I don’t think we should choose our Supreme Court Justices based on their sexual orientation. I admire Elena Kagan’s scholarship [UPDATE: link added], expect to disagree with many of her votes on legal issues, and hope that some of her votes will be ones that I will like, all without regard to her sexual orientation.
But it seems to me pretty odd to see assertions — such as in this Politico “Elena Kagan’s friends: She’s not gay” article, which has been pretty heavily cited — that she must be straight because she has dated men. (That’s all that the quote from one of the friends, Eliot Spitzer, amounts to. The quote from the other friend also says this but seems to go further as well.)
As I understand it, the great majority of women who are not purely heterosexual are actually to some degree bisexual. For instance, Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality 311 (1994), reports that 3.7% of all women report having had both male and female partners since age 18 and only 0.4% report having had only female partners since age 18. Even looking at just the last five years, 1.4% of women report both male and female partners, and only 0.8% report only female partners. When asked about current sexual attraction, 2.7% of all women report mostly opposite gender, 0.8% report both genders, 0.6% report mostly same gender, and only 0.3% report only same gender. And my sense is that many women quite sensibly call themselves “lesbian” or “gay” based on their current or recent partners, or currently or recently felt preferences, even though they have had male partners in the past as well. (Thus, when asked to report their sexual identity, 0.5% of all women in the Laumann report said bisexual, 0.9% said homosexual, and 98.6% said heterosexual.)
Now I stress again: Whether Elena Kagan is straight, lesbian, bisexual, or asexual doesn’t matter to me. Moreover, to the extent a number of her close friends, who are likely to know her recent love life, say that she’s straight rather than lesbian or bisexual — and that seems to be something that one of her friends quoted in the Politico article I linked to above is saying — that should be pretty reliable evidence for those who care about the subject. Among other things, if she understandably concludes that it’s beneath her dignity to discuss her love life in public, evidence from a number of friends is the most that can be provided: “[C]ontrast the ease of proving one is straight or gay in a world in which bisexuals are not acknowledged to exist with the difficulty of proving the same thing in a world in which bisexuals are recognized.”
But the sort of bisexual erasure that takes place when we say “X can’t be lesbian, she’s dated men” (or “X can’t be gay, he’s dated women”) strikes me as pretty unsound, and not fair to a group that makes up a pretty big chunk of the non-straight population.
Mike says:
pretty reliable evidence for those who care about the subject
Like you, who cares if she’s gay.
Her friends saying she’s straight, however, is unreliable. You’d throw your friend under the bus by telling the truth about his or her sexual orientation? I wouldn’t. I’d either not comment at all, or rationalize a way to say what needs to say said: “What does straight mean, anyway?”
May 12, 2010, 7:48 pmKevin! says:
The friend’s statement was ““I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”
In other words, the friend ONLY had evidence that Kagan liked guys.
I suppose this doesn’t rule out bisexuality, but there is apparently no evidence to support it, either. We could conclude by Volokh’s system that Obama is potentially bisexual: sure, he dated women, married a woman, and has only expressed interest in women, but that doesn’t RULE OUT the possibility that he’s bi. Maybe he’s only saying he’s heterosexual because he’s currently married with two children.
May 12, 2010, 7:53 pmArkady says:
I read somewhere she dated Lindsey Graham, but can’t recall the cite.
May 12, 2010, 8:00 pmex parte animal says:
Scalia was right: some of our greatest minds today are wasting their talents in the field of law.
May 12, 2010, 8:02 pmPliny the Elder says:
I have some concerns about her lack of practical experience, but this strikes me as a new record for irrelevance.
I wish Pres. Obama had nominated Oregon S.Ct Justice Rives Kistler for the position. His sexual orientation is well known and even his critics care not a whit.
May 12, 2010, 8:04 pmquasi-anonymous says:
I read the article and don’t take away the same point that you do.
Her friends aren’t saying that because they’re aware that she’s dated men, that’s somehow a scientific negation of the possibility that she has any bisexuality about her. They’re just saying that they know her well and in their view she isn’t gay. And also, they remember her social interactions with men as not being any different than any of their other heterosexual friends.
To switch gears a bit, I find this whole issue off-putting. I suppose that the rumors have provoked an interesting hypothetical side conversation about what relevance one’s sexual orientation has to being a Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps some good will come out of that, or perhaps it will provoke conspiracy theories about Obama nominating Kagan to start that conversation now so that it can be more or less over when he nominates Sullivan or Karlan…
…but the strongest feeling I’m left with is that I feel badly for Kagan.
It’s unseemly enough to have blogs, reporters and senators scrutinize every word you’ve ever uttered that’s been preserved somehow, and it’s also unseemly enough to have them take those words out of context and draw all sorts of weird conclusions about what kind of person you are.
But even worse to have people pick apart your sexual identity in this way because of the simple fact that (a) you aren’t married and (b) your sex life hasn’t been conspicuous to allow casual observers to be confident about your sexual orientation. I imagine that she accepted the nomination prepared to defend her past writings and her work, and prepared to talk about what sort of Justice she’d be and what she thinks of various aspects of the Court’s work. I wonder how much thought she gave to how often she’d pick up a newspaper or surf the internet and find lengthy analyses and discussions trying to get to the bottom of her sexual orientation.
Even though Prof. Volokh’s post is entirely respectful and making a very academic point, it still makes me cringe and wish that this was not as interesting to people as it is.
Add this to the lessons for aspiring judges: (1) don’t leave a paper trail, (2) avoid saying anything controversial, ever, (3) make nice with people who might be thought of as “across the aisle,” and now (4) if you’re a woman, then whatever your sexual identity happens to be, make it clear to the casual observer–either get married at some point, be in charge of some kind of sexual identity activist group or, failing those options, be a total slut at one point in your life so that the questions don’t arise.
May 12, 2010, 8:05 pmChris Travers says:
Why not? Bush and McCain would be potentially bisexual too.
May 12, 2010, 8:06 pmJon Rowe says:
From my observations it seems that probably no more than 1% of the female population are pure lesbians. But well over 10% have some bisexuality to them.
This dynamic is less pronounced in men. But there are, it seems to me, bi men on the “straight” side, just as on the gay side.
If we add all of the straight leaning and straight identifying bis into the pool, we probably get over 10% who are “gay or bi” most of whom lead most of their lives as “straight” and identify as such.
That’s why the “gay or bi” social group is probably not more than 3-4%.
May 12, 2010, 8:07 pmCDR D says:
>>>I read somewhere she dated Lindsey Graham<<<
And they argued all night, over who had the right, to do what, and with which, and to whom…
May 12, 2010, 8:12 pmFedya says:
Why are you impugning the sexuality of Erasure, anyhow?
