From Jim Burroway:
Paul Cameron’s article, “Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual,” has just appeared in the May 2006 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science, an imprint of Cambridge University Press. Until now, almost all of his work has been self-published, either on his web site or in the pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. But now it is only a matter of time before he is able to brag of having obtained the imprimatur of Cambridge University Press.
I have posted a point-by-point analysis of his article. I also have given a few details about events leading up to its publication. You can read about it at Box Turtle Bulletin.
— Jim Burroway
Yes… we all know where THAT is now heading. Straight to Agape Press.Thanks for your good work Jim. I have also contacted a member of the editorial board and, fingers crossed, hope for a response. I have specifically asked after the review process and what means the journal has at its disposal to protect its reputation at such times.This is — of course — bound to eventually happen. I have little doubt that Cameron spends most of his days making submissions in the hope that 1 in 1 million will eventually say yes. Of course, we’ll never hear about the 999,999 that refused to even touch his feculant “research” or get smeared by his reputation.I guess this is the season of resurrection and all that, but jeepers hasn’t someone got a wooden stake, an PMT Buffy and a rubber mallet handy???
Oh good God. It is exactly as you would predict.The “sample” used by Paul Cameron is gathered — in the main 50, out of the 77 — from an interesting, but self-declared non-representative and non-academic, group. The original author is very pissed off.More the point — we know now that Cameron did indeed journal shop. Paediatrics rejected the work, for one.Read more at Abigail Garner’s site. I’ll let Abigail know she’s got a mention here. (as did Jim over there!)
Oh sorry Jim — we’ve been having horrors with Explorer all weekend. For some strange reason it chopped off the bottom of your page the first read through (it did seem to end kind of abruptly!) But now we see you have noted Abigail AND put in your usual big fat list of refs etc.Bizarre, stupid Explorer behaviour. Wonder if we’ve done the same thing to anyone else this weekend. Ick, don’t even want to think about it.
Jim, thank you so much for patiently taking the time to dissect this article and to make us aware of how insidious Cameron’s work is.
I have also written the journal, and Cambridge University Press, about the publication of this travesty. . .and pointed them immediately to Jim’s web analysis as a starting point of criticism. Any journal editor with a bit of sense is going to be horrified when she begins to unravel this little mess. And it is obvious that the reviewers didn’t do their job.
Jim,
There was one aspect of the works Cameron chose that you did not address, but I would think it would be important. If most of the subjects in this book were the biological children of the gay or lesbian parent, and were adults at the time of the books’ publications, I presume they were the children mainly of heterosexual marriages where one partner later came out as gay and a divorce occurred. In the case of gay fathers, I would presume the children were very unlikely to have lived with their gay parent. Even the children of lesbian mothers would be less likely to live with them than the children of straight mothers, because of the common use, in those days, of homosexuality as a negative in determing custody arrangements. Given that, how much influence could the gay parents have had in their children’s later sexual orientation? And wouldn’t you want to compare the results of those who lived with the gay parent in a full or shared custory arrangement with those whose gay parent was a “weekend” one? I would think if being gay had broken up your parents’ marriage you would be less likely, not more, to emulate that behavior.
I am the author the book used as Cameron’s “primary” source. Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. I have added another post regarding this on my site.
Jim,
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
It is too bad that Cambridge University Press has been so dismissive of those who have brought
Cameron’s excesses, bias, and highly flawed analysis to their attention. By ignoring Abigail Garner’s correspondence and by allowing Cameron to deduce things from Garner that are clearly not present AFTER Garner has brought that to their attention, they are demonstrating an amazing arrogance and highlighting review methods that are at best shoddy and negligent.
Had they given Garner, you, or anyone else a few minutes of consideration, they would have saved themselves from what will surely be a black mark on their credibility.
As anyone reading Cameron’s piece will immediately deduce, it is nothing more than an anti-gay diatribe. Anyone else contributing – especially in the same edition – will feel that their own work was diminished by being given the same level of credence as Cameron. Surely, this will not bode well for the magazine’s future efforts to draw qualified contributions.
