Are we born, or are we built?

[eumelia]

Once again we have scientific research detailing the differences between the "Straight" brain and the "Gay" brain.
Turns out, surprise, surprise, that the brains of gay men and straight women have similarities in the area of the brain that has to do with emotional response and communication, while the brains of gay women and straight men have similarities in the area that focuses on spacial perception.
The source of this oh so progressive info: The Guardian - Gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, research shows.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.
Seriously.

Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.

Biology doesn't count for much in our modern society.
Emotional responses were similar in two segments of the population which are by default considered "Other" and lesser than the ruling population?
Gosh, I wonder.

The results could explain a University of London study earlier this year that found gay men and straight women share a poor sense of direction compared with heterosexual men, and were more likely to navigate using landmarks alone.

Don't you just love the way they phrase things.
Yes, all gay men and all straight women have "poor sense of direction".
Those cunts and homos shouldn't be driving, eh.
As though having a a good sense of direction enabled you to be a better participant in society's larger scheme.

The research is part of a larger effort to identify differences between the male and female brain, in the hope they will shed light on why some mental disorders affect men and women differently.

Perhaps it is because we are taught to behave differently to ailments?
While no doubt that the biochemistry of males bodies and female bodies are different, ignoring social ordering and societal structuralism is like trying to put together a puzzle in which you have none of the frame pieces and you don't have a picture of the puzzle to compare with.

For example, major depressive disorders are far more common and persistent in women, while autism is around four times more common in boys than girls.

Because women, in general and not all, have less avenues for independence and are constantly bombarded with mixed messages on what they must do in order to be a Good Woman - Western society, obviously, seeing as this article doesn't mention any queers or hetero's of colour, it is safe to assume that of the 90 volunteers they were all white and of a certain class (though perhaps not, as this research is trying to be "objectively scientific" while taking a bio-sociological stance. Hypocrites).
As for autism being more common in boys... perhaps, maybe, I dunno, it presents itself differently in girls!
Isn't that exactly what the research is trying to show?!

Oh and by the way? Where do the bi men and women stand in this little experiment. Any Transgenders (or are they in the same categories as gays and lesbians). Anything at all about intersexed or genderqueers.

Yeah, no so much.

Gah, these things piss me off so much.
Scientific research my peachy ass.

Comments

[geekosaur]

That "sense of direction" part immediately made me think about most men being too stubborn to stop and ask for directions.

(And, I kinda mess with their results anyway since I'm hetero but tend toward the more "typicaly feminine" reactions.)

Paul Broca, eat your heart out.

[gypsyjr.livejournal.com]

... Wow. Gotta love those sweeping generalizations.

[roga.livejournal.com]

ARRGH.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Are you criticizing the scientists or the media?

If the scientists, then why are you referring to the newspaper article? Just like you say that the media does not report on the Arab-Israeli conflict fairly, why do you assume that they are competent to talk about this?
If the media, then why are you not talking about the media?

While no doubt that the biochemistry of males bodies and female bodies are different, ignoring social ordering and societal structuralism is like trying to put together a puzzle in which you have none of the frame pieces and you don't have a picture of the puzzle to compare with.

So there is no point in biological experiments? There is no value in isolating variables and experimenting on them?
Oh, and I see you have decided to stop all biochemistry research - it's worthless, after all.

Oh and by the way? Where do the bi men and women stand in this little experiment. Any Transgenders (or are they in the same categories as gays and lesbians). Anything at all about intersexed or genderqueers.

Well, according to the article Savic and her colleague Per Linström took MRI brain scans of 90 volunteers who were divided into four groups of similar ages according to whether they were male, female, heterosexual or homosexual.

If you were going to attack this experiment, you might say that 90 people is not a statistically large enough group to draw conclusions about. You might also say something about lack of budget that the researcher got - and could not get any more research volunteers. You ignore that, so you can enjoy your straw-man argument. This experiment does not include EVERYONE, therefore it is worthless.

Notice that the researcher is based in Sweden. Percentage of non-Caucasians in Sweden? Low, I'd guess. Why should this researcher, who doesn't have the right budget to get a statistically large number of test subjects, make an extra effort to muddy the waters even more and add more variables?