May 12, 2010, 8:13 pmElliot says:
Well, who is claiming she is lesbian? Where did that come from? I agree it’s stupid, but stupidity is often what makes political theater so entertaining.
May 12, 2010, 8:16 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Bisexual Erasure -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Bisexual Erasure: (Eugene Volokh) I don’t think we should choose our Supreme Court Justices… http://goo.gl/fb/xF1dD [...]
May 12, 2010, 8:18 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
My impression — as a straight woman looking at this from the outside — is that there’s a significant fraction of the gay community that regards bisexuality as polite fiction. No one really swings both ways (so the argument goes); you have an orientation, and just can’t quite admit to it.
For what it’s worth, I know a number of women who were previously in heterosexual marriages and are now out lesbians. I don’t personally know any men who have come out after leaving a heterosexual marriage.
May 12, 2010, 8:20 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
I know this isn’t the central point of your post, but based on the reports I’ve read, her scholarship is rather minimal, and what there is of it is entirely mundane. Is there something about her scholarship that makes you disagree with that perception? Anything there that makes her the kind of outstanding individual we want to see on SCOTUS?
May 12, 2010, 8:27 pmDave N. says:
Thread winner.
Btw, Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates for three years, for whatever that is worth to the discussion.
Oh, and as a conservative, I honestly don’t give a tinker’s damn what Elena Kagen (or anyone else) does in the privacy of her (or his) home, as long as the other person is over 18 and consenting.
May 12, 2010, 8:29 pmSteve says:
This same point could be made about every current member of the Supreme Court… and yet, it is never made.
Everyone keeps saying this topic is completely irrelevant and uninteresting and yet it seems we are still talking about it. At some point, it will sink in that we keep discussing multiple permutations of this issue even though not a single person has come forward to say Kagan has dated women, ever.
May 12, 2010, 8:30 pmbrentpeterson01 says:
Eugene addressed this question two days ago:
http://volokh.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-as-scholar/
May 12, 2010, 8:32 pmepluribus says:
What has this to do with either science or the Supreme Court?
May 12, 2010, 8:32 pmpc says:
/thread
May 12, 2010, 8:33 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Steve,
This same point could be made about every current member of the Supreme Court… and yet, it is never made.
Well, not every Supreme Court appointee has Andrew Sullivan urging her to come out, already.
May 12, 2010, 8:33 pmDave N. says:
Steve,
I find it to be both. I haven’t discussed it with anyone prior to this thread and wouldn’t have commented on it in any fashion except that Eugene chose to post on it.
May 12, 2010, 8:34 pmepluribus says:
There’s an old story about LBJ. Maybe apochryphal, maybe true. He was giving advice to a candidate for county sheriff in one of the Texas counties. He told him to spread the word that his opponent f***s pigs. Of course, the opponent would deny the accusation. “But nobody’s going to be elected sheriff in this county denying that he f***s pigs!”
May 12, 2010, 8:36 pmJimbob says:
An atheist bisexual Muslim Kenyan?
May 12, 2010, 8:42 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I do, not even counting Governor MacGreedy whom I know only by reputation. I do, however, know many more examples of the former case.
May 12, 2010, 8:47 pmKevin! says:
PROVE THAT YOU AREN’T, OBAMA!
May 12, 2010, 8:50 pmBama 1L says:
I guess that makes her gay.
May 12, 2010, 8:51 pmBama 1L says:
(Arkady’s comment obviously wins the thread, by the way.)
May 12, 2010, 8:51 pmRandy says:
Michelle: “My impression — as a straight woman looking at this from the outside — is that there’s a significant fraction of the gay community that regards bisexuality as polite fiction.”
Sadly, all too true and yet completely false. We really don’t know much about human sexuality, do we?
“I don’t personally know any men who have come out after leaving a heterosexual marriage.”
Oh, there are tons of them. And some are still married!
May 12, 2010, 9:05 pmMaryG says:
Jon Rowe says:
From my observations it seems that probably no more than 1% of the female population are pure lesbians. But well over 10% have some bisexuality to them.
So, how big is your sample size, Jon?
After hours Erasure.
May 12, 2010, 9:24 pmFub says:
I don’t care whether she’s straight, gay, metrosexual, bisexual, trisexual, quadrasexual, or any other kind of sexual, except anti-sexual.
But now I’ll never look at a pencil eraser quite the same way again.
May 12, 2010, 9:27 pmMaryG says:
Victim of Love.
May 12, 2010, 9:31 pmJon Rowe says:
I’d estimate the entire population post puberty. This is based on acute observation on my part, with some statistical back up (though I think a lot of the stats low ball given reticence to admit to same sex behavior). The newest data reported by the NYT a few years ago, I think, somewhat supports my observations. From what I remember, the data showed differences among 1) self identification, 2) actual experiences, and 3) thoughts, feelings, emotions and attractions. There was more “I’m straight” with number 1. When you took 2 and 3 into account, the numbers of “gay or bi” went up in the double digits.
May 12, 2010, 9:34 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Randy,
[me:]“My impression — as a straight woman looking at this from the outside — is that there’s a significant fraction of the gay community that regards bisexuality as polite fiction.”
[Randy:] Sadly, all too true and yet completely false. We really don’t know much about human sexuality, do we?
We “know” all sorts of things, Randy; it’s just that our knowledge in this area comes almost entirely from human informants, and they don’t necessarily always tell the truth.
I don’t know whether things are the same in places without an established gay community. But in the Bay Area, there seems to be a large fraction of the gay community contending that so-called “bi’s” are either outright lying or else drifting along that celebrated river in Egypt. Kinsey was well-intentioned but wrong; you are really either a zero or a six, and if you imagine you are anywhere in between you’re just fooling yourself.
May 12, 2010, 9:41 pmKen Mitchell says:
Kagan is gay? NTTAWWT!
Who really cares? More to the point, who knows? I have a close friend who is a lesbian. Well, she is NOW, but was married to a man for about 10 years before deciding she was, or discovering herself, or whatever. Perhaps she always was and just didn’t know it? I can’t actually say that I care much, either way. She’s a friend, and she’s happy the way she is, and if I could change anything about her, I’d change the fact that she’s a flaming liberal, not anything to do with her gender identity.
Personally, I think that “sexual orientation” is a pack of crap, and that “sexual preference” is more likely to be true. People change their minds about these things, I think, more than the dedicated “gay lobbies” want to admit. I’m a straight man; I’ve never desired other men, and since I got married 28 years ago, I haven’t even desired other women. That’s my choice. Other people’s choices are their own, and ought to be respected. I don’t bother them; they don’t bother me. That’s the American Way.
