I remember the "female sexual fluidity" craze around 2005-2010s or so. It bothered me that ppl were insinuating female sexuality is fluid, but male sexuality isn't. Seemed like a trojan horse for eroding women's sexual boundaries and letting creepy men try to "turn" lesbians.
Another point: it's a bit disconcerting that GC lesbian circles platform political lesbians so much, e.g., the lesbian caucus at WDI USA.
Interesting, what do you mean about the WDI lesbian caucus? Some of their writings rubbed me the wrong way but I haven't looked into it closely, didn't realize they platformed political lesbians.
They betray Lesbians and slandered me in their video with Lauren Levey and Sheila Jeffries without permitting me being able to reply to their lies. Jeffries can't even keep her lies straight and makes up different versions while plagiarizing our book.
Levey, in a phone conversation some years ago, after I sent her the link to my blog, actually said "You say you're working class but you sound intelligent."
Jeffries with Levey trashed me and our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, while censoring my attempts at replying. Linda Strega, Ruston, and I met Jeffries in the late Eighties in Oakland and spent hours supporting her, but then she pushed to talk about "Butch and Fem." We thought, uh oh, here it goes, and as soon as she found out we thought beyond role playing and were choices made in girlhood, she literally ran away. Refused to look us in the eye or continue talking. It was so reminiscent of how I was treated when I told a girl in high school I thought I was a Lesbian. She hates us, but I wish she wouldn't lie about us.
I am in my early 60s, and I had no idea there was any question at all about the cause of sexual orientation. The butch lesbians who looked like boys and rode mini bikes and drew male super heroes were like that in sixth grade. The effeminate gay guys who hung out with the girls were like that in junior high. Everyone we intuitively knew was homosexual in the early years of school did, indeed, turn out to be attracted to the same sex. I thought it was common knowledge they were born that way. The one beautiful bisexual woman I know, who is at least a generation younger than I, chose men because she wanted to be a wife and mother.
Unyielding Bicycle, I laughed all the way through this. Your captions were especially hilarious. I have always longed to have butch biceps, and I think it is funny that AI is not into women with short hair.
“because keeping gay kids in the dark about sexual orientation makes them vulnerable to thinking they’re trans.” i would argue that the reification of trans as something reality-based, and an entrenched hostility to gender-nonconformity, makes gay people vulnerable to thinking their trans. i am a gay who once thought she was trans 👋🏻 and what brought me back to reality was 1) i found some people who told me they did not accept that anyone could be “born in the wrong body”. and 2) promising myself that, even if i was not trans, i did not ever again have to wear anything i did not want to wear. my sexual orientation has felt like an immutable part of who i am (my “gender identity” felt like something i did to be like other people) and i’m not sure i need any scientific studies (and there are many junk scientific studies claiming to point to a biological basis for trans identification) to tell me that.
What really bothers me about dudes in dresses pursuing actual lesbians is that they use the SAME goddamn line, with a twist, that they use on straight women: Instead of, "You don't want to have sex with me? You must be a LESBIAN! If you're not, then PROVE IT!", lesbians get, "You don't want to have sex with me and my big hairy ladydick? You must not be a REAL lesbian! If you are, then PROVE IT!"
Today's young women are naive enough, and possibly inexperienced in *hetero* male sexual predation, to be guilt-tripped into it (sometimes, anyway).
The first step is no longer allow men to get away with that "I'm a lesbian" crap anymore. Men are not lesbians. EVER.
Thanks for explaining. I always was taught and assumed that gay people were just "born that way" and that it was rare. Lately, I hear gay people saying that they "choose" to be gay and that completely baffles me. Why would anyone "choose" a life that at times can be difficult to navigate?...It's better/easier now than 20-40 yrs ago! But then again, I'm 60 and life right now seems very strange/turbulent to me in general.
Very helpful analysis. Something rather sinister happened when I clicked on the link to studies from the 2000s on lesbians. The article at the top of the page was, as you had implied, about how lesbians react differently to pheromones than do straight women. It was lighter fare than I was hoping for so I scrolled down to see if more details were provided in a references section. Lo and behold, I am presented with lots of info on GAC (the URL updates to https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/gender-affirmation-surgeries). It's almost as if the content was being served up to UNDERMINE the pheromone article. Please check it out and see if you have the same experience. Like I said, SINISTER.
