Sloppy seconds: Bailey and bisexuality remixed

Recipe for biogted science journalism: Take a small, moderately interesting study on a controversial topic, shoehorn the results into a catchy narrative, affix an inflammatory headline, and voila...

Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited, by Benedict Carey. [NYT]

What the hell kind of headline is that? According to the article, researchers found a discrepancy between global self-reports of sexual attraction and physical measures of arousal.

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Interesting. But how did Carey get from those results to the implication the male bisexuality is a myth or a (self-)deception?

The study's lead author, Prof. Michael Bailey, is a psychology professor from Northwestern University. Frankly, I'm shocked that someone in his position would be willing to say that "arousal is orientation" for men. He is quoted as saying:

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. [Michael] Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation [!]."

Pretty big talk for someone with a sample size of 101, 68 of whom were self-identified non-bisexuals.

Interestingly, the New York Times headline, "Gay, Straight, or Lying" is a direct (but unattributed) reference to a quasi-press release for Bailey's book, The Man Who Would Be Queen (Free full text). The original blurb was written by Bailey's publicist and placed in several queer publications in the Spring of 2003.

Benedict Carey should be ashamed of himself for inviting such sweeping and socially-loaded inferences from such preliminary evidence. His unattributed use of that pejorative headline doesn't speak well of his scientific or journalistic acumen, either.

Comments

[Chris]

Pretty big talk for someone with a sample size of 101, 68 of whom were self-identified non-bisexuals.

... and a third of whom didn't show any conclusive reaction to their stimuli.

What you're neglecting, though, is the abysmal stuff about women they tacked on at the end. "All women are HotBiBabes?" (Actually, the researcher is quoted as, "Form women, bisexual arousal may be the norm." Norm? Now that's a strange choice of words). This is concluded from a sample size of 90, half self-reported lesbians, 1/3 bi, 1/3 "without sexual orientation" (a very hight percentage, in my book). "Most of" them had, over a ten-year period sex with both men and women. Talk about shoddy logic.

(Plus the rather insulting idea at the end that even a lesbian couldn't help doing the pizza boy if he's cute...)

[Chris]

Pretty big talk for someone with a sample size of 101, 68 of whom were self-identified non-bisexuals.

... and a third of whom didn't show any conclusive reaction to their stimuli.

What you're neglecting, though, is the abysmal stuff about women they tacked on at the end. "All women are HotBiBabes?" (Actually, the researcher is quoted as, "Form women, bisexual arousal may be the norm." Norm? Now that's a strange choice of words). This is concluded from a sample size of 90, half self-reported lesbians, 1/3 bi, 1/3 "without sexual orientation" (a very hight percentage, in my book). "Most of" them had, over a ten-year period sex with both men and women. Talk about shoddy logic.

(Plus the rather insulting idea at the end that even a lesbian couldn't help doing the pizza boy if he's cute...)

[Sean]

Yeah, the "arousal is orientation" thing also struck me as odd. I would have thought a better measure of your orientation would be, you know, who you had sex with. Recognizing that the category of sexual orientation is somewhat ill-defined would be even better.

Carey seems to have gone along with it fairly credulously. But you can't blame him for the headline -- journalists don't write their own headlines.

[R. Mildred]

Take a small, moderately interesting study on a controversial topic

With sample sizes that small and a trial that seems designed entirely to support the researcher's argument, what is moderately intersting about it?

[ol cranky]

R Mildred

What's interesting is that something that wouldn't pass muster as a pilot study to determine if a larger scale study is warrented is published as a book aimed at the public instead being peer-reviewed as scientific literature (probably because the author knew the study was neither well designed or adequately controlled). Even more interesting is that academia (especially his own University) doesn't seemed to have ripped him a new one for it; if this is the kind of "research" they find acceptable for a Professor, I'd hate to see what (lack of) quality they're awarding doctorates for.

[Josh Canel]

Chris beat me to it, but the arousal=orientation claim is absurd. Carey's article even had a great refutation (yes, it was anecdotal, but with such flimsy evidence for a "study," is enough) buried on page 2. He quoted a self-avowed bisexual noting the difference between his sexual desire and his emotional needs. Could this not go the opposite way? Could there be someone who finds men better for them on an emotional level, but get an erection while watching all-girl porn? It's a complex issue, and seeing the NYT present a credulous article on an overly reductionist study is disheartening.

[brent]

I remember an oft quoted study from a few years back which actually measured arousal for men with some sort of device attached to their penises while they were watching various types of pornography. The most interesting result was that men who tended to be more homophobic also were measurably more aroused by gay pornography. That is, they tended to be more aroused by hot man on man action than straight men who did not identify as homophobic. I always thought of the results of that study as more amusing than enlightening but with noted scientists concluding that arousal=orientation, I will have to change my opinion.

[brent]

Here is one description of the study I mentioned in my previous post linked online:

http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html>link

[Amanda Marcotte]

I read that and yep, a total load of bullshit. Of course there are bisexual men--I've dated a couple and if they were trying to "pass" by dating a woman, I'd think they'd probably pick someone a lot less curvy than me so they could at least pretend I was a guy.