May 12, 2010, 9:41 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Fub,
But now I’ll never look at a pencil eraser quite the same way again.
Nor did I after I discovered erasers are called “rubbers” in the UK.
May 12, 2010, 9:42 pmMaryG says:
This is based on acute observation on my part, with some statistical back up
That small huh?
May 12, 2010, 9:42 pmCoco says:
WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY STILL AN ISSUE, EVEN AT THIS STAGE OF AMERICAN HISTORY?
I am a gay guy and I want you people to hear me out. I want to tell you about the first time I found out I was gay. You see, just because you are gay, it doesn’t mean that you are some predator or monster. It just means that you are more feminine that other guys. For example, one time I was constipated. A week later when I got to take a hard dump, my anus bled from the pressure. At that point, I knew that I was gay because I felt sexy in that I was thinking, “So that is what having a period feels like.” I felt so much like a girl and I felt so hot.
But you see, you can’t judge me or gay people on things like that!
May 12, 2010, 9:44 pmzuch says:
Attacks on her (“alleged” or hypothesized) sexual orientation might be a far sight more honest than what Republican senators are doing.
As Rachel Maddow dissects so well today, Senators Cornyn, DeMint, and one other (whose name gratefully escapes my STM) all complained that Kagan has no “judicial experience” (think there’s some “talking points” going around?)
Don’t these eedjits understand today’s technology? Or is it that they just don’t care? Their own speeches lauding Harriet Miers in 2005 are easily available, and show they were not only unperturbed by Mier’s lack of judicial experience back then, but one actively promoted the idea of a non-judiciary candidate as the best thing since sliced bread.
And then there was Senator McConnell, whose complaint is that Kagan is supposedly a “friend” of Obama and comes from the executive, when the Supreme Court is supposed to be antagonistic and adverse [... at least the Republicans hope ...] to the executive.
This despite his lauding Harriet Miers, when she’d been Dubya’s friend, lawyer, White House counsel, and confidante for many, many years (and then there’s Scalia’s hunting trips with Ctheney….)
They’re either stoopid … or they think the voters are too stoopid to remember (or look up) what they said a half decade before.
Pathetic. They’d be better off simply saying they don’t want a screaming socialist (anyone to the left of Scalia) … and maybe even Teh Gay to boot … on the Spureme Court. But they have a little problem with honesty.
Cheers,
May 12, 2010, 9:44 pmArthur Kirkland says:
That’s the position of a libertarian or a liberal, not of a conservative.
May 12, 2010, 9:44 pmMaryG says:
Other people’s choices are their own, and ought to be respected. I don’t bother them; they don’t bother me. That’s the American Way.
I think the problem is the inequality, in the eyes of the law. Hopefully our country can rectify this soon, and move on to tackling the real issues — legal and otherwise — that will collectively challenge us.
May 12, 2010, 9:45 pmPansy says:
“Now I stress again: Whether Elena Kagan is straight, lesbian, bisexual, or asexual doesn’t matter to me.”
Come again? You spend most of the post arguing, in fact, for the existence of a niche/category of types of indeterminate/fluctuating sexuality that fits, presumably, Kagan’s, yet you say with a straight(pun intended),scholarly face,it[Kagan's] choice(s)of partners in her private acts of erotic satisfaction don’t matter to you??
May 12, 2010, 9:46 pmWhat’s the secret of this lapse in elementary logic, I wondered…
Then, reading your post again, I got a clue: “I admire Elena Kagan’s scholarship…”
Which scholarship, by any academic and sensible measurements,is close to zero. Which means you are,at one stroke, 1)reinforcing your credentials as an “open/tolerant/minority-minded” fellow among your academic/political peers; 2) kissing Kagan’s butt, in hopes of what the old Brits in Shakespeare’s time called, in a more genteel way, some sort of “preferrment.”
Kamal says:
The entire point of this post is funny.
You don’t care if she is gay, but want to make sure people don’t go believing reports that she isn’t just because she has dated men in the past; you want us to remember that bisexuals are gay too.
May 12, 2010, 9:49 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Arthur Kirkland,
That’s the position of a libertarian or a liberal, not of a conservative.
Would that make Glenn Reynolds not-conservative?
May 12, 2010, 9:50 pmzuch says:
You should look before leaping. You might not serve so well an object lesson in what “scholarship” is not….
Cheers,
May 12, 2010, 9:59 pmOwen H. says:
I know several. What does that prove?
May 12, 2010, 10:01 pmRicardo says:
That’s certainly true in the male gay community — because it is backed by evidence. If there are any men who truly are physically attracted to members of both sexes in approximately equal measure, the number is much, much smaller than the number of self-reported bisexuals.
My impression is that women have been studied much less than men in this area and that there is certainly much more anecdotal evidence that female sexuality is more fluid. When I was a graduate student, one of the incoming students from day 1 made clear that she was an all-out lesbian. Then within a couple of months, she was in a steady relationship with a man. That kind of thing seems to be more common among women.
May 12, 2010, 10:03 pmMaryG says:
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty large sample size going yourself, eh Ricardo?
(Heh. Heh. Say what you will about nobody liking political speculating, you fellas at PJ media do get off some fun threads with this kind of entertainment, eh? Read the whole thing.)
May 12, 2010, 10:09 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Owen H.,
Oh, it proves no more than my own anecdotal evidence does. And that’s precious little, especially as we’re talking about whether there’s such a thing as bisexuality. I rather think there is; I can’t see people of either sex sticking it out for long in a marriage where there was zero sexual attraction, much less managing to produce children.
Ricardo,
There is always lesbian until graduation.
May 12, 2010, 10:17 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Ricardo,
OK, I need to back up and address this:
That’s certainly true in the male gay community — because it is backed by evidence. If there are any men who truly are physically attracted to members of both sexes in approximately equal measure, the number is much, much smaller than the number of self-reported bisexuals.
Oh, good heavens. So someone does a study involving penile reactions to videos, and then the “male gay community” concludes that people who claim to be bi are mostly fibbing? Did the community wait for the 2005 publication?
May 12, 2010, 10:31 pmjbarntt says:
Generally, it seems to me that discussing a woman’s private life in public is rude, unless it has ramifications for her public life. I see nothing like this in the case of SG Kagan, so I think it best left alone.
Given that I’m conservative, I wouldn’t have nominated Kagan, but that is neither here nor there; elections have consequences.
By “ramifications”, I mean something like the potential to be blackmailed. For reference, see the Alex. Hamilton/Maria Reynolds affair.
