Skip to content


The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

Re: Lesbain Hand Thind

Postby VixenyTarasHot » Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:35 pm

Huh.. I've always heard of the whole.. index finger being shorter than your ring finger thing... and that does apply to me... but then I realized that I look at my nails the "guys" way... and I LOVE hands and fingers.. I play with my own if I don't have someone's to play with. Even if I was with a guy... hands were always the best quality. Hand holding.. I just.. Love it. :D So, yay I'm gay? haha



I do have tiny hands.. and I would like to get my nails done and crap.. it's just too damn expensive :lol Especially the maintenance and stuff.. some day I will get them done. I used to always keep them short cuz I "played" the guitar, but now it's broken.. so I don't keep them as short as I did.. but usually they do end up breaking.. and good god, where the hell was I going with all this?? *sigh*



Erm.. I'm done :blush



Ashleigh

"...A-and I'm gonna make it up to you. Starting right now."

(Starts to smile)"Right now?"

VixenyTarasHot
 


Gay DNA Found

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:05 am

This headline may be a bit overstated . . . but the biological evidence continues to accumulate:



Quote:
Gay DNA Found

by Steph Smith 365Gay.com Chicago Bureau



Posted: January 28, 2005 12:01 am. ET



(Chicago, Illinois) In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is straight or gay.



UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.



"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."



"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."



His research will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.



The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.



While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.



Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.



"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."



The University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles were also involved in the study which was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.




www.365gay.com/newscon05/...705dna.htm



GG Think this'll stop the "destructive lifestyle choice" *sswipes? No, probably not. :sigh Out







Gatito Grande
 


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:17 am

Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited


By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 5, 2005

Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.

But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men.

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.

The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.

"Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study.

The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we talk about desire."

"We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but here we have evidence that that is not the case."

Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.

Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality."

He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions.

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

"Regardless of whether the men were gay, straight or bisexual, they showed about four times more arousal" to one sex or the other, said Gerulf Rieger, a graduate psychology student at Northwestern and the study's lead author.

Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the overall findings, Mr. Rieger said.
Since at least the middle of the 19th century, behavioral scientists have noted bisexual attraction in men and women and debated its place in the development of sexual identity. Some experts, like Freud, concluded that humans are naturally bisexual. In his landmark sex surveys of the 1940's, Dr. Alfred Kinsey found many married, publicly heterosexual men who reported having had sex with other men.

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual," Dr. Kinsey wrote. "The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats."

By the 1990's, Newsweek had featured bisexuality on its cover, bisexuals had formed advocacy groups and television series like "Sex and the City" had begun exploring bisexual themes.

Yet researchers were unable to produce direct evidence of bisexual arousal patterns in men, said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the new study's senior author.

A 1979 study of 30 men found that those who identified themselves as bisexuals were indistinguishable from homosexuals on measures of arousal. Studies of gay and bisexual men in the 1990's showed that the two groups reported similar numbers of male sexual partners and risky sexual encounters. And a 1994 survey by The Advocate, the gay-oriented newsmagazine, found that, before identifying themselves as gay, 40 percent of gay men had described themselves as bisexual.

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."

But other researchers - and some self-identified bisexuals - say that the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude to capture the richness - erotic sensations, affection, admiration - that constitutes sexual attraction.

Social and emotional attraction are very important elements in bisexual attraction, said Dr. Fritz Klein, a sex researcher and the author of "The Bisexual Option."

"To claim on the basis of this study that there's no such thing as male bisexuality is overstepping, it seems to me," said Dr. Gilbert Herdt, director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco. "It may be that there is a lot less true male bisexuality than we think, but if that's true then why in the world are there so many movies, novels and TV shows that have this as a theme - is it collective fantasy, merely a projection? I don't think so."

John Campbell, 36, a Web designer in Orange County, Calif., who describes himself as bisexual, also said he was skeptical of the findings.

Mr. Campbell said he had been strongly attracted to both sexes since he was sexually aware, although all his long-term relationships had been with women. "In my case I have been accused of being heterosexual, but I also feel a need for sex with men," he said.

Mr. Campbell rated his erotic attraction to men and women as about 50-50, but his emotional attraction, he said, was 90 to 10 in favor of women. "With men I can get aroused, I just don't feel the fireworks like I do with women," he said.

About 1.5 percent of American women identify themselves bisexual. And bisexuality appears easier to demonstrate in the female sex. A study published last November by the same team of Canadian and American researchers, for example, found that most women who said they were bisexual showed arousal to men and to women.

Although only a small number of women identify themselves as bisexual, Dr. Bailey said, bisexual arousal may for them in fact be the norm.

Researchers have little sense yet of how these differences may affect behavior, or sexual identity. In the mid-1990's, Dr. Diamond recruited a group of 90 women at gay pride parades, academic conferences on gender issues and other venues. About half of the women called themselves lesbians, a third identified as bisexual and the rest claimed no sexual orientation. In follow-up interviews over the last 10 years, Dr. Diamond has found that most of these women have had relationships both with men and women.

"Most of them seem to lean one way or the other, but that doesn't preclude them from having a relationship with the nonpreferred sex," she said. "You may be mostly interested in women but, hey, the guy who delivers the pizza is really hot, and what are you going to do?"

"There's a whole lot of movement and flexibility," Dr. Diamond added. "The fact is, we have very little research in this area, and a lot to learn."



link
(I think the NY Times still requires registration to read articles)

GG I'll agree w/ that last line: much, MUCH more to learn Out

One comment: if "bisexual" guys are actually, for the most part, gay . . . then how much MORE so are any so-called "ex-gays"!!!
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby aceivan » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:55 pm

The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.


Nonsense, at least for this bisexual guy.

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."


Nonsense again.

Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.


Now that I agree with.

Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality."


When I was 15 I knew I liked guys as well as girls, but much prefered girls and never imagined I'd ever have a boyfriend. I'm now 44 and although I still prefer women I've had more relationships with men than women so I would agree that for some people sexuality is flexible but certainly not for everyone.

If I'm on my way to homosexuality then its taking a bloody long time and I'm gonna be an old man by the time I'm gay. :crazy
aceivan
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:04 pm


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby maudmac » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:27 pm

:lol Maybe you're a late bloomer, then, Len? That would probably be these researchers' conclusion. :rolleyes

The biggest flaws in this study, as far as I can tell, are that they measured only physical responses and only to specific visual stimuli. Sexuality involves more than strictly physical responses. Sexual responses are not based solely on visual stimuli. And God only knows what the people in those films they showed looked like. Plus, too, that's a pretty small sample.

Phooey, I say. Bring on more research.

(For anyone wanting to access a news article at a site that requires that free registration crap, http://www.bugmenot.com is your friend.)
a queer girl always leads to more
User avatar
maudmac
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:16 pm
Location: 91% Dixie


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Naeryn » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:13 pm

maudmac wrote:The biggest flaws in this study, as far as I can tell, are that they measured only physical responses and only to specific visual stimuli. Sexuality involves more than strictly physical responses. Sexual responses are not based solely on visual stimuli. And God only knows what the people in those films they showed looked like. Plus, too, that's a pretty small sample.

Phooey, I say. Bring on more research.

I would have said, more or less, exactly this, but you already did. And you phrased it so nicely ^^... so QFE.

about the hand thing, both my ring fingers are nearly a centimeter and a half longer than my index fingers. I curl my fingers towards me to look at my nails, and I always play with other girls' hands, particularly when I'm attracted to them. Honestly, I always thought that everyone's ring fingers were longer than their indexes. My mother's and sister's are too. Hm...

I imagine with men it would be the reverse, index fingers longer than ring fingers. That is, if there were any real merit to it, which honestly, I doubt. But I just *know* I'm going to be staring at my dad's hands when I go see him on Thursday.

I tend to keep my nails short too. Always have. Long fingernails just irritate me, and because my fingers are already relatively well proportioned to my hand, long nails makes them look... odd. I used to climb trees a lot too...

I think it' s settled. I'm one big dyke. What a relief, I'd hate to have to start, you know, liking penis. 'Cause... ew.

But you know what might be the bigger indicator? My total and unerring obsession with boobies.
Last edited by Naeryn on Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't you sit upon the shoreline and say you're satisfied, choose to chance the rapids, and dare to dance the tides - Garth Brooks, "the River"
User avatar
Naeryn
6. Sassy Eggs
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Right Behind You


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:18 pm

I think that the importance of these kind of studies, is that they demonstrate---to the extent that arousal is linked to orientation---how involuntary sexuality is. A guy gets a hard-on to whatever gives him a hard-on: there's not the least bit of "choice" involved (besides choosing to participate in the study).

If you don't mind me asking, Len: do you think---without knowing exactly WHAT kind of visual stimuli was provided---that you would respond, more or less equally, to m/f and m/m varieties? (Um, respond in the physiological way tested in the study, that is)

GG For the sake of argument, let's assume that it's the BEST m/f and m/m porn being screened . . . if the former isn't an oxymoron! Out

Of course, the larger point is that there should be EQUALITY for all sexual orientations (and/or preferences), regardless of how voluntary/involuntary they are. But it's the involuntary aspect---ala "Don't penalized me for something over which I had no choice, dammit!"---that gives us the best human rights case.
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby urnofosiris » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:09 am

But it's the involuntary aspect---ala "Don't penalized me for something over which I had no choice, dammit!"---that gives us the best human rights case


I would not use involuntary sexual responses, which is what this study is about really, as an argument for equal rights. It would be an open door for the phobies to come along with all the nasty examples I can think of, of involuntary sexual responses that no one should ever act on (of course they will do that anyway, but at least let them kick in the door themselves).

When it comes to bi, homo or transsexuality there are other arguments to be made why equal rights should not even be an issue and should just be. Separation of religion and state should be the biggest one, but clearly that has not done shit even in a country like France, which is adamant about said separation. A democracy can never call itself that if it denies part of it´s citizens the same rights everyone else has. There simply cannot be an excuse for that.

Then there are the dimwitted ´it being unnatural´ arguments that can get blown away easily by all the countless scientific evidence that gay loving happens everywhere in nature. Lastly, there is plenty of biological data that (at least to me, which should be enough I say) proves there is a biological basis (that is not the same as saying it is as simple as one gay gene, no matter how badly some people may want to, there can never be a ´cure´) for having whatever kind of sexual/gender preference you have. That is, indeed there is no choice, not a voluntary one anyway, but I´d leave sexual arousal out of it.

As for this study, it is flawed for the reasons already stated. The ´conclusion´ that no one be bisexual is annoying, just like I find claims that everyone is bisexual annoying. If I read this correctly they only tested men who identified as bisexual. If they really want to try to draw a conclusion, they should test them against a group of gay and straight men as well. Some men may get more ´aroused´ by the sight of a man with a hard on because they can more easily identify what that feels like for them than when they see a pretty naked woman making porn faces (a turn off for me personally and I am attracted to women, not men). That could be one reason why (bi) men responded more to such stimuli. In short there are a lot of questions that really did not get answered by this test.
Cartman: Mom--Kitty is being a dildo.

Mrs. Cartman: Well, I know a little kitty who is sleeping with Mommy tonight.
urnofosiris
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:16 am
Location: Netherlands


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby aceivan » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:33 am

do you think---without knowing exactly WHAT kind of visual stimuli was provided---that you would respond, more or less equally, to m/f and m/m varieties?


GG : Probably equally but if I had a choice I would watch MF rather than MM. It has naked women as well as naked men and I like both! But porn is very different from real life. When I first met my boyfriend I loved his confidence and his smile and really didn't care about his gender.
aceivan
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:04 pm


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Ben Varkentine » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:05 am

Bisexuality Study: NYT Gives Prominence To Disgraced Researcher
by Michael in New York - 7/06/2005 11:38:00 AM



Everyone is probably familiar with this New York Times article about a study on bisexuality. It was one of the top five emailed stories on the NYT website and probably got picked up around the country. I ignored it at first because a casual glance at the study and its methodology led me to conclude it was shoddy and suspect. At best, it seemed like the typical mainstream press distortion of research: one little study makes one little observation and it gets trumpted around the country as a "fact," in this case the idea that men aren't bisexual, they're just either gay, straight, or lying.

You would think, you would hope that the New York Times would do a little research of its own before splashing the work of Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the study's lead author. But no. It took threader Kathleen to alert me to what the NYT should have known before presenting this study uncritically.

1. Dr. J. Michael Bailey had to step down from the chairmanship of the psychology dept. at Northwestern just last year because of ethics charges related to earlier research.

2. Bailey has been linked to a racist, neo-eugenics movement called the Human Biodiversity Institute by the Southern Poverty Law Center

3. Bailey's previous attention-getter was a book on transgenders that extrapolated from about nine transgenders he claimed to befriend into a study. Many of the people profiled claimed convincingly they had no idea they were part of a research study. (A violation of ethics.) One claimed Bailey slept with them. (Also a violation.) Though ostensibly science, it contained no footnotes. This book led to the investigation of Bailey that resulted in his stepping down as chair, though he remains a professor at Northwestern. The Chronicle of Higher Education profiled Bailey and the controversy, all but labeling him as a closet case.

4. Bailey claims to be gay-friendly but is so at odds with the GLBT community at Northwestern that campus groups urge people NOT to cooperate with his studies. Gee, think that might make any research he does there harder to accept as valid? (Bailey has reportedly found it difficult to recruit people for his research.) The Chicago Free Press paints a rather sad picture of Bailey trying to convince people he isn't anti-gay or biased by calling for a public meeting virtually no one attended, just weeks before the New York Times would treat his latest research as front-page of the Science section newsworthy.

5. Some of Bailey's more silly and offensive comments that should raise red flags for anyone wondering about his bias: most transexuals are "especially motivated" to shoplift and "especially suited to prostitution." Bailey says that if it became possible to genetically identify a fetus as "gay" and a parent chose to abort because they wanted a straight child, this would be "morally neutral." Yep, gay eugenics. Aborting gay fetuses wouldn't do anyone harm, he says. He's not anti-gay, just "pro-parental liberty."

I am furious that I had to find out all this stuff on my own by having a threader point me in the right direction. I'm not saying no one should ever report on anything Bailey ever does in the future, but is it too much to ask for context and a little background? Obviously, Bailey's history makes this study HIGHLY suspect: he has stepped down as a chair at Northwestern over allegations of misconduct; Bailey is seen with hostility by the GLBT community at Northwestern, making it difficult for him to find subjects to study; he is linked to a group the Southern Poverty Law Center says is filled with people linked to hate groups and is pro-eugenics; and he makes pro-eugenic statements and patently silly claims about transexuals.

At the very least, shouldn't the New York Times have known about this before trumpeting his study on the front page of the Science section? Obviously they didn't or they would have at least referenced it. More responsibly, it should have highly colored their coverage, leading to a far different article about a controversial researcher's attempts to come back from ignominy with yet another attention-getting study that is shoddily put together.

