you will maintain your sexual preference (ie: you still like men)

you will maintain your sexuality (ie: you still like the opposite sex)

you will become asexual (you just give up)

Many heterosexual men become heterosexual women. No big whoop in our world. Other Male-to-Females will end up being lesbian. Also no big whoop. And yes, it’s not unheard of for a transitioning transgender person to maintain their homosexuality.

I always thought it was pretty obvious that sexuality was more than a single variable phenomenon… but I guess it’s news to some folks. I have in the past suggested transsexual sexuality as a research topic to some of my psychstudent friends, as I believe that further study would help shine some light onto how sexual attraction actually works.

I don’t think it “validates the fundamentalists” any more than a hole in our understanding of evolution validates the fundamentalists. These sorts of things are typically very complicated, and just because we don’t know every detail today, doesn’t mean we’re not on the right path.

I’m sorry that my 3 comments trying to pin down what Jayhuck was actually saying were overkill. You really must print your blog etiquette rulebook one day. It would be a great service to us all.

Re 71213

If we send Jayhuck to his room without dinner can we please stop talking about this? Would that be enough? Or do we need to spank him and stand him in the corner with a dunce hat?

Levay, Hamer and Bailey (who I think you meant with the twin studies). all had their papers published in peer-reviewed journals. You have presented NO evidence whatsoever that they had anything to do with the media misrepresenting their work.

While there are valid counter-arguments to their findings, you make none of them. Instead you give personal attacks on them, based on unfounded claims. Such attacks reveal more about you, Evan, than it does them.

So, when Jayhuck stated that this ‘homo/trans’ phenomena was “proof” of bisexuality, I asked for clarification. He replied quite emphatically that he was not kidding. This detour started on the 7th. Early on the 10th, he finally acknowledges:

“I’m of the mind that this person is probably bisexual – I’m not willing to say, however, that my understanding of the situation is the only one – or even the correct one.

so let’s try this again – I’m not sure this proves anything except that Lorne might be have been a bisexual.”

Jayhuck, I realize that you apologized but my first comments to you went to the point that lorne’s situation was ‘proof of bisexuality’. You said emphatically that you were not kidding! And now, 3 days later you say ‘Lorne might have been a bisexual’. That’s a long way from ‘proof of bisexuality’. I’d be tempted to write it off as ‘missed communication’ but

1) we ALL know what I meant when I questioned ‘proof of bisexuality’…I’m Mr. Dictionary.

2) mine was an all or nothing kind of challenge: does it prove bisexuality or not?

2) you didn’t just quip ‘no, not kidding’ or ‘stretching things just a bit’, you chose to say ‘emphatically not kidding’. Translation: I TOTALLY meant it! It’s proof!

3) and it turns out you BARELY meant it. “lorne might have been a bisexual”.

You say you were ‘less than clear’; I’m tempted to conclude from the above that you were either ‘purposely evasive’ or ‘playing a game’ (I call that one the loop de loop)..something you claim you don’t do.

It’s up to you whether we pursue this further. I just wanted you to know how frustrating this was–and why.

Anyone who seriously believes that LaVey’s work in the measurement of hypothalamus segments of the brain was not valid has been ignoring all of the subsequent work which seems to build on LaVey’s foundation. There are questions which were not at that time resolved – and many which are still open. But there no longer is any question as to whether there are physical differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men.

The accusations made against these scientist are unfounded. They betray an underlying dishonesty and a desire to ignore facts in order to fight a culture war. I’m sure that has a place at an anti-gay rally, but it doesn’t contribute much to this conversation.

In the future, please substantiate your accusations… or better yet, don’t make them.

Science is cheaper than personal experience; some use it to defend their experience, at least that’s how I understand a few gay scientists’ rush to get their work to the press and create a stir and then innocently claiming that ‘we never proved anything, just suggested’.

It shows your own bias when you chastise gay scientists like this but don’t chastise scientists who use science to further their own political or moral agenda such as Focus on the Family or NARTH. It would have been more fair and closer to the Truth for you to say that Science is sometimes cheaper than personal experience or political and religious ideologies.

How much a transperson is “really” like their birth sex is still very much an open question, regardless of what J. Michael Bailey would like to believe. This kind of change is not unheard of in both mtfs and ftms, but the point that apparently needs to be re-emphasized is that IT ONLY EVER SEEMS TO HAPPEN IN SOME TRANSSEXUALS WHO ARE TRANSITIONING.