On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, BklynMagus wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Okay folks, the new report on bisexuality: is it good
> science and research or not? I always check here first
> before passing this stuff on.
>
> Thanks for your help as always.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
Well, if you define "sexual orientation" in terms of physical arousal when exposed to a potential sexual partner, the data seem to support the researchers' hypothesis. However, we have no idea if the results apply to other groups of self-identified bisexuals outside of Toronto (this is a common issue in psychological research).
I'll take a look at the research report to see if there are some egregious flaws; I see no red flags. The biggest problem I have here is with the arbitrary definition of sexual orientation as nothing more than physiological arousal when shown visual stimuli. It assumes that "true" sexual identity is a biologically determined trait, and that sexual identity not linked to biological predisposition is bogus.
I know it's almost trivially true, but if a group of people socially identify themselves as members of group X, and they are treated by others as members of that distinct group, the group for all practical, social purposes is "real". Thus it doesn't really matter how bisexuals respond to visual stimuli; what matters is whether or not others accept their self-identification as bisexual (is it a legitimate category you can use to describe yourself?).
--The question of whether or not some people are "really" bisexual is sociopolitical through and through (as is the existence of sexual categories altogether!).
Miles