A researcher is doing research about a subject that you have opinions about. Her initial analysis goes against your ideas (and ideals) - therefore you rant?

Enjoy yourself.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Oh and by the way? Where do the bi men and women stand in this little experiment. Any Transgenders (or are they in the same categories as gays and lesbians). Anything at all about intersexed or genderqueers.

Thank you for saying this! In all the coverage i've seen of this research, you're the first person to actually raise this issue. :-/

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

You ignore that, so you can enjoy your straw-man argument. This experiment does not include EVERYONE, therefore it is worthless.

It's not a straw-man argument. It's another indicator of the bounds of the research. The problem is that, although you may argue that restricting the research to the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomoy makes things simpler, in doing so it deliberately excludes data that could have a substantial impact on the conclusions drawn by the research. Here in Australia, a massive study of more than 14,000 people indicated that roughly the same number of people identify as 'bisexual' as identify as lesbian and gay combined; and in addition to that ~8% of men and ~15% of women reported "feelings of attraction to the same sex or some sexual experience with the same sex. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual." i would suggest that, if the Swedish population is structured similarly, then both the foundations and the conclusions of the research are suspect.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand your numbers.
4% of the men and 5% of the women regard themselves as homosexual and 18% of men and women combined regard themselves as bisexual?
Or are 4% of the men homo/bisexual and 5% of the women lesbian/bisexual?

In any case, I think that 90 people is not a statistically large enough group to draw conclusions about.
14,000, however, probably is.

What did this study discover?

Please note: I am not saying that the researchers are right. I'm merely saying that (1) Eumelia's "rant" is based on straw man arguments and that (2) she accepts blindly the media's version of the story. When it suits her, she knows how to go "beyond" the regular sources.

This is much ado about nothing.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Seriously?!

That's very strange. Surely the trans' and genderqueer communities have said something?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you criticizing, as it looks like I did touch on the subjects, at least the way I look at it.

I think the language that I use indicates that the critique is of the use of media language and scope of research.
Both of which are seriously under par.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

This is much ado about nothing.

Maybe for you.

These kinds of research results affect people's lives.
It was only in 1988 that homosexuality was removed from the DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) as a mental illness, just as an example.

Trying to understand the biology of human variability and diversity is important and should be funded, but if the kinds of research being done are used to perpetuate these binary myths that are known to be social constructs, then yes I have a lot to say about it.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you were not clear.

It was not clear that you were attacking the use of media language rather than the research.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Sorry, i'll quote more of the study's report:

97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as gay and 1.4% bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same sex or some sexual experience with the same sex. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual. This illustrates that same sex attraction and experience are more common in Australia [than] is indicated by the relatively few people reporting a homosexual or bisexual identity.

The study in question was the "Australian Study of Health and Relationships (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ashr/)" (ASHR).

I'm merely saying that (1) Eumelia's "rant" is based on straw man arguments

And i, in turn, am saying that i believe that raising the issue of the apparent lack of recognition by this study of non-monosexual and non-cisgendered identities, as Mel has done, is not a straw man, and indeed, gets to the heart of what the study is purporting to examine, for two reasons:

* If, as in Australia, there are substantial numbers of Swedish people who engage in same-sex sexual behaviour, but nevertheless identify as 'heterosexual', it's important to clarify whether this study classified people as homosexual or heterosexual based on behavioural analysis or on self-identification. The latter could mean that psychologies that include same-sex attraction actually end up being lumped into the category of 'heterosexual'. The former presumably involves either drawing a line between a person being 'behaviourally homosexual' or 'behaviourally heterosexual' - which, of course, will often end up distorting reality. Which leads me to the other point:

* If we assume that the proportions indicated by the ASHR are roughly the same in Sweden, then it's negligent for research on associations between psychologies and sexual behaviours to ignore a large population which engages in both same-sex and differing-sex behaviour - and the population in question is indeed several times the size of the purely homosexual population, and thus certainly statistically significant in this context.