May 12, 2010, 10:31 pmr gould-saltman says:
sez Michelle Dulak Thomson: “I don’t personally know any men who have come out after leaving a heterosexual marriage.”
. . . then you just haven’t talked to enough middle-aged gay men. Last I checked, a significantly higher number of US men self-identified as “gay” than women self-identified as “lesbian”, so there more instances of any given narrative about coming out among men.
In 31 years of matrimonial practice, I’ve represented a number of men who came out after, or during (and while exiting from), a straight marriage; the way and ages at which folks “settle into” their adult sexual preferences seems to differ, apparently, by gender, and has had some interesting cultural and political pressures on it in the last few decades.
In one instance, our client had met his spouse-to-be through a evangelical church group which I can only characterize as of the “you can pray yourself straight” sort; after marriage, and two children, he decided that the “cure” wasn’t working. The strange part is that she later remarried… …another guy from the same group. The judge observed, off the record, “Someone should explain to her that if she don’t want to catch the same fish, she might want to try a different pond…”
and then sez:
“I can’t see people of either sex sticking it out for long in a marriage where there was zero sexual attraction, much less managing to produce children. ”
Michelle: you also REALLY need to spend some time talking with some matrimonial lawyers.
May 12, 2010, 10:43 pmhilzoy fangirl says:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
May 12, 2010, 10:48 pmKen Mitchell says:
Reynolds describes himself as more Libertarian than Conservative, so perhaps you’re on to something here!
May 12, 2010, 10:49 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
r gould-saltman,
I ought to have said “a marriage in which there had always been zero sexual attraction.”
And I really, really don’t want to talk to any matrimonial lawyers. Unless they also play stringed instruments. Or know how to cook. Or want to buy our house.
May 12, 2010, 10:55 pmRicardo says:
Not sure what the heavens have to do with this very secular and material topic. I never said gay men believe bisexuality is a “polite fiction” because of Bailey’s study. I said they believe it because there is evidence supporting it — and Bailey’s study provides objective and non-anecdotal evidence of this and tends to validate the suspicions of many gay men on this topic.
That’s the way science works. Someone develops a guess or hypothesis based on experience or intuition and then someone tests it with data.
May 12, 2010, 11:06 pmSally says:
I’m sure Kagan’s friends had her permission before providing the comments quoted in the article. And you know it could just be as simple a thing as Kagan wanting any available men to know that she’s not batting for the other side. It’s hard enough meeting an appropriate man when you’re in the public eye and really hard if people are running around talking about how you’re the next best thing to Melissa Etheridge.
May 12, 2010, 11:11 pmRicardo says:
Well, the book “The Social Organization of Sexuality” uses as its primary data source The National Health and Social Life Survey which has a sample size of 3,423. Other than that, your observation is spot on.
May 12, 2010, 11:15 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Why don’t we quit arguing over her sexual orientation, and get on to something REALLY important – does she drink instant coffee, or brewed?
I don’t think this country could stand an instant coffee drinking justice.
And it matters to me just as much as her orientation.
May 12, 2010, 11:24 pmrpt says:
This is one of the unspoken attacks on her nomination. “Some people say”, is the tactic. Now people are talking about it. Pretty sleazy.
May 12, 2010, 11:28 pmMark Field says:
It began with Ben Domenech. I won’t link to his article because I don’t believe his behavior deserves any traffic.
May 12, 2010, 11:37 pmDave N. says:
Nope, I choose to self-describe myself as “conservative” (though I do throw in the adjective “moderate”). You and I have certainly gone the rounds in recent months. Can you honestly say after some of my previous comments that I am either “liberal” or “libertarian”?
May 12, 2010, 11:48 pmrpt says:
Ah yes, Ben Domenech…..plagiarist, Red Stater, NRO, Human Events, Washington Times. Who would have expected such an attack from these sources?
May 12, 2010, 11:49 pmptt says:
If someone has known a good friend for her entire adult life, from college to the present, saying that she dated men isn’t indulging in “bi-erasure”, unless, of course, you assume that the woman wouldn’t tell her good friend about same-sex dates.
I find it remarkable that so many people find this issue amusing or see it as evidence of obsession on the part of gay people but somehow don’t notice the bile coming from the “family values” organizations on the subject.
May 12, 2010, 11:57 pmEd says:
Actually, the Bailey study has its fair share of critics and hardly provides as strong of evidence as is implied. The gay male community has an opinion about bisexuals precisely because of anecdotal evidence – many of them have been burned by a “bi” guy who later went back to women. Given the social implications of coming out in a same-sex relationship, it’s hardly that surprising that a lot of guys would choose to live as straight, rather than gay, when they are in fact attracted to both sexes. As social norms around same-sex relationships change, it’s certainly possible the bi until time to marry phenomenon will lessen as well. Either way, trying to “assess” sexual orientation in the way done by Bailey is one of those things that sounds so logical, but may not actually get you to the answers you want. It is also worth mentioning that Bailey has a pretty shady history and is considered discredited in more than a few academic circles. The issue of male bisexuality is far from closed, protests from the “gay male community” aside.
May 13, 2010, 12:23 amwhit says:
real conservatives ARE libertarian when it comes to consensual sex in the privacy of the home imo
i’d fwiw, extend that age lower. my state has a 16 yoa age of consent with 15 and 14 legal as long as the partner is within so many months of the other person in age. that’s reasonable.
i don’t think the state has any business, for example, telling a 17 yr old and a 18 yr old that they (or at least the 18 yr old) are committing a crime by schtupping
May 13, 2010, 12:39 amBruce Hayden says:
Frankly, I too am a bit weary about this discussion about her sexuality or gender identity or whatever. I will contend that what is much more relevant about the way that she is going to vote on the Supreme Court is that she is an Ivy Leaguer and belongs to a very small, unrepresentative, East Coast demographic that is grossly overrepresented on the Court already.
Even if she were a Lesbian, it wouldn’t be important. If she isn’t, she still likely knows far more East Coast Ivy League educated Lesbians than she does Kansas farmers. Esp. after being president of an Ivy League law school. Heck, how many people does she know well who own guns, hunt with them, or go to a fundamentalist Christian church (I am not implying that there is a connection with the first two and the third, except that she is unlikely to know that many of any of them) (And, yes, Sasha pointed out that she supported the HLS gun club when he was there).
Indeed, an hypothetical. Would Kelo have come down as it did, if the Court had been composed of a less elitist, more representative Supreme Court? By a Court who actually knew people taken advantage of by government cronies through what many still consider misuse of imminent domain? Instead of knowing the government cronies?
