'Research shows many trans folks' sexual attractions change after transition' So were they lying to themselves or everyone else?

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from them.us

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The first cited study, Auer et al., is... topically all over the place. They cite Foucalt, Volume 1, who's foundational to Queer Theory, but they really do seem to be interested in the science... however they use an imprecise definition of sexual orientation--the APA's-- and they don't provide the self-report instrument used to assess it. So after a brevity of aborted philosophizing about what sexual orientation is, they don't provide their definition and they just get on with it. It's probably operationalized by the notions of the study subjects. Which, considering the relative homogeneity of the group, isn't that bad... but I wouldn't exactly rely on a trans cohort to provide a coherent answer. Examine your genital preferences and all that.

Just strikes me as sloppy. I don't think... I'm fairly certain the way that a trans person approaches "sexual orientation" is different than the layperson. The authors probably have a different conception, too.

I suspect nobody is actually talking about the same thing.

"We could not demonstrate a particular variable concerning transition process which would predict change in sexual orientation."

Uh. I think the variable of "trans" seems to have a large effect there, kiddos. Get outside your box. Also, ask yourself, why is there so much damn erotic variation versus a cis population?

They think they're capturing the erotic phenomena by asking the cohort who they want to (presumably) fuck. But what if the erotic phenomena in this medicalized cohort is primarily or exclusively trans in-and-of-itself? This goes back to my earlier point of how they're conceptualizing sexual orientation.

Also. People lie about this stuff all the time. Self-deception included. Self-report. Stab me. Blanchard cracked the nut because he used phallometry. Erect penises don't lie.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 11 insightful - 7 fun11 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

One of studies quoted there had research based on who people started dating (or reported they are dating), instead of taking their words. However, that study covers only MtF transgenders, is based in 1990-2000s, and mostly talking about AGP transgenders (half of group) and HSTS with internalized homophobia, there only 6% changed their sexuality completely, and around 30% became "more bisexual". It also not speaking about sexuality, like other researches there, because other researches there speaking about "straight, homosexual, bisexual", which can mean anything to them, this study directly stating "started dating men, but were dating women before", without implification is it homosexuality or heterosexuality. However, by doing that - that study implies that transwoman who is dating man is in homosexual relationship (which is funny, and will be seen as transphobic nowadays). That study have a lot of problems too, like all researched transgenders are MtF from same place, same doctor, from same group, with similar reasons of transition.

[–]reluctant_commenter 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's probably operationalized by the notions of the study subjects. Which, considering the relative homogeneity of the group, isn't that bad... but I wouldn't exactly rely on a trans cohort to provide a coherent answer. Examine your genital preferences and all that.

Just strikes me as sloppy. I don't think... I'm fairly certain the way that a trans person approaches "sexual orientation" is different than the layperson. The authors probably have a different conception, too.

If that is what happened then, as you pointed out yourself, it would be a major problem. It's so ridiculous... one of the key principles of science is clarifying the definition and employing it in a consistent way so that we can be sure that the construct-- the thing we want to measure (sexual orientation)-- IS actually being measured by our operationalization (the way researchers ask people about their sexual orientation, for example). But of course, TRAs have sought to completely redefine what sexual orientation is anyway...

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's endemic. Randal Sell pointed this out in '97.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1024528427013

"At present it is clear that researchers are confused as to what they are studying when they assess sexual orientation in their research. Several literature reviews have found that researchers' conceptual definitions of these populations are rarely included in reports of their research and, when they are included, they often differ theoretically. Further, the operational methods used to measure sexual orientation in these studies do not always correspond with the most common conceptualizations of sexual orientation (Shively, 1984; Sell and Petrulio, 1995)"

TRAs have sought to completely redefine what sexual orientation is anyway...

When I'm practicing science, that's just fine. A good model will try to capture the entire phenomena in question. Trans (AGP/AAP, HSTS, AHE) has something to do with human sexuality.

That's why physicists are trying to do their Grand Unified Theory of everything, for example. It's not good enough to have the special relativity stuff over here, that describes these phenomena, and then the quantum stuff over here that only covers different sort of things.

Any proper model of sexual orientation has to capture trans, IMHO. If it's got anything to do with eroticism or sexuality, it must be considered. Trans has actually been a wonderful tool for me to elucidate other non trans phenomena of sexuality. It's a great standpoint to think from; it generates research at the very least.

People are just working from their own viewpoints, their little slice of the pie, and trying to universalize it. Ugh.