If I'm understanding this correctly, those attacking Bailey are essentially saying that it is unimaginable and impossible that someone would have a sex-change operation [yes, an impossibility until they can at least add or remove all those pesky Y-chromosomes, I know...] because they find their new transformed self hot (to paraphrase). I can certainly understand an argument that says that virtually everyone who does it does it because they feel trapped in a body of the wrong sex, but how can they say for certain that no one ever does so for less-than-idealistic reasons?
On the other hand, perhaps Bailey should issue a response saying that people never disagree with him based on honest disagreements, and that it is only due to intolerance that they do...
Dean, I'm not sure how this thread relates to homosexuality, rather than transgender. Me, I think transgenders are demonstrably mucked up, as opposed to homosexuals, who merely have opposed sexual orientation.
But that's just me...
I've read about this thread elsewhere, and the takeaway I got was that the establishment is very upset with that professor, mainly because he challenges the current Common Wisdom.
Scientific discussion via harassment is a lovely process, don't you think?
I haven't listened to it yet -- it came on the radio just as I was leaving the gym to go to work -- but Mr. Bailey was on KQED (the san francisco npr station)'s Forum (a call in program) this morning.
If you are interested in reading more, there's another article about this on my blog.
The really explosive political issue here is that "gender identity disorder" may not be a legitimate diagnosis after all. Sex-change operations might be an entirely elective procedure, not a medical necessity, which I imagine, is how most ordinary Americans see them anyway.
Moreover, based on her own reading of federal regulations, Dr. Dreger, whose report can be viewed at www.bioethics.northwestern.edu, argued that the book did not qualify as scientific research.
And she was on HIS side.
A book that bases it's premise on 2 people is not science. I would also have to question the very sanity of the theory that someone would pay thousands of dollars and mutilate their genitals because they thought they would be "hot and sexy" afterwards. I certainly don't doubt that this is an underlying theme with most, if not all transgendered people, but I think takes a WEE bit more to push people through the expensive surgury.
Me, I think transgenders are demonstrably mucked up, as opposed to homosexuals, who merely have opposed sexual orientation.
The field of psychiatry felt homosexuals were demonstrably mucked up until the 1970s. Changing socio-political winds fixed that. Don't think the same thing won't happen with the "transgendered."
And I'm with Dean, attaching sexuality to genetics is a bad idea for homosexuals. As I've said before, sexuality comes down to one of three things: genetics, metal contitioning, or choice.
As heterosexuality is demonstrably superior to homoseuaxlity from an evolutionary point-of-view, logic tells us steps should be taken to correct the homosexual condition.
Now, just you wait and see. Instead of being addressed with logic I'm going to be called a bigot, hatemonger or whatever else. The substance of my point will never be addressed.
And even if a "gay gene" was found that doesn't mean it is a condition to be embraced. Homosexuality is a evolutionary genetic dead end. As most homosexuals I've met also tend to be ardent athiests it would seem to me they've never pondered the irony of that position. They reject religion (at least The Big Three), which tells us homosexuality is a sin but one that can be repented of, but embrace Darwinism which tells us homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that should be bred out within a requisite number of generations.
The human desire to worship their own genetials never ceases to amaze.
I don't know if you'll accept this as responding to the substance of your points, but since many, many other animals also contain a homosexual population that resists Darwinian evolution, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that, from a species point of view, having a homosexual subset has evolutionary benefits.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this is a story of the peer review process working, not failing. The attention garnered by Bailey's attackers has sparked further discussion of the issue and has raised its prominence to a place where it cannot be ignored. There are as many defenders, it seems, as detractors for his book. And, as sherard has mentioned, the book is in no way scientific and makes no attempt at a widespread scientific study with appropriate sample sizes and controls. Thus, drawing conclusions from it would be about as accurate as drawing conclusions about any question you asked to 5 people in your immediate neighborhood.
there's an old joke about several researchers riding a train, and they see a black sheep out the window. "Look," says the psychologist, "all the sheep in this area are black." The biologist says, "No, we can only say at least one of the sheep in this area is black." No, says the physicist, "the most we can say is that one of the sheep in this area is black on one side." But the mathematician has the last word: "One of the sheep in this area is black on one side — some of the time." this would seem to fall into the first category of statements.
"The field of psychiatry felt homosexuals were demonstrably mucked up until the 1970s. Changing socio-political winds fixed that."
No, changing understandings of psychology fixed that. Honestly, it was mostly about old farts who weren't willing to consider new ideas retiring from the profession than anything else, and people that mistook the realities of being a despised minority for a pathology itself.
"but embrace Darwinism which tells us homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that should be bred out within a requisite number of generations. "
Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself with batty claims like this, Kevin. Say it with me again: biology is a _de_scriptive theory, not a moral theory of shoulds. Nor is genetic difference the same thing as genetic abnormality.
but embrace Darwinism which tells us homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that should be bred out within a requisite number of generations.
Sure. Just like the genes for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia (which is not to imply that being homosexual is in the same league as having a fatal illness, merely using them as examples of genes that leave homozygous hosts reproductively unfit yet have *not* been bred out despite many, many generations). Your approach is flawless, assuming you don't count being obviously wrong as a flaw.
I don't know if you'll accept this as responding to the substance of your points, but since many, many other animals also contain a homosexual population that resists Darwinian evolution,
I think it would be more accurate to say that many other animals contain bisexual populations.
Sure. Just like the genes for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia ... leave homozygous hosts reproductively unfit yet have *not* been bred out despite many, many generations.
True, but sickle cell anemia doesn't preclude breeding such as true homosexuality would. See my first comment for reasons why a the gene would propogate over genereations.
isn't that a quibbling point? i'm sure deep down most of us would probably admit to falling near to but not at an extreme of the sexuality spectrum. but in any case there have been documented cases of, for example, penguins taking same-sex mates and obviously displaying a clear preference.
"I think it would be more accurate to say that many other animals contain bisexual populations."
Nope: there are many consistently homosexual partnership preferring animals, including ones that mate for life. The animal kingdom has a pretty wide range of sexual behavior. Even in just the apes, there are wildly different sexual and mating norms as well as diversity within those norms.
There's another plagiarism scandal going down in Physics that involves some big name journals. This isn't exactly a good way to show that peer review is working... Aren't we paying $4000+ bucks a journal for the editors to notice little things that a Google search or glance at the arxiv would show?
"The field of psychiatry felt homosexuals were demonstrably mucked up until the 1970s. Changing socio-political winds fixed that."
No, changing understandings of psychology fixed that. Honestly, it was mostly about old farts who weren't willing to consider new ideas retiring from the profession than anything else, and people that mistook the realities of being a despised minority for a pathology itself.
As someone who works within the field, I'd have to say that neither statement is exactly true.
Psychiatry is medical, psychology is not - they're differing fields of endeavor. It would be correct to say that homosexuality was medicalised as a disorder improperly prior to the 70s, and one could very well note that the APA changed that due to professional pressure within and without.
However: What changed was the category of disorder - the medical model of it - not the adjustment issues. When you eliminate a medical model you're simply stating that one needn't 'cure' a given malady, yet admittedly one might still benefit from psychological therapy [as opposed to psychiatric].
And anyway, most of those old farts are still around.
I think you're sort of missing the point though. The reason that these genes persist in populations (or at least this is the theory) is that they confer an advantage to those who are heterozygous for the gene, even though they're a huge disadvantage for those who are homozygous for it. You don't have to have homosexuals animals or people breeding (or those with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia) to have perpetuation of the gene; what needs to happen is for people who *carry* the gene to breed. If having one gene for homosexuality confers a big advantage on people who have one copy, it'll get perpetuated even if it's a reproductive dead end for those who carry two copies - and that's assuming that it's as simple as there being a single gene 'for' homosexuality, and it's almost certainly not that simple.
For instance, one fairly well accepted finding is that second or later sons are more likely to be homosexual than firstborn sons, with an increasingly strong effect with an increasingly large number of sons. One theory that a maternal immunization effect causes this, which means that mothers get increasingly sensitized to proteins encoded on the Y chromosome and develops antibodies to them, which then affect fetal development in subsequent sons. How could this be a *good* thing if the mother wants to pass down her genes? Well, it could be that this effect only occurs in women who have exceptionally good (and heritable) immune systems, meaning that even if they're at risk of having non-reproducing later-born sons, they're likely to have exceptionally healthy daughters and firstborn sons, or are less likely to succumb to infection after childbirth, or something like that. The point is, the gene for this effect could get perpetuated even if the homosexual sons never sire any kids of their own.