Mel may not have elaborated on this issue to the extent that i have, but i hope i've demonstrated that her raising of this issue is not inherently a straw-man argument.

[lishablog.livejournal.com]

The first thing I thought when I saw this article was, "What about bisexuals?" Yeah, the whole thing is pretty bogus and misses out on all sorts of variables. It does, however, help those who feel that queerness is "bad" because, well, if it's biological then "they" can't help themselves, the poor sinners. Grrrrr...

[lifeofresearch.livejournal.com]

A few years ago I was reading about the method used in the study cited in your link. A good book is entitled "Zen and the Brain" by James H. Austin. My reading was more about the subject of religion rather than sexual orientation. My main question about the research is the study was done on 90 individuals divided into 4 groups. IMHO that is a very small study to make sweeping generalizations. I would feel much more comfortable with a study of say 1.500 individuals. Also, since the distribution of sexual orientation does not occur in a natural state with 4 evenly divided groups there needs to be other ways of getting samples. However, I have seen other studies that at least imply that sexual orientation is determined in the womb.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

What does "feelings of attraction to the same sex" mean?

Does a "crush" on a single, specific member of the same sex put you in the bi-sexual box?
The scope between "feelings of attraction" to "sexual experience" is large.

BTW - What about someone who experimented once with samesex sex and has decided that it's not for them?
Does this person count as hetero- or bi-sexual?

If we're going all the way, then to what extent do you trust these statistics? Could they not be biased because people misunderstood questions, wanted to draw attention to themselves, lied or simply filled in the wrong check box?
Perhaps the researchers falsified the data to suit their ideas?

My point is that there are an infinite number of variables. The experiment chose to deal with some and not others. Deal with it.

Since we are dealing with 3rd or even 4th hand information, we are in no position to know why certain variables were chosen and others were not.
The straw man is cherry-picking the variables which you think will help your case.

That said, I do not think that a study like this, dealing with 90 subjects and showing differences of 1% between groups, is statistically significant.

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Why do you think that the study is meant to help those who think queerness is bad?

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

What does "feelings of attraction to the same sex" mean? . . . The scope between "feelings of attraction" to "sexual experience" is large.

True. Having said, that however:

* A person's sexual orientation is typically not defined by the people they have had sexual experiences with, but who they feel attracted to. In Western culture, we don't assume that someone who says they're heterosexual isn't really heterosexual until they've had sex with a member of a different gender.

* It's indeed true that same-sex attraction and differing-sex attraction are not a dichotomy, but a scale (c.f. the Kinsey scale, the Klein scale). Which again shows that a study such as this one, which only examines the sexuality of people within a dichotomous framework, is going to necessarily be highly problematic.

Does a "crush" on a single, specific member of the same sex put you in the bi-sexual box? *shrug* It would to me. Bisexuals have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to disabuse the world of the notion that they're not 'really' bi unless they are attracted to the same number of men and women (to ignore other genders for a moment). i personally am attracted to far more women than i am men; but i still think it's appropriate to identify as polysexual, because i don't have an a priori disinterest in a given gender, which to me is what is involved in monosexuality (i.e. homosexuality and heterosexuality).

BTW - What about someone who experimented once with samesex sex and has decided that it's not for them? Does this person count as hetero- or bi-sexual?

Again, given what i've said above, it's the former: they have come to a position where they a priori reject the possibility of a sexual and/or romantic relationship with someone of the same sex. To me, a person's orientation in this regard is based on their feelings of attraction currently, not in the past or future. Hence, i think it makes sense that one of my partners started out as a heterosexual, then identified as a lesbian, then identified as bisexual, and now identifies as polysexual.

If we're going all the way, then to what extent do you trust these statistics? Could they not be biased because people misunderstood questions, wanted to draw attention to themselves, lied or simply filled in the wrong check box?

Of course these things are possible, and perhaps to a certain extent even inevitable. Do i think that the data i provided is gospel? No. Do i think that it's currently the best available data we have on sexual and relationship behaviour and identity in Australia? Yes. And given the large sample size involved, and the thoroughness of the analysis presented in the study's summary report, i think that it's reasonable to have more confidence in it than in the study Mel has criticised in her post. If you have concrete issues with the ASHR's methodology, please explain them; otherwise, mere hand-waving about possible problems demonstrates little about the actual study.

