Is your index finger longer than your ring finger?

Do you remember in High School, when your friends would compare the length of their index fingers and their ring fingers to see who was gay? Well now scientists are researching these traits as well.
A New York Magazine article, written by a self-identified gay male author, delves into the research behind supposedly “gay” traits–hair whorls, fingertip lengths, handed-ness, thumbprint density and even penis size. All this research, which purports to prove how gay men and lesbian women compare to their heterosexual counterparts (gay men’s penises are thicker and longer than heterosexual men’s, lesbian’s ears function more like heterosexual men’s ears do) come to the big conclusion we’ve all been waiting for:

‘We’re reaching a consensus on a broad question,’ says J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University. ‘Is sexual orientation ‘something we’re born with or something we largely acquire through social experience? The answer is clear. It’s something we’re born with.’

Apparently the scientific community is reaching a consensus that the LGBTQ community definitively has not. There are still two very distinct camps–the social constructionists and the biological essentialists, who have been debating not only the construction of sex and gender, but sexual orientation. Once this decision has been made by the scientific community, the obvious next step is well how or when is it biologically determined?
The theme that keeps returning in this research is the pregnant woman and her interaction with the fetus. (Sound familiar?) Some surveys have shown that for every son that a woman has, the next one is 33% more likely than the one who came before him to be gay. A quote from one researcher of the biological origins of “gayness,” (to use the author’s terminology) Sven Bocklandt, is particularly telling:

Every man and every woman has all the genes to make a vagina and womb and penis and testicles. In the same way, arguably, every man and woman has the genetic code for the brain networks that make you attracted to men and to women. You activate one or the other–and if you activate the wrong one, you’re gay.


So, let’s just leave the homophobia in this statement aside for a moment (the author of the New York Mag article gives it significant attention) and focus instead on what really annoys me about these studies (or at least the way the media has been writing them up, because admittedly, I haven’t read all of them myself). They mostly focus on gay men, and when it comes to the discussion of women and their sexuality, the underlying theme is…well we don’t really understand women, but they don’t really seem to have a sexual orientation.
To quote Michael Bailey again:

I don’t understand female partner choices very well, and neither does anyone else…What I do think it’s time to do is admit that female sexuality looks in some ways very different from male sexuality, and that there is no clear analog in women of men’s directed sexual-arousal pattern, which I think is their sexual orientation. I am not sure that women don’t have a sexual orientation, but it is certainly unclear that they do.

You can see my ranting about a similar NYTimes article (although admittedly less thoughtful than this one) about women’s sexual orientation here.

Join the Conversation

  • http://thecurvature.com Anonymous

    What really bugs me about these kinds of studies it that they pretend it really, really, really, REALLY matters why a person is gay. As if knowing would somehow solve some kind of huge social problem. The social problem isn’t that some people think that people “choose” to be gay, and therefore ought to be condemned for their choice. The problem is that people feel entitled to an opinion about the sex lives of consenting adults. If proving that homosexuality is biological rather than social is going to somehow win the LGBTQ community allies, I doubt that those are the kinds of allies they want.

  • Kyra

    I was about to point out that while it may not get us the type of allies we want, it would at least shut up a few detractors or at least a mode of argument, but then I remembered that some of them still think the Earth was created in six days.
    Doesn’t really matter what evidence we come up with; there’ll always be a few who won’t listen to anything but Leviticus.

  • Gwen

    Cara, I couldn’t agree more. And, Miriam, thanks so much for posting. I think that this topic is particularly appropriate a day after the Logo/HRC Presidential “debate” that took place last night. I wanted to puke (literally) when Melissa Ethridge (yeah, not sure why/how she became a panelist) asked Bill Richards whether he thought that being gay was biological or a choice. HELLO. This, as you point out Miriam, is NOT agreed upon by all people who identify as part of the LGBTIQ spectrum, and while I realize that the “choice” aspect is used by the far-right to say that being gay is a lifestyle decision and therefore people can “opt-out” as it were, I’m SO f-ing tired of the debate. I mean, can we agree that this is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue whether we choose to be gay or not – who cares? Don’t we have the right to be protected under the law, period?
    Which of course brings me to the overall hypocracy of the debate with all the talk about equality blah blah blah but yet touting the ‘separate but equal’ civil union??? I could go on at length on this one, but I think I’ll just go and VOMIT…

  • eastsidekate

    Bah. It might matter to you why people are gay if you’re a eugenicist, and want to make sure parents have the choice to abort queer fetuses. Which, it would seem, Bailey is (http://tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-eugenics.html).
    Also, it goes without saying that all women are bisexual, and really like researchers on sexuality, because they’re hot.
    Sorry to be so glib, but it’s shoddy research, and really pisses me off.
    There’s a lot of stuff on the net about Micheal Bailey and other evolutionary psychologists, mainly stemming from the fact that they’ve said some inflammatory things about transsexual women.
    I won’t get into all the nasty details, but you can read about it here:
    http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Bailey's%20scientific%20claims.html
    and here:
    http://tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html

  • Raevyn

    “if you activate the wrong one, you’re gay.”
    They’re stating that being gay is “wrong” with this statement. Sure it might have been a somewhat casual choice of adjective but it speaks loudly of the popular and institutional opinion of homosexuality.
    Like above commenters have said, why does the biological reason behind being queer matter at all? What scares me is my own mind’s slippery slope theory that the reasoning behind trying to determine a biological basis for queerness is to eventually try and prevent it.*shudders* I’ve seen movies and read books that began like this. I REALLY do not want to live in a Negative Utopia…

  • DallasSuz

    Michael Bailey is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as having connections to NARTH and White Supremacy groups.
    He wrote a hate book called “The Man Who Would Be Queen” in which he faked his research.
    He has all the credability of Paul Camron or James Dobson.

