haggis: (Default)
haggis ([personal profile] haggis) wrote2008-08-16 11:50 am

Ranty post

Just found this link to a study on genetic causes of bisexuality - linked by Jen on Facebook.

Bisexuality passed on by "hyper-heterosexuals", researchers claim

According to this study, bisexuality in men is due to the influence of  female "hyper-heterosexuals", who cause otherwise heterosexual men to fancy other men.  This is demonstrated by the fact that female relatives of homosexual and bisexual men have more children.

OMG the stupid it burns!
  • There are many factors influencing how many children a woman has .  Of the top of my head - family background (esp size of own family), how much she and her partner want children, access to contraception/family planning, health of family, religious/cultural background, economic factors. Her sex drive (and sexual orientation) may be on this list, but it's probably well below other factors.
  • Correlation does not equal causation, especially when there are so many factors involved.
  • It's based on a survey of 239 men, which is a small number to draw such a wide conclusion from.
  • As Jen points out, it implies, yet again, that heterosexuality is the standard and to be gay or bi, something must go wrong.
  • It also conveniently suggests the cause is slutty hyper-heterosexual women.  Blaming the women, how novel.
  • It's uncomfortably close to the Freudian/NARTH bullshit that gay/bi men are too close to their mothers/don't understand how to be men.  Just like the stuff a few months back that claimed (on the basis of brain volume comparisons, with a fairly small sample and small differences between the groups) that gay men had brains like straight  women and gay women had brains like straight men*.
  • While it's nice to see research that admits bisexual men exist but I wonder what the equivalent would be for lesbian/bi women.  The stereotype of hyper-heterosexual men is promiscuity, not fertility.
*I'm aware the actual research was more nuanced but this is the way it was reported in the newspapers.

[identity profile] muppster.livejournal.com 2008-08-16 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
correlation/causation? I direct my learned friend towards the decline in Pirate population vs average global temperatures!

/me was quite amused by the Jon Barrowman/why am I gay thing's use of "science" to prove it wasn't nature when they compared his _entire_ guy-chromosome with that of his straight brother's, found both brothers had the same "girly bit from their mum" and concluded _there is no Gay Gene_. um. science?

[identity profile] goodqueenmolly.livejournal.com 2008-08-16 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
see, that rise in blood pressure you are experiencing every time you think about it, is why I never, ever read science reports in the press.

[identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com 2008-08-16 08:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Dr Camperio Ciani studys sexual behaviour and sexual strategies in primates and humans, and victims of sexual crimes.

My goodness, that's an unfortunate series of associations there. Could it possibly imply a link between queer behaviour and sexual crime? Or would you have to be a fool and a communist to see one.

This research appears quite mind-bending, but when you realise that all it's based on is A SURVEY OF 239 MEN, the claims of scientific method fall away somewhat. That said, the papers may be quoting absolutely everything wildly out of context (as happened with the infamous Harvard marriage study). But still, blimey, what in the world ever gave them the idea this was a smart move?

[identity profile] haggis.livejournal.com 2008-08-17 12:37 am (UTC)(link)
I'd also like to know a little bit more about the statistics. Was it 239 gay and bi men (in which case how was the control group matched for age, family background etc) or a random sample, in which case, assuming 1 in 10 people are gay, we are actually looking at something like 23 men. How significant was the link? What other questions did they ask that came up with no significant link? I assume they didn't set out to prove the big families = gay link, originally.

I would like to believe there's a meaningful study here, albeit limited in numbers, that the media have blown out of proportion. (I think that was the case for the brain size study - MRIs are expensive and difficult to do so a small group makes sense, they were studying a particular measurement, not every detail of brain structure.) However, this study seems pretty pointless to me.

[identity profile] muppster.livejournal.com 2008-08-17 01:57 pm (UTC)(link)
hang on... "prove the big families = gay link" ...surely the bigger the families, (statisticly speaking) the more chance of finding gays in there..?