Gay Men And Straight Women Have Similar Brains, Says Neurosurgeon

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Apr 03, 2012 8:20 PM GMT
    Gay Men And Straight Women Have Similar Brains, Says Neurosurgeon


    http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/gay-men-and-straight-women-have-similar-brains-says-neurosurgeon-video?directory=100011
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 03, 2012 8:29 PM GMT
    Re-post of this topic:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2280554
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 5:54 AM GMT
    metta8 saidGay Men And Straight Women Have Similar Brains, Says Neurosurgeon


    http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/gay-men-and-straight-women-have-similar-brains-says-neurosurgeon-video?directory=100011



    Am I the only one who is offended by this?
    This is like giving people proof that the reason gay guys act effeminate is because we think like women. I beg to differ!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 6:27 AM GMT
    GigoloAssassin saidAm I the only one who is offended by this? This is like giving people proof that the reason gay guys act effeminate is because we think like women. I beg to differ!


    "I beg to differ"? Could you butch that up maybe?

    As to the story

    http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/gay-men-and-straight-women-have-similar-brains-says-neurosurgeon-video?directory=100011
    Using MRI scans of male and female brains, Dr. Martin showed viewers that “in the male brain, this area the amiglia is barely connected to the opposite hemisphere. In the female brain, the amiglia is connected to multiple areas throughout the cerebral hemisphere—women are just more connected than men are.”

    The amiglia? What the fuck is that, the fem version of amygdala?

    As to "women are just more connected than men are", here's the kicker about that: the amygdala has more neurological connections going out than coming in. That means it controls more than it is controlled because neurological pathways send messages in one direction. In other words, without significant effort, we don't have much control over how we feel about a thing and if the scans are correct, this could explain why gay people seem to be more emotional (not necessarily effeminate) than str8 guys, because in humans "the amygdalae perform primary roles in the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events."**

    So that we might have similar brain structure as str8 females doesn't neccessarily make us effeminate as much as it might make us impulse shoppers. But you can still be butch about impulse buying that truck.

    **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 7:22 AM GMT
    There always seems to be an inclination toward biological determinism in drawing broad conclusions. It goes to the bio-psycho-social scenario: where the determining factor must be selected as one of the three, instead of a combination and interaction.

    Especially in matters related to the mind - and therefore, also, the brain - the tendency is to assume a biological cause. Whether the issue is sexuality, "mental illness," or personality, a great deal of scientific studies (especially the ones that are popularized in the media) tend to be geared toward finding a biological cause of these human traits, often neglecting or dismissing social and environmental factors.

    Take the brain scans. Do they really prove anything? Well, to me, they prove that there is different activity taking place in the different brains... which were studied. But the labels for the scans were, "heterosexual male," "heterosexual female," and "homosexual male." Have we determined what a "normal" hetero/homo brain looks like? What does a "normal" brain look like in general? Since we see different activity, is it precisely 'sexuality' that determines the change? If it is, do we know that it was the biological change that preceded the apparent change in sexuality, or is it the other way around? Obviously, the brain scan wasn't of the "suddenly-after-stroke-gay" man, so we have no 'before' and 'after' photos. He may just have used the stroke as an opt-out, not unheard of, especially in near-death experiences: almost die, decide to finally live life, be honest with who you are, discover who you are, etc. Maybe he's just pulling a Virgin Mary ("God did it!"). I don't know, you don't know, does the doctor somehow magically know the guy isn't lying? People are complex. Any gay man who spent a good deal of time in the closet knows how possible it is to live a lie.

    I don't have the answers, but I also don't believe they are so simple. The doctor on the TV show said that this is a piece of evidence which proves that sexuality is biological. That just seems quite a leap to me. I have a lot more questions. Some things simply can't be reduced to being understood through a laboratory, a test, or an experiment. Alternatively, not everything can be reduced to mere environmental or social causes, the nature of biology must be taken into account. But with philosophers and social scientists staying away from science, and with scientists staying away from being philosophers (always rare exceptions!), I doubt we will advance too far on the path of knowledge and understanding, and instead, as we typically do, traverse the path of classifying, labeling, isolating, "perfecting," and thus, controlling. Throughout human history, the path of 'discovery' has often been a violent, dominating, and dehumanizing process.

