Who's prejudging? The research I cited was done in 1991, the investigation was done in 2006. Seems kind of ridiculous to accept his research for 15 years. His book published in 2003 prompted research by the University into his research.
Taken from wikipedia
Following the 2003 publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, Northwestern University opened a formal investigation into charges of research misconduct against Bailey. [1] In late 2004, Bailey resigned his Psychology Department Chair following the completion of the investigation. The university refused to reveal its findings or say whether it punished Bailey, and he still serves as a professor there. [2]
I'm just saying, I don't know what goes on in anyone's mind, so to attribute the "why's" in a situation like this, based on wikipedia reports seems premature at best, inaccurate or beyond at worse.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm just saying, I don't know what goes on in anyone's mind, so to attribute the "why's" in a situation like this, based on wikipedia reports seems premature at best, inaccurate or beyond at worse.
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
It appears as if they didn't find anything wrong with his research, but rather asked him to step down as Chair of the Psychology Department to appease the raging mob of soceity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i got addicted here. my animals are looking in the window wondering why i haven't fed yet tonight. jeanie came on at feeding time and she's another sweetheart so i stuck around.
once again; thanks to everyone for keeping me company again today.
Oh no! Feed the poor creatures! They're hungry! We'll wait! Sorry I'm so slow between posts today, we've been blanketed in smoke here from the bush fires and I keep having to go outside to keep an eye out. I mean they're a long way away but I get paranoid!
Oh no! Feed the poor creatures! They're hungry! We'll wait! Sorry I'm so slow between posts today, we've been blanketed in smoke here from the bush fires and I keep having to go outside to keep an eye out. I mean they're a long way away but I get paranoid!
ooh i just heard that things are bad around mt. buller. you're not near there are you jeanie? i love fire. but she's wild and needs to be respected.
don't you just love an aussie summer?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
It appears as if they didn't find anything wrong with his research, but rather asked him to step down as Chair of the Psychology Department to appease the raging mob of soceity.
What things appear as and what they are can be two very different things. Of course you're entitled to your opinion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
ooh i just heard that things are bad around mt. buller. you're not near there are you jeanie? i love fire. but she's wild and needs to be respected.
don't you just love an aussie summer?
They evacuated the Mt Buller Chalet yesterday. No I'm in the suburbs but when I went out the other day when we also blanketed in smoke and ashes actually fell from the sky!! It's a bit like that here again today. My nan has a property near the state forrest outside Warragul so I guess I worry about her and my brother lives up in Mt Dandenong with my very precious niece and nephew so I guess I worry about them too! The fires are a long way from all of us but you're right fire is so wild and can change direction and move so quickly it makes me nervous when it's like this.
I DO LOVE an Aussie summer, I just wish it had rained more before it started.
Where are you if you don't mind me asking? General vacinity is fine by me.
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
It appears as if they didn't find anything wrong with his research, but rather asked him to step down as Chair of the Psychology Department to appease the raging mob of soceity.
It's unfortunate when this sort of thing happens. But I'm sure that as time progresses and people become more enlitened history maybe prove kinder to the professor.
They evacuated the Mt Buller Chalet yesterday. No I'm in the suburbs but when I went out the other day when we also blanketed in smoke and ashes actually fell from the sky!! It's a bit like that here again today. My nan has a property near the state forrest outside Warragul so I guess I worry about her and my brother lives up in Mt Dandenong with my very precious niece and nephew so I guess I worry about them too! The fires are a long way from all of us but you're right fire is so wild and can change direction and move so quickly it makes me nervous when it's like this.
I DO LOVE an Aussie summer, I just wish it had rained more before it started.
Where are you if you don't mind me asking? General vacinity is fine by me.
sydney 'burbs.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It's unfortunate when this sort of thing happens. But I'm sure that as time progresses and people become more enlitened history maybe prove kinder to the professor.
I certainly hope so. I've emailed the author of this book Prof. David R. Shaffer, to ask his opinion on the matter. The 1991 research he cites was corroborated by Pillard as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
See, the thing is nobody questioned his research until he wrote a book about it. When he suggested genetic screening of fetuses for sexual orientation. He suggested it would be ok to abort a fetus if it was found to have the genes for homosexuality. That's why he was attacked, not because of his initial research that was published in many many books.
this is enough for me to dismiss anything this man has to say about homosexuality. scientific experimentation and research or not.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For what purpose? I mean, when you have science vs society, soceity always wins. Do you think any of these scientists, besides the corroborators of Bailey's research, would stick up for him? Absolutely not. Not when faced with this level of social pressure.