Wow, I did see that. My guess is the site's algorithm connects the two subjects because lots of people who research lesbianism also research GAC. Or maybe someone coded it -- show GAC content alongside gay content. Ugh.
Also, I am very curious to know whether there was a period when schools taught that sexual orientation has biological roots, i.e., after homosexuality was more accepted and before the present day obfuscation about sexual orientation that serves to shield gender identity theory from scrutiny. This issue is personal for me as my teenage daughter is fully convinced she's a boy, while we think she's a butch lesbian.
I'm curious about that too. I think I learned it was innate but in a very vague and cursory way (I'm 39). Sorry to hear about your daughter. I think role models are key but it has always been hard to find good role models in the lesbian world, for one reason or another.
Have you heard of a show called Gentleman Jack? It's about a woman named Anne Lister who lived in the early 1800's in England and was a butch lesbian and a force to be reckoned with, and who is affectionately called "The First Modern Lesbian". Suranne Jones plays Anne to perfection and this show has helped many lesbians not only accept, but embrace who they are. You can find it on HBO or BBC.
Thank you again for walking your readings down the logical path. I admit I found Lisa Diamond’s presentation compelling when people around me were insisting their kids were inherently trans due to hormone wash and also due to born that way “facts”. Diamond asserts that there are more genders now due to more genders being shown in media. That seemed more real than the other theories.
As an adolescent boy without any understanding of my autistic traits, I considered the possibility of me being gay. Liked the idea a bit, surely liked the subculture. But after at last having gotten close to one or two young ladies I decided they smelled better to me than any of my beloved male friends. Much later I once banged a guy in a pretty dress nevertheless for practical reasons.
As much as I like you other writing, you do not have a clue about Lesbians. You don't even seem to notice that "vaginas" are the parts men focus on, as opposed to vulvas. That's a giveaway as to where minds are (or aren't.) You also refer to vaginas "lubricating" to ape porn? WTF? There is no excuse to be this dense.
I keep saying that human females and males are more different that are females of different species.
Of course men will feel "born this way," but it's gay men demanding we agree to ask for equal rights (on our knees) that shows the bias. For Lesbians who did not first choose men and for many others, we choose other women out of love and then passion is part of that, and our choice is one of pride, not wishing we could be het.
I'm a Lifelong Lesbian and believe all females are "born this way" in terms of loving our own kind, but the punishments (including terror at being called a Lesbian) for following our hearts, is massive, as are the rewards for obeying the men and patriarchy (which is why many of us believe heterosexuality for women is a form of prostitution.)
I would discuss this more, but admit I skimmed because what you wrote was so offensive and off. And considering how Lesbian-hating Julie Bindel was to me and Linda Strega and Ruston about our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes (that we published in 1990, but is now updated at my first blog), I object to her being considered expert about anything Lesbian and really don't want to read anything she has to say. (Her criticism of our book consisted of ridiculing cartoons because she really couldn't disagree with respect. She seems like yet hanother woman who came out later who has made a career out of being a "Lesbian.")
every time i think that an "actress" is hot in a way that scares me and triggers my "what if im straight" OCD is actually a TIM when i look him up. every single time. it confuses me so much.
So, I just listened to a short clip of a recent interview of Milo Yiannopoulos by Tucker Carlson (Neither gentlemen have a great reputation as honest brokers, so whatever is said during this looong conversatio definitely makes us all vulnerable to the temptation to committing that perennial "shoot the messenger" fallacy.), entitled "The Real Reason You're Gay." (see https://www.youtube.com/shorts/83Jlw5hm_vM ) [BTW, anyone else remember Yiannopoulos's interview with Jordan Peterson some years ago? I suspect that might have been the genesis of this change of mind . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZIVuelAgcM ]
As I watch from afar as the issue of "conversion therapy" versus "free speech" slowly slog through the judicial system -- against a backdrop of the psychology profession further discrediting itself with it's near-total obeisance to the idea that good therapy requires the therapist to "affirm" the very wild idea that a client dreams up about his or her identity being completely detached from the sex of his or her body (This re-warmed dualism known as the "born in the wrong body" belief.) -- I suspect those in the new LGB rights movement are in danger of abandoning their former brave adherence to demanding evidence-based medicine and the principles in science of seeking truth, without censoring data or unpleasant theories, and to demanding uncompromising reporting, digging out the facts, and letting the chips fall where they may.