    Compared to other socially transformative phenomena and powerful institutions of human society (religion, the state, education, language, etc.), the realm of "modern science" is still relatively new to the human experience. Often, it still seems as if we are learning to use fire for the first time... and then burning down the house. The path of discovery becomes socially directed and organized, often without the knowledge of the scientists themselves, who are somewhat segregated and compartmentalized ("professionalized"). Modern science went through a particularly dark phase in the eugenics period, along with medicine, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, sociology, etc., where "discovery" had an agenda: to classify and control.

    Since then, the science has gotten better, just as all the various fields involved heavily in the eugenics movement have become more influential, more institutionalized, professionalized, and profit-oriented. They have advanced, but without properly reconciling with their dark histories, geared toward social control and domination. So while the methods have changed, the social direction still remains, though it, too, is advanced.

    A little largely forgotten fact of history is that of the role of philanthropic foundations in shaping the modern society, namely, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations (among others). They were the financiers of the eugenics movement, the financiers and directors of the social sciences (developing and shaping entire disciplines), they funded psychiatry, psycho-biology, medicine, a Rockefeller Foundation official actually created the term "micro-biology" to describe a new field, leading to genetics, financed by the same names. It's challenging to find an aspect of society which philanthropic foundations have not been influential in shaping and engineering. These people are, and have always been, long term social planners. The aim is simple: control. The methods are varied and voluminous.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 7:22 AM GMT
    And one can simply say this is a mere interpretation, but it is one which is shared by those who were involved. In 1933, Max Mason, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, stated that the foundation's long-term policies:

    "were directed to the general problem of human behavior, with the aim of control through understanding. The Social sciences, for example, will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control; the Media and Natural sciences propose a closely coordinated study of sciences which underlie personal understanding and personal control. Many procedures will be explicitly co-operative between [Foundation] divisions. The Medical and Natural Sciences will, through psychiatry and psychobiology, have a strong interest in the problems of mental disease."*
    * Lily E. Kay, “Rethinking Institutions: Philanthropy as an Historigraphic Problem of Knowledge and Power,” Minerva (Vol. 35, 1997), page 290.

    Warren Weaver, hired by Max Mason to direct the Natural Sciences division, who emphasized the need for "socially purposeful science," about which he explained:

    "The welfare of mankind depends in a vital way on man’s understanding of himself and his physical environment. Science has made magnificent progress in the analysis and control of inanimate forces, but science has not made equal advances in the more delicate, more difficult, and more important problem of the analysis and control over animate forces."*
    *Daniel J. Kevles, “Foundations, Universities, and Trends in Support for the Physical and Biological Sciences, 1900-1992,” Daedalus (Vol. 121, No. 4, Immobile Democracy?), Fall 1992, page 206

    Weaver later coined the term "molecular biology" in 1938, "and he provided much of the support for the applications of new physical and chemical techniques to biology in the 1930s.”*
    *Robert E. Kohler, “The Management of Science: The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Programme in Molecular Biology.” Minerva (Vol. 14, No. 3), 1976, page 279

    In 1934, Warren Weaver wrote a proposal to the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation:

    "Can man gain an intelligent control of his own power? Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men? Can we obtain enough knowledge of physiology and psychobiology of sex so that man can bring this pervasive, highly important, and dangerous aspect of life under rational control? Can we unravel the tangled problem of the endocrine glands, and develop, before it is too late, a therapy for the whole hideous range of mental and physical disorders which result from glandular disturbances? ... Can we release psychology from its present confusion and ineffectiveness and shape it into a tool which every man can use every day? Can man acquire enough knowledge of his own vital processes so that we can hope to rationalize human behavior? Can we, in short, create a new science of Man?"*
    *Robert E. Kohler, “The Management of Science: The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Programme in Molecular Biology.” Minerva (Vol. 14, No. 3), 1976, page 291

    As foundations start up various avenues of interest, social engineering, knowledge, ideology, institutions, etc., typically the government or industry then move in to handle finances and give direction (though still cooperating with the foundations), and each sector becomes self-sustaining, profitable, powerful, and takes on a life of its own. This much was acknowledged by Raymond Fosdick, the President of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1934, when he reported to the board of trustees:

    "We do not have to be cynical to admit that if a foundation announces an interest in anthropology or astronomy or physio-chemical reactions, there will be plenty of institutions that will develop a zeal for the prosecution of these studies. The responsibility which this inescapable fact throws upon a foundation is enormous. The possession of funds carries with it power to establish trends and styles of intellectual endeavour... Indeed we would strongly advocate a shift of emphasis in favor not only of the dissemination of knowledge, but on the practical application of knowledge in fields where human need is great and opportunity is real. As a means of advancing knowledge, application can be as effective an instrument as research."*
    *Robert E. Kohler, “The Management of Science: The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Programme in Molecular Biology.” Minerva (Vol. 14, No. 3), 1976, page 293

