In case you missed the 60 Minutes Lesley Stahl piece on sexual orientation the other night, The Malcontent has a clip of it.
TABLOID: Focus turns to gay son in strangling and stabbing deaths of British couple on Crete: "Expats in the small village of Almirida, near the port town Chania in the west of the Greek island yesterday revealed Ryan was known to be gay — and claimed his sexuality had driven a wedge between him and his dad. One Brit said: 'Everyone here either guessed or knew Ryan was gay. I never saw him with a boyfriend, but there was no doubt which way he leant because he is a very effeminate lad. His dad was known not to like that fact at all and it seemed to have caused a split in the family. There was a lot of tension between them and a lot of unresolved issues.' According to the paper, Ryan Johnson will be formally charged with their murder.
John Travolta in talks to star as JR Ewing in Dallas remake. Also in talks are J Lo for Sue Ellen, Luke Wilson for Bobby and Shirley MacLaine for Miss Ellie.
Anti-gay Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is reportedly drafting a "very narrow bill" that would exempt Catholic Charities from the state's non-discrimination law so they won't have to place adoptions with gay couples.
Leaked screenshots from Google's forthcoming Ajax calendar app.
John Travolta would make a good J.R. Not sure about Edna in Hairspray, though.
Posted by: Tom | Mar 14, 2006 1:22:55 PM
Leslie Stahl was just so stupid in that interview. When the scientist told her he gave a rat a shot or hormones and the rat started to have no discrimination of who it wanted to have sex with, she responded "Oh, you made it gay!" I cringed. She makes me cringe.
Posted by: Patrick | Mar 14, 2006 1:33:18 PM
As far as Mitt Romney and is new bill regarding Gay Adoption, it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing. He's only doing it just to have one more notch in his belt to prevent gay rights for when he attempts to run for President.
The Catholic church organization that does adoption here in Massachusetts has stopped all adoptions now through their organization because they can't discriminate against gay couples seeking to adopt. Only a small percentage of gay people have adopted children through their organiztion the past several years. It's nice to see how much they care about orphans.
Posted by: Patrick | Mar 14, 2006 1:38:08 PM
The point of the rat experiment was to show that hormone exposure in early brain developement (in utero for humans or shortly after birth for rats) can cause one to become either straight or gay.
Unfortunately, interview focused on "feminized" boys who like "girly" ponies and nail polish but said nothing about gay boys who like cars, trucks, and other "boyish" things.
Posted by: noahj | Mar 14, 2006 1:42:33 PM
Great! I get to blame not only my mother for being gay, but my older brother too! I should have been born first, damnit. He's way taller than me too, the jerk. (At least I'm smarter, mwahaha.)
The Stahl peice was actually very interesting though. One of these decades, scientists will actually figure out exactly what makes people gay LOL.
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 14, 2006 2:15:28 PM
I'm the oldest son, I'm right handed, and no one else in my family is gay...go explain that Ms. Stahl and company.
Posted by: wayne | Mar 14, 2006 2:17:54 PM
I saw that 60 Minutes piece and while it was interesting, it made me uncomfortable. Despite the "science" and the various points of view, it felt like the sum was that homosexuality was still some sort of aberration that could be fixed by genetic tampering, hormone therapy or blaming your mother.
I'm just not clear on the point of it all.
Posted by: HoyaBoy | Mar 14, 2006 2:23:43 PM
Defensive little rats here. That was a sensational piece, and if you weren't interested, you must lead a very interesting life (apparently unexamined). I do agree that the slant towards femininity would seem to confirm stereotypes, but I also believe in science you look for the obvious, and those stereotypes are the easiest road to understanding. But this was a fair report, there were no judgments, and frankly I thought it extremely enlightening (the religious right could not use one second of this report). And it seemed to confirm my own personal theories on homosexuality, which is WE ARE DIFFERENT. And I would place bets on hormonal factors that seem to run the gamut..and yes, while you might have been a gun-toting war loving little child, somewhere in you, swirling like chiffon, you had/have a feminine side. And you were different from other boys.
The fact that this seems apparent so early is not news. I suspect most of us knew at a very young age, before we even had a consciousness of sexuality. In my case, I was very, very tight with male friends; looking back I can see that it was a physical attraction as well as the fact that they were simply boys like me.
I think its hard to find fault this report, and while it is clearly and ongoing scientific process, it is absolutely imperative. If you don’t wake once in a while and ask the skies, “why am I here?” well, happy hour to you!
Posted by: guy | Mar 14, 2006 2:39:19 PM
fucking incredible, it even LOOKS like a calendar!
Posted by: Brad | Mar 14, 2006 2:40:01 PM
John Travolta - JR Ewing
J Lo - Sue Ellen
Luke Wilson - Bobby
Shirley MacLaine - Miss Ellie
Why not just call it Bewitched II?
Posted by: rod | Mar 14, 2006 3:11:40 PM
J Lo as Sue Ellen? Suddenly Sue Ellen is Latino? There couldn't be a worse choice.
Posted by: John~in~LA | Mar 14, 2006 3:17:54 PM
With J Lo playing her, I believe the character's name will be altered to Suze E.