I certainly believe that all science should be scrutinized and science in general should remain skeptical. However, soceity shouldn't have a place in that level of investigation. It's ultimately going to impact the outcome.
I mean, we don't know if Bailey's findings were true, because of this. We don't know if the investigation was bias or unbias. The minority groups have effectively deleted his life-long work from the records. The same way they deleted it from the medical books.
It's like this, I feel like I need to smoke, if I didn't know any better, I could say it's a genetic predisposition, because everyone else in my family (excluding my brother, and those that have quit) smokes, and within my "self" I feel it's required. However, I know through scientific research into my behavior how exactly it's caused.
In this particular case you have a group of people on Bailey's side and group of people opposing him. It's torn down the middle, between the people that actually did the work and know the truth and the people that are investigating on behalf of soceity. In my opinion it's pretty disgusting that this kind of thing can even happen.
So, is everyone that corroborated with Bailey, and Bailey himself prejudice against certain sexual orientations? Seems like a stretch. Or are the "investigators" trying to calm down the protestors? Seems more likely.
so basically, if research agrees with the views you hold, it's clearly properly conducted research. however, if anyon questions the research you use to support your views, it's obviously becos they're biased and there's a huge societal conspiracy to reject it? yeah, that makes sense.
so basically, if research agrees with the views you hold, it's clearly properly conducted research. however, if anyon questions the research you use to support your views, it's obviously becos they're biased and there's a huge societal conspiracy to reject it? yeah, that makes sense.
My views are based on the research. It's not that I have pre-existing views. Well, actually, Angelica and a few others may recall that I held the view that homosexuality was a choice a few months back, this research changed my view. Nobody had a problem with his findings that homosexuality was related in some ways to genetics. They had a problem with his opinions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My views are based on the research. It's not that I have pre-existing views. Well, actually, Angelica and a few others may recall that I held the view that homosexuality was a choice a few months back, this research changed my view. Nobody had a problem with his findings that homosexuality was related in some ways to genetics. They had a problem with his opinions.
yet that article posted questioned his methods and the validity of his research. and you dont counter that except to say that clearly there was some social conspiracy to shut him up. that's not a very scientific viewpoint.
yet that article posted questioned his methods and the validity of his research. and you dont counter that except to say that clearly there was some social conspiracy to shut him up. that's not a very scientific viewpoint.
He wasn't the only one that made those findings.
In addition, they cite his research when it serves their purpose. (Different Group)
The Gay Youth Corner http://www.thegyc.com/content/view/697/120/ A more thorough study (Bailey and Pillard, 1991) combined the twin method with the ‘adoption method’. The adoption method takes into account any similarities in environmental influence but excludes any possible genetic associations between siblings. Based on the study of 161 homosexual probands and their siblings, the investigators found that 52 percent of the monozygotic co-twins were either homosexual or bisexual.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Richard C. Pillard is a professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine.
Pillard received his B.A. from Antioch College and his M.D. from University of Rochester.
Pillard is well-known for a series of studies he coauthored with J. Michael Bailey, which examined the rate of concordance of sexual identity among monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins of the same sex, non-twin siblings of the same sex, and adoptive siblings of the same sex. In all studies they found rates of concordance variantly consistent with the hypothesis that homosexuality has a significant genetic component. The Council for Responsible Genetics and other researchers have criticized this work for using a self-selected sample, a problem which later studies have attempted to remedy.
What? No investigation? Apparently Boston University doesn't take the CRG very seriously?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ah, so the Gay community is Pro-Pillard, but Anti-Bailey? They did the research together! Ah, but they have different political opinions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The irony is, both these guys are proving through their research that Homosexuality is a genetically inheritable trait. Which is exactly what the gay community wants. They just don't like the one guys political opinions so they attack his career. Fucking pathetic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The irony is, both these guys are proving through their research that Homosexuality is a genetically inheritable trait. Which is exactly what the gay community wants. They just don't like the one guys political opinions so they attack his career. Fucking pathetic.
Inheritable? Do you mean heritable, or the opposite of heritable? I'm confused.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
My views are based on the research. It's not that I have pre-existing views. Well, actually, Angelica and a few others may recall that I held the view that homosexuality was a choice a few months back, this research changed my view. Nobody had a problem with his findings that homosexuality was related in some ways to genetics. They had a problem with his opinions.
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
Northwestern didn't fire the professor who firmly believes - and argues in his classes - that the Holocaust didn't occur. I'd called him bigoted, prejudiced and biased. So no, I'm not at all surprised that Bailey has stayed on.
And by the way, much of the ruckus was caused not so much by Bailey's theories on homosexuality, but by his book on transsexuals. I was there, I remember this quite clearly.