    Now, I don't know what the answers are, I really haven't done enough research into various fields of science, but so long as this history is not acknowledged, we fail to see how it continues to exist within various fields today. So when I see the new "discoveries" of science and technology today, I tend to have a lot more questions than be immediately accepting of given answers.
  • ATLANTIS7

    Posts: 1213

    Apr 04, 2012 7:29 AM GMT
    Oh please!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 7:30 AM GMT
    @ MeOhMy: WILL YOU MARRY ME? icon_biggrin.gif

    @ AntiJock. Hahaha, you're funny. DIE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 7:31 AM GMT
    Trollileo saidHow is "I beg to differ" considered effeminate?


    THANK YOU! icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 8:20 AM GMT
    GigoloAssassin said
    Trollileo saidHow is "I beg to differ" considered effeminate?


    THANK YOU! icon_cool.gif


    So the question now is --

    Do you bitch slap them

    or

    punch them in the face???


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 8:23 AM GMT
    BWAHAHAHAHA.....yea OK
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 8:52 AM GMT
    WhI am not going to take a study seriously that is only meant for garnishing TV ratings. I must say that I am not at all offended by this.

    Being compared to a women should never be taken as an offense while comparing gay men to pedophiles should be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 10:04 AM GMT
    Well, what is the main similarity between gay men and straight women? They are both attracted to men. Perhaps that is what accounts for the similarity in their brains. There could be some part of the brain that is relevant to sexual attraction. Just an idea.
  • bad_wolf

    Posts: 1002

    Apr 04, 2012 10:39 AM GMT
    Offended on two fronts; one I hate the implication that a gay men are a woman in a man’s body (and all the degradation and mockery that slung at us as a result), now they're saying it’s a woman’s brain in a man’s body, like a gender identity crisis waiting to happen. We don't get our nails done, swap bras or talk about our periods like we don’t have a Y chromosome!

    Secondly, you're a freaking neurologist and you're wasting your time with trivial socio-political bullshit, and if that wasn't their intent are they really that ignorant of the ethics and implications of that they're saying.

    Go do something useful and fucking cure Alzheimer’s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 11:30 AM GMT
    bad_wolf saidOffended on two fronts; one I hate the implication that a gay men are a woman in a man’s body (and all the degradation and mockery that slung at us as a result), now they're saying it’s a woman’s brain in a man’s body, like a gender identity crisis waiting to happen. We don't get our nails done, swap bras or talk about our periods like we don’t have a Y chromosome!

    Secondly, you're a freaking neurologist and you're wasting your time with trivial socio-political bullshit, and if that wasn't their intent are they really that ignorant of the ethics and implications of that they're saying.

    Go do something useful and fucking cure Alzheimer’s.


    Ah, but he is doing something useful: he is providing "data" that can be manipulated and used to mold public opinion.

    To control the (supposedly) ignorant masses on behalf of his employers, or more indirectly, the capital-holding foundations which fund and support his employers.

    @OnaQuest:

    The correct answer is "strike him with the edge of the sword, and plunder his goods, and burn what remains with fire... all while wearing a devilishly stylish haubergeon and a horned helmet that Lief Ericsson would gush with envy over".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 11:32 AM GMT
    bad_wolf saidOffended on two fronts; one I hate the implication that a gay men are a woman in a man’s body (and all the degradation and mockery that slung at us as a result), now they're saying it’s a woman’s brain in a man’s body, like a gender identity crisis waiting to happen. We don't get our nails done, swap bras or talk about our periods like we don’t have a Y chromosome!

    Secondly, you're a freaking neurologist and you're wasting your time with trivial socio-political bullshit, and if that wasn't their intent are they really that ignorant of the ethics and implications of that they're saying.

    Go do something useful and fucking cure Alzheimer’s.


    Ah, but he is doing something useful: he is providing "data" that can be manipulated and used to mold public opinion.

    To control the (supposedly) ignorant masses on behalf of his employers, or more indirectly, the capital-holding foundations which fund and support his employers.

    @OnaQuest:

    The correct answer is "strike him with the edge of the sword, and plunder his goods, and burn what remains with fire... all while wearing a devilishly stylish haubergeon and a horned helmet that Lief Ericsson would gush with envy over".

