Brainstorm

[JA1975]

Hello all

I have just read a brilliant book called Brainstorm by Professor Rebecca Jordan Young a sociomedical scientist. In this book she looks at all the research into Brain Organision theory. That is theories that suggesting the importance of the role of hormones in development of sexuality and sex difference. She has exhausivly evauated the research from the last 10 years and really does a great job in showing the scientific and methodological flaws in all of the brain Organisational theories. Some theories include left handedness others involved toys people play with when childeren and of course the science put forward by Michael Bailey made famous in the Gay Straight of Lying article in the New York Times. She looks at all of the and finds real real problems with them.

No I am not the author. I am just another bisexual trying to understand myself when many people often gay and straight say that my sexuality is not valid or true. Bisexuals really need to read this book. Have a look yourself. Why I wonder was there no headline in the in the NYT saying that these Theories are fatally flawed.

[Realist]

I can't think of anything more complex than bisexuals! I'm 70 years old and have been bisexual all my life, but have rarely found anyone like me. Nor have I met two bisexuals who were exactly the same. How in the world can anyone say specific things about us, when we are all so different?

I know I have experiences, interests, and desires that few I've met have had. Of course, some of my lovers had SOME of the same characteristics....or we never would have gotten together, but few seem to have a majority of the same things I do.

I've read some about these things and no two seem to agree. I've given up on trying to understand everyone else and decided to accept myself and just be who I am.

I admit the book sounds interesting, though.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol.... its not until you explore the science behind psychology and the study of human behievour that you find the gapping holes in the way that many aspects of human behievour are portrayed.....

if you talk a look at a lot of studies, they use the common * trait marker * aspect of defining the traits in a person, and use the most common denominators

even bisexuality is regarded not as bisexuality, but a 4 level stage of human sexuality

a) is attracted and drawn to the opposite gender, having only a fuild interest in sexual casual contact only with the same gender

b) is attracted and drawn to the opposite gender, having only a fuild interest in sexual and some on going contact with the same gender

c) is attracted and drawn to the opposite gender, having a fuild interest in relationships with the same gender that can be sexual / emotional, on going to the nature of a relationship

d) is attracted and drawn to both genders, able to sustain ongoing / long term relationships of a sexual / emotional nature with both genders in the form of monogamous / poly relationships

most studies focus on A and B when reviewing bisexual behievour, not C and D..... and the reason for this is that A and B are more likely to demonstrate the behaviour of most bisexuals in a bisexual community..... C and D are more of a minority group within the community.....

A and B are more closely related to a aspect of sexual interest known as Partialism ( a paraphilia in the DSM-IV-TR of the American Psychiatric Association ) and that removes the aspect of bisexuality as a true label....

yet you say that to most bisexuals they will hit the roof.... as they do not see themselves nor do they wish to be seen as a heterosexual with partialism desires...... as to many of them, its simply a case of being a person with a arousal based around cocks and vaginas....

so the argument exists.... are A and B really bisexual, or using the term bisexual rather than hetersexual with partialism..... as the bisexual label refers to a attraction to both genders, and in fact the attraction is to the genitalia not the person

we know that C and D are bisexual, they have clear aspects of bisexual traits and nature.....

brainstorm is a interesting book, it shows up a lot of holes in the study of sexuality and our understanding of sexuality..... yet its not science that is the only party that is at fault for the misunderstanding of sexuality.... it is also the human race that make up their own minds about what they are and often use labels that are incorrect for them and in doing so, misleading to others that are studying the nature of sexuality

[Realist]

"D" fits generally me, I think...my GF, too. We are both relationship oriented, no matter the gender.

[tenni]

Thanks for the book title. I'm not sure that I have sufficient background to benefit from purchasing this book but it was a bit eye opening to do a little digging and reflection on what you posted. I was not familiar with "Brain Organisation Theory" or "socialmedical science" I looked them up briefly and it seems that "socialmedical science" is one of the newer groupings of various disciplines to examine more broad interconnected issues. I may be wrong but Rebecca Jordan Young seems particularly interested in the female and may have her own socio political (feminist) perspective or agenda?