I believe I did include a disclaimer for the 'carried not expressed' situation you describe.
My point about sickle cell was that it didn't address Kevin's assertion.
Kevin's assertion was not that homosexuality was disadvantageous and would thus breed itself out. It was that homosexuality precluded breeding and thus could *never* be passed on.
I agree with you that this is an incorrect assertion. I just think your argument, while true, didn't address the specific claim Kevin was making.
Zach, Vic,
Perhaps I was too brief to be clear. It's not that pure homosexual behavior is not seen. It's that (again, ignoring recessive genes) it would be the bisexual population that propogated the gene.
8.24.2007 11:22am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
On the other hand, perhaps Bailey should issue a response saying that people never disagree with him based on honest disagreements, and that it is only due to intolerance that they do...
But that's just me...
I've read about this thread elsewhere, and the takeaway I got was that the establishment is very upset with that professor, mainly because he challenges the current Common Wisdom.
Scientific discussion via harassment is a lovely process, don't you think?
The mp3 is here.
The really explosive political issue here is that "gender identity disorder" may not be a legitimate diagnosis after all. Sex-change operations might be an entirely elective procedure, not a medical necessity, which I imagine, is how most ordinary Americans see them anyway.
And she was on HIS side.
A book that bases it's premise on 2 people is not science. I would also have to question the very sanity of the theory that someone would pay thousands of dollars and mutilate their genitals because they thought they would be "hot and sexy" afterwards. I certainly don't doubt that this is an underlying theme with most, if not all transgendered people, but I think takes a WEE bit more to push people through the expensive surgury.
The field of psychiatry felt homosexuals were demonstrably mucked up until the 1970s. Changing socio-political winds fixed that. Don't think the same thing won't happen with the "transgendered."
And I'm with Dean, attaching sexuality to genetics is a bad idea for homosexuals. As I've said before, sexuality comes down to one of three things: genetics, metal contitioning, or choice.
As heterosexuality is demonstrably superior to homoseuaxlity from an evolutionary point-of-view, logic tells us steps should be taken to correct the homosexual condition.
Now, just you wait and see. Instead of being addressed with logic I'm going to be called a bigot, hatemonger or whatever else. The substance of my point will never be addressed.
And even if a "gay gene" was found that doesn't mean it is a condition to be embraced. Homosexuality is a evolutionary genetic dead end. As most homosexuals I've met also tend to be ardent athiests it would seem to me they've never pondered the irony of that position. They reject religion (at least The Big Three), which tells us homosexuality is a sin but one that can be repented of, but embrace Darwinism which tells us homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that should be bred out within a requisite number of generations.
The human desire to worship their own genetials never ceases to amaze.
I don't know if you'll accept this as responding to the substance of your points, but since many, many other animals also contain a homosexual population that resists Darwinian evolution, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that, from a species point of view, having a homosexual subset has evolutionary benefits.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this is a story of the peer review process working, not failing. The attention garnered by Bailey's attackers has sparked further discussion of the issue and has raised its prominence to a place where it cannot be ignored. There are as many defenders, it seems, as detractors for his book. And, as sherard has mentioned, the book is in no way scientific and makes no attempt at a widespread scientific study with appropriate sample sizes and controls. Thus, drawing conclusions from it would be about as accurate as drawing conclusions about any question you asked to 5 people in your immediate neighborhood.
there's an old joke about several researchers riding a train, and they see a black sheep out the window. "Look," says the psychologist, "all the sheep in this area are black." The biologist says, "No, we can only say at least one of the sheep in this area is black." No, says the physicist, "the most we can say is that one of the sheep in this area is black on one side." But the mathematician has the last word: "One of the sheep in this area is black on one side — some of the time." this would seem to fall into the first category of statements.
Somebody opposes sexual orientation?
Or do ya mean they're just sexually disoriented?
Cause if that's the case I think I went to school with some people like that.
No, changing understandings of psychology fixed that. Honestly, it was mostly about old farts who weren't willing to consider new ideas retiring from the profession than anything else, and people that mistook the realities of being a despised minority for a pathology itself.
