"I would say like a girl," Adam replied to the same question. When asked why he thinks that is, Adam shrugged.

"To me, cases like that really scream out, 'Hey, it's not out there. It's in here.' There's no indication that this mother is prone to raise very feminine boys because his twin is not that way," says Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University and a leading researcher in the field of sexual orientation.

Bailey says he doesn't think nurture is a plausible explanation.

Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture — namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers — but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological.

There's four more pages so clicketh the link.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Jello?


See. Check these babies out.

So we've seen Rain Man's hands and feet now.

Slowly we're assembling his entire body.

Also, I always saw him as a desktop PC user, so the image of a laptop has shattered my preconceived notion of his surfing environment.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by seclark

supposed to be good for the nails. supposed to mix it up w/water and drink it.
you got a pretty ring.
sec

Why, thank you. It showed up well in the light.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by goxlibutscrale

So we've seen Rain Man's hands and feet now.

Slowly we're assembling his entire body.

Also, I always saw him as a desktop PC user, so the image of a laptop has shattered my preconceived notion of his surfing environment.

I've been a laptop user for almost seven years now.

Check out my space bar. I'm actually starting to wear a hole through the plastic. I've got the same thing going with the "H" key, but to a lesser extent.

[Mr. Kotter]

The fact of the matter is, the research, despite claims--by anyone on either side--is far from conclusive, and seems very much headed toward the position that I've stated numerious times in other threads: homosexuality is pretty clearly a complex mix of nature AND nurture, and is more akin to alcoholism or other sociopathic conditions than it is gender or race. Before you get your panties all in a wad, let me explain...

Alcoholism seems to have a physical and genetic predisposition, that can be influenced greatly, one way or another, by sociological factors and events during the life of a person. Brain research is suggesting the same thing for violent criminals.....that a "predisposition" (nature) can have a wide variety of outcomes, depending on specific sociological factors and events (nurture.) Research on homosexuality seems to suggest that it is much more like that, than a predominately genetic condition.

I spent two years and literally hundreds of hours, pouring over the research as a part of our church denomination's "sexuality study" that proposed to ordain gay ministers and recognize gay unions. The study concluded last year, in a very ambiguous fashion: maintaining the status quo (no changes), but allowing individual congregations discretion to determine for themselves their local policy. It was a cop-out, and left the door open for the "losing" side to "try again" later.

On a personal note, I have a highly addictive personality. If I had experienced poor self-esteem, poor role models, lack of "normal" psychosocial development during my formative years, it could have left me extremely vulnerable to alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, or sex addictions, for example. However, sociological factors and events led me down a more moderate path. I have to fight it, constantly; but the self-awareness and self-control that were socialized into my being.....help me, for the moment anyway, to avoid particularly destructive choices.

ChiefsPlanet, is my main addiction--although a couple of others tempt me, on occasion. I'll live with that, I guess.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Check out my space bar. I'm actually starting to wear a hole through the plastic.

You got a greasy thumb.

[Ultra Peanut]

I definitely think parents should do their best to make sure children know it's WRONG to act outside their socially predetermined gender roles and there WILL be consequences for doing so. That should get them to bottle it up and be good little boys.

Then, when the kids have been hiding their true feelings for a couple of decades and off themselves, they'll simply leave people to ask why they did it rather than shame their parents by letting anyone know that they produced a damn faggot.

The fact of the matter is, the research, despite claims--by anyone on either side--is far from conclusive

So... it's far from conclusive when it says something you disagree with, and "quite clear" when it says something more in line with your beliefs?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

I definitely think parents should do their best to make sure children know it's WRONG to act outside their socially predetermined gender roles and there WILL be consequences for doing so. That should get them to bottle it up and be good little boys.

Then, when the kids have been hiding their true feelings for a couple of decades and off themselves, they'll simply leave people to ask why they did it rather than shame their parents by letting anyone know that they produced a damn faggot.

So... it's far from conclusive when it says something you disagree with, and "quite clear" when it says something more in line with your beliefs?