The gay thing: to this day I'm disbelieving of men who claim they didn't know they were gay until 18, 24, 34, or 44. If any of them speak truly, then 'gay' isn't what they are; bisexually repressed, maybe.
Gay, you know. EARLY.
Posted by: Jacko | Mar 14, 2006 3:53:26 PM
John~in~LA,
There is a worse choice than JLo, it could be Courtney Love! I think they should go progressive and have Jake Gyllenhall play Sue Ellen...with a name like Sue Ellen, you know she's got some sugar in her anyway.
Posted by: wayne | Mar 14, 2006 3:53:59 PM
Guy, I agree with you completely, it was a good piece. As to the poster who was upset about Leslie Stahl "suddenly saying, Oh you made them Gay" and that being offensive to him; her reaction was that of genuine surprise, not girlish ignorance or demeaning attitude. She did our community a HUGE favor by doing that piece. I for one am glad to know that there are open minded people like Stahl who are willing to go out on a limb and risk the wrath of the wingnuts in order to report the truth. Our community has always had an innate fear of pursuing this subject because we have always argued that civil rights should be based not on biology but on equality under the law for any and all people regardless of their sexual orientation. That argument has not changed nor should it. Knowledge, however, has always been the cornerstone that break downs the barriers of culturally based ignorance and prejudice. Having scientific evidence of our biological normality (not that I ever had any doubt that we were biologically normal) is a powerful weapon to use in the battle to advance our equality.
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Mar 14, 2006 4:06:00 PM
How on earth can you not like Lesley Stahl? When she said, "Oh, you made him gay!" her face lit up so happily and so joyfully that I wanted to reach through the screen and give her a hug.
Posted by: cafegogo | Mar 14, 2006 4:56:43 PM
When she said, "Oh, you made him gay!" her face lit up so happily and so joyfully that I wanted to reach through the screen and give her a hug.
Haha, I love it! I actually saw the whole thing in the more cynical way--she annoyed me from the get go--so it's nice to have that alternative interpretation. The segment definitely reads well in the transcript. The ending especially is powerful.
Posted by: Sportin' Life | Mar 14, 2006 6:35:46 PM
Robert in WeHo - I want to associate myself with your remarks.
Patrick - I accept what you said about the Romney reason. GLAD is about to face the adjudications for the 1913 law, as well as the legality of the certified petition. How do you think it will turn out?
Posted by: Raymond | Mar 14, 2006 8:22:24 PM
Patrick-
You're absolutely correct Mitt's legislation would be stopped by Travaglini and DiMasi, but his pandering to the far right is so disgusting...and now he "shifts tone on gay adoptions" (Boston Globe) says "same-sex couples have a legitimate interest".
The best rebuttal is from the Boston Globe's editorial page (Romney's Retreat) and I do quote "But why, on a matter of public policy, should a religion's practices trump the state's? What if a well-meaning group wanted to discriminate against blacks, or against a religious group such as the Catholic church? Would Romney file a bill to protect that bias?"
It is very scary to watch the tactics at the state level by the Republican party, the most notable being in South Dakota and the abortion issue...2 more years of this and who knows what else their strategists are going to try and pull off, before the voters return the highest office to a Democrat...(hopefully?)
Posted by: Robert | Mar 14, 2006 8:50:19 PM
I turned to my friend that I watched the 60 Minutes thing with and said "I bet that the kid with the pink ponies ends up having gender reassignment surgery". I'd love to see a follow up on him in 15-20 years.
As my friend said, it was really nice that they didn't have some asshole like Dobson or Perkins on to present the god-botherers view.
Posted by: Henry Holland | Mar 14, 2006 11:43:45 PM
The Romney and "60 Minutes" items are frighteningly connected, though one comes with a bare fist and the other in a velvet glove.
1. The ultimate literal success or failure of Romney's campaign is less relevant than the fact that he has torn a page from Karl Rove's playbook and is going to try to replace them in the White House on OUR backs. What other issues does he have? He's probably brighter than Bush [who isn't?], but has a similar lack of relevant resume for the job. A governor as Bush was, but little more national or foreign policy experience [though it's hard to imagine that he has visited as few other countries as Bush had]. Maybe he'll show us his collection of Olympics buttons.
Anyway, the point is, just like the Repugnants in Congress who know they can't get the marriage amendment passed--they keep reintroducing it because it keeps the national homophobic fires burning, and their images as defenders of the family and "normalcy" polished. Romney is evil, and I want him to die [Little Mary Sunshines gasp and hiss now.]
2. "60 Minutes": Agree Stahl MEANT well. She does some of the most caring reports on the show and I don't think she has a [knowingly] homophobic bone in her body [though I wish she'd stop letting Cojo cut her hair]. But she, like so many laypeople, are too gullible when it comes to talking with scientists whose personalities are more persuasive than their research, and some of us are too gullible when we only hear SOME good things being said about us, while not thinking about the downside implications, or doing our research [as "60 Minutes" producers SHOULD have done] on where some such "experts" are coming from. It was definitely a situation of "two steps forward, one step back," but more insidious than innocent [though, again, not through any intent of Stahl]. Read on to learn what its chief "expert" is really about.