  • UCLAbodyimage

    Oh gosh, not another is biology OR culture post. First of all, the scientific community has no definite conclusions regarding the formation of same-sex attractions. One man does not = scientific community.
    The simple fact is that every single behavior or preference relies on the deployment of evolved mechanisms interacting with environmental and social stimuli. This includes every behavior from heart rate and breathing to mate preferences, cooperation, formation of social norms, love, etc.
    The interesting question is how do different environments evoke different evolved responses, what evolved structures or systems support any given behavior, and how social stimuli interact with these evolved systems.
    For sexual orientation, it seems there are a number of likely candidates: Genes attracting us to same sex partners, hormonal profiles that shift the activation of sexual response system, formations of social identities that shift the operation of the sexual response system, etc.
    We all know that many animals engage in same-sex behaviors, sometimes exclusively. The factors that lead to same-sex attraction in humans likely varies by individual. The interesting question is finding if there are systematic factors that explain the development of these factors.
    For example, there are genes on the X chromosome that motivate women’s attraction to men. For a subset of gay individuals, does activation of genes lead to attraction to men? What environmental and social stimuli promote activation of these genes? What factors influence peoples feelings of “identity” as a gay or lesbian person.
    That’s how many in the scientific community, or at least in psychology, think about it.

  • tps12

    “Who understands women!” is not science…it’s the premise for a pretty unfunny comedy routine.

  • UltraMagnus

    Well of COURSE they want to find out what makes people gay and why women don’t seem to fit one paradigm. Because when they figure that out and genetic engeneering becomes profitable and legal then they can “fix” you. None of your sons or daughters will ever be gay. Women will get a one size fits all sexuality and the white straight patriarchs can relax in the knowledge that all is right in the world.

  • http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com Sailorman

    …The social problem isn’t that some people think that people “choose” to be gay, and therefore ought to be condemned for their choice. The problem is that people feel entitled to an opinion about the sex lives of consenting adults.

    I think you’re right and you’re wrong. You’re right, because if we all stayed out of the sex lives of consenting adults, then “choice” v. “biology” would be a moot point. I agree.
    But that’s a much larger step than slotting gays into the existing framework of “people who are following their genes” and differentiating them from “people who are not following my genes.”
    If we can enhance acceptance of gays more easily, I’m all for it.

    If proving that homosexuality is biological rather than social is going to somehow win the LGBTQ community allies, I doubt that those are the kinds of allies they want.

    Again, I’m not so sure.
    Tolerance is nice (sort of) but not always universal. There are a lot of behaviors in the world that I don’t especially like. There are a lot of people in the world that I don’t like as a result of their behavior choices (gay people are NOT in that category.) Emphasis on “behavior choices.
    For example, I may be supposed to stay out of the sex lives of consenting adults. But while that’d be moot for gays (I accept them anyway), does that mean I have to start accepting polygamy? And so on.
    I think people will always differentiate between “must” actions and “choice” actions. And people will always give more slack to “must” behavior than they do to “choice” behavior.*
    Conservatives use that trait if they can. See, e.g., the common men’s response to rape discussions, which generally focus on the man’s lack of choice in the matter (“I just had to rape her, she smiled at me” and so on.)
    And while the craziest bible-thumpers may never change their opinions, a lot of religions (including Bible-based religions) distinguish between “choice” and “must,” often pretty strongly.
    Also, once Bush leaves it is my hope that the schools will, one day, teach science again. That means that high school students could, possibly learn the biological basis of gender preference.
    So I think that if there were really good scientific consensus, it would be a huge help.
    *Do you know anyone with Tourette’s? I do. It causes him to say random, and occasionally REALLY nasty, things. His utterances are out of his control. People’s reactions to him when they don’t know he has Tourettes, versus their reaction once they understand it, are one of the best choice/must reaction exhibits I’ve ever seen.

  • http://sciencewomen.blogspot.com Peggy

    Human sexuality is very complex, so it only makes sense (to me) that what determines who you are attracted to is determined by a combination of your genes, the environment in the womb and experiences after birth. This this article in American Sexuality looks like a pretty good overview of the issues.
    And Cara is so right – it shouldn’t make any difference why people are gay. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and have the same rights.

  • http://badasses.wordpress.com judgesnineteen

    I’ve noticed that! About coverage of these studies – they focus SO much more on men. I was really irritated when I read an article in Discover magazine, and the writer acted like he (I think it was a he, sorry if I’m remembering wrong) was going to talk about homosexuality in general, but actually only talked about research on gay men. I mean it’s fine to just do an article on gay men, but don’t pretend that talking about gay men covers everything. Very offensive. I was offended and I’m not even a lesbian.
    I don’t think we should need this research to be pro-gay rights and be nice to homosexual people, but regardless of whether we should, I have seen it make a difference in people’s views. It works, so I’m glad to hear it. And really, the more we understand things like this, the better our queer and feminist theory will be. Which is not to say I’m sure all this research is true – apparently Bailey is not worth listening to.
    And honestly, maybe I’m just naive, but I don’t think people will get away with trying to prevent homosexuality. People are so freaked out about messing with genes and designer babies, I just don’t see it happening. But yes, that is a frightening possibility.

  • Knicole

    I know being gay is natural to me–I realized this at the same time I realized what “gay” meant–age six. But whether or not I was born gay, I don’t know and I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to me and it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. If it’s a product of my environment/upbringing, I’m glad I was “made” gay; if it’s a choice, then I made the right one. This research , while surely intended for good, will only cause trouble. What happens to the gay kids with un-gay fingers and ears? One thing Mr. Bailey got right, though, is that women’s sexuality is different. Science really knows very, very little about women. Remember the airbag, anyone?

  • The Trash Queen

    Playing devil’s advocate for a moment:
    Whether orientation is biological or not, there is still an element of choice.
    One of the things the religious right has been bleating about, ever since the biology concept started getting tossed around, is comparing being gay to being alcoholic. Their argument is that even though people may have a biological tendency to a given behavior, it’s still their responsibility to choose to not do that behavior. (Except in cases like Tourette’s, where the behavior is, specifically, an uncontrollable neural response.)
    Whether people who have same-sex attractions choose those attractions or not, there’s still an element of choice in whether they act on those attractions.
    As far as the RR is concerned, it’s immoral and sinful to do so, just as it’s immoral and sinful for a married person to act on their attractions for people other than their spouse, and just as it’s immoral and sinful for people to succumb to the temptation to masturbate. Keeping control over one’s baser physical desires is one of the pinnacles of Puritan moral ideaology.
    Once we understand this–that their “choice” argument isn’t about *being* gay but about acting on same-sex attraction–our work to combat this becomes much clearer.
    Framing the debate as whether a state of being is a choice or not completely ignores where the real debate lies: whether we’re going to legislate the sexual and social laws of religious tradition.
    What we should be arguing, therefore, is not that “we can’t help it” but that, just as it would be preposterous to outlaw eating pork just because Jewish law forbids it, it’s preposterous to outlaw same-sex relationships just because some religions forbid it.
    And the same goes for every other law based in religious law that doesn’t have a secular basis for existence. If we cannot empirically prove that there is a non-religious reason for a given law, it shouldn’t exist. Period.
    Likewise, if we can prove that the application of a religious law causes harm to people, we should feel free to intervene. That’s how we can control the abuses of traditional polygamy while maintaining the freedom for non-religious polyamorists, and how we can control FGM while maintaining the freedom for Jewish circumcision (although the harm in the latter is still being debated.)
    Essentially, the whole gay debate comes down to one thing: are we going to allow religious law to become civil law?