Personally, I think those of us preaching resilience in the face of an often painful world to those we believe are engaging in a maladaptive response to the trauma of adolescence (and/or to any other number of seriously unpleasant human experiences: rape, parental abuse, alienation and porn addiction, etc., etc.) probably need to take our own advice, when it comes to letting people whose worldview we do not share explore the mysteries of same-sex attraction.
But, by the same token, those who seem to think top-down "for your own good" regulation of all aspects of the personal lives of individuals can be sufficiently informed by "The Science" so that it does more good than harm, probably need to "get real" and accept that no human life comes without major errors and reasons for regret and decisions for which there are only "bad" and "less bad" options. And for a great many people, even if only sleeping with partners of the same biological sex is a "trauma response" to some experience, it might still be (in the end) the "less bad" option for them, leading to a damn good life to allow an individual to be happy and mentally stable enough to make very valuable contributions to his or her community and to the human race in general. And I think some of the Eastern philosophies that pegged "purity" as something poison -- certainly not a desirable quality -- were on to something. Yeah, Christianity has the right idea about forgiveness . . . but that admonition to "go forth and sin no more," when the consequences of that is to live a very lonely life with no more access to one of the best God-given pleasures a human being can experience . . . well, that sounds like a mistake --I don't think a life with that level of "purity" poison applied could possibly be a net-good for anyone or for those sharing the world with him.
Anyway, if anyone's still paying attention to these comments, hopefully I'll get a little feedback on this train of thought . . . Where are the holes in it? Or am I on to something . . . ?
How would you explain someone (male) who fell in love with girls from 2nd grade on, lost their virginity to one when 20, but was only interested in men from 21 onward? How did their nose change?
I realize this is an old post, but just read it today. Interesting. I've always heard about pheromones and being attracted to someone by it, but I think it's only one piece of the puzzle so to say as there are a lot of factors involved in choosing a partner.
"Born this way" was advanced when Dean Hamer discovered the gay gene. He talked about his study on a NPR podcast. He mentioned that he got $ for studying something, decided that since he's gay and has gay friends, thus he has subjects, he would research that. So he found something. It got picked up by reporters because of what was happening in the era w/ gays. He talks to reporters because he doesn't think what is happening is right, but is careful to say he can't say definitely there is a gay gene. But that doesn't matter and reporters are quick to report a gay gene was found. I think the original that I listened to has been taken down, but here is another on the same topic w/ more history about "born this way". https://radiolab.org/podcast/born-way/transcript
I sympathize with your view that denial of biological factors being the lion's share of same-sex attraction presents a danger to gay people simply because it excites the ambitions of social engineering mad scientist types to "mould" the personal preferences of individuals. But might the reason certain scientists like Bailey and Diamond fail to acknowledge pheromones as a possibility for same-sex attraction because the evidence for pheromone detection in humans is weak? I have read that many pheromone studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of replication, or reliance on subjective reports. A 2020 review criticized the field for overstated claims and poor controls (Wyatt, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B). Just a quick query using and AI Chatbot pulled up this review; so I don't know anything about it. Just wondering how confident you are in the quality of the science behind pheromones.
As I say in the post, I don't think the science is settled. But I do think pheromone processing is the most plausible explanation I've heard for sexual orientation. I wonder if the reason there aren't more studies, despite the very intriguing brain scan results, is because they'd likely support an un-PC conclusion.
Bailey and Diamond promote dubious theories supported by weak evidence that happen to support their longstanding beliefs. So I don't take their neglect of pheromone studies to be a sign they're not worth discussing.