First, regardless of what we think of the sociopolitical ramifications of the studies' alleged results, I think, at least as presented, [and, of course, it wasn't "Nova"]--it's plain poor "science." Because it, like all "documentation" of gays, be it voter exit polling, consumer spending habits, or # of Judy Garland Fans, depends entirely on SELF-identification. And, therefore, the "validity" of the "results" are, empirically speaking, limited to that group of gays who are willing to be identified as gay. Infamous psychologist Bieber et al. insisted all gays are mentally disturbed because all of their PATIENTS were mentally disturbed.
The "Let's Play 'Spot the Homo'" demonstration [a favorite Bailey hat trick--again, see below] was absurd [and Stahl's unintended low point]. Talk about playing poker with marked cards! She should bring her own deck next time, not play with theirs. Could we please see some childhood film of gay former pro football player Dave Kopay? He was probably chewing the heads off of dolls when he was a kid. And, based on Bailey's criteria, BOTH identical twins were SOOO gay. Following his reputation for dishonesty and being disingenuous [see below], he failed to mention his appearance on "20-20's" 2004 "Gaydar" segment, in which he acknowledged that, at most, gays can only be identified 70% of the time. And that was his OWN claim. You wouldn't have known that by what he said Sunday night. Even if he were right, until society learns that there is NOTHING wrong with being effiminate males/masculine females, shows like this are not value neutral. It was so "50s" in its approach to gender roles [or CONFORMITY], I'm surprised it wasn't shot in Black & White. All it lacked was June Cleaver vacuuming the set in heels and pearls. [Anyone remember the T-shirt sold in gay shops, "Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver"?] Again, two steps forward, one step back.
And WHERE was the distinguishing between homosexuals and transgenders? The sweet little twin [with the loving mother][I longed for him to say, "GI Joe is a doll, TOO, girlfriend!'] who thinks he's really a girl who somehow didn't turn out right [where's the positive/neutral message in THAT?] was treated entirely as if the only thing he could be is gay. That is because the producers obviously let Bailey shape their perceptions. He doesn't even BELIEVE there are transexuals, as well as wanting others to believe that all gay males are somehow effeminate. Here's the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Center's report on him and his cohorts ["...(have) pushed the idea that there's a genetic basis for homosexuality, making it a 'disease' that could eventually be eradicated"]. Unlike his act as a Pied Piper leading us back to Tara, such parts of it will make your teeth fall out. And, coming full circle, your head will explode when you read what Bailey's mentor said about another would-be President, Al Gore. What would they think of Romney?
Queer Science
An 'elite' cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race
By Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser
On a book tour last spring and summer, Northwestern University psychology professor J. Michael Bailey gave his audiences a sampling of recent scientific thinking about sexual and gender identity.
After playing audio recordings of four men's voices, Bailey asked: Which is gay? The crowds inevitably picked out the voice with exact articulation and lispy "S" sounds. Precisely! Bailey cheered.
His point: Determining somebody's sexual orientation is just that easy, just that obvious.
Needless to say, Bailey's brand of "queer science" has not met with cheers from GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender) activists ý nor from many fellow scholars, who see his studies as attempts to lend scientific credence to age-old stereotypes.
But Bailey does have company. Many of those who praised his recent book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism, belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI).
This exclusive group of academics, race scientists and right-wing journalists, along with a reported handful of liberals, exchanges thoughts about "differences in race, sex and sexual orientation" for a chilling purpose: promoting and studying "artificial [genetic] selection."
The Man Who Would Be Queen is only the latest in a series of controversial studies and articles by HBI members, many of whom are bent on overturning the most widely held psychological and scientific views of gender, sexual identity and race.
But Bailey's book has brought negative publicity to this "anti-PC" movement, both because of Bailey's controversial conclusions and because most of the transgendered women profiled in his book say they never knew they were going to be written about.
In November, Northwestern launched a full-scale investigation of Bailey, who chairs the prestigious university's psychology department, to probe his handling of transgendered women he was supposed to be counseling, but was allegedly using as unwitting research subjects.
Anjelica Kieltyka, a Chicago artist whose personal history is a prominent part of The Man Who Would Be Queen, filed the first complaint with the university last spring. Like other subjects in the book, she says she was never informed that Bailey was going to write about her.
In fact, she sent several others of the book's subjects to Bailey, friends who needed his help in obtaining mandatory approval for sex-reassignment surgery.
Kieltyka likens Bailey's "science" to the infamous syphilis experiments performed on unwitting black men at the Tuskegee Institute. "At the beginning of the last century, blacks were expendable human beings to be experimented on without their knowledge," she says.
"For Bailey and his allies, we transsexuals are just their guinea pigs."
Equally disturbing, to Kieltyka and others, are the conclusions Bailey reached. Based on his allegedly unauthorized interviews and on discussions with a few other people he met in bars, Bailey determined that transsexuals (the term for transgendered people who surgically change their gender) are "especially motivated" to shoplift, "especially well-suited to prostitution," and "not very successful at finding men willing to commit to them."
The transgender community is especially galled by Bailey's diagnosis of their "condition." The American Psychiatric Association and the vast majority of scholars agree on "gender identity disorder," a medical term for people convinced they were born the wrong gender.
Bailey signs on with his reported fellow HBI member, sex researcher Ray Blanchard, who contends that transgendered people are actually either homosexual or autogynephilic, a term for men aroused by the idea of themselves as women. Bailey says autogynephilics suffer from paraphilia, a set of "unusual sexual preferences" that includes necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality.
The upshot, says University of Michigan professor emeritus Lynn Conway, is clear: "Bailey has stereotyped us and portrayed us as alien creatures, just as racist scientists did to blacks in earlier eras."
Among some of Bailey's reported HBI cohorts, that racist science of old is still just as alive and well as their current sex research. The Institute's main activity appears to be an "invitation-only" online discussion list for "a small, elite and eclectic mix of experts."
According to a list posted on HBI's Web site until last summer, this "elite" includes:
Jean-Phillippe Rushton, a prominent researcher on black genetic inferiority who is president of a pro-eugenics hate group, the Pioneer Fund;
Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, which purported to show black and Latino intellectual inferiority;
Kevin MacDonald, a professor at California State University at Long Beach who has written several books about supposed Jewish strategies to subvert "Euro-American" culture; and
Gregory Cochrane, a physicist who has suggested the existence of a genetic "gay germ."
These ideas about race and sex have not been limited to the world of academia. The HBI also includes several right-wing journalists who help popularize their theories ý and promote their books.
The most prominent cheerleader for Bailey and the other HBI researchers is the man who started the HBI: Steve Sailer, a United Press International reporter and frequent contributor to the anti-immigration Web site, VDARE.com.
Like Bailey, Sailer refused to respond to questions, telling the Intelligence Report "tough noogies." Also like Bailey, he has pushed the idea that there's a genetic basis for homosexuality ý making it a "disease" that could eventually be eradicated.
"It's radically unfashionable to call homosexuality a disease," Sailer noted this August on VDARE.com (see Keeping America White). But that doesn't stop Sailer, who fashions himself a bold thinker willing to confront taboo subjects.
The personal Web site maintained by the man behind the Human Biodiversity Institute, www.isteve.com, provides a different window into Sailer's way of thinking.
The site is dominated by crude racial and gender stereotypes as Sailer mocks professional golfer Annika Sorenstam for her muscles, claims that Asian men have a hard time finding dates because they look "less masculine" than other men.
Salier also invokes the spirit of his friend Bailey when he claims to have found the real reason Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election. He chalks it all up to a lisp that makes the former vice president "sound prim, even homosexual."
Intelligence Report
Winter 2003
Posted by: Leland | Mar 15, 2006 12:28:17 AM
Regarding the 60 minutes piece again...the study is just a study, and we still can't discount genetics as a reason one is gay. The identical twins example of one being gay and one being straight certainly doesn't discount genetics at all, which is where hormone levels can come into play. One's height is determined by genetics, yet identical twins are often of different heights determined by their envirement in the womb and who has more room to grow,etc. A person can be born with a gay gene or a gene that makes the perpencity (spelling?) of one to be gay (or straight) for that matter, but other factors can influence the gender preference one way or the other as well as other genetic factors in identical twins that can differ. The influence of hormones on a fetus certainly doesn't remove the idea that there can still be a gay gene. How does hormones explain bi-sexuality?
What annoyed me about how Leslie Stahl reported the story was the fact she came off as if this was the answer everyone's been waiting for (and it was sensationalized). The way she reported this story came off as if there was a "Black & White" answer for why someone is gay ....discounting the idea that being gay can still be genetic. The experiment with the stereotypical gay men and straight men and how they talked and moved was just plane ignorant. There are numorous variations in all gay people, and although stereotypes can be true, it always only represents the most noticable differences of members of any particular group...and certainly not the majority. You can't only report on explanations of why gay men act feminine when there are just as many gay men who don't exhibit any feminine traits.
As far as a comment above by Robert in Weho who stated Ms. Stahl "did our community a big favor by reporting this story", I am not one to thank a reporter for doing what they are suppose to do....report. She hardly went out on any limb in reporting this story and this story isn't necessarily "the truth", as you stated, but just a possible explanation in a very complicated question that has yet to be answered. I never said I was upset with Ms. Stahl's story. I found the piece very interesting and have always believed that hormone levels came into play along with genetics, not instead of. Leslie Stahl always makes me cringe.....regardless of what story she is reporting.
Posted by: Patrick | Mar 15, 2006 2:57:16 AM
I watched the 60 Minutes piece and the thing that stuck out for me was how the tone of that report and others is "what makes a person gay?" not "what determines a person's sexuality?" That having been said, the 60 Minutes report seemed more slanted toward the later than other reports. I think it demonstrates a possible movement away from focusing on the "abnormal".
Posted by: JT | Mar 15, 2006 7:29:28 AM
Travolta as JR is not nearly as distubing as Shirley McLean as Miss Ellie!
Speaking of Travolta, he will reportedly dress in drag to take on the role of Edna Turnblad in John Waters film Hairspray — a part made famous by Divine. Edna was later played on Broadway by Harvey Fierstein.
