The Difference Blog by Dan4th ([info]differenceblog) wrote,
@ 2007-04-11 09:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:benedict carey, chicago tribune, genes, genetics, gerulf rieger, j michael bailey, larry cahill, letters, lynn conway, neuroscience, new york times, nicholas wade, sexuality

Open Letter to the New York Times
To the Health editors of the New York Times:

I was extremely disappointed with Nicholas Wade's article "Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes" (4/10/2007). While Mr. Wade was correct to reference Larry Cahill's excellent 2006 review, it seems as if Mr. Wade read only the abstract. Dr. Cahill is fairly clear in his review that while functional and structural differences are present between male and female brains, this is not necessarily reflected in behavior.

It's also disheartening to see that J. Michael Bailey is referenced as "an expert on sexual orientation" without any mention of his unethical research (Chicago Tribune, 2003) that led to his stepping down as chair of the Psychology Department at Northwestern. The highly questioned results of Bailey's work with his student Gerulf Rieger on bisexuality also drew fire when reported in the Times, by Benedict Carey's 2005 "Gay, Straight, or Lying" (see Lynn Conway's log of media reports). The fact that Bailey still seems to be the go-to sexologist for the NYT after these multiple missteps is deeply troubling.

In short, the Times would be well served to find another "expert" if this topic continues to be of interest. Bailey's work is blatantly biased, poorly executed, and over-interpreted. I feel that I can normally count on the New York Times for reasonable coverage, but it is disappointing to see that where sexuality is involved, the Times stoops to this level of sensationalism.

Sincerely,

Danforth Nicholas
The Difference Blog




(31 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]cabanasloth
2007-04-11 01:43 pm UTC (link)
Oh hell yeah.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-11 02:52 pm UTC (link)
Not too flame-tastic? I always worry that I get a little too aggressive when I'm writing about Bailey.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]la_luna_llena
2007-04-11 01:48 pm UTC (link)
Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children.

Do you notice a couple of groups missing from his initial premise? Lesbians -- a glaring omission. And bisexuals.


Oh, here it is, the "all women are secretly straight except for when they're being gay to please men" hypothesis:

'Whether women describe themselves as straight or lesbian, “Their sexual arousal seems to be relatively indiscriminate — they get aroused by both male and female images,” Dr. Bailey said. “I’m not even sure females have a sexual orientation. But they have sexual preferences. Women are very picky, and most choose to have sex with men.”'

Actually, I'm pretty sure that all men also get aroused by many images. From the sounds of it, teenage boys can get aroused by images of a banana, a car, giving a speech in class, etc. But _women_ are the ones who don't really know what they want.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-12 01:46 am UTC (link)
To be fair, while his conclusions are wrong, the data is from legitimate studies showing that women tend be physically aroused by images of both sexes, where men tend to be aroused by just the opposite sex. This is based on studies using devices such as a plethysmograph (penile and vaginal) that measures physical arousal.

From the sounds of it, teenage boys can get aroused by images of a banana, a car, giving a speech in class, etc. But _women_ are the ones who don't really know what they want.

If you're talking about [transient] puberty, a male isn't getting aroused by the car, he's just randomly getting physically aroused. Anecdotally, that isn't supported.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-12 01:48 am UTC (link)
I almost forgot, they use brain imaging methods too (e.g. fMRI). I'm not sure if they have done it with an EEG, but that would make a lot of studies much cheaper and less embarrassing if it were an accurate measure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]pants_of_doom
2007-04-11 02:07 pm UTC (link)
I stopped reading at the bit about women not having a sexual orientation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-11 02:11 pm UTC (link)
shrug. I think it's worth writing the Times about that as well, but I thought I got too long already in pointing out that they KEEP going to Bailey, and people KEEP pointing out to them that he's a poor scientist, and maybe, just maybe, they should look around for someone else?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]pants_of_doom
2007-04-11 06:45 pm UTC (link)
I like the letter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]vinnie_tesla
2007-04-11 02:10 pm UTC (link)
I was pretty disgusted with the tone of the article. I'm kind of spitefully pleased to learn that the science was bad to match.

(Reply to this)


[info]drinkywinky
2007-04-11 04:02 pm UTC (link)
Nicely written letter.

(Reply to this)


[info]rroselavy
2007-04-11 06:03 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure how one can conclude that women's apparent 'lack of sexual orientation' is because they are 'focused on accepting or rejecting those who seek sex with them' rather than seeking out sexual partner.

First, I don't think that is necessarily the case. Women may not be overt in their behavior, but they do actively seek out partners, and engage in behavior to attract specific partners.

Second, if the main benefit of heterosexuality is procreation and the preservation of the species, then why would women behave differently than men?

IMHO, that women have been shown to be aroused by images of either sex points to other factors. Perhaps, ~horrors~, sex is not only for procreation.

Overall, I'm disappointed in how facile the topic was treated by the NYT. And your letter is very well written. :-)

(Reply to this)


[info]darthbitsy
2007-04-11 06:25 pm UTC (link)
Hi, I just friended you (I know astrogeek01 from Carleton Aikido).

Oh. My. That, and the companion article really bothered me. The cite some interesting findings... but...

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/science/10desi.html?ei=5088&en=710c65da2da8c795&ex=1333857600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

Well, what you pointed out, which I didn’t know, and... the extreme gender assumptions. They explicitly state that measuring a persons erection is perfectly correlated with desire and arousal. They assume that any responses to surveys are honest, and not culturally influenced. They leave out people who idenafie as bi/pan/what have you. The completely ignore any gender-queer people. They assume sex-gender interplay is easy and strait forward. Hell, that is what they are saying.