Well, hopefully the "helpful" side of the double-edged sword that is technology effectively democratizes the pursuit of good science in this area, just like inexpensive electronics and digital audio workstations (DAWs) made it possible for independent artists to escape the establishment's choke-hold on the music business. Someday someone somewhere without the same preconceived notions you've detected in these sexologists might be in a position to explore that Pheromones theory. Meanwhile, I guess we've all gotta figure out how to be resilient so we can let the evidence lead . . . I'd say the female sex has lots of reasons to know that Mother Nature can be a real unfair bitch sometimes, but she's the only mother we human beings have got, so . . . Anyway, glad you're out there. I hope more people listen to your analysis.
Sorry . . . one more thing. I recently gotten taken down a peg or two while reading a bit more about science history. This more accurate depiction of a contemporary of Galileo, the philosopher Cremonini, helped me realize I've been using a myth, ( the whole "dogmatic idiot Cremonini refused to even look through Galileo's telescope" story) as a rhetorical device to essentially shame my opponents in a debate, assuming that they're merely allowing their emotions to impede the curiosity they should have in response to evidence I present which undermines their position. Actually, Cremonini was modeling the ideal of a healthy skepticism of Galileo's theory based on material evidence as well, i.e. the imperfections of the technology used for observation. He doesn't deserve that accusation that he was motivated only by prejudice and clinging to superstition. It's a subtlety that anyone contemplating the limits of scientific consensus would do well to remember. I certainly will try to . . . but, emotional and flawed creature that I am, I know I'll at least occasionally forget. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/refusing-to-look/
I remember the "female sexual fluidity" craze around 2005-2010s or so. It bothered me that ppl were insinuating female sexuality is fluid, but male sexuality isn't. Seemed like a trojan horse for eroding women's sexual boundaries and letting creepy men try to "turn" lesbians.
Another point: it's a bit disconcerting that GC lesbian circles platform political lesbians so much, e.g., the lesbian caucus at WDI USA.
Interesting, what do you mean about the WDI lesbian caucus? Some of their writings rubbed me the wrong way but I haven't looked into it closely, didn't realize they platformed political lesbians.
They betray Lesbians and slandered me in their video with Lauren Levey and Sheila Jeffries without permitting me being able to reply to their lies. Jeffries can't even keep her lies straight and makes up different versions while plagiarizing our book.
Levey, in a phone conversation some years ago, after I sent her the link to my blog, actually said "You say you're working class but you sound intelligent."
WDI is heavily under the influence of Sheila Jeffreys. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrov9It3w-Y
Jeffreys also doesn't like "butches," either (by invoking a strawman version of butch that conveniently excludes her, but includes sadomasochists): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkSmIZKY7ls&t=2391s
Thanks. I just clicked ahead at random and she was calling all penetration male-supremacist. Eesh.
Jeffries with Levey trashed me and our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, while censoring my attempts at replying. Linda Strega, Ruston, and I met Jeffries in the late Eighties in Oakland and spent hours supporting her, but then she pushed to talk about "Butch and Fem." We thought, uh oh, here it goes, and as soon as she found out we thought beyond role playing and were choices made in girlhood, she literally ran away. Refused to look us in the eye or continue talking. It was so reminiscent of how I was treated when I told a girl in high school I thought I was a Lesbian. She hates us, but I wish she wouldn't lie about us.
That’s the microplastics fam
I am in my early 60s, and I had no idea there was any question at all about the cause of sexual orientation. The butch lesbians who looked like boys and rode mini bikes and drew male super heroes were like that in sixth grade. The effeminate gay guys who hung out with the girls were like that in junior high. Everyone we intuitively knew was homosexual in the early years of school did, indeed, turn out to be attracted to the same sex. I thought it was common knowledge they were born that way. The one beautiful bisexual woman I know, who is at least a generation younger than I, chose men because she wanted to be a wife and mother.
Unyielding Bicycle, I laughed all the way through this. Your captions were especially hilarious. I have always longed to have butch biceps, and I think it is funny that AI is not into women with short hair.
“because keeping gay kids in the dark about sexual orientation makes them vulnerable to thinking they’re trans.” i would argue that the reification of trans as something reality-based, and an entrenched hostility to gender-nonconformity, makes gay people vulnerable to thinking their trans. i am a gay who once thought she was trans 👋🏻 and what brought me back to reality was 1) i found some people who told me they did not accept that anyone could be “born in the wrong body”. and 2) promising myself that, even if i was not trans, i did not ever again have to wear anything i did not want to wear. my sexual orientation has felt like an immutable part of who i am (my “gender identity” felt like something i did to be like other people) and i’m not sure i need any scientific studies (and there are many junk scientific studies claiming to point to a biological basis for trans identification) to tell me that.
