Lead

May 3 17 4:26 AM

Tags : :

This is one of the articles I link to, not because I am convinced the researchers are right about what they say, but because their research reflects a specific way of looking at sexuality on the one hand and masculinity/fermininity on the other.

Science may have found a link between biology and men who bottom

These researchers clearly believes in the stereotype of the feminine/"femaly wired" gay man who likes to be the receptive party during sex, as opposed to the masculine pro-active partner who wants to be on top.

This is a slightly more nuanced approach than Blanchard and Bailey's idea that all gay men are feminine. My own gay male friends insist that this is nothing but a stereoype. Most of them seem to very versatile when it comes to this part of their sexuality, although there are those that are exclusively top or bottoms. They may be influenced by gay "femme-phobia", I suspect -- i.e. the current preference of masculinity in many gay male circles -- but I doubt it.

This is the type of research where it is very easy to go from what researchers call "significant" variation on the macro level (the population as a whole) to individuals, who may -- to tell the truth -- display all kinds of variation as regards sexual preferences and gender expression. I still find it hard to understand why the macro level can tell me anything about the sexuality or identity of individual. If any of you can help me in this respect, please let me know.

The study’s 598 participants were recruited either on Facebook or at the 2015 Toronto Pride festival. 

According to Queerty  self-identifying bottoms more often than not have older brothers, are “non-right handed” (a.k.a. left handed), and/or do not conform to gender stereotypes as kids. 
The researchers claim that men who demonstrated more “masculine” personality traits were more likely to be tops, while those with more “feminine” often identified as bottoms:
Self-identified tops rated themselves as more masculine compared to bottoms, and tops were more likely to score higher on male-typical cognitive styles, while bottoms were higher on female-typical cognitive styles.


And this could be linked to the amount of prenatal testosterone they received in utero:
In males, female-typical gender expression and same-sex attraction are thought to result from a relative lack of prenatal testosterone exposure, resulting in female-typical brain development and, thus, female-typical behavior and sexual partner preference (i.e., a preference for men).


You can proably see the relevance for gynephilic MTF crossdreamers. If they are right about being "a bottom" is linked to prenatal testosterone, what does that mean for crossdreamers who feel the same way, but who are attracted to women? (And vice versa for FTM crossdreamers.)

The full paper is available here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170241
Summary

The present study found that handedness, a sexually differentiated trait, mediates the relationship between sexual orientation and gender nonconformity, suggesting that the prenatal mechanisms underlying handedness also influence male same-sex sexual orientation and gender nonconforming behaviors.

Furthermore, the present findings suggest that the biological mechanisms that underlie handedness differentially apply to subgroups of gay men delineated by their anal sex role behavior.

Lastly, a curvilinear relationship was found between handedness and gender nonconformity, suggesting that high and low handedness scores are associated with more gender conformity compared to participants with intermediate/mixed handedness.

Together, these findings suggest that the developmental processes underlying handedness act in a nonlinear fashion to influence male same-sex sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity.

Lastly, the observed differences in handedness and gender expression among subgroups of gay men delineated by anal sex roles support the notion that gay men constitute a heterogeneous group with respect to developmental underpinnings of their same-sex sexual orientation. 

Last Edited By: jackmolay May 3 17 5:10 AM. Edited 1 time

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

May 3 17 12:47 PM

I'm always suspicious of studies that recruit volunteers. Blanchard's studies used volunteers. You need to discount the results. But if they are true, maybe sex (male or female genitalia) doesn't determine top or bottom preferences. 

What they need to do is randomly pick females and males from the general poplulation. Heterosexuls, homosexuals, cis-gendered, transgendered,etc... and then tabulate the results. Just looking at one group doesn't really tell us much. It could be all groups would show a similar distribution.

Lindsay


"The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear, dig?" the Pointed Man

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

May 10 17 7:16 AM

Lindsay wrote:
I'm always suspicious of studies that recruit volunteers. Blanchard's studies used volunteers. You need to discount the results. But if they are true, maybe sex (male or female genitalia) doesn't determine top or bottom preferences. 

What they need to do is randomly pick females and males from the general poplulation. Heterosexuls, homosexuals, cis-gendered, transgendered,etc... and then tabulate the results. Just looking at one group doesn't really tell us much. It could be all groups would show a similar distribution.

Much worse is the fact that they didn't take any salivary assays. The argument rests on previous studies that show a link between T and handedness, even though these do not always replicate well:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1357650X.2016.1149485

There is actually no biology in this study, it's taken as an assumption.

Also doesn't cover straight/bi bottoms as you mention.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jun 17 17 12:29 PM

Designating some sort of "gender identity" from behavior is no less than pseudo-science balder -- a product of the masculinist hetero-fascist dyad.

But this brings up a larger issue: Why does it matter? What is the metaphysical requirement that we label behavior according to some sort of socio-cultural paradigm of what constitutes "male" and "female" ???

In legal circles there is an ongoing discussion (argument) about "when does a trans person become the other gender?" -- For M to F this juncture is often "post surgical" that the applicant/subject undergo surgical revision, have a "functional vagina" and is able to engage in "heterosexual" sex "as female."

The law steps into it when it requires "sexual function" as a criteria for gender designation. Gender designation often impinges upon legal questions such as marriage and succession of property inheritance. Since "gay marriage" is more or less accepted these days and makes the sex/marriage issue moot, what has "sexual function" to do with inheritance?

This issue becomes thornier when it considers "F to M" -- insofar as the surgically constructed "penis" doesn't function at all like a "cis-M" penis. Many "trans-male" function pretty much as what Jack (Judith) Halberstam describes as butch lesbian. Penile/vaginal penetrative sex acts is not a requirement for "functional sex."

I recently asked a US Army Major (female) about "trans gender" in the military. "Six months on hormones and a note from command."

I was going to ask about regulations on hair and why are they different for men and women? What about earrings? -- Hair needs to be off the collar. Earrings restricted to one in each lobe, less than 1/4" diameter, and this for females in dress uniform, not males, and not either in fatigues (work uniform).  "And a note from command." -- if you're "trans."

My sister drives long-haul semi-truck/trailer. Rosey Grier does embrodery. Gender essentialism is a socio-cultural phenomena, with nothing whatever to do with gender ID or sexual orientation.

Hell's bells -- I often dream about being an eagle.









 

Allison Wunderland's Transcend Dance
http://allisontranscend.blogspot.com/

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help