Inheritable? Do you mean heritable, or the opposite of heritable? I'm confused.
heritable is what I meant.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Northwestern didn't fire the professor who firmly believes - and argues in his classes - that the Holocaust didn't occur. I'd called him bigoted, prejudiced and biased. So no, I'm not at all surprised that Bailey has stayed on.
And by the way, much of the ruckus was caused not so much by Bailey's theories on homosexuality, but by his book on transsexuals. I was there, I remember this quite clearly.
Well, a lot of people deny the holocaust. It's unfortunate, I bet it wouldn't be this bad if the Jews didn't get Israel out of it.
The fact that they attacked his research because of a book is fucked up. So the statistics I quoted were accurate, what a waste of time man.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
First, let me say that I started this thread just to see what people think.... not becuase I'm against gay people. I have many gay friends and I think the government should allow homosexuals all the rights and liberties as they do heterosexuals. I also agree that being gay is not a choice, you are born that way.
That being said, let's look at nature. It is a fact that homosexuality is an anomally among animals. The vast majority of animals are genetically programed to be attracted to the opposite sex to ensure the survival of the species. Therefore, it seems that something "goes wrong" when humans develop to be homosexuals. This argument might sounds bigoted, but it holds some truth. Humans are not supposed to be autistic no more than they are supposed to be gay. It is not natures way for species to be homosexual. In other words, gays will ALWAYS be a small minority of the population regardless how accepted they are by society or the government.
I look at this fact when contemplating if gay couples should be allowed to raise children... a la Mary Chaney. I'm not saying the government should step in, I just feel that it is morally wrong towards the child for them to be raised in a homosexual household.
I feel that it serves the parents more than the child. I have no problem with people proclaiming their homosexuality. But why would they want to put a child in the precarious situation of being raised in that environment??? It seems amoral and selfish to me. Nature has given us the rules by which species procreate. It is unatural for gays to have children, it is synthetic...
Your thoughts?
Let me also say that I can see the case for adoption much more so than say a gay women who gets impregnated in order to have children.
For someone with gay friends you sure come across as having a lack of understanding of homosexuality
homosexuality is not unnatural, nor immoral!!
species of dolphin have homosexual relations and only mix to procreate.
many species of bird have relationships made up of two males, and a third bird (female) is accepted into the family when it is time to procreate.
One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants
It is not a human phenomenon, nor is it unnatural. Personally I couldn't fathom having sexual relations with another bloke, but I commend those for whom gender is no issue. There are many amazing women and men in this world, and unfortunately I have been restricted to forming intense relationships only with women.
I don't feel sorry for homosexuals, or for bisexuals, but for everyone like me who only get a choice from about 50% of those who we meet.
"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable." - Sam Harris
"One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants"
I hypothesize that pedophilia is also genetic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus!! You are such a shit stirrer!!! This is going to errupt you know that don't you?
Perhaps, it's just a hypothesis. There is significant reason to believe so. I mean, your average person isn't attracted to kids, are they?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Perhaps, it's just a hypothesis. There is significant reason to believe so.
I think it's an interesting hypothesis and it's most likely that there is a genetic component to it. But I also wonder about recidivism rates. That is, how many children that have been abused become the abuser as an adult? The other issue is what constitutes paedophilia in this current climate? I mean to say most guys are jacking off to Victoria's Secret and Calvin Klein catalogues where the girls posing are in their early teens. And don't get me started about the Video Hits generation and it's former poster child Brittany Spears and the sexualization of pop music. So I suppose the question I ask here is has the current objectification of younger and younger women correlated with a marked increase in child pornography & paedophilia?
I did read a paper a while back about sexual development. The theory was that people don't develop beyond the age of a child in their sexuality. So while a 15 year old is easily attracted to a 14 year old. A guy that stopped developing at that age, could still find 14 year olds attractive at age 25.
I don't know though, could just be they aren't popular with women their own age. Who knows?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
By the way Jeanie, did you get a chance to watch that lecture series on Stem Cells?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
It appears as if they didn't find anything wrong with his research, but rather asked him to step down as Chair of the Psychology Department to appease the raging mob of soceity.
Oh no! Feed the poor creatures! They're hungry! We'll wait!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
ooh i just heard that things are bad around mt. buller. you're not near there are you jeanie? i love fire. but she's wild and needs to be respected.
don't you just love an aussie summer?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
They evacuated the Mt Buller Chalet yesterday. No I'm in the suburbs but when I went out the other day when we also blanketed in smoke and ashes actually fell from the sky!! It's a bit like that here again today. My nan has a property near the state forrest outside Warragul so I guess I worry about her and my brother lives up in Mt Dandenong with my very precious niece and nephew so I guess I worry about them too! The fires are a long way from all of us but you're right fire is so wild and can change direction and move so quickly it makes me nervous when it's like this.