What really bothers me about dudes in dresses pursuing actual lesbians is that they use the SAME goddamn line, with a twist, that they use on straight women: Instead of, "You don't want to have sex with me? You must be a LESBIAN! If you're not, then PROVE IT!", lesbians get, "You don't want to have sex with me and my big hairy ladydick? You must not be a REAL lesbian! If you are, then PROVE IT!"
Today's young women are naive enough, and possibly inexperienced in *hetero* male sexual predation, to be guilt-tripped into it (sometimes, anyway).
The first step is no longer allow men to get away with that "I'm a lesbian" crap anymore. Men are not lesbians. EVER.
Thanks for explaining. I always was taught and assumed that gay people were just "born that way" and that it was rare. Lately, I hear gay people saying that they "choose" to be gay and that completely baffles me. Why would anyone "choose" a life that at times can be difficult to navigate?...It's better/easier now than 20-40 yrs ago! But then again, I'm 60 and life right now seems very strange/turbulent to me in general.
You might be interested in reading what Oliver Sacks wrote about hypersensitivity and a case of heightened sense of smell and (I think) sex drives. There's a quote in this essay from a chapter entitled "the Dog Beneath the Skin" from his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat you might want to chase down: See https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/05/oliver-sacks-helps-me-explain-hypersensitivity/ and also outline of the chapter here: https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-man-who-mistook-his-wife-for-a-hat/part-3-chapter-18-the-dog-beneath-the-skin
Megyn Kelly on mute 😂😂😂
Very helpful analysis. Something rather sinister happened when I clicked on the link to studies from the 2000s on lesbians. The article at the top of the page was, as you had implied, about how lesbians react differently to pheromones than do straight women. It was lighter fare than I was hoping for so I scrolled down to see if more details were provided in a references section. Lo and behold, I am presented with lots of info on GAC (the URL updates to https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/gender-affirmation-surgeries). It's almost as if the content was being served up to UNDERMINE the pheromone article. Please check it out and see if you have the same experience. Like I said, SINISTER.
Wow, I did see that. My guess is the site's algorithm connects the two subjects because lots of people who research lesbianism also research GAC. Or maybe someone coded it -- show GAC content alongside gay content. Ugh.
Also, I am very curious to know whether there was a period when schools taught that sexual orientation has biological roots, i.e., after homosexuality was more accepted and before the present day obfuscation about sexual orientation that serves to shield gender identity theory from scrutiny. This issue is personal for me as my teenage daughter is fully convinced she's a boy, while we think she's a butch lesbian.
I'm curious about that too. I think I learned it was innate but in a very vague and cursory way (I'm 39). Sorry to hear about your daughter. I think role models are key but it has always been hard to find good role models in the lesbian world, for one reason or another.
Have you heard of a show called Gentleman Jack? It's about a woman named Anne Lister who lived in the early 1800's in England and was a butch lesbian and a force to be reckoned with, and who is affectionately called "The First Modern Lesbian". Suranne Jones plays Anne to perfection and this show has helped many lesbians not only accept, but embrace who they are. You can find it on HBO or BBC.
A wonderful show!
Thank you again for walking your readings down the logical path. I admit I found Lisa Diamond’s presentation compelling when people around me were insisting their kids were inherently trans due to hormone wash and also due to born that way “facts”. Diamond asserts that there are more genders now due to more genders being shown in media. That seemed more real than the other theories.
As an adolescent boy without any understanding of my autistic traits, I considered the possibility of me being gay. Liked the idea a bit, surely liked the subculture. But after at last having gotten close to one or two young ladies I decided they smelled better to me than any of my beloved male friends. Much later I once banged a guy in a pretty dress nevertheless for practical reasons.
As much as I like you other writing, you do not have a clue about Lesbians. You don't even seem to notice that "vaginas" are the parts men focus on, as opposed to vulvas. That's a giveaway as to where minds are (or aren't.) You also refer to vaginas "lubricating" to ape porn? WTF? There is no excuse to be this dense.