That ought to set some Scientology followers on their umm, ears.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 15, 2006 10:09:16 PM
Bailey pulled a fast one on everybody …… AGAIN
First Con job : Did anyone stop to think that Jared - the GI JOE, gun carrying (non-identical) twin brother to Adam, the “fem”, just MIGHT turn out GAY as well?
…. That the macho brother to the purple/pink nailed and unicorn-loving ….. “pretty-in-pink” gender non-conformist ….. MIGHT grow up to be one heck of a GI Joe “Don’t ask/Don’t tell” gay fighting machine ?
The irony is …… We probably will still be stuck in Iraq and Jared will be one of the few, the proud ….. one of our “silent” gay brothers fighting and dying - yet afraid to tell the truth about themselves.
Prof. Bailey knows this about sex research and self-reporting and he knows how to manipulate research and research subjects (I ought to know - I was one of his “duped” uninformed research subjects on transexuality)
Bailey’s good at his Con Game; good at keeping other aspects of his research silent/hidden - He knows how to manipulate data; the media and the public as well.
Second Con Job : This “gay-friendly” researcher thinks that it is okay to abort a gay fetus if such a “gay” genetic marker is found (See Bailey, Greenberg - Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation)
Third Con Job :
Bailey supports, promotes ….. is directly linked to the bogus pseudoscience of Cochran/Ewald and their Evolutionary “Cock-and-Bull” theory of Infectious Causation of Homosexuality - published by Johns Hopkins University in 2000 as “The Infectious Causation of Disease - An Evolutionary Perspective”
Move over “Bell Curve” and Prof. Charles Murray …… Move over Prof. Butz and the Holocaust Denial Theory ….. Here comes “Gay Friendly” Bailey and his “carpet-bag” of dirty tricks and research on human sexuality.
Dr. Sex (aka. Bailey) = Dr. Strange Bedfellow with the neocons and their Gays, Guns and God agenda and he is being groomed to be their “EXPERT” Sexpert.
A nice CON JOB by a Neocon “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”.
But what do I know ….. I was just like Leslie Stahl and producer Shari Finkelstein ……
I fell for his “song and dance” - his Confidence Game - his CON GAME on the whole GLBT community.
http://davidvoegtle.net/blog/2006/03/19/60-minutes-on-homosexuality/#comment-96
I only wish the 60 Minutes segment was an expose’ and indictment of Bailey and his research ….. not a promotion.
I unfortunately promoted him, myself, for almost ten years ….. Maybe “60 Minutes” put him higher on a pedestal that exposes him better and makes him a better target for the truth to bring him down (Queen Kong ?).
Maybe Bailey will meet the same fate as the ego-inflated power-crazed character in Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King” ….. maybe there will be a major Fall from Grace for “The Man Who Would Be Queen”.
I apologize for the length of this response ..... I need to get this evidence out - to expose this "wolf in sheep's clothing" and traitor to the whole GLBT community.
I need to show you just how skillfully (and disingenuously) Mike Bailey "straddles" the Nature/Nurture controversy : like a crafty politician, he keeps one foot on both sides of the argument and like a con artist and card shark "holds his cards close to his chest" and keeps an "Ace up his sleave"..... (in this case ..... what Bailey has "up his sleave" is his solution for what he calls the "Evolutionary Paradox" - how and why Gays exist even though he and his evolutionary psychology cohorts believe homosexuals are an evolutionary mistake - His solution :
Gay Germs - NOT Gay Genes - that homosexuality is caused by an infection.
You and I and any number of others may see genetic and/or an “in utero” biological/genetic/hormonal mix as being on the Nature side of the Nature/nurture argument - (in other words : “Don’t try to change us with your behavior modification; aversion and drug therapy”.)
Not so with Bailey ….. and this is the important point :
He is NOT on the side of NATURE = Leave us alone, there is nothing wrong with us or our “nature”.
He is on the side of NATURE = biological and environment both - and Nature makes biological “mistakes” …..
“Gay” (for Bailey) is a mistake and he is promoting this pseudo-science and propaganda - the gay germ theory ……
and the RIGHT is buying it - just as they are buying into Murray’s Bell Curve …… WHY?
Because it suits their AGENDA - They are fixated on fixing “gays” and fixing the data (like the bogus germ theory of homosexual causation) to fit into their behavior modification schemes - genetic or otherwise/aversion-conversion therapy-wise.
Make no mistake about it ….. Bailey sees “in utero” as environment and subject to detrimental biological influences/pathogens/mutations ….. in other words - germs. He is interested in behavior modification on a genetic level - changing or eliminating undesirable behavior or undesirables (such as a fetus with a “gay” genetic marker.
He is interested in the genetic pathways of behavior - including sexual arousal …… interested in fMRI scans of homosexual male arousal …..
Again - WHY?
With fMRI imaging techniques and the mapping of complete gene sequences for fruit flies, rats, and now human beings - (like gay research subjects), it will be possible for Bailey and others to turn individual gene sequences on and off and directly observe their effects on behavior.”
So he and others can block the pathways, change or eliminate the behavior ….. and if genetic markers for “gayness” are found ….. great ….. eliminate the problem altogether with selective abortion.