Please email the New York Times (letters@nytimes.com) and any other publication that gave this study unquestioning coverage. Tell them about Bailey's disgraced past, the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the people who feel abused by his past research. Ask them why none of this vitally important information was in the original story. Tell them that the very least the NYT can do is a followup story that gives a full picture of Bailey, places his research in its proper context, speaks to people at Northwestern, talks with critical researchers about the validity of his study, looks into whether the team in Toronto that also worked on the study is also linked to hate groups and anything else you can think of.

This is a classic example of where bloggers can have an impact if we move quickly and present FACTS that dramatically change what people will remember about this story. Let us know about any responses you get.


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07 ... nence.html
Ben

House: "Another life saved by girl-on-girl action."
User avatar
Ben Varkentine
5. Willowhand
 
Posts: 316
Topics: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:12 pm
Location: Seattle


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby urnofosiris » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:25 am

Unfortunately, he is not the only ´scientist´ that gets attention for unscientific research and conclusions. I did an oral essay on transsexuality during my psychiatry rotation and some of the articles I found that had been published in medical magazines in the (sometimes not even so distant) past were downright laughable. When they get splattered all over a major newspaper they start leading a life of their own. If a newspaper publishes something in their ´science´ section, that lends it credibility that clearly is not always deserved. They should print it in a speculation section instead.
Cartman: Mom--Kitty is being a dildo.

Mrs. Cartman: Well, I know a little kitty who is sleeping with Mommy tonight.
urnofosiris
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:16 am
Location: Netherlands


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby aceivan » Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:38 am

Maybe you're a late bloomer, then, Len? That would probably be these researchers' conclusion.


Yeah I wouldn't be surprised, maudmac. Gay or possibly straight but not bi, although based on the length of my fingers I'm a lesbian.:hmm Its all very confusing.

Actually this was something I really didn't like :

Mr. Campbell said he had been strongly attracted to both sexes since he was sexually aware, although all his long-term relationships had been with women. "In my case I have been accused of being heterosexual, but I also feel a need for sex with men," he said.


It just helps to perpetuate the view that so many people, both gay and straight, seem to have that someone who is bi can't, or won't, be monogamous.
aceivan
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:04 pm


"What Makes People Gay?" (Boston Globe Magazine)

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:28 am

The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine has a huge (11 pg) article.

(You have to register to read the whole thing, but if you'd like, you can go to BugMeNot.Com to find a way around that. I did!)

It begins . . .

With crystal-blue eyes, wavy hair, and freshly scrubbed faces, the boys look as though they stepped out of a Pottery Barn Kids catalog. They are 7-year-old twins. I'll call them Thomas and Patrick; their parents agreed to let me meet the boys as long as I didn't use their real names.

Spend five seconds with them, and there can be no doubt that they are identical twins - so identical even they can't tell each other apart in photographs. Spend five minutes with them, and their profound differences begin to emerge.

Patrick is social, thoughtful, attentive. He repeatedly addresses me by name. Thomas is physical, spontaneous, a bit distracted. Just minutes after meeting me outside a coffee shop, he punches me in the upper arm, yells, "Gray punch buggy!" and then points to a Volkswagen Beetle cruising past us. It's a hard punch. They horse around like typical brothers, but Patrick's punches are less forceful and his voice is higher. Thomas charges at his brother, arms flexed in front of him like a mini-bodybuilder. The differences are subtle - they're 7-year-old boys, after all - but they are there.

When the twins were 2, Patrick found his mother's shoes. He liked wearing them. Thomas tried on his father's once but didn't see the point.

When they were 3, Thomas blurted out that toy guns were his favorite things. Patrick piped up that his were the Barbie dolls he discovered at day care.

When the twins were 5, Thomas announced he was going to be a monster for Halloween. Patrick said he was going to be a princess. Thomas said he couldn't do that, because other kids would laugh at him. Patrick seemed puzzled. "Then I'll be Batman," he said.

Their mother - intelligent, warm, and open-minded - found herself conflicted. She wanted Patrick - whose playmates have always been girls, never boys - to be himself, but she worried his feminine behavior would expose him to ridicule and pain. She decided to allow him free expression at home while setting some limits in public.

That worked until last year, when a school official called to say Patrick was making his classmates uncomfortable. He kept insisting that he was a girl.

Patrick exhibits behavior called childhood gender nonconformity, or CGN. This doesn't describe a boy who has a doll somewhere in his toy collection or tried on his sister's Snow White outfit once, but rather one who consistently exhibits a host of strongly feminine traits and interests while avoiding boy-typical behavior like rough-and-tumble play. There's been considerable research into this phenomenon, particularly in males, including a study that followed boys from an early age into early adulthood. The data suggest there is a very good chance Patrick will grow up to be homosexual. Not all homosexual men show this extremely feminine behavior as young boys. But the research indicates that, of the boys who do exhibit CGN, about 75 percent of them - perhaps more - turn out to be gay or bisexual.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

GG Where do trans people factor into these studies, I wonder? Out

[*NB: Michael Bailey, the researcher in the "Bi Men are Really Gay" study discussed in previous posts above, is cited several times]
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby FineyMcFine » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:54 am

I have a good friend who is an identical twin and is trans. He is FTM and has always dated women, has a female spouse now. His sister is straight and very feminine. I don't know what it means in terms of studies, biology, or what, but there it is.