That said, I see her as being no worse than anyone else another Ivy League trained lawyer (and occasional academic) would have picked for the Supreme Court, and likely far better than some of the others who had been considered.
May 13, 2010, 12:49 amRicardo says:
The study “provides… evidence” and “validates” the view that many if not most bisexuals are, in fact, much more strongly attracted to one sex than another. Criticisms of the study are that 1) the sample size is too small, 2) the sample was biased and 3) sexual orientation cannot be physically measured. 1) and 2) can be addressed through replication while 3) is not a scientific objection in the Popperian sense. I didn’t say the study “proves” anything — merely that it provides evidence.
On the contrary, he is very widely cited and published in the academic literature. As he researches controversial subjects and writes popular audience books on these subjects, he has attracted a fair number of people who have attempted to destroy his reputation. However, he has never been successfully attacked for falsifying data or doing research that falls below the standards of his profession. One ethics complaint filed against him resulted in his University’s Institutional Review Board concluding he did not violate federal standards on human subjects protections. In short, the evidence that he is “discredited” or has a “shady history” (to the extent it is relevant to his peer-reviewed publications and original research) is lacking.
A lengthy review of the history of complaints against Bailey is available here.
May 13, 2010, 12:52 amBrian G. says:
No it didn’t.
Kagan Gay Rumors Didn’t Start on the Right
May 13, 2010, 12:58 amBrian G. says:
For the sexuality questions, I’d highly recommend this study featured last year in the New York Times: What Do Women Want?
Preview: Men tend to respond categorically, as either gay or straight, both biologically and mentally. Women, on the other hand, respond biologically to just about everything, even ape sex. Meanwhile, their heads often contradict their genitals.
To summarize, women are what we men have always known them to be: a big mess of hormonal confusion.
May 13, 2010, 1:03 amrpt says:
Domenech is the first to use the issue as part of the Republican anti-Kagan campaign.
May 13, 2010, 1:46 amneurodoc says:
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that Kagan has thespian tendencies.
May 13, 2010, 1:52 amRandy says:
Most people really don’t care if Kagan is a lesbian.
If, however, she actually meets the love of her life who happens to be female and announces that she intends to marry her, well, now, that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. People will suddenly care, I’m quite sure.
In America, it’s okay to be gay, so long as we are desexed, single and jolly.
May 13, 2010, 2:12 amJohn Herbison says:
Have you heard that a Republican former president was an admitted thespian? He even performed the act on camera in several movies.
May 13, 2010, 2:39 amPubliusFL says:
Well, that blows her chances of playing for the local gay softball league.
May 13, 2010, 6:21 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
It “began with Ben Domenech” only if you ignore the fact that it’s been widely discussed for years, and was reported on gay websites before Domenech said anything.
Domenech might be the first MSM reporter that said it, but it’s not as if he was revealing a secret; he mentioned that she was openly gay.
May 13, 2010, 7:28 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Except he didn’t, because (a) such a campaign exists in your imagination; (b) this “issue” is not part of any criticism of her by Republicans; and (c) obviously you didn’t read what he wrote.
May 13, 2010, 7:29 amGay says:
Well, that just shows what lousy reporting there is on the topic. It’s almost a truism that every celebrity is gay, on gay gossip sites. It’s like a running joke.
May 13, 2010, 9:00 amrpt says:
There is no anti-Kagan campaign?
May 13, 2010, 9:01 amFrank Drackman says:
Ever see that photo of the President(Peace be upon Him) throwin out the first pitch at the Nationals game??
May 13, 2010, 9:12 amMakes Barney Frank look like Clint Eastwood in his Outlaw Josey Wales days..
Houston Lawyer says:
A former colleague of mine used to say “anything less than three kids is just deep cover”. He had three kids of course.
Everyone has secrets that their good friends don’t know about.
May 13, 2010, 9:27 amLolo says:
Is it really your choice to like women and not men? Say you happen to like women with long legs. When you walk down the street and see a woman with long legs, do you think to yourself, “I think I’m going to choose to find that particular feature attractive.” No, you just *are* attracted to that. Similarly, if you’re truly a straight man, I don’t think you could *choose* to get a hard-on by watching men have sex. You either are attracted to it or you aren’t.
May 13, 2010, 9:45 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » EUGENE VOLOKH ON bisexual erasure. Well, the Kagan nomination certainly seems to have inspired one … says:
[...] VOLOKH ON bisexual erasure. Well, the Kagan nomination certainly seems to have inspired one of those “national [...]
May 13, 2010, 10:03 amA. Criminal says:
People who don’t reproduce are genetically inferior to those who do.
May 13, 2010, 10:11 amMark Field says:
Domenech was, AFAIK, the first to “report” the claim in a media publication after Stevens announced his retirement and Kagan’s name became prominent as a possible replacement. I’m sure there was gossip beforehand, but that seems irrelevant.
May 13, 2010, 10:26 amWhaddona More says:
Putting on my college feminist hat, I think the discussion of Kagan’s sexuality is a two-pronged attack from the right/patriarchy. My bet is that any man who was drawn to Palin’s looks finds a woman of Kagan’s non-traditionally femmy/pretty appearance lacking. That she’s single invites the attack of “she must be gay or she’d work to be more attractive to men [like me]“, with the unspoken “not gay, just unattractive” put-down held in reserve.
May 13, 2010, 10:31 amHarvard@Cal says:
Mark it here, it will not be the gayness/bi-ness/whateverness, but the clumsy appearance of “cover-up”. Presently it’s all “But she’s dated men!”, which may be well and true. But if one credible Daughter of Sappho situation pops up (willingly or otherwise), the whole thing comes crashing down.
Pity that, if it’s the way it happens. I think it would be so much more
May 13, 2010, 10:35 amfuninteresting watching her defend her concept of free speech.josh says:
EV: “Now I stress again: Whether Elena Kagan is straight, lesbian, bisexual, or asexual doesn’t matter to me.”
Hate to get off topic, but I was struck how much this tone resembles the running Stephen Colbert gag: Colbert describes himself as racially color-blind and unable to visually identify a person’s race,[52] explaining, “Now, I don’t see race … People tell me I’m white, and I believe them, because I own a lot of Jimmy Buffett albums.”[53] His race-blindness is a recurring joke, and this statement is often repeated on the show with different punch lines.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29)
May 13, 2010, 10:40 amLou Gots says:
We would grant Kagan her privacy, but regrettably,this is the sort of thing which attracts trivial, vulgar interest. In tactical terms, this nomination is a big plus for the conservative side.
This woman looks like a caricature, a burlesque, of a Lesbian, whether she is or is not, whether or not the pictures of her we are seeing in the media have been unfairly selected to foster that impression.
