“You fight like a girl” – Fruit flies and the playground

Fruitfly research is pretty hot stuff and this new study is sure to find its way on to late night television.

Fighting Like a Girl or Boy Determined by Gene in Fruit Flies

BOSTON, Nov. 20 /Standard Newswire/ — Fighting like a girl or fighting like a boy is hardwired into fruit fly neurons, according to a study in the Nov. 19 Nature Neuroscience advance online publication by a research team from Harvard Medical School and the Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna. The results confirm that a gene known as “fruitless” is a key factor underlying sexual differences in behavior. The findings mark a milestone in an unlikely new animal model for understanding the biology of aggression and how the nervous system gives rise to different behaviors.

I’ll bet the boy fighters call each other dude and drink Gatorade between rounds.

Reality show idea combining this and the last post – Get men and women to fight and have raters decide if they are gay or not by how they fight. The raters go off the show if they are wrong. The celebrity version of the show would be huge. Anyone want to suggest a name for it?

Gaydar and stereotypes

Michael Bailey is quoted extensively in this article regarding his research on gaydar. Social psychologists study stereotypes and the “I knew it all along” feeling (e.g., I just knew he was gay). I suppose I have furthered a few stereotypes by my support of Daryl Bem’s Exotic Becomes Erotic theory.

I had to chuckle a bit at this aspect of the article where Dr. Bailey puts his gaydar square on Haggard: “The one blip on his Ph.D.-caliber gaydar was Haggard’s broad grin.”This is total speculation, we haven’t done studies yet, but I think gay men tend to have much more expressive smiles. That’s one thing that struck me about Haggard.'”

And here I thought it was because he was the pastor of a megachurch. Silly me.

Another article regarding Haggard and reparative therapy

AP’s David Crary covers the Haggard issue with comments from the usual suspects.

This article covers some of the same ground as the Denver Post article on November 12. I was struck by a couple of points in this article. There was a certain dogmatism to the APA commenters. Doug Haldeman said there is nothing good that can come from conversion therapy. This is an extreme statement that is at odds with the experience of many who have been involved in it. Possible harm, yes; but “nothing good?” – I think that is easily falsified and is actually contrary to some of Dr. Haldeman’s writings in APA journals.

I thought Joe Nicolosi made a good point by pointing out that each individual has the perogative to determine what same-sex attractions mean to him within a valuative framework. However, in my opinion, he undermined his position to some degree by assessing Mr. Haggard’s history, apparently without any knowledge of him (one hopes it is without experiential knowledge), as needing to face “…the realities that you [Haggard] did not get certain central affirmations from your mother or your father…” How would one know that?

Mr. Crary correctly points out that:

There have been numerous studies, with varying conclusions, on how homosexuality originates and whether it can be changed. But there has been no authoritative study – accepted by both sides – examining the effectiveness and possible ill-effects of reparative therapy.

And so dogmatism on any side seems unwarranted.