It's a little frustrating, people who are researching what "causes" homosexuality or gender difference. Even if their motives are purely about research and adding to the knowledge base, there are certainly people who would use that research for harm. Like, to develop some fetal-screening procedure to abort potentially gay kids, instead of using that research to educate people about acceptance.
User avatar
FineyMcFine
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:19 pm
Location: USA


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Effieblue » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:37 am

I say bugger the research :flirt , just accept people for who they are.

It seems to me that bisexuality has become the new "homosexuality" what I mean by that is bisexuality is now suffering from the attitude that homosexuality has for years.

All this research to see if it actually exists or is real or whatever. Homosexuality has become somewhat more acceptable so it now seems someone else has to be picked on.

It's time people were just allowed to be people and it be accepted that we are capable of falling in love or being attracted to ..well...anyone we find attractive, regardless of gender, orientation, age, etc.
Effieblue
1. Blessed Wannabe
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: County Durham UK


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby urnofosiris » Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:30 am

Like, to develop some fetal-screening procedure to abort potentially gay kids, instead of using that research to educate people about acceptance.


Honestly I do not believe that will ever be a risk. It is clear trans, homo or bisexualitity is not "caused" by a specific gene or these genetically identical twins would not differ in sexual or gender preference. It is not as simple as specific measurable outward influences in the womb like too much testosterone or whatever kind of other chemical or event you can think of. If that were so then both twins would prefer barbie over a toy gun or vice versa.

I do believe there is a biological basis for being gay or trans, but whatever the "causes", they are far too complex to ever be able to measure them, predict them, prevent them or "cure" them. One thing that has been proven over and over again by scientific research is that there is no cure, unless you can call denying your true self and living a lie a cure. Scaring someone into that kind of a life happens all the time, but it does not make someone less trans or gay, just far less happy I dare to claim.

Ah and my guess will be that twin will grow up to be a woman, not a gay man, but time will tell.
Cartman: Mom--Kitty is being a dildo.

Mrs. Cartman: Well, I know a little kitty who is sleeping with Mommy tonight.
urnofosiris
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
Ms. Moderator Fantastico
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:16 am
Location: Netherlands


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby fun in dysfuntion » Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:26 am

I have many reservations about research concerning biology and homosexuality. First, there is little reason to believe that a biological component per se triggers homosexuality, a construct that has a great deal of social/cultural factors. In a way, research along these lines somewhat remind me of research on intelligence and race because researchers such as Arthur Jensen also believed there was a biological component to intelligence that supposedly explained racial differences on intelligence scores. Similarly, research on sexual orientation often assume that there is a biological component that differentiates LGBs from heterosexuals. There may be a biological component to sexuality in general, but I doubt this biological component is capable of distinguishing between different sexual orientations.

Second, who is homosexual? Is it current sexual relationships? Past relationships? Sexual attraction? Self-identity of the individual? Some blend? How the researcher chooses to determine sexual orientation (i.e. operationalization) will shape the research questions and the outcomes. Most of the research focuses on self-identified individuals for convenience. A convenience sample will rarely if ever predict the “true” population (a statistics notion…feel free to verify with your local, lovable statistician). It’s the reason responsible researchers put at the end of their journal article something to the effect of “this study was limited by its sampling methods”. Moreover, according to the U.S. demography study conducted by Laumann et al. (PM me for exact reference), self-identified LGBs sample represents a small subpopulation within a larger population of individuals who report same-sex sexual attractions and same-sex sexual relationships. Thus, even if the findings are “true” for self-identified LGBs, they may not be relevant to the larger population.

Third, the statistics used to analyze the data in many of these studies are often correlational (i.e. only can determine a bidirectional relationship exists between two components). This is inherent in the research because whatever biological component being examined and the participant’s sexual orientation are never randomly assigned to people participating in the study (a research design notion…feel free to verify with your local, experimental design buddy). This means that causal relationships cannot be determined by experimental means. In essence, these researchers are finding relationships between sexual orientation and some biological factor. There may be in fact a third variable that is creating the illusion of the relationship between the two components. A simple example of this is the persistent correlation between ice cream sales and death. The third factor that accounts for the relationship is high weather temperatures. Correlational research isn’t meaningless; it just must be interpreted with the appropriate caveats.

The research on the biological determinants of sexual orientation is perhaps conducted for the sake of knowledge. However, the research has a tendency to be pulled out of context and used for political purposes to bolster a particular perspective. This may both help and harm the LGB communities. On the one hand, some research on opinion formation has shown that people view homosexuality more positively when it is described as biologically determined rather than as a choice. Therefore, in the political realm, research that supports the idea of a biological factor for homosexuality may potentially positively affect how people form opinions and vote on LGB issues. On the other hand, research that focuses on a biological factor only reifies the idea that there is something inherently different between LGBs and heterosexuals. That difference hurts the LGB community because it can be used to divert scarce research funding on other issues important to the LGB community or, in extreme cases, to justify “curing” homosexuals.
If you are incalculable, then we are congruent. ~Hillman~ Insanity of noble minds, That never falters nor abates, But labors and endures and waits, Till all that it foresees it finds Or what it can not find creates.~Longfellow~
Got Gaydar?||
User avatar
fun in dysfuntion
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:55 am
Location: usually dozing behind a book and/or computer...many times both


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:34 pm

I agree, with just about everybody so far, that it's complicated.