[Rob Helpy-Chalk]

Bailey has been in hot water before. In fact, he seems to like it there. His book angered transexuals by denying their common story about themselves, that they were "born the wrong sex," a claim that is accepted in the medical field and labled "gender-identity disorder." Instead, Bailey claims, many transexuals are simply turned on by the thought of themselves as women, a condition he terms "autogynophilia."

His work on transexuals suffers from the same problem the new study has: small sample size. Basically, his research was based on interviews with about a dozen trannies in gay bars near Evanston.

At one point, I believe one one of his subjects sued him for not disclosing the nature of the research he was conducting. I can't find a record of this on the web though.

Cranky: A slight correction. The study discussed in the article is not from Bailey's book, although Bailey's book does advance the same claim. The current study is coming out in a journal called Psychological Science. I don't know enought about psych to judge the prestige of this journal.

[Herbert Browne]

Arousal = orientation? Yikes! When my tomcat walks under my chair to get some attention, and holds his tail erect so that it brushes the underside of my thigh, it feels... well, pretty good! (And we DO cuddle, sometimes...) ^..^

[Herbert Browne]

Arousal = orientation? Yikes! When my tomcat walks under my chair to get some attention, and holds his tail erect so that it brushes the underside of my thigh, it feels... well, pretty good! (And we DO cuddle, sometimes...) ^..^

[Chris]

Not to defend the studies, because when your sample is acquired by placing an ad in gay newspapers, and you find that they find gay images more arousing, you shouldn't be surprised, you should feel like an idiot for not trying to get a more representative sample, but the small sample sizes aren't really a big problem. If your study is methodologically sound, and your statistical analyses are sound as well, small samples are just about as good as big ones (and in some cases better). In other words, the problem with this study is not the sample size; it's the sample itself. If they had gotten 10,000 people using their recruiting methods, the sample would still suck.

[Mara]

The journal Psychological Science is published by the American Psychological Society and it's peer-reviewed. I would say it's reputable but not necessarily prestigious. (ObDisclaimer: I'm a former PR employee of the American Psychological *Association*.)

My understanding is that Bailey has had some substantial ethical difficulties. Or at least, he's been accused of them, but I'm not sure if there have been any serious investigations.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Your right, Sean, we shouldn't assume that Carey was responsible for that headline. On the other hand it seems overwhelmingly likely that he knew about the choice and the source and approved the line.

Authors usually submit a working title for consideration, understanding that the editor will rewrite the headlines if necessary. "Gay Straight or Lying" sounds like it was cribbed directly from Bailey's press pack.

[Mike]

Here is a very interesting article about Mr. Bailey:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/northwestern-investigation.html

Northwestern University Professor J. Michael Bailey is to be disciplined in an unspecified manner, according to letters sent this week to trans women who had complained about his behaviour.

The Professor, whose book "The Man Who Would Be Queen" caused an international furore when published in March 2003, faced multiple complaints from several transsexual women. Many of these contended that he had made them into his research subjects without their knowing or written consent, when they thought he was simply writing surgery referral letters for them. One of the women also alleged that he had had sex with her whilst participating in what she later realised to be a possible research project.

The exact findings of the NWU complaints investigation are seemingly to remain a secret. With a degree of evasion which has stunned US trans observers, University Provost Lawrence B Dumas avoids giving any clue as to what the investigating committee actually concluded after more than a years's deliberation. A letter received this weekend by complainant Professor Lynn Conway is practically identical to those also being received by the women who claimed to have been his unwitting research subjects. It states,

Your July 29, 2003, complaint has been thoroughly investigated, following Northwestern University's established procedures for handling such matters. I have now received the formal report of the committee charged to investigate the matter; and I have taken action that I believe is appropriate in this situation. Consistent with the established procedures pertaining to such matters and general University practice, personnel actions concerning University employees are confidential. Northwestern remains committed to ensuring that research activities involving human subjects are conducted in accordance with the expectations of the University, the regulations and guidelines established by the federal government and with generally accepted research standards.

[Chris]

One more thing: Bailey's work is genuinely pretty good. He works in an area where methodological rigor and ethical considerations tend to run into each other, so the methods available aren't always the most direct. Still, research on homosexuality has been criticized for years, and righlty so, for sample biases that arise from recruitment methods like those Bailey uses (apparently old habits die hard).

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Good point about the methodology, Chris.

The recruiting was a serious problem.

I'm trying to get ahold of a copy of that Psychological Science article so that I can verify another reservation about the study's methodology.

According to the NYT article, Bailey collected both sexual self-ID (gay, straight, bi) and likard scale self-report of something (? relative sexual preference 0-6). According to the passage I quoted in the post above, bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range on the likert scale.

It sounds like Bailey ignored self-identification and lumped everyone with a "midrange" likert score into the "self-professed bi" category.

The article doesn't say what the average self-report score was for the self-ID'd bisexuals compared to the self-ID'd non-bisexuals.

