Michael's Story
As a Professor at the Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Illinois, I spend a lot of time thinking about sex — because it’s my primary field of study. I’m a sex researcher, and I conduct research in the field of sexual orientation, studying things like sexual arousal, behavioral genetics, gender nonconformity and evolutionary psychology. I believe sex research is a perfectly valid field of study, not to mention a socially relevant one, but researchers of the past did not always share that point of view. Afraid of societal taboos, they typically shied away from sex-related topics in their work. Those days may be over, but that doesn’t mean sex research is no longer a controversial field. Today, some activists find sex research objectionable because the findings of many studies are unpalatable to them. This has created an atmosphere in which people are intimidated, and researchers feel pressured to refrain from discussing certain topics which, by any reasonable measure, would otherwise be considered important areas of study. Unfortunately this is the current state of academic “freedom” — and I am very unhappy with it.
My foray into the field of sexual orientation research began through a series of coincidences. In college, I studied mathematics, but I found that too abstract and disconnected from the real world for my taste. I felt I needed something more tangible, more relatable, so when I went to graduate school, I switched my focus to Clinical Psychology. Early on, I studied topics like IQ, intelligence and schizophrenia, but when I started taking classes on human sexuality, something clicked. I found that subject far more fascinating, and when it was time for me to look for a dissertation topic, my advisor suggested I choose something related to sexual orientation. That’s how I got into the field. Since academia had long avoided the taboo topic of homosexuality, it was a wide open subject for me, and I found that I really enjoyed working with gay and lesbian people. Most importantly, though, it was an area of research where I could find answers to many interesting questions that had not been answered before.
The first study we conducted on bisexuality was published in 2005, and it was more rigorous than any other studies done before. We used penile plethysmography, a straightforward scientific tool used in the laboratory to study male arousal to record our readings. And we did not find evidence that men who identified as bi looked bisexual in the lab — or to be more specific, their penises did not respond in a manner that clearly indicated bisexuality. The men clearly were vastly more aroused by male sexual stimuli than they were by the female form; their responses looked very similar to those of gay men. This created a massive controversy, in large part because of how it was reported in the New York Times as “Straight, Gay, or Lying.” But for the record, I never claimed that bisexuality doesn't exist. All I said was that we did not find conclusive evidence.
Before long I was contacted by John Sylla from the American Institute of Bisexuality (AIB), and we had a long discussion about my study. We disagreed on a lot of things. However, I wanted to conduct further research on this topic, and so when John offered to collaborate on a further study of bi men, funded by AIB, I agreed — upon the condition that John and AIB would not demand findings that aligned with their own politics around bisexuality. I admit I was convinced we would again fail to find evidence of bisexuality among the subjects.
But I was wrong.
With different recruitment methods, we did indeed find definitive evidence, recording results that clearly showed male participants responding in a manner consistent with bisexual attraction (similar arousal, regardless of the sex of the stimuli). From then on we have continued to collect relevant data. Today, we have several hundred cases to which we can point as showing clear patterns of bisexual arousal in bi men. Although I must admit I had some doubts that male bisexuality existed as a material reality beyond identity, I now consider the case settled that male bisexuality exists in a material sense as a sexual orientation, supported by scientific penile data. I am meticulously empirical, I am rigorous in ensuring that the data I collect is solid and irrefutable, and I conduct studies with an open mind. I firmly believe that it is only through this kind of strictly scientific approach that confusion and controversies can be cleared up around issues as intensely personal as sexuality.
When it comes to confusion and controversy, it would be hard to imagine an area of study more plagued by these obstacles than the subject of gender dysphoria. These factors are clearly compounded by the fact that the topic is not just a matter of scientific interest, but a social issue surrounded by a lot of feelings and opinions. Nevertheless, as with any other field of inquiry, the controversies can only be settled by acquiring and analyzing objective data — not by yelling at each other. In the past decade, there has been an epidemic in gender dysphoria, primarily occurring in girls between the ages of 12 and 18. There is a belief in some quarters that this has nothing to do with gender dysphoria at all, but is instead a socially contagious phenomena, a kind of mass hysteria. In addition, we are seeing a growing number of cases of de-transition (people abandoning their gender transition), which seems to support this hypothesis. It’s obvious that there is a real-world impact to the issue of gender dysphoria and how best to respond to it, and the well-being of many real people depends upon finding more definitive answers than the kind that come from emotional or political arguments alone. The only way to uncover the best answers is to rely on sound science and data.
Unfortunately, emotion and controversy provide obstacles to that process even before it gets to the laboratory. In my many years of research experience, I regularly come across people who object to funding sex research due to “social concerns,” which is just another way of saying they disapprove of studies on sex-related topics. There are others who claim to oppose it because they are against the funding of behavioral research, though it seems to me the most logical and valid way to study sexual orientation. Some make a controversy out of penile plethysmography, either because they are squeamish about anything related to penises or because it often produces results they don’t like. As an experienced sex researcher, I am here to testify that there is no better scientific method than this to study male arousal. In any case, my answer to all these objections is to assert that sex research is fundamentally important on a cultural and societal level, and that researchers should be left alone to their work. After all, we are better-versed in empirical methodology than anyone else, and to deny us the opportunity of applying it to this area of human life is to deny academic freedom. And that’s without even considering the far-reaching harmful effects, both on a societal and individual level, of allowing all the still-lingering questions around sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to remain unanswered.
The message I would stress for those of you who are reading these reflections is this: Be curious about things. Be tolerant of other people's curiosity, and of their ideas. Knowledge can sometimes be uncomfortable, but it is always ultimately beneficial to have, and we must continue to work together in order to produce more of it.
And if any person or entity is trying to stop us from learning, they are not to be trusted.
For more about Michael, follow him on Twitter.
Artist Notes
“The two faces at bottom represent disagreement. The violet face depicts Michael’s calm composure, asking people to stick to logic and facts (not give in to anger and violence). Mike is rooted, firmly grounded, as shown by the tree under his face. Above the faces are figures engaging in a tug of war on various topics, portrayed by the numerous faces above them.”
Published Jan 5, 2022
Updated Sep 6, 2023
Published in Issue X: Clash Of Ideologies