    Clearly this is the most butch response to all of life's little problems. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 11:46 AM GMT
    I bet that neurosurgeon is a flamer and wannabe transgender.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 11:55 AM GMT
    So I think those of us who see that video and become "offended" are tapping into our "victim/vulnerability" side versus our "this is just information/I am the captain of my ship" side. Much like studies about differences among races bring out people who are "the world is racist/I'm a victim!" and people who think "this is just information/I control my destiny".

    I listened and thought "cool... another piece of the puzzle, potentially. Not sure what this means but I'd like to see other findings".

    Do we really need a study to support the obvious similarities between gay men and straight women? Or gay women and straight men? This seems like a "no brainer" get it? lol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 12:19 PM GMT
    I'm amused by the level of concern that these findings stir - particularly in those comments which fear that homo men and hetero women might share more than just sexual attraction to men (suggesting that their similarities in the brain must therefore also extend to gender mannerisms)...

    Firstly, sexual attraction and gender expression/behaviour are separate variables (and likely not mutually dependent, given the great diversity of masculinities that exist amongst gay men).

    But surely we're past all that biological determinism stuff, anyway. Aren't we? At the end of the day, what is the real value in finding an empirically testable, biological basis for sexuality (or gender identity/behaviour, for that matter)? I appreciate that some find it an appealing way to lend legitimacy and validation to the existence of same sex attraction (and also trans experiences), but why do we even need to justify it?

    p.s. men and women both have arms and legs and parietal lobes (that maps said body parts within the brain); and yet, remain dimorophic and differentiated in other ways. And humans share greater than 98% of our DNA with chimps.

    And so, Darwin's principle of "unity in (bio)diversity" strikes again.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 12:24 PM GMT
    GigoloAssassin said
    Trollileo saidHow is "I beg to differ" considered effeminate?


    THANK YOU! icon_cool.gif
    I know right! +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 12:37 PM GMT
    This isn't the first time this physiological theory has broke ground. As someone who majored in pshychology, I remember hearing this in many cases. It's thought that the corpus callosum is thicker in the "female" brain. Which would explain being more in touch with one's feelings, and over thinkng situations. As for the amygdala, this part of the brain is often associated with aggression. In conclusion, people are individuals. What may work in one case may not for another. Who cares what makes us gay! When we s tart looking for a cause, it connotates it's a problem. Being, our society often views male homosexuality as a form of pathology! Notice how they're hardly any studies to sh unlock?? the lesbian gene?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 12:58 PM GMT
    onaquest said
    GigoloAssassin said
    Trollileo saidHow is "I beg to differ" considered effeminate?


    THANK YOU! icon_cool.gif


    So the question now is --

    Do you bitch slap them

    or

    punch them in the face???




    You punch.

    Then snap your fingers and say "oh hell no."

    tumblr_li4uqyGDQr1qd42rao1_500.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 1:21 PM GMT
    My personal take is that desire is far too complicated a mix of biology, social and psychology factors, and experiential ones to every be broken down into a neat categorization of "the brain makes you gay" or "this gene makes you straight."

    That said, those on the thread who are offended by the idea that some part of their brains might be more similar to a straight woman than a straight man are misogynistic douche bags. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • vintovka

    Posts: 588

    Apr 04, 2012 1:54 PM GMT
    Well, OK, so what if gay men and straight women do share SOME brain features? That does not explain the whole difference.

    Also, such imaging studies are often prone to error because they use VERY small samples. To generalize from 50 individuals to the general population is suspect at best.

    However, I think that this seems hokey, at least as presented. This researcher set out to explain how a completely straight man became completely gay after a stroke. (Which I think is likely to be bullshit in the first place, but let's play along.) So the question is how the destruction of one part of the brain through oxygen deprivation can alter sexuality and the answer is that gay men have more connections between two particular regions of the brain than straight men do. So the theory is then that a stroke created new connections? Or did it destroy the old ones and then through a long and arduous recovery process the patient established the new ones making him gay? It sounds a bit hokey to me--particularly if the stroke suddenly transformed his sexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 1:55 PM GMT
    Trollileo saidHow is "I beg to differ" considered effeminate?


    You're absolutely correct, the phrase hasn't any tinge of pompous affect. particularly not in the context of worrying about coming across as anything but sincerely butch. My mistake; I misread that completely.