about that 'neuroscience' survey

[0mindthegap0]

By the time I got here, it looks like they've realised their heads are up their asses and removed the survey. I'd have liked to at least go through it anyway to gawk at the sheer idiocy, but oh well.

But anyway, this has got to be the single most infuriating statement they've made in all the comments so far:

"About sexual orientation: Thanks for

Comments

[mresundance]

Oh dear.

I probably wouldn't have taken the survey just because of teh failness. :/

[0mindthegap0]

You really, really definitely wouldn't have.

However, all the gobsmackingly stupid questions have been compiled here for anyone to pick apart now. I... IDEK. Basically an attempt to get us to 'affirm' the biases these guys already had coming in through lots of horribly worded questions.

[mresundance]

Gag. The sexual orientation and gender questions for the utter fail. Especially the bisexuality thing. I know that sexuality is more nuanced than a series of ticky boxes could ever explain, but WTF? Seriously?

I think by their standards I don't exist, given the whole trans and 90 % gay with a 10 % margin of error thing I've got going. I can't imagine how many other people in fandom don't exist according to their standards. (Haha, the race question was full of utter, epic fail to the degree that it hurts, like a stomach ache.)

[0mindthegap0]

I especially love how asexuality throws this great big monkey wrench in the whole kinsey scale. It makes life more fun that way.

You wouldn't have been of any use anyway, because you're not one of the wimmins who always self-identify with one of the men they're writing about for sexual gratification, obvs. Those guys really picked the wrong corner of the internet to try to apply broad strokes to.

[elfwreck]

This post has been included in a linkspam roundup.

[mresundance]

Oh dear lord - http://nestra.livejournal.com/315570.html:

"Well, slash is kind of the female equivalent of the straight male interest in transsexuals. That is, the opposite of what culture would predict. So it probably reflects a more direct subcortical effect."

This whole statement is LOLARIOUS in its ignorance. I can no longer keep a straight face about this.

I have no idea how it's like the "straight" male interest in transsexuals. Most straight dudes who are into MTFs and fetishize them are, in my opinion, have internalized homophobia and same gender attraction issues.

The fact that they are really dating women when they date MTF's - and not some special hybrid exception to gender rules which allows them to safely obtain access to another person's p33n, assuming the woman in question has one - is an irony that is lost on most, alas.

/ramble

LOL.

[0mindthegap0]

That is..... really quite breathtakingly stupid. Not to mention that the 'logical' equivalent would be straight male interest in lesbians. You know, to avoid mixing metaphors.

Guys who identify as straight but are still into MTFs are just repressing whatever part of them isn't so 100% straight. It's not healthy. As opposed to, imagine that, normal female interest in men bonking.

Also, I'm just going to assume that 'transsexuals' meant MTF in this case because that's what porn for dudes has taught us to believe, after all. *facepalm* Still reeling from the sheer stupid here.

[mresundance]

I know, right?

Transsexual these days is generally shorthand for "chick with a p33n, yo!", which is . . . a whole other set of fail for another day.

(Also, random. But I think there needs to be a t-shirt out there that says something like "You make my vagina angry." With a little unhappy face. I don't know why I think of that right now.)

[0mindthegap0]

because there are way more productive things I should be doing

[nushanakt]

I know why they make the limited number of choices: it's easier to quantify and analyze and crunch the numbers, but I'm really personally against that. I really prefer to have people self-identify their race or gender or sexual orientation - who am I to tell them what their options are? (But I'm from cultural studies/anthropology/post-modern wank studies, not neuroscience, so I'm a bit biased that way.)

I'm glad to hear a participant liked that method. Thanks!

[0mindthegap0]

There are a lot of subjects that can be easily quantified, where it would make sense to use this sort of method - but the human brain really isn't one of them just yet.

Limited choices can also help introduce bias from the onset to get the answers that you want, which was definitely the case here, though in theory you could probably work from a pretty neutral perspective and still do that.

Cultural/anthropological studies are ♥. I really do enjoy following your work here.