Connect with us

Oh Look, Yet Another Flawed Study That Portrays Gay People Negatively

Published

on

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: 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: 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.

 

Image: Photo of artist George Segal’s commemoration of New York City’s 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, by Tony Fischer via Flickr

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

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.

OPINION

Trump Threatens to Violate Gag Order and Go to Jail: ‘I’ll Do That Sacrifice Any Day’

Published

10 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Just hours after a New York State Supreme Court Justice held Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court for violating his gag order and threatened him with jail time, the ex-president attacked several of the judges overseeing his cases, and suggested he may violate the gag order for the good of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and says you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day,” Trump claimed.

Trump is on trial for 34 criminal felonies for falsification of business records, which experts describe as election interference after he paid “hush money” to an adult film actress in an effort to keep his alleged affair away from the public eye just before the 2016 presidential election.

The ex-president, who announced his 2024 run for the White House, insiders say, to escape prosecution for a wide variety of alleged crimes, began his Monday post-trial news conference with reporters by criticizing the prosecution’s announcement it expects to wrap up its portion of the trial in about two weeks.

READ MORE: ‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

“The government just said that they want two to three more weeks,” Trump complained. “That means they want to get me off the [campaign] trail for two to three more weeks. Now, anybody in there would realize that there’s no case, they don’t have a case. Every legal scholar says they don’t have a case. This is just a political witch. It’s election interference. And this is really truly election interference, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace, and in every poll I’m leading by a lot.”

Those statements are false.

The New York Post reports, “Prosecutor Josh Steinglass estimated that the DA’s office would wrap up its case around May 21, two weeks from tomorrow. But he cautioned that’s a ‘rough estimate.'”

Concluding the District Attorney’s Office did have a case, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts.

A great many legal scholars say there is a case.

There is no evidence of a “political witch-hunt.”

Trump is not leading in all the polls, nor, in all the ones he is leading in, is he leading by “a lot.” Nor do political candidates get exempt from prosecution because they may be leading in a particular poll.

The ex-president went on to claim prosecutors “figure maybe they can do something here, maybe they can do, this case should be over, this case should have never been brought.”

“And then Alvin Bragg brought the case, as soon as, when I’m running and leading, that’s when they decided, let’s go bring a case. So it’s a disgrace. But we just heard two to three more weeks. I thought that we’re finished today and they are finished today. We look at what’s happening. I thought they were going to be finished today and then 2 to 3 more weeks,” he again complained, again saying prosecutors “all want to keep me off the campaign trail. That’s all this is about. This about election interference. How do we stop it? And it’s a disgrace.”

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Trump then brought up the gag order.

“Where I can basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people, you asked me a question, a simple question I’d like to give it but I can’t talk about it,” he claimed, falsely.

“Because this judge has given me a gag order and say you’ll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what, our Constitution is much more important than jail. It’s not even close. I’ll do that sacrifice any day.”

Trump attacked three of judges overseeing his case, excluding U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon.

“But what’s happening here is a disgrace and the appellate courts ought to get involved. New York looks so bad, system of so called justice was so bad between this judge and [Judge Arthur] Engoron and [Judge Lewis] Kaplan the triple teamed with the corrupt judges is a disgrace to our nation. So I should be out there campaigning.”

Watch Trump’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Israel Aid, Ukraine Aid, Kitchenaid’: Dem Mocks GOP’s ‘Hands Off Our Appliances’ Week

Published

13 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Last year in January, in the wake of a study that found 650,000 children have developed asthma because of gas stoves, Bloomberg News reported: “US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears.”

There was no ban in the works or on the way, and the chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was forced to issue a statement promising, “I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Republicans however, went on the attack, with some, like U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a physician, shouting on social media, “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”

Congressman Jackson soon doubled-down, appearing on Newsmax.

One month later, West Virginia Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin teamed up with several Republicans to protect Americans’ “right” to non-electric cooking.

READ MORE: ‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

“Gas stoves have been in the news lately and I’ve come out strongly against the Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuing any ban of gas stoves,” Manchin declared, despite there being no possibility of that. “In fact, I’m introducing legislation today with Senator [Ted] Cruz that would ensure that they don’t and separately sending a letter to the commission with Senator [James] Lankford.”

For decades the scientific community has known about the health dangers of gas stoves, but Americans love them and there are no plans to have any federal government agency coming to take them away.

The Biden administration would like to help Americans buy new, energy-saving home appliances, but Republicans oppose those efforts as well.

Nearly sixteen months later, Republicans are still working to protect Americans from what some have suggested will be the federal government knocking on the doors of U.S. citizens to take away their gas stoves.

