Eddy Curry Finds Gap in Homosexuality Definition

All crap studies trying to find a physical substrate for homosexuality (either in the brain or DNA) basically define homosexuals as having physical, emotional, or neurological traits of the opposite sex. A gay man has more feminine characteristics, and a woman has more male characteristics.

Let's take the recent case of New York Knickerbocker, Mr. Eddy Curry. Eddy it seems has homosexual tendencies as evidenced by his recent sexual harassment lawsuit, filed by his male driver:

The lawsuit alleges, "On more than one occasion in the last year of plaintiff's employment, Curry approached him, in the nude, and tried to solicit him to engage in homosexual acts with him by telling the plaintiff 'Look at me, Dave, look' and 'Come and touch it, Dave.' "

How do you resist that invitation?

These examples of homosexuality never seem to make into the scientific literature do they? Like with most worthless neuroscience/psychology studies, if the data points don't fit the hypothesis, leave 'em out.

Not to mention, it's not like Curry was exhibiting "female" sexual behavior. In fact, this would appear to be pretty dominant alpha male (asshole) behavior:

Curry also made Kuchinsky perform "humiliating tasks outside the scope of his employment, such as cleaning up and removing dirty towels [Curry had ejaculated into] so that his wife would not see them," the Manhattan federal court suit says.

Or I could be wrong, maybe the gay gene is next to the degrading asshole gene. Doesn't seem like a desirable hypothesis either...

Good Critique on Recent Homosexuality Study

I found a great critical review of the amgydala/hemisphere symmetry study I posted about the other day (via The Neurocritic). After providing examples of numerous confounds to the study, the reviewer made this conclusion:

There are many more technical problems with the analytical techniques used in this study. I'm not going to bother going through all of them. Needless to say, this study proves absolutely nothing, and is just another example of bad science. As an MRI researcher, this article offends me personally, for it gives MRI and PET research a bad rap; I'm going to go throw up now.

I would still take this a step further. It's not just the analytical techniques, it's the starting point. We are mired in this search to correlate vague, highly complex variables from two disparate systems - sexuality and the size of a brain region. I know I keep saying this, but it's just phrenology with better tools.

Studies in neuroscience historically run into problems because they try to run before they can walk. While it's amazing to have the technology to measure these brain differences, our understanding of consciousness, personality, character, sexuality, addiction, habitual behavior, etc. is still too questionable and badly defined to make true correlations with neurological attributes. We're nowhere close to close on this one.

The nature of these "neuropsychological" studies is still in dire need of a paradigm shift.

The Fruitless Hunt for the Physical Substrate of Homosexuality

It seems these silly studies comparing brain regions of gay and straight people are surfacing again. Frankly, if I was gay (which I'm not), I'd be offended by these studies. There is still zero definition of actual character traits when studying these people. We're defining "gay" by an attraction to the same sex. So that's it? All "gay" men act like women? Why not just assume all gay men love the The Bird Cage too?

This idea that gay women have masculinized brains and vice versa is a total stereotype and grossly inaccurate. There are exceptions to the rule everywhere - for instance, how do we categorize macho, aggressive male rappers with homophobic lyrics that also...have sex with men! Like with any shoddy study, they just ignore the unwanted data. And don't let that stop the science writers from the absurd extrapolations like the headline from New Scientist - "Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex."

This claim is based on a study with 45 gay and straight people - not exactly a huge sample size. Not to mention, there's no implication that maybe the difference in amygdala structure may be caused by experience.

This is just another example of dark ages phrenology...I mean, current neuroscience.