Thursday, December 21, 2006

Slow Blogging Ahead

I'm going to be out of town this week, probably won't post anything new here until the New Year. I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a spirited Yule, and hope you get to spend some time this week with people you love.

January will bring some breaking news on the sex-ed front, so let's catch our breath and get ready for whatever happens next.


Blogger Christine said...

On a now buried thread Anon (December 20, 2006 2:07 PM ) quoted Randi who stated:

"I listed 14 pre-73 studies that showed this and all the studies since then have reached the same conclusion."

Anon replied

Christine used to try to impress us with this "flood of studies" crap. So, I asked her once to pick out the best one and I'd look at it. I got it out and the conclusion of the study specifically said it didn't prove what all these TTFers said it did.

Anon is confused. Savic's pheromone study was not done "pre-73" -- it was published in 2005. There are literally thousands of studies from before 1973 that led the APA to change the DSM and thousands of additional studies since then have confirmed that decision was correct.

Anon again falsely claims there is only one conclusion in the Savic study when there were actually three possible conclusions offered by the authors. I've already responded several times to Anon's obsessive misconstrual about the Savic study. Here's an edited version of one of my earlier replies.

"Anon looked at one paragraph from Savic's first pheromone study, this one:

"The difference between HoM (homosexual males) and HeM (heterosexual males) could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern. Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND (testosterone – male pheromone) stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW (heterosexual women) and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST (estrogen – female pheromone). These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data."

and decided that only this single sentence in the entire study mattered:

"Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND (testosterone – male pheromone) stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men."

Anon insists that this single possible conclusion negates the two other possible conclusions stated in the same paragraph. Only a nonscientist who wants the outcome to say one particular thing would do that. Anon also ignores corroborating studies mentioned on this blog, such as the Wysocki study mentioned in this FOX NEWS story about the Savic and other related studies:

"In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said."

Anon's lack of scientific understanding continues to be as obvious as his desire to change reality to fit his own biased perceptions.

August 24, 2006 11:57 AM"


December 23, 2006 3:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Thanks for that, Christine. Its no big surprise that anonymoous completely misrepresented the situation.

December 23, 2006 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When researchers say there are three possible explanations for the results of a study, this means no one of those explanations has thus been proven by the study.

Do you misunderstand this or are you simply a liar? Anon didn't "falsely claim there is only one conclusion". That's what the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups have done. They say that this proves that homosexuality is driven by biological forces. The authors, however, describe other possibilities and say the data cannot "discriminate" between the possibilities.

December 24, 2006 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually, Anon, all those possible explanations for the biological phenomenon, which is not in question, are biological."

One theory mentioned by the researchers is driven by psychological rather than biological forces, as I actually said.

"The only one that can possibly fit your worldview of sinners is the one which can be interpreted as saying that the biology is a learned product of lived experience (which you consider a sin and a choice). It says nothing about the cause of that experience, which still, based on the science, appears to be innate."

In your worldview, everyting is innate. You just believe we don't make choices. You should have been a nineteenth century novelist.

"You can believe whatever you want, but the evidence is still the evidence. The evidence existed before 1973, and has accumulated even further since then as our tools have improved."

And none of it proves that homosexuality is not a choice made by an individual. These researchers, who are very recent and would be aware of all the years of research, were quick to point that out.

But that doesn't support the agenda, does it?

December 29, 2006 9:53 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, we could spend all day coming up with absurd statements that can't be proven or disproven. Like, Firesign Theater used to say: "The Aztecs invented the vacation." OK -- true, or false? Can you prove they didn't?

In this case, gay people overwhelmingly report that it was not a choice. Straight people likewise overwhelmingly report that their sexual orientation was not a choice. A tiny percentage of each group says it was, and maybe for them it was. But nobody thinks it typically is, or usually is, a choice.

No researcher has any findings suggesting that sexual orientation is a choice. Even Peter Sprigg, Monkety-Monk for the Family Research Council, said right here on this blog that nobody he knows think's it's a choice. I'm not going back to find his exact words, but as I recall, he described that view as a "caricature" of the conservative position.

There is no evidence it's a choice, nobody thinks it's a choice, there is no logical way it would be a choice, the Bible doesn't say it's a choice -- you are on your own here with this one. And everybody knows, it was the Maya who invented the vacation.


December 29, 2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as you concede that your viewpoint is not based on scientific data, but anecdotal, I've got no problem with it. That's the disagreement with Cilly, Randi and Dana. As usual, they are trying to sneak off with the gravitas of science.

The Bible does mention that homosexuality can be the result of another decision. So, in a sense, it's a consequence of a choice but not a choice in and of itself. However, it doesn't necessarily say that that is the only way someone might acquire these tendencies.

December 29, 2006 1:42 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

The Bible does mention that homosexuality can be the result of another decision.

Sorry, Anon, the Bible doesn't say anything at all about sexual orientation.


December 29, 2006 2:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, you're just praying its a choice because you desperately want to be able to choose not to experience same sex attractions, unfortunatley you've failed to be able to make that choice again and again.

Your bible offers splattering blood on walls to cure disease, it can hardly be considered an authority on psychology.

December 29, 2006 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your bible offers splattering blood on walls to cure disease,"

Can you give me a reference here?

Don't just use Dana as a role model; know what you're talking about.

January 03, 2007 6:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home