The effect of this is to heighten the feeling of estrangement, of otherness, many un-hyphenated Americans have about the Obama administration, with obvious results in the polls. Politics ain’t beanbag.
May 13, 2010, 10:44 amJulius says:
This seems to me spot on. I do not give assertions of this sort to much wait. I am gay and have been in various situations particularly in academia where it was widely known among certain circles that someone was gay but publicly closeted. There were reports of this sort in relation to Kagan.
May 13, 2010, 10:58 amepluribus says:
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that, if a lesbian (or a gay male) were in fact nominated to the Court, heretosexuals would feel “estranged”? Do you suppose whites felt that way when the first black was nominated? Did men feel that way when the first woman was nominated? Did Christians feel that way when the first Jew was nominated? Did Protestants feel that way when the first Catholic was nominated? Are you just saying that people who have been privileged feel “estranged” when people who haven’t been privileged are at last included in the privileged group? How do you suppose Catholics, Jews, blacks, women, and gays felt for all those generations when the Court was exclusively white, Anglo-Saxon, male, Protestant,and heterosexual?
May 13, 2010, 12:06 pmrarango says:
She’s gotta be gay–I mean she plays softball! what other proof is required? (sarcasm off)
May 13, 2010, 12:33 pmChris Travers says:
Anyone else notice that folks who go around accusing everyone else are really trying to cover their own secrets?
You can learn a lot about what folks are trying to hide by watching repetitive accusations closely.
(BTW, I noticed this before I read a similar conclusion in one of Freud’s writings.)
May 13, 2010, 12:57 pmMatthew DesOrmeaux says:
Amen, Eugene. I noticed the same thing in the Politico article. Thank you for bringing this up.
May 13, 2010, 1:01 pmElliot says:
“My bet is that any man who was drawn to Palin’s looks finds a woman of Kagan’s non-traditionally femmy/pretty appearance lacking.”
Given liberal women’s aversion to Palin’s looks and wardrobe, I guess they must love Kagan’s.
May 13, 2010, 1:07 pmThe Monster says:
People who don’t reproduce or confer some advantage on the survival prospects of their close kin who carry copies of their genes are evolutionarily inferior to those who do.
May 13, 2010, 1:11 pmmega-cynic says:
We are missing some important points here.
1. The gossip must occur, but the issue must be unresolved, because we apparently are not ready for a “gay seat,” but must have a “rumored-to-be” seat. Souter’s resignation left that spot open, and it must be filled. It’s traumatic enough that the Jewish and Catholic seats have expanded to squeeze out the WASPs, so we can’t tax the system with more seat changes. The “rumored” seat must remain!
2. Of course the personal life is silly, but not only is the negative personal stuff nothing new (stealing Bork’s video-rental list from a store was a high point), but it’s further legitimated by the “positive” personal stuff. How, exactly, does it work that we are supposed to consider life stories only in the plus column? I can tolerate some degree of personal narrative (Bronx or Pin Point GA), but the more it’s advocated as a reason for nomination or confirmation, why isn’t it a reason for opposition, too? For example, if someone tells the rags-to-riches story, then it’d be certainly fair game to learn that it was all or mostly a myth, that the nominee grew up comfy, and that the only “poverty” was for a few months when he was a baby.
It’s not a far step from personal junk that negates the specific positives being promoted to personal junk of another nature that also negates the general fuzzy personal package.
So yeah, I think it stinks, but I’d rather not hear that someone’s “credentials” include some personal story to begin with.
May 13, 2010, 1:18 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
No. Oh, there are some individuals and groups who oppose her nomination, and some senators who will be voting against her. But a campaign to defeat her nomination? No. Not barring some startling new revelation.
May 13, 2010, 1:32 pmADF Alliance Alert » Eugene Volokh: Kagan reports raise question of “bisexual erasure” says:
[...] Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “As I understand it, the great majority of women who are not purely heterosexual are [...]
May 13, 2010, 1:34 pmJohn Herbison says:
Do you perhaps mean the “never married” seat? Because scurrilous, irresponsible, rank speculation is out there about at least one currently seated SCOTUS member. See, e.g., http://wonkette.com/414042/john-roberts-quitting-supreme-court-because-hes-gay-or-something
May 13, 2010, 1:37 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
What evolved into the Tea Party crowd, which Lou Gots appears to channel, didn’t feel very good at all. Next question.
May 13, 2010, 1:46 pmray_g says:
I’m a 50+ straight male who has never been married, and I occasionally run into this kind of thing. Now I’m wondering that if same sex marriage becomes common and acceptable, what unwarranted assumptions will then be made about someone like me, who has never been married and doesn’t date much. Will people think that they are bisexual, asexual, or what?
May 13, 2010, 1:58 pmJWD says:
Wow–I take it this only works one way. All of the Democrats who criticized Harriet Miers for having no judicial experience get a pass, huh?
Including one junior Senator from Illinois:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-flashback-a-supreme-court-nominee-with-no-judicial-experience-requires-extreme-scrutiny/
Looks like the Dems have as much or more explaining to do…
May 13, 2010, 2:17 pmJohn Herbison says:
The recent trend in SCOTUS nominations has been toward those with at least some prior judicial experience; however, that has not always been the case.
Since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, SCOTUS nominees without prior judicial experience include Earl Warren, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist, Harriet Miers and the current nominee, Elena Kagan. This is in addition to those serving when President Eisenhower took office, who also had no prior judicial experience: Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Stanley Reed, William Douglas, Robert Jackson, Harold Burton, and Tom Clark.
Those SCOTUS nominees with prior judicial experience during that time include John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan, Charles Whittaker, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. Those serving on SCOTUS at the beginning of the Eisenhower administration who had prior judicial experience included Fred Vinson and Sherman Minton. Some of these had served as a judge only briefly prior to being nominated, such as Harlan (one year), Thomas (one year) and Roberts (two years).
May 13, 2010, 3:32 pmRich Rostrom says:
2.7% of all women report mostly opposite gender, 0.8% report both genders, 0.6% report mostly same gender, and only 0.3% report only same gender.
What about the other 95.1% of women?
May 13, 2010, 3:41 pmRoscoe says:
Anybody besides me remember the late, great John Candy’s first scene in the movie “Splash?” He comes running up to Tom Hanks waving a Penthouse magazine, and says the following:
“They published my letter. Here it is, ‘A lesbian no more.’ They published my letter.”
May 13, 2010, 3:50 pmRandy says:
Ray-g: “Now I’m wondering that if same sex marriage becomes common and acceptable, what unwarranted assumptions will then be made about someone like me, who has never been married and doesn’t date much. Will people think that they are bisexual, asexual, or what?”