If he's scoring all mid-range subjects as bisexual, it's pretty lame to come back and say: "Most of the people with a midrange self-report don't have an 'ambidextrous' arousal pattern. Well, the majority of these mid-rangers probably told you upfront that they were straight or gay! So, these data don't exactly bear on the "myth" of self-identified bisexuality. (Here's where I need to see the data. Maybe only the self-ID'd bisexuals gave themselves midrange scores, but somehow I doubt it. There were more than twice as many non-bisexuals in the study, and as Chris pointed out, all the subjects were recruited through gay and alternative magazines, so I'm guessing that a significant percentage of the entire sample scored themselves somewhere in the midrange.)

[Horatio]

I am pretty confused about this topic so perhaps someone can help me.

Yeah, the "arousal is orientation" thing also struck me as odd. I would have thought a better measure of your orientation would be, you know, who you had sex with.

What about men who sexaully assault other men. Are they necessarily gay? Also, there are some gay men who, in denial about their sexuality, have sex with women. Does doing so grant their wish to not be gay?

Arousal = orientation? Yikes! When my tomcat walks under my chair to get some attention, and holds his tail erect so that it brushes the underside of my thigh, it feels... well, pretty good! (And we DO cuddle, sometimes...) ^..^

Isn't an arousal of conscious sexual desire somewhat different from acknowledging a pleasant, even sexual, tactile experience?

Like I said, I don't know much about sexuality as it is studied clinically, so I would appreciate it someone would explain why arousal=orientation is such a fundamentally poor conclusion.

I have a hard time understanding what sexuality is outside of arousal. I think we would all agree that our sexuality is not a choice, so I'm not sure how it could be created by positive action.

[mudkitty]

I realized I was bi-sexual in the 2nd grade...back in '62. Thank goodness for David Bowie in '72. Androgyny Ruled!

I also like white meat and dark meat, and I like both chocolate and vanilla.

I chose (in my early 40's, after much sowing of oats) to spend the rest of my life in a monogomous relationship with a memeber of the opposite sex because he was most suited to me, and I to him, in terms of life long compatibilities.

That there is any controversy at all is silly. Some people really are straight. Some people really are gay. And most people are bi (whether or not they admit it.) Sexuality exists as a continuum.

Just because you're bi, btw, doesn't mean you're incapapable of monogomy. It's youths who are the most incapable of monogomy, gay, straight or bi.

[Jillian]

The way this article is phrased makes it conflate two entirely different things.

At this point in time, it seems reasonable, based on the little we know about the human genome and the studies that have been done in this area, that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation. I don't even particularly have a problem with the idea that there may not be such a thing as a "biologically based bisexual orientation".

But none of that has anything to do with whether or not bisexual people exist.

A good way to think of it is to consider left or right handedness. It was common in Catholic schools in America in the 50s to punish left handed children when they wrote with their left hand. My dad actually had his left hand tied to the back of his chair to force him to be right handed. He now writes with his right hand.

Now, is my dad left handed or right handed? It depends on what you mean by the question. Biologically speaking, he's a leftie. He'll always be a leftie. But he writes with his right hand - he's right handed in that sense.

Most people can also train themselves to be ambidextrous if they want - and for people with strong artistic skills, it seems to be even easier for them to do this. It's entirely possible that there is no such thing as a biologically ambidextrous person, but that doesn't mean that people who can write with both hands don't exist.

To conflate these two understandings of "bisexual" falls into the "biology is destiny" mode of thinking. And that's just not so - especially for behavior as complex as sexuality.

[Protagoras]

While I'm not certain what approach would work better, I'm surprised nobody has complained about the assumption in the study that one can so swiftly draw conclusions about what a person likes in the way of real sex from what they respond to in pornography. To me, sex and viewing pornography have always seemed to be very different experiences.

Of course, this is probably not the most serious problem with the study, but it is, I think, yet another problem.

[Mnemosyne]

A good way to think of it is to consider left or right handedness. It was common in Catholic schools in America in the 50s to punish left handed children when they wrote with their left hand. My dad actually had his left hand tied to the back of his chair to force him to be right handed. He now writes with his right hand.

The nuns at my dad's Catholic school in the 1940s tried so hard to make him right-handed that one day they beat his left palm until it was bloody with a copper ruler.

When he came home from school that day, my grandmother went down to the school, reamed the nuns out, and threatened to remove him from school if they ever did such a thing again.

My dad writes with his left hand to this day.

In other words, I think your metaphor is even more apt than you thought. Even in the continuum of handedness, some people can be swayed, and some cannot.

[Chris]

Interestingly, most left-handers are likely learned left-handers. You can fairly reliably tell what hand a person "naturally" favors by looking at footedness. People who are right-footed, but left-handed, likely developed left-handedness through experience, while people who are left-footed are likely natural lefties.

Strangely (and perhaps interestingly, though I'm not sure), I know of the work on handedness through its discussion in the work on language evolution. Who'd have thunk the two would be connected?

[rob helpychalk]

Even in the continuum of handedness, some people can be swayed, and some cannot.

especially if their mothers stand up for them.