Sorry this is so erratic, I’m just reacting.

(Reply to this)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-12 01:40 am UTC (link)
Where does Cahill's review say that it is not necessarily reflected in behavior? In the beginning he mentions brain chemistry differences. If you have a copy of the study, I'd be interested in reading it.

In any case, at this point, I think you'd really have to ignore a lot of research to suggest that we don't know if there is evidence for behavior differences, when it has been established that there are.

Without such differences, transsexuality itself would be purely societal/cultural (i.e. psychological) in nature, making any progress toward sex change unethical. I asked someone who was both a "pure constructionist" about this and they stated that this is necessary because of the way society is, not because of biological differences.

I don't know about Dr. Bailey's history, beyond what is written in the links you gave (aside from the log one--too many links), but I don't think it's fair to accuse studies he's done of fraud because his *book* was written via unethical means. It's fair to accuse him of coming to incorrect conclusions, though. I haven't seen the study mentioned, but it sounds similar to others I read.

Because similar studies on women showed that women didn't show straightforward arousal patterns (they showed attraction for males and females), I don't think it is valid to conclude as he does on these results alone. If he were to use the "pseudo-lesbianism studies" to form the superficial conclusion that "all women are bisexual," then he'd contradict his other hypothesis that "bisexuality doesn't exist," unless he believed that only women are.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]lz1982
2007-04-12 07:34 pm UTC (link)
I *think* his thesis is that bisexuality as an orientation does not exist. Women have bisexual responses to photos, but since, according to him, women are not hard-wired for any sexual orientation, that doesn't mean they are bisexual.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-13 05:16 am UTC (link)
So he's suggesting that they start off attracted to neither and then inch toward attraction to just one sex?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lz1982
2007-04-13 03:45 pm UTC (link)
Or that they could eventually become bisexual, but it would not be an innate orientation. It would be due to events in their lives. (I think. I'm not too well-versed in this stuff).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-12 07:45 pm UTC (link)
I think I still have your email address from [info]article_request; I'll happily send you Cahill's review. The quote I'm referring to is:

"A final misconception holds that if no sex difference exists in a particular behaviour, it can be assumed that the neural substrates underlying that behaviour are identical for both sexes. However, numerous studies report sex differences in neural activity despite no behavioural difference between the sexes.... Findings such as these indicate that isomorphic performance between the sexes does not necessitate isomorphic neural mechanisms. Indeed, as De Vries has effectively argued, neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioural sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them (when, for instance, they would be maladaptive) by compensating for sex differences in other physiological conditions, such as sex hormone levels." (p 2)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-13 05:14 am UTC (link)
Thanks! I'm glad I can leach off of you and article_request for papers. ;)

I was aware of this before, but didn't know the reason. I should read more into how (if it's even known) such structures evolved to prevent maladaptive behavioral differences.

A lot of professors really need to engage in the act of "self-archiving" (Wikipedia has a good article on it). Preprints (pre-peer review) copies are owned by the professor, so they can legally release those freely. A survey shows that the vast-majority of journals don't mind professors archiving the final paper on their own website, as well. Unfortunately, not a lot do this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]njyoder
2007-04-13 05:15 am UTC (link)
Not a lot do it, I suspect, because they aren't aware that they can legally do it. It's very rare that they are asked to sign a contract where they'd be preventing from even publishing the preprint, but really, that's a contract that they shouldn't sign anyway. The proponent behind self-archiving explains all of this well on his website.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]qu_is
2007-04-13 09:12 am UTC (link)
great letter. - and thanks for the quote above. I wish I had more time to look into it. But the discussion here has been interesting.

(Reply to this)


[info]missmimesis
2007-04-13 08:21 pm UTC (link)
great letter; I hope they print it! And I'm thrilled to see this blog...I've long dreamed of creating a blog devoted to pointing out the flaws of all these goddamn studies on gender difference...but as a psychologist you're way better equipped to do so than I am as a literature person. I'm adding you to my friends list.

-Abigail
(repetitioncompulsion.blogspot.com)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-13 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]msmsgirl
2007-04-14 01:43 am UTC (link)
Hey, I'm friending you; I love this blog! Thanks for the comment -- your letter is way, way, way better than mine was, though. You start with a compliment, criticize the way they interpreted a not-evil researcher, and you're so unbelieveably measured and smart in your tone about Bailey. I hope they print it. looking forward to more linkings and take-downs --Christine.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-14 01:53 am UTC (link)
Thank you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]aesmael
2007-04-14 03:14 am UTC (link)
That letter is executed so calmly, you have won for yourself another reader.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-04-14 03:25 am UTC (link)
aww, shucks *grins*

I was really sure I came off as some wall-chewing maniac in this (or maybe sounded like I was Bailey's ex or something equally sordid). I really appreciate the words of support here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

thank you
[info]eight_not_ate
2007-05-13 07:48 pm UTC (link)
i stumbled upon your blog through an unrelated google search. it's a relief to know that someone else found wade's article biased, offensive, and not very helpful.

(Reply to this)


[info]ukelele
2007-08-21 02:03 pm UTC (link)
The controversy in re Bailey apologia-style in today's New York Times science section: right here!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-08-21 02:16 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I just finished posting about that ... I am furious beyond reason.

I'm not sure I'm catching the apologia reference. It certainly seems from my read of the article that we're supposed to get that Bailey is the victim here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ukelele
2007-08-21 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Yes, an "apologia" is a work of praise. It kind of means the opposite of "apology" although you can see how they might have been connected once.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]differenceblog
2007-08-21 04:42 pm UTC (link)
And now I know a new word. Neat!

still a seething fun-sized ball of rage, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(31 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…