  • http://valatan.blogspot.com bittergradstudent

    Another thing that really pisses me off about these studies is that, even as they obsess about men, they COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORE THE EXISTENCE OF BISEXUAL MEN

  • Pup, MD

    I mean it’s fine to just do an article on gay men, but don’t pretend that talking about gay men covers everything. Very offensive. I was offended and I’m not even a lesbian.
    I think a lot of that is the fact that much of the research that has found these biological correlates with sexuality in men just hasn’t shown anything in women. The research is being done, it’s just not showing anything. Yet.
    We’d be in an incredibly interesting situation if the next zillion years of research continues to show biological correlates with gay men, and never with gay women. Imagine the fundies of 2050: “Well, we know gay men can’t help it, but those lesbians are just playing us all for fools!” *shudders*
    I absolutely agree with the lack of relevance of the nature vs nurture to the fundamental questions of rights for people to live, love, and have sex with whomever they want as consenting adults and have equal protection under law.
    I don’t agree, however, that elucidating some biological basis of homosexuality doesn’t make an easier case to the moderate factions of the public when lobbying for gay rights. At least, if the fundies can’t use the “they choose to be evil” line, they have to come up with something else. Maybe that something else is just as effective, but maybe not. I know for me that reading about some of this research way back in high school made me consider whether the crap being fed to me by fundy family might be a little off. I might not think it matters now, but I certainly did then. I don’t think I could have gotten where I am now without having started off there.
    Given how ineffective we are at coming up with cures for real diseases, I wouldn’t have so much faith that any “cure” for a non-disease like homosexuality could ever be formulated in our lifetimes, even in the unlikely scenario that research could unearth a feasible target.
    Being scared of scientific research is something for the Inquisition, not for those of us who want a free-thinking tolerant society. There may be conservative asses in the sciences, and drug companies may have entirely inappapropriate influence, but the overall political tendencies of the medical sciences are heavily skewed to the left. In a very good way.

  • Mac The Libertarian

    I admit, I don’t think the article takes a good tack on it; as an example the article prioritizes physical expressions as indicators over a discussion of the studies and their hypotheses on root mechanisms. I do, however, think that it’s more or less the natural course of science to try and find explanations for human behavior. Finding basic biological patterns underlying sexuality, and even more generally, how people form ideas about other people can help us understand more about the human condition.
    News articles especially are quick to leap to conclusions from study data, and unfortunately a large body of studies make premature conclusions and coincidence -> causality fallacies, but I don’t really think that innately damages the usefulness of the scientific study of human behavior, sexuality or otherwise.

  • http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com Uccellina

    Bittergradstudent: they completely ignore bisexual men and women, except insofar as they claim women are mysterious and complicated and who really cares about them anyway weren’t we discussing TEH MEN?

  • rae

    Good discussions about the implications of scientific research aside, I’d recommend that people read the complete article. I actually think the author does a good job of talking about why the data looks the way it does (e.g., male homosexuality studies benefited from the available of bodies of men who died from AIDS, which were more easily identified as gay men.), the researchers biases, and the complex variability in male and female sexualities. He mentions that there are strong indicators that male and female homosexuality are very differently based and defined, which is interesting if you’re looking at it from a biological perspective. And he doesn’t ignore bisexuality — he discusses it as a journalist has to: with the data available. I was outraged when I started reading the article, as well, but it gets more complex as it goes. I say, give it another chance!

  • http://www.myhusbandbetty.com helen boyd

    I’d like to call for a media ban on the research of J. Michael Bailey. He’s been accused of unethical practices in conducting his research (he slept with one of his trans clients). I don’t understand why people keep covering his idiocy.

  • be-ti-na

    Some studies on female sexuality have been done. One shows that both men and women are equally aroused when they watch porn, but when asked to rate it, men rate the porn higher.
    Surely it’s easier to face the world like women are “complicated” and “don’t know what they want”, I mean, it completely eliminates the possibility that these women may be REPRESSED.
    To be fair, other studies showed women tended to be aroused by any kind of porn, while men were only aroused by what appealed to their orientation. But you can interpret that in COUNTLESS ways.
    Also, my ring finger is larger than my index finger. DOCTOR WHY AM I STRAIGHT????

  • Chickensh*tEagle

    Saw saw that dude on The Colbert Report.
    “…gay men’s penises are thicker and longer than heterosexual men’s….”
    Hehehehe!!! What a comeback to guys who love bragging about their big dicks and how much the girls all love them!

  • be-ti-na

    There is also evidence—some more silly-sounding than serious—that homosexuals may be simultaneously more feminine and more masculine, respectively. The stereotypes—that lesbians tend to commit to relationships early and have little interest in casual sex; that gay men have more sexual partners than their counterparts—turn out to be true.
    They claim this and don’t support the quote with any evidence. I wish they’d seen Dan Savage’s column on the subject..

  • http://thecurvature.com Anonymous

    To those of you saying that proving sexuality is “biological” would make the fight for rights easier, I think that you might be missing an important point. Simply because sexuality is biological for some people or even most people doesn’t mean that it’s biological to all people. I have certainly spoken with people who claim to have “chosen” to be gay or lesbian. I think that they are the minority, but we can’t erase their existence. Or, when it comes to bisexual people, couldn’t they simply “choose” to date only one sex (or as fundies would put it, date only the OPPOSITE sex)? I’m really afraid of setting up a standard for who does and doesn’t deserve rights, especially when based on such ridiculous criteria.

