Oh Look, Yet Another Flawed Study That Portrays Gay People Negatively
A new study from Texas claims to have found that same-sex couples suffer much higher rates of intimate partner domestic violence, but the data is ancient history, and thus, worthless — and potentially harmful
It’s likely just a coincidence that Mark Regnerus and his debunked anti-gay “study” of supposedly adult children of gay parents has been in the news this week. (No, his study was not of adult children of gay parents.) Regnerus testified before a federal judge deciding the future of same-sex marriage in Michigan this week, and, of course, his beliefs were thoroughly yet again debunked.
LOOK:Â Read What Mark Regnerus Just Said In Court About Kids Of Same-Sex Couples
So imagine my surprise when I came across an article yesterday, supposedly from a science news site, titled, “Who Has More Intimate Partner Violence, Gays Or Straights?” And imagine my surprise when the answer was, of course, “gays.” And as I debated publishing this article, yet another article has come out about the flawed study, titled, “Intimate Partner Violence More Common Among Non-Heterosexual Partners.”
Both authors should have, but did not, bother to explain that the old data is essentially useless if applied to today’s society.
LOOK:Â As Regnerus Testifies Against Marriage In Court, His University Denounces His Research
The “study,” (technically, two studies, published together,) coincidentally was also out of Texas, just as Regnerus’ “study” was. Its title is “The Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization By Sexual Orientation.” (PDF)
“The first study found that homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely to be involved in intimate partner violence,” reads the article at Science 2.0. “In the second study, homosexual or bisexual victims of intimate partner violence were more likely to use drugs and alcohol and have health issues compared to heterosexual victims.”
“Homosexuals and bisexuals had 36 percent more likelihood than heterosexuals of being involved in intimate partner violence – in the dataset the totals were 50 percent and 32 percent respectively.”
Tucked away in the article (from the researchers’ published report) is this particularly important yet wholly glossed-over fact:
“The dataset was a sample of 7,216 women and 6,893 men from the National Violence Against Women Survey from 1995 and 1996.”
Yes, the National Violence Against Women Survey from 1995 and 1996.
We’re talking about data that was collected nearly two decades ago. Many of you reading this might not even have been born when the information was collected. The average age of the study’s respondents — the people who participated in the study — was 45. This means that the incidents of abuse occurred, actually between, probably, 1965 and 1996.
If the study were titled “The Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Between 1965-1996 By Sexual Orientation” then, fine.
Heck, Lawrence v. Texas, which, in essence, made homosexuality legal, wasn’t decided by the Supreme Court until 2003. Meaning that all these incidents of reported violence (no one’s suggesting they aren’t legitimate) happened when being gay was in essence illegal.
One of the study’s authors, Maria Koeppel, told me in an email conversation in response to my question about the dataset:
The study did use data pulled from the National Violence Against Women Survey. That survey originally had about 16,000 participants, however, the sample that we used for our study only included individuals who had reported being in current or former romantic cohabiting or marital relationships. As a result the number of people included in our study was about 14,100.
The study itself claims that, “[m]irroring other measurements of sexual orientation, one percent of our sample was identified as non-heterosexual.” I know of no study that finds just one percent of the population is non-heterosexual. (See below for more.) Also, the study at points  identifies “non-heterosexual” as homosexual, which is incorrect.
So, the study focuses on one-percent of its data to draw conclusions about intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships from the 1960s to the 1990s. And this is relevant in what way to today, exactly how?
If you were to say in no way whatsoever, except as a look into history, you would be correct — certainly in my opinion.
The study also is based on a dataset in which a full 30 percent of respondents are unemployed, and the balance are not necessarily employed full-time. So, one might automatically expect overall incidence of violence, and alcohol and drug use to be higher.
What is truly sad is this study, released by the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University, actually seems to be well-intentioned — unlike the Regnerus “study.”
The authors, Maria Koeppel and Leana A. Bouffard, Ph.D., write that “by determining which specific IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] effects have the greatest impact on non-heterosexual victims, shelters and programs can allocate proper funding to specific issues.”
Totally agreed!
But the LGBT community has changed dramatically since the 1960s-1990s, and this study paints us just a bit better than the “article” Michigan RNC Committeeman Dave Agema used that called gay people “filthy.”
To be fair, and in her defense, here’s what Koeppel told me, again via email:
The dated nature of the dataset, as well as the small sample size of sexual minorities are limitations of the study, and as such, conclusions drawn from this study should be not be used to make generalized statements. It should be noted however, that 1.0% of the sample being identified as not heterosexual closely emulates the same-sex cohabitation rate from the 2008 U.S Census, and that research, by necessity, will have to look at this population with smaller numbers since they are a minority. Regardless of such limitations, one goal of this study was to determine if differences in consequences varied between sexual orientation groups. To date, there have been no published studies which look specifically at that, and the dataset we used was unique in that it had measures for both sexual orientation, and various forms of intimate partner violence. Secondly, the study wanted to bring attention to the potential differences between groups as justification for further research comparing aspects of intimate partner violence between sexual orientation groups. Future research would benefit from including a larger number of same-sex couples, being nationally representative, measuring minority stress in same-sex couples, and using comprehensive and innovated measures of intimate partner violence to allow for stronger conclusions and comparisons to be made.