It's quite clear, that the research is ambiguous ("far from conclusive"); suggestive that it IS a combination of both biological predisposition AND sociological phenomena--nature and nurture.

Wikipedia on the controversial Michael Bailey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey

It should be of particular interest to you, Psicosis....



A couple of excerpts:

In October 2004, as reported in the December 10th 2004 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bailey resigned from his Chairmanship of the Department of Psychology, following the completion of the investigation and implementation of undisclosed sanctions against him by the University, but still serves as a professor there.

His prominent critics include peers in sexology, as well as activists in the trans community. Bailey's critics claim that his book presents large amounts of speculation and opinion as science. Bailey's response was a lecture at the 2003 International Academy of Sex Research titled "Identity politics as a hindrance to scientific truth." [2] Immediately after Bailey's presentation, John Bancroft, then head of the Kinsey Institute, told Bailey: "Michael, I would caution you against calling this book 'science' because I have read it ... and I can tell you it is not science." [3]. Eli Coleman, head of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association has described the book as "bad science" and an "unfortunate setback." Clinician Walter Bockting states that Bailey's book "fails to offer a balanced and well-cited review of the scientific literature that would have shown that the diversity found within this community cannot as easily be reduced to the two types." [4] Bailey's replies to such criticisms characterize many of them as being due to "misunderstanding" of the book. Further, he claims that many of his most prominent critics have severely misrepresented his actual claims and attempted to defame him because his dismisses their concerns as self-justification, identity politics, and lies.

If you really want to dig in, you might want to visit this Michigan professor's site too:

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...ileysBook.html

[Ultra Peanut]

It's quite clear, that the research is ambiguous; suggestive that it IS a combination of both biological predisposition AND sociological phenomena--nature and nurture.

The only thing that suggests is that the research, which is approached from various different positions with different results in mind, is ambiguous.

As for J. Michael Bailey, anyone with the slightest bit of moral and ethical understanding should be able to recognize and condemn his particular brand of calumniation and deceit. He's a deluded maniac at best, and a conniving snake-oil peddler at worst.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

The only thing that suggests is that the research, which is approached from various different positions with different results in mind, is ambiguous.

As for J. Michael Bailey, anyone with the slightest bit of moral and ethical understanding should be able to recognize and condemn his particular brand of calumniation and deceit.

I agree.

Investigative journalism, and research, sponsored by a group with an agenda (both left and right) always raise questions of credibility in my mind. Much of the research, on both sides of this question, is subject to credibility issues.....the religiously backed research on the right AND the pro-gay rights research on the left. They have dueled for the last two or three decades and have merely muddied the waters more than they were....if that's possible.

As for Bailey, it's interesting Stahl is using him as her primary source--given the high-profile criticism he has faced. Perhaps in some perverse way, he sees this as an attempt to mend fences or build bridges. I didn't see the piece, originally; but from what I'm seeing, Stahl doesn't address his controversial past. I find it irresponsible, if Stahl didn't address his credibility issues.....though not surprising.

Interesting though, isn't it?

[keg in kc]

Society has made me asexual.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Society has made me asexual.

Society? Was that the ex's name? No wonder she was weird....

[Donger]

Originally Posted by JenNasium

Do u spank it thinking of female folks?

Just a picture of my wife. That's not so bad.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by the kegster

Society has made me asexual

thank Gawd it's not contagious...

[Hammock Parties]

I once heard someone say that everyone makes up their mind about 99% of the issues immediately. Any "reasoning" is just rationalization.

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

As for Bailey, it's interesting Stahl is using him as her primary source--given the high-profile criticism he has faced. Perhaps in some perverse way, he sees this as an attempt to mend fences or build bridges.

Interesting though, isn't it?

More annoying that he's being passed off as some sort of legitimate source of information, than anything. He's not in the business of building bridges.

Bailey may believe it's "in there," but he also believes he could "cure" it, and that if the kid does turn out to be transgendered, it's simply because he just likes boys or gets off on the thought than any sort of deep matters of personal identity.