Um, Ray, I hate to break this to you, but people don’t wait around until SSM comes to speculate about unmarried middle-aged men. I can pretty much gaurantee that your friends and family have thought/gossiped about the possibility that you are gay, bi, a-sexual and what really does turn you on.
Chris: “Anyone else notice that folks who go around accusing everyone else are really trying to cover their own secrets?”
Of course. I am reminded of the scandal with the Portland mayor a few years back (or was it a suburb? Can’t quite remember). Anyhoo, he was virulently anti-gay, voted against any pro-measures quite vocally when a council member. You know what’s coming — he was found to solicit sex from young men in a chat room. What’s was interesting is that the paper that broke the story quoted a retired local prosecutor, who was in his 70s, and he said something to effect: Most people, you don’t have much to worry about. The ones that make a big fuss about their morality — those are the ones you have to watch.
Monster: “People who don’t reproduce or confer some advantage on the survival prospects of their close kin who carry copies of their genes are evolutionarily inferior to those who do.”
Well, thank goodness that I’m gay! Evolutionists think that gay people survived natural selection because we can provide support to our nieces and nephews and others within the family, since we don’t have children of our own. We are also the likely adoptees if the biological parents are killed off for some reason. If true, that would explain why gay people have existed in all cultures and in all ages, which means that we must have an evolutionary advantage. Glad Monster agrees.
May 13, 2010, 3:54 pmFloridan says:
epluribus: The effect of this is to heighten the feeling of estrangement, of otherness, many un-hyphenated Americans have about the Obama administration . . .
Do nutty-Americans still count as being unhyphenated (as long as they do not belong to some unwanted minority, of course)?
May 13, 2010, 4:17 pmBama 1L says:
They are interested in neither gender.
May 13, 2010, 4:17 pmThe Monster says:
Randy, it’s important to realize that an only child being gay would have no evolutionary advantage, nor would one that isn’t involved in the extended family providing some value to his nieces and nephews.
There has been some work done that suggests that the incidence of homosexuality rises with the number of elder brothers; perhaps the additional males competing for mates are redundant if not a negative influence. Certainly it is far more important from an evolutionary standpoint for as many women as possible to be at least heterosexual enough to get knocked up often, while a few dominant males can keep them in that condition. (Those Mormon splinters aren’t as weird historically as some would like to paint them.) But more study is needed to understand it fully. (It isn’t 100%: I am 5th of 5 brothers, 7/8 overall, and am quite heterosexual, as The Bride of Monster may testify, and the existence of the Monsterettes proves.)
May 13, 2010, 5:04 pmtheobromophile says:
The Monster: evolution isn’t about specifics and outliers; it’s about what works more often than what does not work.
Moreover, I’m unsure of when, save the last few decades, it was common for people to only have one or two children. Also, it seems as if large cities of a few million people, in which someone could reasonably interact only with people who have dissimilar genes, are likewise a modern invention. Prior to the 20th century, the vast majority of people had several siblings and lived near (and even with) extended family, so it would be rather easy for a non-married adult to help out with the rest of the family (protection, farming, manual labour, etc.).
(Frankly, I’ve never understood this business of looking at evolution as something that would only affect an individual living in, say, Manhattan, wherein there are limited social consequences for one’s behaviour, few family members in amongst a huge population of non-relatives, etc. That’s just not how people lived for millions of years.)
May 13, 2010, 5:39 pmepluribus says:
You are misattributing this quote to me. I didn’t say that.
May 13, 2010, 6:07 pmepluribus says:
Randy:
Are you aware of the current story of George Rekers, a prominent anti-gay activist, who hired a male escort from an online site to go to Europe with him. Said he wanted somebody to carry his baggage for him. The escort had a different idea of why he was being paid to travel to Europe and share a room with Rekers. Seems that Rekers has how resigned his position at National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, but he stoutly maintains he’s not gay. Shades of Larry Craig.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/13/2010-05-13_antigay_activist_christian_minister_george_rekers_caught_in_gay_escort_scandal_r.html
May 13, 2010, 6:18 pmleo marvin says:
So, your point is that Obama the Muslim is even less athletic than the old gay Jew? I’d say you forgot to mention they’re also both Marxists, but maybe you thought it would insult our intelligence to point out something that obvious.
May 13, 2010, 7:09 pmElliot says:
Would this apply to gays who refer to straights “breeders?” Do they really have heterosexual tendencies they are trying to mask?
May 13, 2010, 8:10 pmwhit says:
“personal junk”
perfect
May 13, 2010, 9:35 pmElliot says:
But is her life story compelling?
May 13, 2010, 10:49 pmSpeaking of Erasure says:
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary should subpoena her iPod. That’s the only sure way to determine sexual orientation…
May 13, 2010, 10:51 pmel polacko says:
i do wish that all the folks who have suddenly decided that they do not care at all if someone is straight or gay, nor who anyone shares their life/bed with, would show up at the voting booths when there are laws intending to discriminate against gay citizens on the ballot.
May 13, 2010, 10:58 pmLou Gots says:
Epluribus asks if I would apply my analysis of the probable effect of popular understanding of the sexual preferences of a Supreme Court nominee to a Black accession the the Supreme Court. I should have thought that electotal history made that plain. It is highly likely that the Thurgood Marshall appointment fostered the Republican Southern strategy, and contributed to not only the Nixon victory the following year but Republican victories thereafter. It is not that this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is a true thing.
I neither know now wish to know of Miss Kagan’s private propensities. They matter to me only insofar as popular perception (or misperception, as the case may be) of those proclivities might aid social and political causes which I favor.
Whether the nominee is or is not of the marrying kind, as people once said, is not important. What does matter is the rumors flying about, and the photos published by an unkind press, which make her look very much like the vulgar impression of one batting from the wrong side of the plate.
Would this perception, or misperception
May 13, 2010, 11:16 pmswing votes? Would it cement that uncomfortable feeling on the part of many of us that this Administration is not about people like us? I believe that it would. Those for whom this event would be a plus are already in the bag. According to the polls a kind of buyer’s remorse among the great center is already well under way, and this appointment only drives the stake in deeper.
Elliot says:
That’s the point. They don’t care. They really don’t care about gays. They don’t even care enough to vote.
May 14, 2010, 12:13 amDave N. says:
You forgot Douglas Ginsburg (who is still a judge).