Short of a “cure” for homosexuality - my one time friend and colleague Mike Bailey (and his fellow “researchers” at Northwestern) wants to do genetic modification/manipulation of behavior, specifically, homosexual behavior.
For those who want to see the evidence of Bailey’s duplicity and disingenuous personality and research …… Here are the URL links to both Ewald/Cochran’s “Gay Germ” theory, Sailer’s VDARE “Gay Gene-Gay Germ” article as well as his UPI interview with Bailey.
I am talking about Bailey’s promotion and support of the pseudo-scientific “gay germ” theory
(Ewald/Cochran’s bogus “Infectious Causation of Homosexuality” theory)
http://www.isteve.com/Infectious_Causation_of_Disease.pdf ….
(see the Bailey acknowledgement on the first page and reference #125 at the end …….
[ 125. Bailey, J. M. Empirical tests of two evolutionary hypotheses of male homosexuality. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 5 June 1999.)
Bailey introduces and supports Cochran “Gay Germ” theory at the HBES 1999 Symposium)
http://www.hbes.com/HBES/abst99.htm
(PLEASE NOTE : You have to scroll almost to the very end of the conference reports to get to Bailey’s support of Cochran and Blanchard.
(PLEASE NOTE ALSO) : In the “Gay Germ” paper, Cochran/Ewald acknowledges Bailey on the first page :
” For helpful comments the authors thank W. D. Hamilton, J. M. Bailey, J. F. Crow, Alan P. Hudson, and R. Taylor.
This paper is dedicated to William D. Hamilton, 1936-2000. The richness of his insights
empowers those who wonder about the diversity of life.
PBM 43, 3 (2000): 406-448 © 2000 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43, 3 o Spring 2000 | 407
This Cochran/Ewald germ theory paper’s URL was found on Steve Sailer’s Home page : http://www.isteve.com/
Here’s Sailer’s essay “Gay Gene - Gay Germ” from his VDARE web-site (designated a HATE - SITE by SPLC with my intervention) :
Click here: VDARE.com: 08/17/03 - Gay Gene Or Gay Germ? - http://vdare.com/sailer/gay_gene.htm
(PLEASE NOTE THE “My friend Bailey” and “My friend Cochran” REFERENCES)
Here is Steve Sailer’s interview of Bailey about Cochran’s Gay Germ theory : http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020823-120858-6977r
…(This link to Bailey’s book was so important …. I included it as evidence I presented to the Northwestern University’s Investigation of Bailey’s research. )
Here is Bailey’s promotion and support of abortion of the “gay” fetus if and when a genetic marker for homosexuality is found.
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=301061 -
Abstract
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2001
Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation
Aaron S. Greenberg, JD,1 and J. Michael Bailey, PhD1;2
As we learn more about the causes of sexual orientation, the likelihood increases that parents will one day be able to select the orientation of their children. This possibility (at least that of selecting for heterosexuality) has generated a great deal of concern among supporters of homosexual rights, with such selection being widely condemned as harmful and morally repugnant. Notwithstanding this widespread condemnation, and even assuming, as we do, that homosexuality is entirely acceptable morally, allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.
KEY WORDS: homosexuality; sexual orientation; genetics; abortion; eugenics; genetic selection.
PLEASE NOTE : I have included the important URL links here and at the end of this e-mail - the important links in his “Queen” book as to how and where the germ theory fits into the “environmental scheme” …… inbetwix and between Nature and Nurture as hinted at in your interview with Bailey …… It’s there between the lines and the “cracks” in his two-faced presentation and persona.
Make no mistake about it …… Bailey is the “rising star” in the field of evolutionary psychology and is being “groomed” to be controversial yet charming, shy and “Gay Friendly”.
If I were to find one word to describe both Mike Bailey’s personality and research …. it would be :
disingenuous :
1. withholding information - withholding or not taking account of known information
2. not genuinely sincere - giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity
BTW : This Medill piece almost got it right : Medill News Service : Anjelica Kieltyka “Gets Even” : http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2003/11/northwestern_pr.html
“He defamed me,” Kieltyka said. “I want my name and my reputation back. I was being used as his poster child when all along he was pathologizing transsexual women. I’m going to fight him tooth and nail to get my name back …”
“… Kieltyka said she thinks Bailey did […] support a gay germ theory he has researched. The gay germ theory suggests, essentially, that homosexuality is a disease..."
[In that interview, I was trying to explain the key deceptions of Prof.Bailey :
1. How he deceived transexuals that he interviewed for their SRS - Sex Re-assignment Surgery letters by using private information from those interviews to pathologize us as case studies in his book (a violation of informed consent) …… and a second deception :
2. How he fooled (and still trying to fool) the GLBT community that he is “Gay Friendly” while secretly promoting both the germ theory and “gay fetus” abortion.]
“… But Bailey said the connection between his book and the gay germ theory is “absurd and bizarre.”
“The reader will search in vain for mention of ‘gay germs’ in the book, and thus it is strange to read my book as a promotion of that hypothesis,” Bailey said …”
I leave it up to you and your readers to decide the truth of Bailey’s words and research ….. or is his research integrity hanging on his “half-truths” and “Noble Lies”.