However, I think the search for knowledge WILL go on, like it or not: it's up to us LGBTs to ensure that this knowledge (however partial, or even incorrect) is not used for harm.

To wit: in the article above

New York University researcher Lynn S. Hall, who has studied traits determined in the womb, speculates that Patrick was somehow prenatally stressed, probably during the first trimester, when the brain is really developing, particularly the structures like the hypothalamus that influence sexual behavior. This stress might have been based on his position in the womb or the blood flow to him or any of a number of other factors not in his mother's control.


[This is very similar to a story (on ABC's 20/20, last year) I saw on a set of identical female twins, where one was FTM---probably not your friend, Sally McF, as I know of at least one other set like this besides: they're everywhere! :-D ---where a researcher speculated on prenatal stress as the cause (in this case, the twins' mom had been in an accident, while pregnant, that left her hanging off a bridge!)]

I'm a little . . . stressed, about this. After all, who could be in favor of prenatal stress? Who wouldn't want to do all they could, to see that pregnant women were not "stressed"? ("stress" seen as equivalent to harm).

Yet here we have a possible cause of homo- and/or trans-sexuality, defined as pathological.

Seen in this light, it almost doesn't matter whether the theory is correct, or not: the point is that a "pathological" cause, by definition, has a pathological effect.

. . . and that's us. Needing "cures." :happy

But, like I said: the research will go on, regardless. And maybe this theory is CORRECT, in terms of cause and effect. We (queers) have to be prepared, IF it is, to show how this difference (in the womb) is NOT defined as defect. :mad

GG Maybe more analogous to "Type A" and "Type B" personalities? Just trying to think outside the box! Out

[Buried in here, is a much larger conversation---which I don't know how to frame---about the similarities/differences/overlap/ between being trans and being gay. The idea that the "feminized male brain" makes one a gay male. Is it a question of degree? If one were "more feminized" (or "less masculinized", to be precise), one would be MTF? What about MTF lesbians, then?]

It's complicated! :blush
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby fun in dysfuntion » Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:08 pm

However, I think the search for knowledge WILL go on, like it or not: it's up to us LGBTs to ensure that this knowledge (however partial, or even incorrect) is not used for harm.


I agree that control of the language surrounding the findings of research concerning biology and homosexuality is important. And, that such research will continue to be conducted. However, I think that when this research is used for political gain, there is a potential for backlash. Even if the research findings are worded such that pathology is not inferred, accepting the findings is a tacit agreement that the research is valid. Many of the biological studies are based on the testing the null hypothesis (i.e. no difference between heterosexuals and LGBs). If a finding is significant (and ultimately bandied about by the press), it means that LGBs differed from heterosexuals in some fashion. In essence, the research is searching for the difference of LGBs from heterosexuals. This acceptance alone is damaging because it references heterosexuals as the “norm” and LGBs as the “deviations”. Unsurprisingly, much of this research talks about “high levels of testosterone” flooding the developing brain of the female fetus or the “size difference in the hypothalamus” of gay men. In sum, how LGBs differ/deviate from heterosexuals.

In addition, the notion that the biology and homosexuality research alludes to any cause and effect is disturbing. To date, there are no research methods that can determine true cause and effect between a biological factor and one’s sexual orientation. At best, researchers can find relationships between factors.

about the similarities/differences/overlap/ between being trans and being gay. The idea that the "feminized male brain" makes one a gay male.


This is an old idea that dates back to “inversion” (an archaic term for homosexuals from late 19th C./ early 20th C.). Inversion was the belief that people who exhibited same-sex behaviors took on gender roles of the “opposite” sex. Thus, a female invert was someone who pursued relationships with woman and took on male gender roles. Thus, tying together gender and sexual orientation. However, many of the medical professionals (with the exception of a few individuals like Havelock Ellis) at the time who used this terminology tended to view inverts as “diseased” and in need of a “cure”. Although attempts have been made to distinguish between one’s gender role and one’s sexual orientation in research, the ideas tend to be reconnected in current day theories and research findings. Why the ideas remain entwined in current day research, I’m unsure.

Strangely, some of the research findings on homosexuality and biology tend to echo old inversion theories (e.g. lesbian brains being exposed to excessive testosterone; gay men’s hypothalamus tend to be more similar in size to women’s than straight men).
If you are incalculable, then we are congruent. ~Hillman~ Insanity of noble minds, That never falters nor abates, But labors and endures and waits, Till all that it foresees it finds Or what it can not find creates.~Longfellow~
Got Gaydar?||
User avatar
fun in dysfuntion
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:55 am
Location: usually dozing behind a book and/or computer...many times both


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:00 am

If a finding is significant (and ultimately bandied about by the press), it means that LGBs differed from heterosexuals in some fashion. In essence, the research is searching for the difference of LGBs from heterosexuals. This acceptance alone is damaging because it references heterosexuals as the “norm” and LGBs as the “deviations”.