  • DallasSuz

    “I’d like to call for a media ban on the research of J. Michael Bailey. He’s been accused of unethical practices in conducting his research (he slept with one of his trans clients). I don’t understand why people keep covering his idiocy.”
    They removed Ward Churchill from his position as professor for far less in the way of ethical violations.
    There was more to it than his just sleeping with one of his interviewees. He made up total lies about several transwomen who he thought were powerless.
    Times have changed and the Internet gives voice to people who once upon a time were erased.
    People got together and exposed him. An award was withdrawn and his links to very unsavory right wing Taliban Christians involved in the Ex-Gay movement were exposed.
    Hence the linkage to SPLC which is where I learned about him.
    Transsexuals and transgenders are maybe 20 years behind L/G folks in getting their act together politically but many own computers and being under employed seem to have lots of time to organize on line.

  • Jeremy F.

    “Which of course brings me to the overall hypocracy of the debate with all the talk about equality blah blah blah but yet touting the ‘separate but equal’ civil union??? I could go on at length on this one, but I think I’ll just go and VOMIT…”
    That’s what pissed me off the most about the debates. I’m calling out the Democratic candidates as cowards for not standing up on this issue, and taking the easy way out- pandering to the homophobic mainstream.
    On the bright side, they weren’t as bad as the Republican debates. I’d rather get waterboarded than watch another one of those (and at the rate we’re going, I probably will).

  • CatharineM

    I don’t know if this has already been said (I must admit I didn’t read all the comments), but I think that women are more fluid in their sexuality. I think that this has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with culture. I am a proponent of the idea of sexuality occurring on a continuum and women feel less of a need to put themselves in a sexuality box and are better able to recognize mixed or contradictory sexual feelings. In a way, men’s (sexist, strange) infatuation with lesbian behavior has served the purpose of destigmatizing same sex attraction (to a certain degree). I, personally, feel no need to put myself in a box as far as sexuality goes, but I know a lot of men do. Although I identify as heterosexual, I enjoy being able to be in touch with different parts of myself.

  • http://stardragonca.livejournal.com/profile StarDragon The Canadian

    Another middle class man who thinks that any opinion that come out his mouth is SCIENCE.
    Laugh,future generations,laugh!

  • a_human

    on one hand my index finger is longer, on the other my ring is longer.
    I’m bisexual. :)

  • Cola

    Yes… why does it matter how we come to like men or women? I prefer the percentage thingie in Songs From Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke.
    The characters go either way to varying degrees. I describe myself as 75% heterosexual (and only because I’m more that than homosexual). I like women, but I find sex with men more wholly satisfying.
    Sex is sex. I don’t care why.

  • http://av0gadro.blogspot.com/ Av0gadro

    “Some surveys have shown that for every son that a woman has, the next one is 33% more likely than the one who came before him to be gay.”
    Now I’m confused. If my next son is gay, is that my fault, or my first son’s fault?

  • ghostorchid

    Thanks, UCLAbodyimage.
    While the APA psychology listservs I frequent do note the nurture/nature studies, the general disclaimer is that the ratio of nurture:nature as influences varies on an individual basis.

  • HFarmer

    The results of Scientific research are not always to our collective liking. It may be irksome to many that little is said in these studies about Lesbians. However it is not the scientist “not caring” or bias. They do study lesbians but the results are null. There are no real results to report. If their were they would want to say something. It is to their advantage to report new findings because that is what advances a scientist career.
    As for the “cause” of homosexuality…. I am with those above who have commented that both congential conditions (genetics or abnormalities in the womb, where normal is thought of as the average way fetuses develope.) and environment play a role.
    As far as Dr. Bailey and his work on transsexualism. I desent from the majority. I think it was a good idea to explain the transsexuality of those transsexuals who display a terminal attraction to men in relation to male homosexuality. His doing that was no different than a physicist like myself using a game of pool as an analogy for the interactions of quantum particles. In an attempt to explain something very complex to lay people in terms of what they already know. Such explainations have their limits. Wich are reflected in what he wrote. No one book could ever give a comprehensive education on a topic as complex as gender identity and sexuality. (compare the criticism of “The Man Who Would be Queen” to that of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”). He did do some things wrong. Like not getting express written consent from those that he wrote about. For wich he was disciplined. So it’s enough already stop beating the dead horse!

  • xrk9854

    “As far as Dr. Bailey and his work on transsexualism. I desent from the majority. I think it was a good idea to explain the transsexuality of those transsexuals who display a terminal attraction to men in relation to male homosexuality.”
    I’m sorry by Michael Bailey is a crack pot! He assumes all MtF’s are really gay men. Umm NO! How can you take anybody who doesn’t know the difference between gender ID and sex ID??? And how do you explain he totally ignores FtM’s??? Just like you do because you assume all transsexuals are MtF. WRONG! No Michael Bailey is actually rehashing a lot of stuff that has already been disproven decades ago. Don’t fall for the garbage that he’s attempting to pass off as science. So to sum up: Transsexuality has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. Our (yes I was born transsexual) problem is a gender identity opposite of our assigned sex. I was NEVER a man. I am a woman who was born with a birth condition. One that I am fixing and moving on with my life.

  • UCLAbodyimage

    First of all, Michael Bailey is not a “crackpot”. There is a reason that he is a tenured professor at one of the top psychology programs in the country for a reason: He has published important experimental work on the mechanisms producing sexual arousal.
    His latest work is quite controversial, as are his overarching claims. They may well be wrong.
    Here is a detailed version of his response to the controversy.
    http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm

  • UCLAbodyimage

    “…gay men’s penises are thicker and longer than heterosexual men’s….”
    Yeah, not really. There has only been one study comparing penis size in gay men and heterosexual men. The authors allowed the men to self-measure their penises using a measuring paper in private.
    I forget the exact stats, but gay men reported something like 6.3 inches long and heterosexual men reported 6.1 inches. Statistically significant, but meaningless.
    In any events, studies that allow self-measurement of penis size are obviously problematic. The average size reported when men self-report is a little over 6 inches.
    When researchers measure penis size, the average is about 5.3 inches (range 5.0 to 5.8). So there is about a inch exaggeration when men self-report.
    Cite:
    http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/LeverFrederickPeplau-2006PMM-PenisSizeSatisfaction.pdf