Do you think this is a sign that these types of journals are becoming more anti-gay or caving to pressure from the far right, or is this a fluke?
OK, playing devil’s advocate here…. Let’s just say that the results of this “study” were NOT doctored or taken out of context in any way. It could be surmised that the supposed higher rate of homosexuality among the children of homosexuals is due to the fact that these children would have been raised in an environment where being gay wasn’t stigmatized as it is in some households where a heterosexual couple presides. Assuming that the numbers in this study are true… OF COURSE THE RATE WOULD SEEM HIGHER, THE CHILDREN WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO ADMIT THAT THEY WERE GAY! Gay children raised with heterosexual parents (depending on the environment) may have been raised in an environment that stigmatized homosexuality. So they would be less likely to admit it. More importantly, how does one get accurate statistics on the rate of homosexuality in households with heterosexual parents when you figure in the “closet” factor?
Well, the email sent to a member of the JBS editorial board has been forwarded to the Editor. I have a feeling Professor Nick Mascie-Taylor is going to have a few days from email hell.Specifically I asked after:
I think that’s a) what did you do? b) why did you do it? and c) what are you now going to do about it? :)For Jim: Cambridge University is a long way from Kansas. I’d put it down to a fluke, for Paul Cameron — possibly because Cambridge is a long way from Kansas.But… given the notice that was given, particularly that coming from a ref. author, I could not be so generous with the Journal itself. Complete balls-up is a phase that comes to mind — hence the questioning of just how exactly the JBS ended up publishing this codswallop.(I note that the associate editor — to whom all the prior warnings were directed — no longer appears to be with the department, or even Cambridge University.)A great deal of the answer will hinge on who provided the peer review (assuming it had one). Reviewers are not normally party to any prior editorial conversations; but given the unacademic language used, the extensive use of single-quote marks, and all the bells ringing if the reviewers had bothered to simply get hold of the referenced books I would probably be seeking a large dark rock to crawl under if they are academics of any note. The first thing I would have done was wonder “Who is this Paul Cameron fellow?”, and pause after discovering the answer.Peer review is not perfect, but reputable journals do not often get taken by the bleedingly obvious. They do, of course, get targetted all the time.And it doesn’t take much to turn a reputable journal into a stinker.
(I note that the associate editor — to whom all the prior warnings were directed — no longer appears to be with the department, or even Cambridge University.)
Actually, I wrote the editor as well. The only response I received was from the associate editor.
Aah! Two Jims. I meant the other one, not the Burroway one. But good to know the editor HAD been told. So, no excuse…
My response is purely anecdotal and represents only my own family. I have two teenage daughters (17 and 14), biologically mine and my partner’s. I am a gay FtM transsexual still married to the man I wed 19 years ago as a woman. My partner is essentially straight, but now jokingly refers to himself as “Lesbian” (note that my first name is Les), because he remains attracted to me even though I’ve made a surgical/hormonal transition to male.
Our daughters, despite being “raised by wolves,” as my elder daughter characterizes it, seem to me to be primarily attracted to males. However, outside this primary heterosexuality, they are both open to the idea that being attracted to women is perfectly acceptable, and they have left themselves open to this possibility. They have also examined their gender identity in a way that many people, of whatever age, have not. They are comfortable identifying as female, though they resist being stuffed into any societal role based on this identification.
Obviously, a sample of 2 does not a scientific study make. My theory is, though, that while one’s essential sexual orientation will not be altered by the family you grow up in, your willingness to explore your boundaries will be. I believe this is a good thing, though I realize that many others would rather we all stay more tightly inside the box.
That’s really something, Les GS. Sounds good to me. What about you Les, now that you are physically more the way you want to be are you content in your relationship with a man or do you feel a lot is missing if you don’t have an intimate relationship with a woman?
I’m a pre-op male to female transexual, I’m with a man now but still attracted to women. He’s so wonderful that it doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice to not have an intimate relationship with a woman. Even when I was married to a woman I was still driven to distraction by other women – having no testosterone changes things a great deal.