Well, among homo sapiens as a whole, blue eyes are "deviations" (from the brown-eyed "norm"). But I don't think that anyone is investigating the "cause" of the blue-colored iris (or maybe it's already known, genetically). The value judgments placed upon "difference" is EVERYTHING (celebrated diversity, or eliminate-if-possible pathology).

I doubt these complex factors will be totally known in my life time . . . at the same time, if we're not careful, I could see pregnant women getting "intrauterine hormone readings" (or some-such) as part of their prenatal care (with the recommendation "Your ____ factor is awfully high. This correlates to fetal stress, which in turn indicates [insert some hemming and hawing here] 'certain developmental irregularities.' I recommend you take [Brand X drug] to correct these high ____ levels.")

Even if this theory turns out to be bullsh*t---but even more if it doesn't---the (I predict) growing "designer baby imperative" may tend towards more and more messing around w/ the growing Junior (w/ the stated, or unstated reason being that "fetal stress warps an otherwise straight, gender-conforming child into a Baby Queer")

GG "Twilight of the Golds" may not just be a play anymore, in a few decades: hello, genocide of our people? Out
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby fun in dysfuntion » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:26 am

Well, among homo sapiens as a whole, blue eyes are "deviations" (from the brown-eyed "norm"). But I don't think that anyone is investigating the "cause" of the blue-colored iris (or maybe it's already known, genetically).


This is exactly my point. The premise behind searching for the “cause” of homosexuality assumes that same-sex attraction and relationships are not a natural variation of sexuality. No one searches for the “cause” of blue eyes because it is seen as a natural variation of eye color. The research, if any, examines what genetic codes that are responsible for eye color. I personally think that research searching for the “cause” of homosexuality should not be supported by either the LGBT communities or the research community. Research examining sexuality as a whole is perfectly legitimate as long as same-sex attractions/relationships are viewed as part of the spectrum of sexuality. To differentiate within sexuality research the variation of homosexuality from heterosexuality perpetuates the idea that it “unnaturally deviates”.

The value judgments placed upon "difference" is EVERYTHING (celebrated diversity, or eliminate-if-possible pathology).


This is true for all research concerning variations of humans. The problem is controlling the language of the research findings alone is not enough. The research questions also must be examined for value judgments. If a research question is looking for a pathology and gives it a benign name, it doesn’t make the perception of the “benign name” any less damaging.

The research concerning the stress of fetuses and sexuality of the child is a perfectly good example. Why was this research question posed? To justify that research question, the bias behind it is that homosexuality is an unnatural deviation caused by trauma. I doubt the researcher was explicitly stating this in the research proposal, but an implicit bias in the question is present. Controlling the language after the research findings have been published is one way to stave the damage, but it isn’t enough. A benign wording of the finding would be “increases in cortisol (stress hormone) is associated with homosexuality”. This doesn’t make the research question any more valid or the results any less damaging to the LGBT communities.
If you are incalculable, then we are congruent. ~Hillman~ Insanity of noble minds, That never falters nor abates, But labors and endures and waits, Till all that it foresees it finds Or what it can not find creates.~Longfellow~
Got Gaydar?||
User avatar
fun in dysfuntion
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:55 am
Location: usually dozing behind a book and/or computer...many times both


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby billy » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:43 am

It's the old nature vs nurture thing again.

Mother's Genes Could Produce Gay Sons

The arrangement of a mother's genes could affect the sexual orientation of her son, according to a new study.

The finding, detailed in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics, adds fuel to the decade-long debate about whether so-called "gay genes" might exist.

The researchers examined a phenomenon called "X chromosome inactivation" in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers whose sons were not gay.

X and Y

Chromosomes are large thread-like molecules that contain an organism's genetic instructions. Humans have 23 chromosomes.

The X chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes in mammals; the other is the Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes and no Y's, while males have one X and one Y.

Even though women have two X chromosomes, only one is functional because the other is inactivated through a process called "methylation."

"It gets wrapped up in a ball and is not used with the exception of a few genes," explained study leader Sven Bocklandt of the University of California, Los Angeles.

If one of the females' X chromosomes is not turned off, then there is too much genetic material, which can lead to a harmful overabundance of proteins.

Down syndrome, for example, results from the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21.

Big difference

Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivate the other chromosome.

However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from those women who had at least two gay sons — 42 mothers in total, or 23 percent of all participants — they found something different.

"Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome," Bocklandt told LiveScience. "That's highly unusual."

In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing.

Bocklandt thinks this suggests that the activation pattern of a mother's X chromosomes partly influences whether her son is gay or not.

"We think that there are one or more genes on the X chromosome that have an effect on the sexual orientation of the sons of these mothers, as well as an effect on the cells we were looking at," Bocklandt said.

Other chromosomes implicated

Bocklandt was also involved in an earlier study that looked at the entire human genome of men who had two or more gay brothers.

The researchers found identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes — 7, 8 and 10 — that were shared by about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study.

That study also found mothers to have an unusually large role in their son's sexual orientation: The region on chromosome 10 correlated with homosexuality only if it was inherited from the mother.