  • http://www.kmellis.com Keith Ellis

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a feminist blog is more critical of a biological argument for homosexuality than is the gay rights community of the left in general. Don’t misunderstand: that’s a good thing in my book. My public position on this, as a (non-professional) gay rights activist, is that while the naturalistic argument may be scientifically more justifiable than a nurturist argument, placing our eggs in that basket in the hopes of increased acceptance is a risky enterprise.
    I do believe that there’s quite certainly a segment of our culture at which the naturalistic argument is effective in increasing tolerance. Those are probably mostly the friends and family of gay people, who are inclined towards acceptance but need some reason to “excuse” what is, for them, an unacceptable choice.
    However, my argument has always been that the underlying conflict here is one of values and that gay rights in a cultural sense necessarily must be all about making (or staking the claim) that homosexual activity (not only gay identity) is entirely acceptable and right. In that context, nature or nurture is beside the point. Gays shouldn’t be in the position of trying to justify who they are and what they do on the basis of “it’s not a choice” in the first place. And “being born this way” just isn’t the shield against bigotry that many hope it is: ask blacks or jews or, well, women. Bigots are perfectly willing to institutionalize their bigotry, whether or not it’s fair to people who are disadvantaged by it through no choice of their own.
    However, what I’m more concerned with in the context of this post here and its response is just how highly politically charged and acrimonious is the nature/nurture argument on the left in general and among feminists in particular. Feminists have a very strong investment in the nurturist, social constructivism point-of-view, and so of course they find they are uncomfortable with the acceptance and promotion of the naturist argument by gay rights activists. And this hostility to naturism is pretty reactionary, the instinct is to call any science that supports the naturist argument as quack science that’s politically motivated.
    Similarly, the gay rights movement is very suspicious of those making any nurturist arguments about sexual orientation. Research that supports that viewpoint is also criticized in a reactionary manner—the assumption is that the science is bad and the motivation for it, political.
    There are good reasons for these opposing reactions, of course. In both cases, the unacceptable position is taken by opponents. Sexists continue to assert the biological differences between men and women and use that for arguments justifying cultural sexism. Similarly, bigots want to prove that homosexual behavior is a deviant choice. So it’s natural for both camps to be critical of research that supports the positions taken by their enemies.
    What bothers me, though, is that for all four groups of people—the feminists, the opposing sexists, the gay rights activists, the opposing bigots—every bit of science on the topic is a political football and is endlessly tossed around like the most relativistic truth. Very few seem willing to encourage genuinely objective science that might produce results they may not like.
    Because it seems to me, as someone relatively well informed on the science involved, that as someone pointed out above, the truth lies in a complex mix of genetic, developmental, and cultural influences. And not only is there not going to be one answer for all gender identity or all orientation, there’s not going to be one limited answer that applies to all individuals. Perhaps most gays and bisexuals have their orientation largely decided by genetic factors, but not all. Perhaps the reverse is true for gender traits.
    I don’t know. No one yet knows. But as both a feminist and a gay activist, I wish that we, at least, could have the intellectual integrity to accept what good science tells us, rather than relentlessly spinning it when it doesn’t suit our purposes…as our enemies do.

  • HFarmer

    xrk9854
    “Just like you do because you assume all transsexuals are MtF. WRONG! ”
    You assume I am not a transseual myself WRONG! I know not all transsexuals are MTF. I know they are FTM and MTF. Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
    “No Michael Bailey is actually rehashing a lot of stuff that has already been disproven decades ago.”
    WRONG. An independant study done in the Netherlands by one Yolanda Smith tested some of blanchards assertions and found them to be true. At least as far as measureable effects are concerned. (i.e. “homosexual transsexuals” being compelled to transition younger, rate higher in apperance, practically no signs of erotic crossdressing etc.) It is available online
    Smith, Yolanda L.S.; Stephanie Van Goozen, Aj Kupier, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis (2005-12-15). “Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance Read it, know it, consider what you will have to do if another study and then another is done which all independently prove that Blanchard is correct. How many pictures from space can you see and still deny the world is round?
    “Don’t fall for the garbage that he’s attempting to pass off as science. So to sum up: Transsexuality has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.””
    Sure it doesn’t. However one would have to be blind to not see the differences between those of us who have always liked men and those who’s orientaion supposedly changed.
    I think that’s why this gets on your nerves so much. Because if Homosexuality in male bodied persons were conclusively shown to be innate and unchangeable. That fact would cast doubt on the assertions of many MTF’s who say that their orientation changed due to use of hormones. It would imply that the effect known as “pseudo-androphilia” really exist. Which would lend weight to the Blanchardian theory of gender identity disorder.

  • HFarmer
  • DallasSuz

    (compare the criticism of “The Man Who Would be Queen” to that of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”)
    I have I believe Lynn Conway and Andrea James just like I believe Al Gore on Global Warming
    http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html