May 14, 2010, 1:33 amRandy says:
Monster: “Randy, it’s important to realize that an only child being gay would have no evolutionary advantage, nor would one that isn’t involved in the extended family providing some value to his nieces and nephews. ”
And yet such situations exist, and have existed many times in the past. I guess Mother Nature didn’t get your memo.
epluribus: “Are you aware of the current story of George Rekers, a prominent anti-gay activist, who hired a male escort from an online site to go to Europe with him. Said he wanted somebody to carry his baggage for him.”
Sure am, and I almost split my sides from laughing. From now on, whenever I hear from the anti-gay folks, I’m going to reply that if George Rekers thinks it’s okay to be gay, then who are they to argue otherwise.
May 14, 2010, 1:36 amRicardo says:
It seems the state of Florida paid Rekers $120,000 for “expert” testimony in the state’s courtroom defense of its gay adoption ban (the judge ruled his testimony was unscientific and not very impressive). Quite a racket he had going there. No wonder he could afford to fly a male escort out to Europe for 10 days.
May 14, 2010, 3:17 amepluribus says:
Lou Gots, I don’t know you, so I won’t comment on you personally, but I find your arguments troubling and unpersuasive. Are they the official line from the anti-gay religious right, or did you come up with them on your own?
May 14, 2010, 8:04 amThe Monster says:
Woosh. I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the studies showing the incidence of male homosexuality correlates with the number of elder brothers. Mother Nature wrote the memo.
May 14, 2010, 12:06 pmJohn Herbison says:
You are absolutely right. Sorry for the omission. Judge Ginsburg’s nomination followed the Senate’s rejection of Judge Bork, and was pending for only a brief time before the nominee voluntarily withdrew from consideration.
May 14, 2010, 2:09 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
That is, bigots? I would have thought that was clear already.
The terrible dismay of the Tea Party is in no small part driven by the discovery how much of the country is no longer rural, white, Protestant, homophobic, and ignorant. Just watch how happy the center is with the Palin/Beck ticket when the time comes.
May 14, 2010, 2:55 pmleo marvin says:
I doubt anyone can carry that much baggage.
May 14, 2010, 6:35 pmChris Travers says:
Anyone who accuses people repetitively of anything.
If someone accuses lots of people of stealing money from them, watch your wallet when he/she’s around….
May 14, 2010, 7:59 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t get your point here.
If homosexuality is selected for to some extent because there’s a net positive survival value for siblings, etc. then the extent to which it’s deselected is going to depend upon which the balance of cases swings towards beneficial or not. Some cases (randomization, etc) will tend towards beneficial and some will tend towards not.
Not comparing it to a disease or anything, but consider sickle cell anemia: It’s more prevalent in Africa because it offers a net benefit regarding resistance to malaria.
May 14, 2010, 8:23 pmElliot says:
Back before vulnerability was a virtue, before little kids were taught to be victims?
May 14, 2010, 9:57 pmRandy says:
Monster: ” I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the studies showing the incidence of male homosexuality correlates with the number of elder brothers. Mother Nature wrote the memo.”
You originally stated “People who don’t reproduce or confer some advantage on the survival prospects of their close kin who carry copies of their genes are evolutionarily inferior to those who do.” I merely pointed out that there are plenty of incidences in which gay people don’t reproduce, or don’t have close kin to carry out copies of the genes. Perhaps in your view these people are ‘evolutionarily inferior’ to others (whatever that means), but as a practical matter it doens’t really matter. Gay people still keep popping up regardless.
“I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the studies showing the incidence of male homosexuality correlates with the number of elder brothers.”
I have no elder brothers, and yet I’m a male homosexual. I guess that makes me the ‘outlier’ that staticians just ignore because it’s more convenient than trying to understand it.
May 15, 2010, 12:36 amRandy says:
Chris : “If homosexuality is selected for to some extent because there’s a net positive survival value for siblings, etc. then the extent to which it’s deselected is going to depend upon which the balance of cases swings towards beneficial or not. Some cases (randomization, etc) will tend towards beneficial and some will tend towards not.”
That might make sense, except it doesn’t account for bisexuals, or the fact that women’s sexuality is very different from males. (Testosterone is suspected to make a big difference). Nor does account for the fact that there is tremendous variety within bisexuality (some people are evenly divided, others lean towards one sex or the other). Nor does it account for the fact that in many animal species, homosexuality exists and researchers can only find because it gives pleasure to those who engage in it. (Of course, there may be other reasons that they haven’t discovered yet). Nor does it account for the fact that we still have a small but still significant population born with XXY chromosomes, or both male and female genetalia. If evolutionarily disadvantaged, why does all this still exist, and in large enough numbers to be somewhat common?
What we do know is that merely dividing the population into two boxes, gay or straight, is laughably inaccurate. If you want to come up with some evolutionary explanation, you have to account for the whole picture, not just the easy parts. Monster’s premise might not be wrong; it’s just that it fails to account for so much of what really happens (like the fact that I have no brothers), that it is ultimately has no value in explaining anything. And futhermore, even if true in most cases, so what? If I am somehow ‘evolutionarily disadvantaged’, you have to explain what they means to me and to others.
May 15, 2010, 12:44 amDan B says:
AOLnews.com confirmed a report saying “Kagan gay rumours didn’t start at the right” and referancing pro-homosexual web-sites that claimed and bragged that Kagan was lesbian back in 2009 including Queerty, PinkNews and Gawker.If that is the case with Ms Kagan and homosexuality is normal for her then any issue that comes before her would be to normalize homosexuality.She would prefer, “don’t tell don’t ask”‘ so she could be confirmed. How’s that for stealthly over turning eternal universal natural law.
May 15, 2010, 11:11 amRandy says:
Dan B. ” would be to normalize homosexuality.She would prefer, “don’t tell don’t ask“‘ so she could be confirmed. How’s that for stealthly over turning eternal universal natural law.”
And anyone who would claim that being gay isn’t natural or is afraid of homosexuality being ‘normalized’, whatever that means, and to further believe that any gay person would just vote on the Court merely in accordance with her sexuality, and worse, that a gay person would only be aiming for the Court just to upend ‘natural law’ as some sort of conspiracy, just can’t be taken seriously.
But thanks for your comment. We must always be aware that there are anti-gay idiots out there who are terrified of the gay.
May 15, 2010, 3:22 pmAn Average American says:
“When asked about current sexual attraction, 2.7% of all women report mostly opposite gender, 0.8% report both genders, 0.6% report mostly same gender, and only 0.3% report only same gender.”
Umm, so only 4.4% of women are sexually attracted to anyone at all? Well, that has seemed to be my experience, but it does not seem credulous to me.
Who compiled these statistics, Michael Bellesiles?
May 15, 2010, 7:14 pm