(Show me the raw numbers. I can work them sideways and upwards and backwards — but show me the numbers. Raw numbers.)

Even accepting your numbers, and I do not, why do 60% to 75% of gay males NOT present with “girly” childhoods?

You can make as much as you want to over the (unaccepted) 25% to 40%… but you cannot offer anything with the MAJORITY of adult gay males.

MAJORITY. That means “most”. Please explain them. You seem so dismissive of the fact that gay men do not, as a majority, follow what you are focussed on.

And please do not bring up the issue of bias, unless you can point to something. It’s a cheap and easy charge.

One could also make a variety of assumptions about a straight, anti-gay man who relies on his income from a fundamentalist Chistian college, has deep contacts with the fundamentalist religious-right and who has no contact with real, living gay people.

Warren, I’m not sure you’re quite with “it” from the way you’re talking — we don’t need to be told what being gay is all about. We are gay. Don’t do that with us, OK? Don’t try and tell us what gay is. We are. We know.

Get it?

(And for my next trick: I shall publish a research paper on the sexual lives of the staff at Grove City College. I interviewed 2 people.)

You just said 25% to 40% are.

This means 60% to 75% ARE NOT!!!

ie You just admitted the MAJORITY of gay men (as always, lesbians-be-gone) had typical male-conforming childhoods.

So how on Earth do you get away with “research doesn’t support you one this”????

Frankly, it seems that research doesn’t support your focus on gender non-conforming childhoods….

C’mon Warren… you just admitted that the majority of gay men were “normal” boys.

Please explain the 60%-75%.

Please explain why you are focussed on the minority.

Unfortunately…

When “You” are not clear in public, this leads to people concluding things that are simply not true. You’re the one who makes the sound-bite, but we’re the one’s who have to answer the silly questions from the audience.

i.e. Nicolosi going on a desp. hunt for non-conformity. Before you know it… one is happily joking with the idea of dropping (male) babies on their head to “toughen them up”. So they don’t end up gay, you know…

Boys are all sorts of things. And that’s good IMO. Almost convinced that true “brilliance” is a %wise a male trait, like autism (and possibly due to same). As is true “stupidity” — possibly for same reason 🙂

The point is…

Even if one finds an intersection of childhood gender non-conformance and adult homosexuality… that only explains very little adult homosexuality.

And how much of it is actually recollection being made to conform to assumption? QED Nicolosi?

I realise you got into the idea of there being “30 types of homosexual” at one level — but, frankly, there are not. I think this is confusing you. There’s one type of homosexuality — one — and those show the full range of types of personality as do heterosexuals.

And let’s not forget: much of life is acting, and the whole World is a stage. I’m sure straight professors at a Christian school behave in certain ways too…

In sympathy for both of them, I know how hard it is to say something nuanced in 650 words (which is what you get from the Salt Lake City Tribune for an op-ed).

Here (http://www.guidemag.com/content/index.cfm?ID=227) he said that, “It would be ridiculous to assert that sexual orientation is entirely a matter of biological predisposition, because we know that homosexual feelings and behaviours are organized differently in different cultures”, and, “The socialization side I’m sure is important.”

If LeVay has changed his mind on this issue, and on the evidence of his latest comments he seems to have changed it completely, he ought to say why.

ab

You didn’t say anything about LeVay’s claim that there are 3 genes contributing to SSA and not just one. By saying that, he implies that Pruden is being misleading.

Thanks very much!