  • Boo

    WRONG. An independant study done in the Netherlands by one Yolanda Smith tested some of blanchards assertions and found them to be true. At least as far as measureable effects are concerned. (i.e. “homosexual transsexuals” being compelled to transition younger, rate higher in apperance, practically no signs of erotic crossdressing etc.) It is available online”
    This is getting severely off topic, but Blanchard’s original typology studies had several major methodological flaws, some of which are shared by the Smith study.
    First was how exactly Blanchard chose to define “transsexuals.” His actual study sample were male-bodied individuals who claimed to have “felt like a woman.” While this may seem like a reasonable definition to someone who doesn’t know a lot about transsexuals, in actual fact many mtf transsexuals do not claim to “feel like a woman,” especially before transition, and many transvestites do. Everything we know about transvestites suggests they’re almost never homosexual, hence transvestites who got into the samples would bias the response sets for the “nonhomosexual” groups far more than for the “homosexual” group. The Smith study corrects for this by sampling among those who completed the process, and the results are indeed different- no physical size differences, lower arousal to crossdressing rates, etc. Also, in assuming typology from such factors as age at transition, neither author takes sociological factors into account- e.g. it’s easier to see sex reassignment as a realistic possibility if you’re in the gay community where transsexuals and cross gendered behavior in general are much more visible than in the straight community, hence those in the gay community would tend to seek transition sooner.
    They find less cross-gender-stereotyped behavior in childhood among transsexual women who aren’t male attracted, but the same is true for nontranssexual women. Since this is already an expected difference of differing sexual orientations, it indicates transsexual typology only if you’ve already decided at the beginning that transsexual typology is dictated by sexual orientation, and assuming your theory to prove your theory is cheating.
    Most of the differences the theory attempts to account for are ones you would expect whether or not the theory is true. The only interesting one is differing rates of arousal to crossdressing (again, not as strong when you’re dealing with a group you can be reasonably assured is just transsexuals- Bailey’s way of dealing with this unfortunate fact is to simply assert without evidence that everyone who doesn’t say what he wants them to must be lying or deluded). Unfortunately they don’t bother to ask whether the arousal led to the transsexualism or repressing the transsexualism led to the arousal. Blanchard actually raised this possibility in an early paper but subsequently ignored it. Recall the “nonhomosexual” groups presented older than the “homosexual” group, and people who aren’t in the gay community have essentially no social outlet where cross-gendered behavior is tolerated.
    Lastly, I don’t know how Smith defined arousal, but Blanchard didn’t bother to differentiate between autoerotic arousal and what would be considered normal arousal patterns in women. If you take Blanchard’s Core Autogynephilia Scale and a copy of Nancy Friday’s Women On Top, and go through it rating the fantasies, quite a few will rate as autogynephilic just off a single fantasy (and Blanchard’s scale asks if you’ve EVER been aroused while yadayada).
    Finally, it’s worth mentioning that pretty much all the experts who weighed in on the Bailey controversy and aren’t connected with Blanchard’s clinic disputed his conclusions. Blanchard even resigned from HBIGDA- the main professional body dedicated to treating transsexualism, after they made it clear they don’t agree with him.
    Which of course all has pretty much nothing to do with biology of sexual orientation arguments :-)

  • Peepers

    I am grateful for this discourse on biology and sexual orientation. I have heard some POVs I do not have access to normally. In particular, the “hardened bigots won’t change,” and “why should it matter whether or not there is a biological basis” arguments are new to me and compelling.
    I still believe research on the biology of sexual orientation has potential for good. At the very least, the society as a whole tends to be hesitant to discriminate legally against people who do not control whatever aspect of themselves the culture disagrees with.
    Sexual orientation is one of the last remaining issues on which it is often deemed that legal discrimination is acceptable (E.g., adoption laws, employment laws). Demonstrating that sexual orientation is not an “immoral” “lifestyle choice” would, I believe, go a long way toward securing rights that we would consider it abhorrent to withhold from any other group whose members cannot be held accountable for their “minority” status.
    Without implying that it would solve all of culture’s problems with sexual orientation, it would at least yank the rug out from under the rhetoric we use to justify the most blatant and reprehensible forms of oppression.

  • HFarmer

    @ Boo
    Your points are well taken regarding Blanchards work. I do have to take issue with your assertion…
    “Also, in assuming typology from such factors as age at transition, neither author takes sociological factors into account- e.g. it’s easier to see sex reassignment as a realistic possibility if you’re in the gay community where transsexuals and cross gendered behavior in general are much more visible than in the straight community, hence those in the gay community would tend to seek transition sooner.”
    That is not correct. In fact in the wider GLBT community for many gay people my age or older transsitiong is anathema. It is copping out to the heteronormative hegemony and will make you an outcast. The younger generation is not like that.
    That said even if their were a purely socioogical explaination for the fact that “homosexual transsexuals” transition younger it could still indicate some psychopathological difference.
    I trust that by monday the things that Dr. Bailey said in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune will be roasted!
    “Which of course all has pretty much nothing to do with biology of sexual orientation arguments :-)”
    Hey I didn’t bring it up. I just choose to defend him. After a certain point watching the relentless attacks on him and anyone who agreed with him just stopped being funny.

  • Boo

    “That is not correct. In fact in the wider GLBT community for many gay people my age or older transsitiong is anathema. It is copping out to the heteronormative hegemony and will make you an outcast. The younger generation is not like that.”
    My point wasn’t how accepted it is, but simply that it’s visible. Until very recently, if you weren’t in the gay community, it was extremely hard to get any kind of information on transitioning and the only exposure you’d get to the very concept would be the occasional Jerry Springer weirdo. Knowing you’re trans and knowing what you can do about it are two different things.
    “That said even if their were a purely socioogical explaination for the fact that “homosexual transsexuals” transition younger it could still indicate some psychopathological difference.”
    Anything could be true, but Blanchard’s studies were bunk and Smith’s were only mildly less so. The attitude of the Blanchard-groupies is that he’s found THE TRUTH and that’s it. They know the theory is true because they know everyone who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded. And they know every who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded because they know the theory is true. That said, clinical studies of transsexualism were a train wreck long before Blanchard came on the scene.
    “After a certain point watching the relentless attacks on him and anyone who agreed with him just stopped being funny.”
    The man wrote some pretty awful things. Reading the “homosexual transsexuals” section of his book is like watching someone prepare a rape defense. In his mind, if he’s attracted to a particular transwoman, that means nature programmed her to exist solely for the short term physical pleasure of “single, heterosexual males” like him. It’s science! There’s no possible way that interviewing only first generation immigrant latina prostitutes could have biased his results. (Of course, it turns out one of those interviewees wasn’t a prostitute, but by some amazing coincidence she’s also the one who didn’t get into the book.)