Its all hinted at or buried in his “Queen” book : finding the genetic marker for “gayness” which he says would help parents to “ethically” (???) eliminate an unwanted gay child - which he considers “evolutionary maladaptive”. (pages 114 - 116 : The Man Who Would Be Queen) …… implying that the “gay germ” theory solves the “Evolutionary Paradox”
I have tried to show you the how of Bailey’s betrayal of the GLBT community …… but I don’t know why he did it.
Why did Bailey betray us ?….Why was he a “Wolf in sheep’s clothing - pretending to be “trans and gay friendly” ? ….
What was his motivation for deceiving us and can we allow him to continue to fool all of us with his bogus research on transexuals as mentally ill and homosexuality caused by a “germ” ?
I apologize for my editorializing …. I am sounding like Michael Moore seeing Right-wing conspiracies everywhere …. (How crazy is that ?…. actually, NOT SO CRAZY ! ) ……
Please realize, I am just an artist and a “scatter-brain” and maybe a “Crazy Cassandra” not making any sense ….
but this is all serious and I am way over my head and out on a limb ….
BUT … this is all too important to be ignored/dismissed as just my paranoia.
Bailey and his cohorts are out to SCREW the GLBT community.
Theirs is a strategic use of WMDs : weapons of mass deception - fabricated bogus “Gay” germ theories as germ warfare and fabricated bogus “evolutionary” psychology as psychological warfare to exploit, pathologize and incarcerate transexuals and homosexuals as mentally ill sex addicts, perverts and psychotics… not much different then fascist and fanatical attempts to pathologize and imprison POLITICAL DISSIDENTS ….misfits and fringe elements of an intolerant society.
My suspicion and concern is that the Bailey Controversy represents just the tip of the iceberg - a re-emerging Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement …. part of a more sinister mass deception - an important part of the political and religious Right and self-righteous Culture War attack on gays and transexuals …..
It is all perceptual engineering and image management/manipulation …..
Bailey is a scientific “carpetbagger” and con artist, playing a “Confidence Game” on the GLBT community and its supporters.
He is more at home in the camp of the NeoCons like Francis Fukuyama and is a pseudo-scientific propagandist (like Charles Murray and his “Bell Curve”) for the Right-wing and their Gays, Guns and God agenda.
(Is all this genetic research part of Institutionalized Racism; Academic Fascism …… hidden behind the credibility of Evolutionary Psychology and Bio-genetics?)
(PLEASE NOTE : Fukuyama is on the Editorial Board of Evolutionary Psychology
http://human-nature.com/ep/editorial.html )
(Oh …. BTW ….. All of the above : Bailey, Fukuyama, Cochran, Murray (as well as Dr. Ray Blanchard - of the “older brother theory” of male homosexuality as mentioned on 60 Minutes) are members in good standing of Steve Sailer’s Human Biodiversity Institute - an internet “think tank” of the right - just like the AEI - American Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute (but without walls …. and maybe without scruples) ….
maybe beyond scruples ….
after all - many of them - like Fukuyama are “Noble Liars” re-searching for a ignoble prize if not a Nobel Prize for their genetic “cure” for homosexuality.)
Click here: Roster of Human Biodiversity Discussion Group Members - http://web.archive.org/web/20030215180909/http://members.aol.com/steveslr/roster.htm
or this link may help explain H Bio-D Institute and its significance :
www.tsroadmap.com/info/human-biodiversity.html
Here is what Francis Fukuyama - (also a member of Bush’s President’s Council On Bioethics) has to say about evolutionary psychology and genetic manipulation of behavior …. (the very “queer” science Bailey and Northwestern is doing) :
“… The biological revolution that has been under way in the second half of the twentieth century has multiple sources. The most startling advances have been made at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, where the discovery of the structure of DNA has led to the emergence of an entire industry devoted to genetic manipulation. In neurophysiology great advances have been made in understanding the chemical and physiological bases of psychological phenomena … on the level of macro behavior, a tremendous amount of new work has been done in animal ethology, behavioral genetics. primatology, and evolutionary psychology and anthropology, suggesting that certain behavioral patterns are much more general than previously believed … It would seem to be only a matter of time before the micro and macro levels of research are connected: with the mapping of complete gene sequences for fruit flies, nematodes, rats, and eventually human beings, it will be possible to turn individual gene sequences on and off and directly observe their effects on behavior.”
- Excerpt from The Great Disruption by Francis Fukuyama, copyright© 1999 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved. The Atlantic Monthly; May 1999; The Great Disruption; Volume 283, No. 5; pages 55-80
http://www.wesjones.com/fukuyama.htm
As I hinted ….. Fukuyama is an important architect of Neoconservatism. He is a NeoCon who believes in social engineering - (the subtitle of his "Great Disruption" is : HUMAN NATURE AND THE RECONSTITUTION OF SOCIAL ORDER.)
Fukuyama is quite aware of "the emergence of an entire industry devoted to genetic manipulation" - the potential to modify behavior by genetic manipulation - the very thing the Evangelicals, Northwestern and Prof. Bailey wants to do with both homosexual and transexual behavior (love the “sinner”; hate and modify the “sinful” behavior; prevent the birth of future “sinners”.