Last month, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson was all set to revive the House’s focus on ensuring Americans can continue to grill baby grill – indoors – childhood asthma-be-damned, and nearly put HR 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, and several others on the floor for votes, including:

The “Liberty in Laundry Act” (HR 7673), the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act (HR 7645), the “Refrigerator Freedom Act” (HR 7637), the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act” (HR 7626), and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act” (HR 7700).

But at the last minute he changed the schedule after aid to Ukraine and Israel became the national focus.

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

MSNBC’s Steve Benen reports Monday, “the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’ … will likely reach the floor this week, possibly as early as tomorrow.”

One year ago this month, U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) delivered amusing remarks during a House hearing.

“I want to apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party that we have decided to put kids’ safety, in their neighborhoods from getting gunned down, in movie theaters, or grocery stores, or school churches, or synagogues – we as Democrats have clearly lost our way that we are not focused on appliances,” Moskowitz said sarcastically in a viral video.

Now he’s back, along with the House Republicans’ renewed focus on the false fear-mongering the federal government is coming for your home appliances, or is going to ban them.

In response to Axios’ Andrew Solender reporting, “Appliance Week is BACK in the House!” Congressman Moskowitz replied, “Israel aid, Ukraine aid, Humanitarian aid, Kitchenaid.”

He then grew even more sarcastically excited:

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

 

Continue Reading

News

‘I’m Not Talking About That Meeting’: Noem Implies She May Have Met With Kim Jong Un

Published

15 hours ago

on

May 6, 2024

By

Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem continues to make media appearances promoting her new book, which has received massive attention for the story about her shooting to death her 14-month old dog, Cricket, and a goat, and her reportedly false claim she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

But in discussing that apparent lie that appears in her book, Noem appeared to tell a few more – and seemed to suggest she may have actually met with Kim Jong Un but should not have put that meeting in her memoir. Experts have said it’s unlikely she did meet with him.

“The book is called, ‘No Going Back,’ but it sounds like the publisher, Center Street, is going back on a couple of the details in the book,” CBS Mornings told Noem.

“Well, I don’t believe so,” Noem replied.

After hearing the apparently false details of her alleged meeting with Kim Jong Un being read on-air straight from her book, Noem explained, “when I became aware of that we changed the content, and the future editions will be adjusted.”

READ MORE: Judge Hands Trump ‘Incarceration’ Threat as Experts Say Next Time He’ll Toss Him in Jail

Noem also said she’s “met with many, many world leaders, I’ve traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in the book, and at my request they have removed it.”

She was then asked, “That specifically didn’t happen?” but Noem appeared to brush off the question.

“What I’m saying is I’m not talking about that meeting, I’m not talking about my meetings with world leaders, there are some that are in the book and there’s some that are not in the book.”

Asked, “Did you tell your ghost writer to write that?” Noem refused to answer the question.

“I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years, and over that time I have traveled around the world and met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I’ve asked them to change the content, and it will be removed.”

“It’s a simple question, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong Un?”

“That’s the answer that I have for you,” Noem replied.

READ MORE: Congressman Pummeled for Praising Students Mocking Black Protester With Monkey Sounds

She also did not tell CBS why she chose to put it in the book at all, if she knew it was false.

Noem does not mention that she recorded the audio book version for “No Going Back,” and would have read those words about meeting with the North Korean dictator aloud, yet apparently did not ask her publisher to remove it until a local newspaper, The Dakota Scout, published a report starting her account of the event was “in doubt.”

On Sunday, Noem first began to suggest the meeting might have taken place. Speaking with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Axios reported, “Noem declined to talk about specific meetings she had with various world leaders, and never outright said she didn’t meet with Kim during the interview.”

A CBS News transcript of that interview shows “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan saying, “you released video of your recording of the audio book. you didn’t catch these errors when you were recording it?”

“Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected,” Noem responded, before leaping into an attack on the media.

Also on Sunday, The Independent reported, “North Korea experts say it’s highly unlikely Ms Noem ever met the North Korean leader.”

“From 2011 to 2018, Mr Kim did not leave North Korea, according to University of Notre Dame professor and North Korea expert George Lopez.” The Independent added, “Benjamin Young, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and an expert on North Korea, told The Dakota Scout that Ms Noem’s account of meeting Kim was ‘dubious.'”

“I cover North Korea very closely, and I have never heard of Kim Jong Un meeting congressmen or congresswomen,” Young said.

Watch Noem’s full CBS interview from Monday below or at this link.

READ MORE: RFK Jr., Embracing Far-Right, Spoke at Fundraiser for Anti-Government Group With J6 Ties

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.