"but embrace Darwinism which tells us homosexuality is a genetic abnormality that should be bred out within a requisite number of generations. "
Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself with batty claims like this, Kevin. Say it with me again: biology is a _de_scriptive theory, not a moral theory of shoulds. Nor is genetic difference the same thing as genetic abnormality.
Sure. Just like the genes for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia (which is not to imply that being homosexual is in the same league as having a fatal illness, merely using them as examples of genes that leave homozygous hosts reproductively unfit yet have *not* been bred out despite many, many generations). Your approach is flawless, assuming you don't count being obviously wrong as a flaw.
I think it would be more accurate to say that many other animals contain bisexual populations.
Sure. Just like the genes for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia ... leave homozygous hosts reproductively unfit yet have *not* been bred out despite many, many generations.
True, but sickle cell anemia doesn't preclude breeding such as true homosexuality would. See my first comment for reasons why a the gene would propogate over genereations.
i.e. genes that are carried even if not expressed.
Just because the gene isn't expressed wouldn't mean that it isn't passed down.
isn't that a quibbling point? i'm sure deep down most of us would probably admit to falling near to but not at an extreme of the sexuality spectrum. but in any case there have been documented cases of, for example, penguins taking same-sex mates and obviously displaying a clear preference.
Nope: there are many consistently homosexual partnership preferring animals, including ones that mate for life. The animal kingdom has a pretty wide range of sexual behavior. Even in just the apes, there are wildly different sexual and mating norms as well as diversity within those norms.
There's another plagiarism scandal going down in Physics that involves some big name journals. This isn't exactly a good way to show that peer review is working... Aren't we paying $4000+ bucks a journal for the editors to notice little things that a Google search or glance at the arxiv would show?
As someone who works within the field, I'd have to say that neither statement is exactly true.
Psychiatry is medical, psychology is not - they're differing fields of endeavor. It would be correct to say that homosexuality was medicalised as a disorder improperly prior to the 70s, and one could very well note that the APA changed that due to professional pressure within and without.
However: What changed was the category of disorder - the medical model of it - not the adjustment issues. When you eliminate a medical model you're simply stating that one needn't 'cure' a given malady, yet admittedly one might still benefit from psychological therapy [as opposed to psychiatric].
And anyway, most of those old farts are still around.
I think you're sort of missing the point though. The reason that these genes persist in populations (or at least this is the theory) is that they confer an advantage to those who are heterozygous for the gene, even though they're a huge disadvantage for those who are homozygous for it. You don't have to have homosexuals animals or people breeding (or those with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia) to have perpetuation of the gene; what needs to happen is for people who *carry* the gene to breed. If having one gene for homosexuality confers a big advantage on people who have one copy, it'll get perpetuated even if it's a reproductive dead end for those who carry two copies - and that's assuming that it's as simple as there being a single gene 'for' homosexuality, and it's almost certainly not that simple.
For instance, one fairly well accepted finding is that second or later sons are more likely to be homosexual than firstborn sons, with an increasingly strong effect with an increasingly large number of sons. One theory that a maternal immunization effect causes this, which means that mothers get increasingly sensitized to proteins encoded on the Y chromosome and develops antibodies to them, which then affect fetal development in subsequent sons. How could this be a *good* thing if the mother wants to pass down her genes? Well, it could be that this effect only occurs in women who have exceptionally good (and heritable) immune systems, meaning that even if they're at risk of having non-reproducing later-born sons, they're likely to have exceptionally healthy daughters and firstborn sons, or are less likely to succumb to infection after childbirth, or something like that. The point is, the gene for this effect could get perpetuated even if the homosexual sons never sire any kids of their own.
I believe I did include a disclaimer for the 'carried not expressed' situation you describe.
My point about sickle cell was that it didn't address Kevin's assertion.
Kevin's assertion was not that homosexuality was disadvantageous and would thus breed itself out. It was that homosexuality precluded breeding and thus could *never* be passed on.
I agree with you that this is an incorrect assertion. I just think your argument, while true, didn't address the specific claim Kevin was making.
Zach, Vic,
Perhaps I was too brief to be clear. It's not that pure homosexual behavior is not seen. It's that (again, ignoring recessive genes) it would be the bisexual population that propogated the gene.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.