But what do I know …. I am just a dupe and victim of their Confidence Game ….. and a “Monkey in the Middle” of some strange Darwinian Monkey Business and “Queered” Science.
I’m just trying to show you the other face of Prof. Bailey and maybe even the score :
Medill News Service : Anjelica Kieltyka “Gets Even” : http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2003/11/northwestern_pr.html
Southern Poverty Law Center - SPLC Intelligence Report : Queer Science :
An ‘elite’ cadre of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race
By Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=96
Anyway ….. Thanks for listening …..
Sincerely,
Anjelica Kieltyka
P.S. Here are the “Infected” links to his “gay germ” environmental causation of homosexuality and genetic “final solution” - abortion ….. links from his book and web-site (it is there in the 60 Minute interview as well …… hidden in plain sight.
1. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309084180/pdf_image/114.pdf - page 114 from Bailey’s book : The Man Who Would Be Queen. This page and the following page refers to his gay abortion paper he published with Greenberg.
2. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309084180/pdf_image/115.pdf - page 115 from Bailey’s “Queen” book. This page also refers to Bailey solving the “Evolutionary Paradox” …. his gay germ solution to why homosexuals did not become extinct.
3. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309084180/pdf_image/110.pdf - page 110 from Bailey’s “Queen” book. :
“environment” means anything not encoded in DNA, and this includes biological factors as well as social factors : diet, germs, and random biological events might also affect development… Only environment can cause identical twins to differ, but the environment problem in this case is biological.”
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE : This page mirrors his web-page “Genetics of Sexual Orientation” abstract (the basis to his most recent research with Sanders, Dawood, Gershon, et al. : ” Because identical (monozygotic, or MZ) twins are often discordant for homosexuality, environment must matter. It is important to realize, though, that “environmental” is not equivalent to “social.” There can be biological causes of MZ twin differences.” [an infectious causation pehaps?]
I have no doubt that what he is referring to here and in his book is that “environmental” means germ/infection/pathogen. Because one twin is “gay” and the other is not … Bailey proposes the difference is environmental….the “gayness” is caused by a germ. (except he does not want any of us to know this is what he is searching for…he might not get any gay brothers to be research subjects ….INFORMED and CONSENTING research subjects. What do you think?
4. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309084180/pdf_image/111.pdf - page 111 of Bailey’s “Queen” book. This page refers to Blanchard’s “birth order” related to homosexuality theory…. the “older brother effect” which again, plays a major part of this MOST RECENT RESEARCH - recruiting gay brothers and searching for genes that influence male sexual orientation.
5. http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html#genetics : Bailey’s web-site at NWU
Genetics of Sexual Orientation
Much of my early work on sexual orientation focused on behavioral genetics. I did several twin and
family studies, which suggested that both male and female homosexuality run in families, and that
male and female sexual orientation are moderately (but far from completely) heritable. You can
download the most recent twin study. Here is an article about gay brothers.
Because identical (monozygotic, or MZ) twins are often discordant for homosexuality, environment
must matter. It is important to realize, though, that “environmental” is not equivalent to “social.”
There can be biological causes of MZ twin differences. We hope to begin a study of discordant MZ
twins (i.e., twin pairs with one homosexual and one heterosexual twin).
With collaborators Alan Sanders, Khytam Dawood, Elliot Gershon, and others, we have begun a
genetic linkage study to try to replicate Dean Hamer’s famous finding of linkage on chromosomal
site Xq28, and to search for other linkage sites. This study will take several years, but we expect a
definitive answer to the question whether there is linkage at Xq28.
(PLEASE NOTE : I spoke with Dr. Gershon - Chairman of Psychiatry at Univ. of Chicago and he confirmed Bailey’s involvement with this “gay gene” study but said he was completely unaware of Bailey’s “Gay Germ” research affiliation to Prof. Cochran and Ewald, nor any affiliation with Steve Sailer and his VDARE essay “Gay Gene - Gay Germ ?”. He wanted me to send him the same “Gay Germ” stuff I am sending you.)
What he is referring to here and in his book and in the 60 Minute interview is “environmental” means germ/infection/pathogen.
I have given you most of the important Bailey “Gay Germ” links ….. these are the important URL’s and they do all tie together and form a crazy quilt of collusion between Bailey-Sailer-Cochran and Blanchard and this “Gay Germ” Theory behind ALL this genetic research :
THIS IS THE FACE OF HATE SCIENCE … THIS IS WHAT INSTITUTIONALIZED BIGOTRY LOOKS LIKE :
….It is “hydra-headed”, multidimensional, serpentine and deceptive by nature and design ….
And it is growing and gaining more credibility.
Posted by: Anjelica Kieltyka | Apr 3, 2006 6:58:36 AM
Important URL : In case you could not link to the Human Biodiversity Institute website, try this :
Combine the archive HBI link from the Wayback Machine with the original address for HBI:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030215180909/
http://members.aol.com/steveslr/roster.htm
Posted by: Anjelica Kieltyka | Apr 3, 2006 7:32:07 AM