This Michael Bailey and his studies on "Gay, Straight or Lying" methodology has been challenged by GLAAD and bisexual groups. His penal arousal methodology and the various accusations of improper and faulty methodology is interesting. One thought that came to my mind was how bisexual posters here mention the fluidity or ebb and flow of their same sex desires and how only repeating the measurement on bisexual men over time over and over again (longititudinal study) may be needed before Bailey's statement could be considered valid.

Here is an article discussing Bailey and mentions how he "gave up" his position as chair along with accusations of faulty methodology are interesting.

http://ahistoryofsexuality.blogspot.com/2010/08/gay-straight-or-lying-bisexuality_20.html?zx=ef2a6383b51f1d43

[JA1975]

"I may be wrong but Rebecca Jordan Young seems particularly interested in the female and may have her own socio political (feminist) perspective or agenda"

She may or may not have an agenda - such as a belief in sexual fluidityor may well be a feminist (not a shooting offence last time I heard) but it is not reflected in the book - she tends to stick to why the methodolgies and how comparisions between studies don't make the grade scientifically - and she seems to adress the studies that discuss male and female sexuality including those of Bailey - it is scientific but really understandable. Worth a read

[darkeyes]

I am a feminist as u well know, tenni.. and I have my own socio-political agenda.. as I've explained before in other threads, my feminism is subservient to that agenda.. JA1975 is quite right.. it is no shooting offence.. and is a perfectly valid thing to be and an agenda a perfectly valid thing to have. No one forces you to like any of it.. simply accept peoples right to be and have... :)

[tenni]

Oh..my...lol

When I goggled the woman who wrote the book, the most frequent sites dealt with this particular book. However, a previous report/book/article did deal with the female brain. Now, that may or may not indicate a bias. Without having read the book nor the specific article that she previously wrote, I am piecing together information. She seems to be accusing other scientists of inappropriate methodology. Fair enough as other challenged Bailey as well.

I thought that it was a valid question to read that she seems to have already written and given her perspective about disavowing the role of hormones on the brain of men and women. Without having read all of the material and the book I can not state specifically that she is showing a bias but there are signs that she is not coming at this book without a previous bias.

The word "feminist" was the closest that I could come up with. The issue of hormones impact on developing the male or female brain differently is a theory and there are arguments on both sides. As I recall(could be wrong) feminist theory doesn't seem to be that accepting of behaviour differences are gender based. Does feminist theory support the differentiating different brain functions based on biological gender and hormones? She seems to have a side and is not just arguing from an unbiased perspective as far as challenging these brain theories...is what I'm say'n.

just a thought...:bigrin:

[Diva667]

Micheal Bailey of "the Man who would Be queen" and other assorted fluff.

Its a shame that they took the time to discredit him, because hes not credible at all.


What kind of intellectual milieu generates such strange pseudoscience? During the investigations of Bailey's defamation of trans women, we learned that he works closely with a clique of rather conservative, mostly older-generation gay psychologists, academics and pundits - men like Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer (NIH), Ray Blanchard (CAMH), James Cantor (CAMH), etc.

Those men love Bailey, in his role as their "straight man" spokesman, for his vicious Fourattist denials of the existence of transsexualism, as in his 2003 book "The Man Who Would Be Queen". As we know, the gay elite of that generation view postop trans women as "crazy queens" who are gay men and who should have been satisfied staying that way. Here's a classic statement by old-time gay thought-leader Fouratt, which well conveys such men's misplaced paranoia about transsexualism:

"Modern medicine is once again trying to cure us of our desire for same sex love. Our gender variant gay and lesbian population is under intense pressure to deny their homosexuality and to take all physical, hormonal and emotional steps in order to be accepted into heterosexual society." - Jim Fouratt

It's likely that such men love Bailey even more for his pseudoscientific denial of bisexuality. After all, there are many more people who identify as bisexual than as transsexual, thus bisexuality represents a much bigger threat to their narrow conception of gay male identity.



Just saying no need to work on that one. As far her having a feminist outlook, not a thing wrong with that, either. After all feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

:cool: