Has there been any thought/discussion to adding anyone from the lbt part of glbt to the staff here? Might help to alleviate the (perception of) heavy gay male bios that crops up occasionally, particularly in discussions that focus on l’s b’s or t’s.

For many trans individuals, although you can always find abundant indications of transsexualism in individuals going back into early childhood, it was not always declared as such outright. When you’re raised with fear of being yourself literally pounded into you with physical violence, it may take many years to get out from under the suffocating fear and denial, to acknowledge who you really are.

Beware of oversimplifications in predicting which kids turn out to be transsexual and which don’t. Very often, you just don’t know in childhood. Individuals with different personalities and different life experiences are not going to manifest it always the same way. Many of us lacked the self-assurance and assertiveness to be able to speak up for ourselves in childhood. I feel invisible after reading the debates here about who can be considered trans and who can’t.

My sarcasm was directed to this sentence from Priya Lynn: “I am impressed by the level of arrogance amongst some gay men who think they are in a better position to describe the nature of bisexuality than us bisexuals are ourselves.” I should have put it in quotes so as to be clearer.

I have no problem with your comments as you were clear that you were stating opinion and weren’t pretending that your opinion trumps all.

And you are right that there is anti-bi bias in both the gay and the straight communities. Bisexuals are sort of relegated to an “also” category, not a convenient component of gay rights efforts (cuz “they already can marry”) and not a focus of the phobes (because they don’t much believe you exist).

Those are relevant points and I certainly have been guilty of leaving bi folk on the edges in my commentaries as well. All true.

Erin’s statement cannot be refuted on the facts, because it is a claim that (empirical) measurement of the facts is biased. There is no way to design a current study to test her thesis (or Donny’s conjecture), as it would involve an entire remake of a society’s current mores.

Priya’s claim that ‘attractions abide’, and most (if not all) instability is with stimuli, also seems one of those claims that may be true, but are almost impossible to measure. “Identity stability” for a “fluid identity” has to be a tricky concept to grasp for an individual, let alone measure for a researcher.

It is possible that some ‘identity instability’ for bi-sexuals lies with the fluidity itself. To complete the identity, some part of the self must be recognized as apart from any partner. Put another way, when you are with a man, there must be some ‘part’ reserved for women; and visa-versa. These dichotomies exist in other areas, as well. Temporizing helps, but it is still a source of … “instability”. The point of observing so much would be to suggest that that is an alternative hypothesis that is hard to measure as well.

Last, to the point about going to the library to read these papers, I would rather like to meet the apparently hunky S. Mock, PhD:

http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~smock/

Oh arrogant me, apparently my hubris is so grand that I will actually quote from large research projects instead of taking the word of a bisexual. Fool that I am, I didn’t realize that bisexuals know everything there is to know about bisexuality (and, being bisexual, about homosexuality and heterosexuality as well) and its rate of identity and the CDC could save itself a ton of money by just asking one. Perhaps we should notify the Census department before they include questions about sexual orientation and just ask a bisexual for the info.

Timothy, if you have a problem with something that Priya Lynn, or I, or the both of us have written, you have a funky way fo expressing that. This paragraph sounds ambiguously like Priya Lynn, or I, or the both of us, might not be the only bisexual people you have a beef with. I would have been happier with you naming Priya, me, or the both of us if that was who your remarks were directed toward.

That’s not my logic you think you aha! found a flaw in. I’m just telling you what the research says. I dont have a dog in this one way or another But if you insist on misrepresenting what I’m writing ON THIS WEB PAGE where everyone can just scroll up and see it, then you destroy your credibility when you claim that only you can correctly divine the written word in accordance with your opinions. Engaging you is futile, as it is impossible to engage a closed mind. I’m done with you.

Or, alternately, we could look at the studies.

This is pretty much consistently found in the “how man people are gay” studies: men tend to be either straight or gay with fewer bisexuals, while there appear to be significantly more bisexual women than there are lesbians.

Just a bit of the research:

Gary Gates’s analysis

The CDC

The NSSHB

But those believe that disagreeing with them is the same as misinterpreting research are, as always, entitled to their own opinion.

LOL, Jim, there’s the flaw in your logic. If attractions were fluid, they’d be fluid for all individuals. To say because bisexuals are attracted to both sexes and shift the gender of their partners over a lifetime that their attractions are fluid is simply wrong. We shift partners because we are attracted to both sexes, not because our attractions have changed from one to the other.

I note in the first abstract Jim linked to over the 10 year period most women changed labels but by the end most had settled on a bisexual label or “unlabeled” which is what a lot of bisexuals prefer to call themselves to avoid the obnoxiousness of some gays and heterosexuals who try to inist they are really just gay or straight. Further it notes that the bisexual/unlabelled women’s attractions were stable over time, but reports on attraction levels fluctuated from report to report. This is not due to a change in attractions but due to a change in outside stimulus. If one is with a very atttractive female and not having many very attractive males in her life one may think she’s more attracted to women when in fact its only the outside stimulus that has changed, not the attractions themselves. Similarly if one is exposed to more attractive men than women one might think she has developed greater attractions to men, but once again, the stimulus has changed, not the attractions.

I encourage people to read the abstractions Jim linked to for themselves and note the talk about “fluidity” in labels and behaviors, but not so much in attractions. Jim has misinterpreted what he’s read out of bias confirmation.

Ultimately Erin was right at the very beginning “Jim, I don’t think sexuality is more fluid in women, I just think the fluidity is more visible because the stigma is different for men than it is for women. Men are better at hiding it.”.

This will be my last post on this thread but I will say one thing: I am impressed by the level of arrogance amongst some gay men who think they are in a better position to describe the nature of bisexuality than us bisexuals are ourselves.

As far as the abstracts Jim posted they support what I was saying, not what he was saying. Most say while there was variation in self labels and behavior attractions did not change. Changes in labels and behaviors mean nothing in terms of attractions. I changed labels myself a number of times as well as behaviors but the attractions to both sexes remained.

Jim will likely disagree with me, but people who misinterpret the “research” are entitled to their opinions as well.

I can only post abstracts because posting entire articles amount to copyright violations. I encourage you to do what I have done: Go to the library ad look them up. But even with the abstracts alone, your misinterpretations in the first paragraph supports your second paragraph. You can misinterpret it all you want, but you are entitled to your opinions.