The results from these two studies suggest that there are multiple genetic factors involved in determining a person's sexual orientation and that it might vary depending on the person.

"We think that there are going to be some gay men who are X-chromosome gay men and some who are chromosome-7 gay men or chromosome-10 gay men or some combination," Brocklandt said in a telephone interview.

Most researchers now think that there is no single gay gene that controls whether a person is homosexual or not.

Rather, it's the influence of multiple genes, combined with environmental influences, which ultimately determine whether a person is gay.

A touchy subject

Research into the genetics of sexual orientation is controversial. Religious leaders who believe that sexual orientation is a choice argue that such research is an attempt to legitimize homosexuality; others worry that a detailed knowledge of the genetics underlying homosexuality will open the door to genetic engineering that prevents it.

But Bocklandt doesn't think these concerns should prevent scientists from asking the basic question of whether homosexuality has an underlying genetic component to it or not.

"I have no doubt that at some point we'll be able to manipulate all sorts of aspects of our personality and physical appearance," Bocklandt said. "I think if there's ever a time when we can make these changes for sexual orientation, then we will also be able to do it for intelligence or musical skills or certain physical characteristics — but whether or not these things are allowed to happen is something that society as a whole has to decide. It's not a scientific question."



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185989,00.html

I'm bi not gay but if there's any truth in this: Thanks, Mum. :-D
Live in my house. I'll be your shelter. Just pay me back with one thousand kisses.
billy
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: Scotland


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Candleshoe » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:11 pm

What about us girls? Am I thanking my mom, my dad, or my second cousin twice removed who I met once at a party, and who looked a bit gay?
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
Candleshoe
15. Apple Sauce & Tuna
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: Warwickshire, England


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby billy » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:30 pm

The reports posted here seem to deal with only men. Does this mean it would be easier to find the gay gene, if it exists, in men, or is it sexist? Very strange.
Live in my house. I'll be your shelter. Just pay me back with one thousand kisses.
billy
4. Extra Flamey
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: Scotland


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby inlerf » Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:30 pm

Know, I think, if mine eyes are not wrong, Aly and Amber have forefingers that are longer than their ring fingers. Saw it in the Ayala orgasmic spell hand-hand thing if I remember right. ;)
User avatar
inlerf
6. Sassy Eggs
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:29 pm

I hope all U.S. Kittens were watching 60 Minutes tonight.

GG Verrrrrrry interesting! :pride Out

Here's a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Candleshoe » Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:34 am

Hmmm...interesting indeed. Nothing I hadn't already heard about elsewhere, but liked the quote from one-gay-one-straight-twin-boys mom:

"Do you think there was anything that you could have done that would have changed Adam?" [the reporter] asked Adam and Jared's mom Danielle.

"I could have changed Adam on the outside to where he would have showed me the macho boy that I would want as a boy. But that would not change who he is inside. And I think that would have damaged him a lot more," she said.


:clap We need more parents like that.

Also had to laugh at the rat hormone scientist's name: with a name like Dr Breedlove what else was he gonna do with his life? :lol
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
Candleshoe
15. Apple Sauce & Tuna
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: Warwickshire, England


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:27 am

one-gay-one-straight-twin-boys


While I agree about the kewlness of the twins' mom, I would caution against any labelling of children. Adam's words were "I want to be a girl": Adam could grow up to be MTF, Adam could grow up to be gay, Adam could grow up to be Something Else Entirely.

GG The important thing is, it's for Adam to define who Adam is. Out

. . . and what's true for Adam, is true for ALL of us. Hallelujah! :pride
User avatar
Gatito Grande
17. Mega-Witches
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: Michigan


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby Candleshoe » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:05 pm

Yeah, umm, sorry. I was using the labels (which are what I thought the piece was angling towards) for ease of reference as I thought that descibing her as the mother of one-twin-who-exhibits-typical-male-behaviour-and-one-twin-who-exhibits-childhood-gender-nonconformity was a bit of a mouthful.

As you say, GG, there are many shades of sexuality, and the point I was trying to make was that it is great that Adam's mother was allowing him to choose his own shade, rather than insisting that he behave in a way that suited her.

I love it when I pick the wrong word and piss people off, it really makes my day :aww
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
Candleshoe
15. Apple Sauce & Tuna
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: Warwickshire, England


Re: The Lesbian Hand Thing - Biology and Homosexuality

Postby kisstheviolets » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:46 pm

Candleshoe wrote:I love it when I pick the wrong word and piss people off, it really makes my day


aww candleshoe, don't sweat it. people can just be ridiculously pc these days and there's no pleasing those types. i personally have been scolded for not adding the rest of the goddamn alphabet onto LGBT or for not using the word queer (i'm old school, and haven't quite reclaimed queer yet). i tell most of these people, borrowing a phrase from your side of the pond, to sod off. you should too :-)

topic: my ring fingers are significantly longer than my index fingers. so not only am i an uber-lesbo, i'm also well-hung.
Last edited by kisstheviolets on Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Threads that are golden don't break easily." - Tori Amos, "Horses"
User avatar
kisstheviolets
21. Geek Infested Roots
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:33 pm
Location: Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design