Note to all researchers: you do not publish in a vacuum. You can claim all you want that your research “should be not be used to make generalized statements.”
Too bad, it is, and you all have a responsibility to foresee how it will be misused, twisted, and made into a weapon that is against the ultimate goal you probably have.
Case in point:
“Who Has More Intimate Partner Violence, Gays Or Straights?
The LGBT community absolutely needs and deserves more research and more funding for that research, but using ancient history and claiming it’s relevant to today is not just pointless, it’s harmful.
Â
Image: Photo of artist George Segal’s commemoration of New York City’s 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, by Tony Fischer via Flickr
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
The White House has confirmed President Donald Trump is moving to push the controversial SAVE America Act further right — which could make it even easier for the left to reject.
Many were confused or critical when President Trump claimed on Thursday that the SAVE Act — a voter ID bill that critics say will disenfranchise millions of Americans — would reshape rules for sports participation and health care access for transgender people, which the current text of the bill does not actually do.
According to Trump’s Truth Social post, the bill requires voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote, and no mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel. It also bans “men in women’s sports,” and “transgender mutilation surgery for children, without the express written approval of the parents.”
The president, after uproar from the right, dropped the parental approval portion and called to ban all transgender surgery for children.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked on Friday about Trump’s additions to the legislation.
READ MORE: ‘Pure Amateur Hour’: Trump Slammed for ‘Absolutely Racing to Betray His Voters’
After declaring that he wants the SAVE Act passed “as soon as possible,” Leavitt acknowledged that Trump “has added on some priorities” to the bill in recent days, “namely no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports. The president putting all of these priorities together, it speaks to how common sense they are.”
“These are all common sense priorities of this president that are backed by the vast majority of Americans and he wants Republicans to act on them as quickly as possible,” she claimed.
According to Democracy Docket, Leavitt’s comments “mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-transgender policies to the SAVE America Act.”
Noting that even if the Senate were to pass the legislation with Trump’s latest priorities in it, the bill would have to head back to the House, Democracy Docket reported, “for another vote — a potentially difficult hurdle given the narrow margin by which it passed initially.”
But, even “without those additions, the bill faces long odds in the Senate, where most legislation requires 60 votes to pass and where Democrats have vowed to block it.”
Republican Majority Leader John Thune has said he opposes changing the Senate’s filibuster rules to help the bill’s passage.
READ MORE: ‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump and his administration are under fire for what critics say is a lack of planning for his war against Iran. The fallout is already being felt in the economy, from rising gas prices to sinking financial markets, and a myriad of other potential crises.
“I’ve seen a lot of Presidents fall short of their promises but I’ve never seen any President just doing the opposite of everything promised on purpose,” charged U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI). “Prices, Epstein, wars. Just absolutely racing to betray his voters.”
One hour later, he followed up, writing: “Did they think this through?”
The Atlantic’s Karim Sadjadpour earlier this week reported, “I have spoken with current and former U.S. officials privy to the decision making” on Iran, “who describe a total lack of planning and contradictory aims among those worried about the war effort and those more concerned about the war’s domestic political implications.”
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Ken Martin earlier in the week charged: “Trump and his incompetent administration had no plan to get Americans out of danger after their planned attack on Iran. Now, American citizens are stuck in an active war zone. This is a complete disaster.”
READ MORE: ‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’
On Friday, the State Department said that 24,000 Americans had returned from the Middle East, but thousands more remain. The “vast majority” of those who returned “were able to make their way home on their own through commercial means,” the Associated Press reported.
The rapidly rising price of oil and gas, and access to them, appear to be among critics’ greatest concerns.
“Apparently no one in the White House thought starting a war in the Middle East might affect oil prices,” lamented U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). “Now families are paying the price at the pump for pure amateur hour.”
Longtime journalist Jim Roberts delved even further.
“Listening to White House official Kevin Hassett this morning is making it crystal clear that the Trump administration had no plan for dealing with the disruption of energy supplies in the Mideast,” he wrote, adding: “And now the Pentagon is trying to figure out how to protect ships in the Strait of Hormuz.”
The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson warned, “By April, energy experts say, the Iran War could be a full blown energy crisis.”
Citing reporting from the Financial Times, macroeconomist Philip Pilkington wrote that the “Trump administration forgot to refill its Strategic Petroleum Reserve before launching Total War in the Middle East.”