I keep saying that human females and males are more different that are females of different species.
Of course men will feel "born this way," but it's gay men demanding we agree to ask for equal rights (on our knees) that shows the bias. For Lesbians who did not first choose men and for many others, we choose other women out of love and then passion is part of that, and our choice is one of pride, not wishing we could be het.
I'm a Lifelong Lesbian and believe all females are "born this way" in terms of loving our own kind, but the punishments (including terror at being called a Lesbian) for following our hearts, is massive, as are the rewards for obeying the men and patriarchy (which is why many of us believe heterosexuality for women is a form of prostitution.)
I would discuss this more, but admit I skimmed because what you wrote was so offensive and off. And considering how Lesbian-hating Julie Bindel was to me and Linda Strega and Ruston about our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes (that we published in 1990, but is now updated at my first blog), I object to her being considered expert about anything Lesbian and really don't want to read anything she has to say. (Her criticism of our book consisted of ridiculing cartoons because she really couldn't disagree with respect. She seems like yet hanother woman who came out later who has made a career out of being a "Lesbian.")
https://keepingreallesbianfeminismsimple.wordpress.com/2018/10/05/lesbians-born-this-way-or-a-making-a-choice-of-pride/
every time i think that an "actress" is hot in a way that scares me and triggers my "what if im straight" OCD is actually a TIM when i look him up. every single time. it confuses me so much.
So, I just listened to a short clip of a recent interview of Milo Yiannopoulos by Tucker Carlson (Neither gentlemen have a great reputation as honest brokers, so whatever is said during this looong conversatio definitely makes us all vulnerable to the temptation to committing that perennial "shoot the messenger" fallacy.), entitled "The Real Reason You're Gay." (see https://www.youtube.com/shorts/83Jlw5hm_vM ) [BTW, anyone else remember Yiannopoulos's interview with Jordan Peterson some years ago? I suspect that might have been the genesis of this change of mind . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZIVuelAgcM ]
As I watch from afar as the issue of "conversion therapy" versus "free speech" slowly slog through the judicial system -- against a backdrop of the psychology profession further discrediting itself with it's near-total obeisance to the idea that good therapy requires the therapist to "affirm" the very wild idea that a client dreams up about his or her identity being completely detached from the sex of his or her body (This re-warmed dualism known as the "born in the wrong body" belief.) -- I suspect those in the new LGB rights movement are in danger of abandoning their former brave adherence to demanding evidence-based medicine and the principles in science of seeking truth, without censoring data or unpleasant theories, and to demanding uncompromising reporting, digging out the facts, and letting the chips fall where they may.
Personally, I think those of us preaching resilience in the face of an often painful world to those we believe are engaging in a maladaptive response to the trauma of adolescence (and/or to any other number of seriously unpleasant human experiences: rape, parental abuse, alienation and porn addiction, etc., etc.) probably need to take our own advice, when it comes to letting people whose worldview we do not share explore the mysteries of same-sex attraction.
continued
But, by the same token, those who seem to think top-down "for your own good" regulation of all aspects of the personal lives of individuals can be sufficiently informed by "The Science" so that it does more good than harm, probably need to "get real" and accept that no human life comes without major errors and reasons for regret and decisions for which there are only "bad" and "less bad" options. And for a great many people, even if only sleeping with partners of the same biological sex is a "trauma response" to some experience, it might still be (in the end) the "less bad" option for them, leading to a damn good life to allow an individual to be happy and mentally stable enough to make very valuable contributions to his or her community and to the human race in general. And I think some of the Eastern philosophies that pegged "purity" as something poison -- certainly not a desirable quality -- were on to something. Yeah, Christianity has the right idea about forgiveness . . . but that admonition to "go forth and sin no more," when the consequences of that is to live a very lonely life with no more access to one of the best God-given pleasures a human being can experience . . . well, that sounds like a mistake --I don't think a life with that level of "purity" poison applied could possibly be a net-good for anyone or for those sharing the world with him.