I DO LOVE an Aussie summer, I just wish it had rained more before it started.
Where are you if you don't mind me asking? General vacinity is fine by me.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
It's unfortunate when this sort of thing happens. But I'm sure that as time progresses and people become more enlitened history maybe prove kinder to the professor.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
sydney 'burbs.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I certainly hope so. I've emailed the author of this book Prof. David R. Shaffer, to ask his opinion on the matter. The 1991 research he cites was corroborated by Pillard as well.
this is enough for me to dismiss anything this man has to say about homosexuality. scientific experimentation and research or not.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so basically, if research agrees with the views you hold, it's clearly properly conducted research. however, if anyon questions the research you use to support your views, it's obviously becos they're biased and there's a huge societal conspiracy to reject it? yeah, that makes sense.
My views are based on the research. It's not that I have pre-existing views. Well, actually, Angelica and a few others may recall that I held the view that homosexuality was a choice a few months back, this research changed my view. Nobody had a problem with his findings that homosexuality was related in some ways to genetics. They had a problem with his opinions.
yet that article posted questioned his methods and the validity of his research. and you dont counter that except to say that clearly there was some social conspiracy to shut him up. that's not a very scientific viewpoint.
He wasn't the only one that made those findings.
In addition, they cite his research when it serves their purpose. (Different Group)
The Gay Youth Corner
http://www.thegyc.com/content/view/697/120/
A more thorough study (Bailey and Pillard, 1991) combined the twin method with the ‘adoption method’. The adoption method takes into account any similarities in environmental influence but excludes any possible genetic associations between siblings. Based on the study of 161 homosexual probands and their siblings, the investigators found that 52 percent of the monozygotic co-twins were either homosexual or bisexual.
What? No investigation? Apparently Boston University doesn't take the CRG very seriously?
Ah, so the Gay community is Pro-Pillard, but Anti-Bailey? They did the research together! Ah, but they have different political opinions.
Inheritable? Do you mean heritable, or the opposite of heritable? I'm confused.
-C Addison
Northwestern didn't fire the professor who firmly believes - and argues in his classes - that the Holocaust didn't occur. I'd called him bigoted, prejudiced and biased. So no, I'm not at all surprised that Bailey has stayed on.
And by the way, much of the ruckus was caused not so much by Bailey's theories on homosexuality, but by his book on transsexuals. I was there, I remember this quite clearly.
heritable is what I meant.
Thanks Callen
Well, a lot of people deny the holocaust. It's unfortunate, I bet it wouldn't be this bad if the Jews didn't get Israel out of it.
The fact that they attacked his research because of a book is fucked up. So the statistics I quoted were accurate, what a waste of time man.
For someone with gay friends you sure come across as having a lack of understanding of homosexuality
homosexuality is not unnatural, nor immoral!!
species of dolphin have homosexual relations and only mix to procreate.
many species of bird have relationships made up of two males, and a third bird (female) is accepted into the family when it is time to procreate.
One species of ape is known for it's promiscuous sex between males/females/youths/infants
There are many many more examples
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340835_gaycritter19m.html
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php
It is not a human phenomenon, nor is it unnatural. Personally I couldn't fathom having sexual relations with another bloke, but I commend those for whom gender is no issue. There are many amazing women and men in this world, and unfortunately I have been restricted to forming intense relationships only with women.
I don't feel sorry for homosexuals, or for bisexuals, but for everyone like me who only get a choice from about 50% of those who we meet.
My other home
www.iseekgolf.com
I hypothesize that pedophilia is also genetic.
Ahnimus!! You are such a shit stirrer!!! This is going to errupt you know that don't you?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Perhaps, it's just a hypothesis. There is significant reason to believe so. I mean, your average person isn't attracted to kids, are they?
I think it's an interesting hypothesis and it's most likely that there is a genetic component to it. But I also wonder about recidivism rates. That is, how many children that have been abused become the abuser as an adult? The other issue is what constitutes paedophilia in this current climate? I mean to say most guys are jacking off to Victoria's Secret and Calvin Klein catalogues where the girls posing are in their early teens. And don't get me started about the Video Hits generation and it's former poster child Brittany Spears and the sexualization of pop music. So I suppose the question I ask here is has the current objectification of younger and younger women correlated with a marked increase in child pornography & paedophilia?
Who really knows what goes on in other people's minds. Having said that I think most people find paedophilia abhorent.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I don't know though, could just be they aren't popular with women their own age. Who knows?