Patrick De Haan, the widely cited head of Petroleum Analysis at Gas Buddy, referencing President Donald Trump’s remarks about the price of gas rising, warned: “it doesn’t appear the admin is yet aware there’s actually a problem, so that means there’s nothing yet to fix. I do hope this changes soon.”
READ MORE: ‘Flashing Red’: Jobs Report Sparks Expert Warnings of Recession — or Even Stagflation
Image via Reuters
Washington Post readers are pushing back against the paper and an op-ed that laments what its author sees as a shortage of evangelical Christians in the “halls of power.”
“Evangelicals are 23 percent of U.S. adults and one of the most loyal Republican voting blocs, with 81 percent backing Donald Trump in 2024,” writes author Aaron M. Renn. “Yet despite six of the nine Supreme Court justices being appointed by Republican presidents, there are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court “is just one of the many elite institutions in which evangelicals are absent or underrepresented,” he continues. Declaring that evangelicals “have excelled in politics,” he points to U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and House Speaker Mike Johnson as examples.
Arguing that evangelicals “are also prominent in well-run and profitable businesses with relatively low cultural impact, such as food processing (Tyson Foods) and retail (Hobby Lobby),” he says that “they are all but absent from the leadership of prestigious universities, major foundations, Big Tech companies, leading financial firms and large media companies.”
READ MORE: ‘Flashing Red’: Jobs Report Sparks Expert Warnings of Recession — or Even Stagflation
“A stronger evangelical presence in elite institutions could strengthen them while addressing polarization and public mistrust,” he continues. “The lack of evangelicals in the halls of power contributes to anti-institutional public sentiment. It also deprives those institutions of an important pool of talent.”
Washington Post readers scorched the op-ed and the paper.
“The author remarked, more than once, of the lack of formal education among the vast numbers of evangelicals,” wrote one reader. “He then questions the lack of said evangelicals on corporate and college boards and in executive offices. Am I the only one seeing a connection here?”
“Is this not a request for a new DEI program to benefit evangelicals?” asked a reader.
“I am an evangelical Christian,” said a critic. “Please don’t hold up Mike Johnson or Josh Hawley as an example of what Christ calls us to be. Perhaps the reason for our absence in the halls of power is the fact that the majority chose to elect an amoral, corrupt narcissist to be president. We should be absent from that depth of depravity.”
READ MORE: Revealed: The Real Reason Kristi Noem Was Fired
One reader encouraged the author to “go see the musical Godspell and see just how far off the mark the American Evangelicals are.”
“Since when did adherence to fundamentalist religious beliefs become a litmus test for government or institutional leadership?” asked a reader. “Aren’t we currently bombing a country based on that system? This ‘newspaper’ is devolving into an internet forum.”
“So now MAGA wants DEI for Evangelicals,” said one reader. “This is fantastic stand-up comedy material.”
“In some cases, not all, the author is confusing evangelical with fundamentalist,” wrote one critic. “The author is also narrowing the meaning of evangelical by using a political frame, not a theological frame. Many evangelicals define themselves via strict adherence to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (or the Plain) … I wish the author had explored at least modestly the increasing breadth of what the designation ‘evangelical’ represents in Christianity, not on Capital Hill.”
“Do you expect to be trusted in fields of science when you deny evolution?” asked a reader.
“Evangelical Christianity is the antithesis of intellectual pursuit, science, and progress,” wrote a reader.
And one critic, appearing to refer to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” charged: “Dreaming of Gilead, are you?”
READ MORE: Trump’s Iran War Triggers Gas Price Shock — Especially in Red America
Image via Reuters
White House Confirms Trump’s Shift That Pushes SAVE Act Further Right
‘Pure Amateur Hour’: Trump Slammed for ‘Absolutely Racing to Betray His Voters’
‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’
‘Flashing Red’: Jobs Report Sparks Expert Warnings of Recession — or Even Stagflation
Revealed: The Real Reason Kristi Noem Was Fired
News3 days agoRevealed: The Real Reason Kristi Noem Was Fired
News2 days agoWhite House Confirms Trump’s Shift That Pushes SAVE Act Further Right
News4 days agoWhy Trump Is ‘Losing Control’ in Iran: Scholar
News4 days ago‘Borderline Criminal’: Ex-Trump Official Says DHS Least Ready Yet for Terror Attack
News3 days ago‘Total Scumbag Move’: MAGA Rages as Trump Faces Demands to End Texas GOP War
News3 days agoTrump’s Iran War Triggers Gas Price Shock — Especially in Red America
News2 days ago‘Dreaming of Gilead?’ WaPo Hit for Op-Ed Mourning Lack of Evangelicals in ‘Halls of Power’
News4 days agoHouse Epstein Investigators ‘Working With’ Trump: Comer