Anyway, if anyone's still paying attention to these comments, hopefully I'll get a little feedback on this train of thought . . . Where are the holes in it? Or am I on to something . . . ?
How would you explain someone (male) who fell in love with girls from 2nd grade on, lost their virginity to one when 20, but was only interested in men from 21 onward? How did their nose change?
I realize this is an old post, but just read it today. Interesting. I've always heard about pheromones and being attracted to someone by it, but I think it's only one piece of the puzzle so to say as there are a lot of factors involved in choosing a partner.
"Born this way" was advanced when Dean Hamer discovered the gay gene. He talked about his study on a NPR podcast. He mentioned that he got $ for studying something, decided that since he's gay and has gay friends, thus he has subjects, he would research that. So he found something. It got picked up by reporters because of what was happening in the era w/ gays. He talks to reporters because he doesn't think what is happening is right, but is careful to say he can't say definitely there is a gay gene. But that doesn't matter and reporters are quick to report a gay gene was found. I think the original that I listened to has been taken down, but here is another on the same topic w/ more history about "born this way". https://radiolab.org/podcast/born-way/transcript
This publication on Sexuality and Gender https://www.thenewatlantis.com/collections/sexuality-and-gender, discusses many of the studies. Although, it doesn't mention pheromones.
Here is a summary of debunking brain organization theory which seems related to the topic at hand. https://womensstudies.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Homunculus%20in%20the%20Hormones_reduced%20file%20size.pdf. She was cited in a book, "Sex, Science, Self" by Bob Ostertag which is a history of the discovery of T (androgens and estrogens) and its uses.
I sympathize with your view that denial of biological factors being the lion's share of same-sex attraction presents a danger to gay people simply because it excites the ambitions of social engineering mad scientist types to "mould" the personal preferences of individuals. But might the reason certain scientists like Bailey and Diamond fail to acknowledge pheromones as a possibility for same-sex attraction because the evidence for pheromone detection in humans is weak? I have read that many pheromone studies suffer from small sample sizes, lack of replication, or reliance on subjective reports. A 2020 review criticized the field for overstated claims and poor controls (Wyatt, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B). Just a quick query using and AI Chatbot pulled up this review; so I don't know anything about it. Just wondering how confident you are in the quality of the science behind pheromones.
As I say in the post, I don't think the science is settled. But I do think pheromone processing is the most plausible explanation I've heard for sexual orientation. I wonder if the reason there aren't more studies, despite the very intriguing brain scan results, is because they'd likely support an un-PC conclusion.
Bailey and Diamond promote dubious theories supported by weak evidence that happen to support their longstanding beliefs. So I don't take their neglect of pheromone studies to be a sign they're not worth discussing.
Well, hopefully the "helpful" side of the double-edged sword that is technology effectively democratizes the pursuit of good science in this area, just like inexpensive electronics and digital audio workstations (DAWs) made it possible for independent artists to escape the establishment's choke-hold on the music business. Someday someone somewhere without the same preconceived notions you've detected in these sexologists might be in a position to explore that Pheromones theory. Meanwhile, I guess we've all gotta figure out how to be resilient so we can let the evidence lead . . . I'd say the female sex has lots of reasons to know that Mother Nature can be a real unfair bitch sometimes, but she's the only mother we human beings have got, so . . . Anyway, glad you're out there. I hope more people listen to your analysis.
Sorry . . . one more thing. I recently gotten taken down a peg or two while reading a bit more about science history. This more accurate depiction of a contemporary of Galileo, the philosopher Cremonini, helped me realize I've been using a myth, ( the whole "dogmatic idiot Cremonini refused to even look through Galileo's telescope" story) as a rhetorical device to essentially shame my opponents in a debate, assuming that they're merely allowing their emotions to impede the curiosity they should have in response to evidence I present which undermines their position. Actually, Cremonini was modeling the ideal of a healthy skepticism of Galileo's theory based on material evidence as well, i.e. the imperfections of the technology used for observation. He doesn't deserve that accusation that he was motivated only by prejudice and clinging to superstition. It's a subtlety that anyone contemplating the limits of scientific consensus would do well to remember. I certainly will try to . . . but, emotional and flawed creature that I am, I know I'll at least occasionally forget. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/refusing-to-look/