  • HFarmer

    “My point wasn’t how accepted it is, but simply that it’s visible. Until very recently, if you weren’t in the gay community, it was extremely hard to get any kind of information on transitioning and the only exposure you’d get to the very concept would be the occasional Jerry Springer weirdo. Knowing you’re trans and knowing what you can do about it are two different things.”
    Not so. When I was 13 I figured out that I needed to take hormones in order to feminize my body and I did what it took to get them. At that point I had yet to meet another “gay” person. All it really took was the knowledge from basic biology that hormones cause puberty and it really isn’t a huge leap of logic to think that by taking a hormone pill it would do the same thing to me. This was back in 1993 the internet as we know it really did not exist, at least not like it is now. I mean most people used Windows 3.1 which did not even have built in TCP/IP. I really figured all this out on my own. Don’t say it’s impossible.
    “”That said even if their were a purely socioogical explaination for the fact that “homosexual transsexuals” transition younger it could still indicate some psychopathological difference.”
    Anything could be true, but Blanchard’s studies were bunk and Smith’s were only mildly less so. The attitude of the Blanchard-groupies is that he’s found THE TRUTH and that’s it. They know the theory is true because they know everyone who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded. And they know every who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded because they know the theory is true. That said, clinical studies of transsexualism were a train wreck long before Blanchard came on the scene.â€?
    Why were the bunk. Are you saying that bunk would be published in a peer reviwed journal. Or is it that anything you don’t like is going to be bunk? Part of using science is repsecting the results of scientific studies and testing them by scientific means. I challenge anyone of his critics to conduct a study that cast doubt on Blanchards ideas. Name calling only makes you look bad.
    “”After a certain point watching the relentless attacks on him and anyone who agreed with him just stopped being funny.”
    The man wrote some pretty awful things. Reading the “homosexual transsexuals” section of his book is like watching someone prepare a rape defense. In his mind, if he’s attracted to a particular transwoman, that means nature programmed her to exist solely for the short term physical pleasure of “single, heterosexual males” like him. It’s science! There’s no possible way that interviewing only first generation immigrant latina prostitutes could have biased his results. (Of course, it turns out one of those interviewees wasn’t a prostitute, but by some amazing coincidence she’s also the one who didn’t get into the book.) “
    Not everyone he spoke to was Latina. Second of all they weren’t all “justâ€? prostitutes. Some of them were quite educated but due to being black or Hispanic as well as gender non conforming we experience a brand of discrimination that privileged former white men just don’t understand. I am LOATH to mention this but the fact is I am not a totally neutral person on this. The fact of the matter is that I am from Chicago, from late 99 to early 01 I met him periodically at a local clinic, (the Howard Brown Health Center), we spoke about these issues. I distinctly recall saying to him once how I wished that someone would explain transsexualism in relation to homosexuality. How it is similar and how it is different. Lo and behold he was in the process of doing just that. What a hypocrite would I be if I were angered by that? He could have said things more sensitively but hey he is from the same state as Dr. Phil. What could one expect from him?
    The only proof of anything I have said.
    http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html
    If you wish to continue please tell us about yourself. Why shold anyone listen to you?

  • HFarmer

    “My point wasn’t how accepted it is, but simply that it’s visible. Until very recently, if you weren’t in the gay community, it was extremely hard to get any kind of information on transitioning and the only exposure you’d get to the very concept would be the occasional Jerry Springer weirdo. Knowing you’re trans and knowing what you can do about it are two different things.”
    Not so. When I was 13 I figured out that I needed to take hormones in order to feminize my body and I did what it took to get them. At that point I had yet to meet another “gay” person. All it really took was the knowledge from basic biology that hormones cause puberty and it really isn’t a huge leap of logic to think that by taking a hormone pill it would do the same thing to me. This was back in 1993 the internet as we know it really did not exist, at least not like it is now. I mean most people used Windows 3.1 which did not even have built in TCP/IP. I really figured all this out on my own. Don’t say it’s impossible.
    “”That said even if their were a purely socioogical explaination for the fact that “homosexual transsexuals” transition younger it could still indicate some psychopathological difference.”
    Anything could be true, but Blanchard’s studies were bunk and Smith’s were only mildly less so. The attitude of the Blanchard-groupies is that he’s found THE TRUTH and that’s it. They know the theory is true because they know everyone who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded. And they know every who doesn’t fit it is lying or deluded because they know the theory is true. That said, clinical studies of transsexualism were a train wreck long before Blanchard came on the scene.â€?
    Why were the bunk. Are you saying that bunk would be published in a peer reviwed journal. Or is it that anything you don’t like is going to be bunk? Part of using science is repsecting the results of scientific studies and testing them by scientific means. I challenge anyone of his critics to conduct a study that cast doubt on Blanchards ideas. Name calling only makes you look bad.
    “”After a certain point watching the relentless attacks on him and anyone who agreed with him just stopped being funny.”
    The man wrote some pretty awful things. Reading the “homosexual transsexuals” section of his book is like watching someone prepare a rape defense. In his mind, if he’s attracted to a particular transwoman, that means nature programmed her to exist solely for the short term physical pleasure of “single, heterosexual males” like him. It’s science! There’s no possible way that interviewing only first generation immigrant latina prostitutes could have biased his results. (Of course, it turns out one of those interviewees wasn’t a prostitute, but by some amazing coincidence she’s also the one who didn’t get into the book.) “
    Not everyone he spoke to was Latina. Second of all they weren’t all “justâ€? prostitutes. Some of them were quite educated but due to being black or Hispanic as well as gender non conforming we experience a brand of discrimination that privileged former white men just don’t understand. I am LOATH to mention this but the fact is I am not a totally neutral person on this. The fact of the matter is that I am from Chicago, from late 99 to early 01 I met him periodically at a local clinic, (the Howard Brown Health Center), we spoke about these issues. I distinctly recall saying to him once how I wished that someone would explain transsexualism in relation to homosexuality. How it is similar and how it is different. Lo and behold he was in the process of doing just that. What a hypocrite would I be if I were angered by that? He could have said things more sensitively but hey he is from the same state as Dr. Phil. What could one expect from him?
    The only proof of anything I have said.
    http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html
    If you wish to continue please tell us about yourself. Why shold anyone listen to you?

  • HFarmer

    Sorry for the double post. :blush:

  • Boo

    “Not so. When I was 13 I figured out that I needed to take hormones in order to feminize my body and I did what it took to get them. At that point I had yet to meet another “gay” person. All it really took was the knowledge from basic biology that hormones cause puberty and it really isn’t a huge leap of logic to think that by taking a hormone pill it would do the same thing to me. This was back in 1993 the internet as we know it really did not exist, at least not like it is now. I mean most people used Windows 3.1 which did not even have built in TCP/IP. I really figured all this out on my own. Don’t say it’s impossible.”
    I didn’t say it was impossible. I said gender noncomformity is more visible in the gay community and hence those who are in that community have much more opportunity to be exposed to it and hence as a group would tend to come to see transition as a viable option sooner than those not so exposed. This is about generalized tendencies of groups, not individual anecdotes.
    “Why were the bunk. Are you saying that bunk would be published in a peer reviwed journal. Or is it that anything you don’t like is going to be bunk? Part of using science is repsecting the results of scientific studies and testing them by scientific means. I challenge anyone of his critics to conduct a study that cast doubt on Blanchards ideas. Name calling only makes you look bad.”
    I already said why they were bunk. Blanchard did not properly define his study population, and his measurement instrument was overly broad, such that common nonfetishistic behavior would be characterized by it as fetishistic. (And since he was doing the studies on people at his clinic, they would have an extremely strong incentive to tell him whatever they thought he wanted to hear to convince him they fit his ideas of what transsexuals are so they could get the magic hormone and surgery letters. Smith avoids that problem to some degree. Lo and behold she got weaker correlations.) Blanchard’s studies were published mostly in Archives of Sexual Behavior, upon whose editorial board just happen to sit several employees of Blanchard’s clinic. And as I said, junk science on transsexualism is hardly unique to Blanchard. Sexology as a whole has a long tradition of quackery. Look at what John Money got away with or the Meyer study that was used to shut down Johns Hopkins.
    (As of 1973 there is no such thing as a “gender appropriate” sexual partner, but this criteria was used in a 1979 study to evaluate the effectiveness of SRS.)
    “Not everyone he spoke to was Latina. Second of all they weren’t all “justâ€? prostitutes. Some of them were quite educated but due to being black or Hispanic as well as gender non conforming we experience a brand of discrimination that privileged former white men just don’t understand.”
    I didn’t say they were “just” prostitutes. As with “impossible,” please don’t put words in my mouth. The book isn’t online anymore, but as I recall, all of the “homosexual transsexuals” he profiled had worked as prostitutes, and he stated he believed “homosexual transsexuals” to be “especially well suited to prostitution.” He made broad, sweeping statements about the sexuality of whole populations based on people who occupy a particular socioeconomic niche. Those voices deserve to be heard, but it’s just bad social science to jump to the conclusions he did.
    “What could one expect from him?”
    A basic understanding of proper research methodology and an understanding of the difference between psychology and sociology would be a good start. Oh, and the incident where his “avowedly heterosexual male” research assistant was telling him which of his trans research subjects he’d like to bone, it would have been nice if he had reprimanded the guy instead of putting it in the book without comment as though it was a perfectly appropriate thing to say.
    “The only proof of anything I have said.
    http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx/why.html
    If you wish to continue please tell us about yourself. Why shold anyone listen to you?”
    I don’t deny anything you’ve said about yourself. If you’ve found yourself in this model, more power to you. The irony is I think we have sort of the same complaint: being erased (just by different people). My experiences aren’t what make the model as Blanchard and Bailey attempt to apply it bunk, it’s their bad scientific methodology which does that. You don’t need to take my word for it. Get yourself a copy of Blanchard’s Core Autogynephilia Scale and a copy of Women On Top and check them yourself. Are all those women really paraphillic men? (And no, I’m not saying his study actually shows that transwomen have female-typical sexuality, I’m saying it doesn’t show anything meaningful about anything because it’s so poorly constructed)

  • HFarmer

    “I didn’t say they were “just” prostitutes. As with “impossible,” please don’t put words in my mouth.”
    Really?
    “There’s no possible way that interviewing only first generation immigrant latina prostitutes could have biased his results.”
    All I did was read between the lines. If one reads the website of Dr. Baileys lead critic, Lynn Conway, they will see the stories of the ladies he wrote the most about. One of them was a college graduate and did admit to doing some work on the side. Even as he interviewed people who at some point had done sex work they themselves had done other things. So the criticism that he was biased by interviewing black and hispanic “crossdressing homosexual males” as Dr. Diedre McKlosky so tenderly puts it >:-exact same thing? Even if we are in some respects feminine in brain there are a host of neurological, genetic, and anatomical differences btween a MTF and a GG.
    A GG acting as those women in the book you mentioned would likely have a totally different psychopathology than a MTF TS acting the same way. Perhaps in some deep seeded way those GG’s are slightly masculine.
    Its a wrong arguement to make. Applying BBL theory to Women is like using Newtonian physics in a situation that calls for general relativity. You are applying a theory to a domain where even it’s originations say it will not be valid, getting invalid results, then using those to argue that the theory is invalid within it’s intented domain of validity.
    This is psychology we are talking about though. It is hard to imagine really rigourous , objective, and ethical experiments that could be done to really and truly settle these matters.
    Evidence, results, facts. That is what will convince most people one way or the other. Tender those negative results and people like me will change our minds.
    At some point you have to put some research where the rhetoric is.

  • Boo

    “Do you not see the flaw in
    comparing transsexual women to genetic women as if they were the exact same thing? Even if we are in some respects feminine in brain there are a host of neurological, genetic, and anatomical differences btween a MTF and a GG.”
    Do you not see the flaw in responding to comments without actually reading them? Go up and take another look. I’ll wait…
    see it yet? Here, I’ll show you:
    “(And no, I’m not saying his study actually shows that transwomen have female-typical sexuality, I’m saying it doesn’t show anything meaningful about anything because it’s so poorly constructed)”
    The reason Blanchard’s measurement instrument fails is because it does not measure what he wants it to measure. It doesn’t matter if transwomen have the brains of women, men, or chickens, there’s no way to make meaningful conclusions about transwomen’s sexuality with that study. AG is defined as biological males tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women. His measurement instrument does not measure that. It’s like finding that most people have been sexually aroused while in bed and concluding they all must have bed fetishes. Someone who gets aroused by a sexual fantasy that includes their own breasts might be experiencing a paraphillic fantasy, or as the Friday book and frankly common sense would indicate, as part of a “normal” fantasy. Blanchard just assumes it’s the former without evidence, because otherwise his model doesn’t work and we just can’t have that.
    You may notice his and Smith’s studies also consistently find a good chunk of their exclusively-male-attracted groups also acknowledged crossdressing eroticism. Blanchard deals with this inconvenient fact by decided they can’t really be attracted to men after all. Why? Because otherwise his model doesn’t work and we just can’t have that. It doesn’t matter that there’s no evidence those transwomen really are “psuedoandrophillic,”
    we’ve got a theory to save, so psuedoandrophillic they must be. When the data doesn’t fit the model, we don’t adjust the model to compensate, we goose the data to make it fit! It’s science!
    I don’t need my own study to debunk Blanchard, I just have to show the flaws in his. His study doesn’t measure what it purports to measure, so the results are useless.