The straw man is cherry-picking the variables which you think will help your case.

Now you're just being offensive, as you're questioning my integrity. Anyone who knows me well knows the great effort i put into taking all the available data into consideration, not just that which supports my beliefs or hypotheses. (See, for example, this old post of mine (http://hierodule.livejournal.com/76980.html) on the topic of propaganda.)

In this particular case, if you know of another comparably comprehensive study of research in Australia that shows different results, please let me know - it's important that i look into it. Otherwise, your accusation of cherry-picking is disingenuous.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

On LJ at least, not much that i've noticed - unless i've missed other LJ-based critiques you've seen . . . . ?

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

I accept your points, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Eumelia attacked the study for various reasons.

I said that it was not clear whether she was attacking
(1) The study itself, which may well be incorrect for the reasons you and Eumelia presented.
(2) The media, which has latched on to this research and is presenting it in a way which the two of you find offensive.

If it's the former, then
(1) Since the information we are getting about the research is about 4th hand, I do not think it is valid to use it to attack the research.
(2) A better way of attacking the research would be to talk about the 90 subjects (A number which seems too low to be significant) rather than talking about dualism in sexuality - we have no idea whether the researchers did or did not take this into account. We may assume they did not, but we don't know.

If it's the latter (the media, for those who are hanging on), then Eumelia's attack is (in my opinion) not defined properly.

As for my comment about the strawman, I was referring to Eumelia's strawman, not yours ;)
For "your" read "one's"

Query : Why do you not capitalize your "I"s?

[lishablog.livejournal.com]

I didn't say that it is "meant" to help them, just that it inevitably does.

If sexual orientation is biological, then clearly it isn't a choice, and then clearly the people who are oriented towards their own sex aren't doing it out of some spiteful disregard for God's law or national law or whatever. You can be a religious fundy and say, "homosexuality is evil, but those poor homosexuals just don't have a choice." Which is something I've actually heard people say, as a matter of fact.

If sexual orientation is a choice and you are a fundy, then homosexuality is evil AND homosexuals are evil because they choose this path.

I don't know the researchers involved in this particular study, so I can't possibly say anything about any personal agenda, conscious or otherwise, that they might or might not have had.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

I've nothing to add except that I enjoyed your responses to this entry as you've said a lot that I was thinking but would not have been able to articulate.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

The media, which has latched on to this research and is presenting it in a way which the two of you find offensive.

Er, sorry, where in this thread did i make a statement, or statements, that put/s forward that position? My complaint has primarily been about the study itself, which i learnt about via, and am critiquing on the basis of, this New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html). i'm not saying that no criticism need be made of the mass media coverage of this research, merely that that issue is orthogonal to the issue i've been discussing, the methodology of the research itself.

A better way of attacking the research would be to talk about the 90 subjects (A number which seems too low to be significant) rather than talking about dualism in sexuality - we have no idea whether the researchers did or did not take this into account. We may assume they did not, but we don't know.

*nod* True; i'm still trying to get hold of a copy of the researcher's actual report. i still think that the diversity of human sexual orientation psychology is such that it's difficult to 'control' for it in a study merely by having theoretically monosexual test subjects. But yes, you're right: the researchers themselves may well have raised this limitation in their report.

As for my comment about the strawman, I was referring to Eumelia's strawman, not yours ;)

Mm, well, where do you think Mel has cherry-picked data?

Query : Why do you not capitalize your "I"s?

Yes, it's an affectation. :-) It came about as a result of my learning of German: i noticed that, unlike in English, German capitalises "you" (at least in the formal form: "Sie") and not "I" ("ich"), except at the start of sentences. So i decided that, in my informal writing, i'd symbolically put "you" and "i" on an equal footing. i still use "I" in formal writing, however - for example, if writing a job application ("I wish to apply for the position . . . ").

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

PostScript: There's an extensive discussion of the technical aspects of this study (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=256%22) over on LanguageLog.