Why Most Published “Lesbian Research” Is Completely Unrecognizable to Real Lesbians

Dirt and I and I have written before about how most alleged “Lesbian experts” are neither Lesbian nor expert, and we have previously given many specific examples of how what has been published about Lesbians is total and utter nonsense. JoAnn Loulan is just one example of these Straightbian windbag dingbats who we exposed as having spread copious lies about Lesbians. In fact, we did an entire Unstraightening Lesbian series on a dozen of these boneheads.

I wish we could say that we have written about all of the faux “Lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert, but sadly, we have barely even scratched the surface.

We focused the first Unstraightening Lesbian series on the more obviously well-known Straightbians such as Susie “I Lied About Being A Lesbian In Order to Sell Kinky Books” Bright and Pat/rick “Pro-Pedophile Pervert” Califia, but the huge underlying problem with Unstraightening Lesbian lies in the continual odious garbage being spewed throughout academia (and beyond) by Straightbian blowhard professors.

Straightbian

Image: Pixabay: Creative Commons CC0

In fact, I will even venture an educated guess that EVERYTHING that has EVER been written by an academic about Lesbians is dead wrong. While I clearly haven’t read every single journal article or book written by academics about Lesbians, I have read AN AWFUL LOT and I have never…I repeat, NEVER…seen anything whatsoever that remotely resembles Lesbian. (If you know of anything about Lesbians written by an academic that is actually and accurately LESBIAN, by all means, please let me know).

The main problem with these faux “Lesbian expert” academics writing about Lesbian lives is that most of the academics who have done so are Straightbians. Straightbians, obviously, are not Lesbian, so they are appropriating what they think Lesbian is, which is grossly inaccurate (as well as arrogant, presumptuous, and just plain wrong).

These academic Heterosexual/Straightbians’ horribly inaccurate perceptions of what Lesbian even means results in faulty hypotheses for research, faulty subject selection, faulty interpretations, and faulty conclusions. Since nothing accurate (that I know of) has EVER been published about Lesbians by these Heterosexual/Straightbian academics, even their citations of others’ research is hideously inaccurate.

So, basically, what has happened is one inaccurate study built upon another, built upon another, built upon another, and so forth and so on, until we now have a heaping pile of stinking excrement disguised as “scholarly research”.

Dirt and I are planning another Unstraightening Lesbian series to tackle some more liars and charlatans, so I won’t give specific examples here…I will save them for our future Unstraightening Lesbian posts.

But, in general, here is a synopsis of what is wrong with all of the “academic research” articles/books published about Lesbians:

  • Research is only as good as the researcher.  If the researcher is Heterosexual/Straightbian, she is basing her research questions/premises/hypotheses/etc. on her own incorrect (hetsplained) presumptions about what Lesbian is…therefore, her research is going to be as flawed as her own hetsplanations.
  • There is nothing accurate (that I know of) in the current academic literature about Lesbians, so any literature review is going to be based on a stack of shameful lies. Furthermore, the Heterosexual/Straightbian academic literally won’t be able to see the flaws in the previous research/literature, because she doesn’t have the basic reasoning skills to see past her own straight-privileged hetsplaining.
  • When the researcher is a Heterosexual/Straightbian, she cannot even accurately define “Lesbian”, much less pick one out of a crowd, so she won’t know that her subjects are also Straightbians.
  • If the Heterosexual/Straightbian researcher herself doesn’t even know what a Lesbian is, much less how Lesbians actually think/act, she will accept whatever bizarre bullshit her Straightbian subjects shovel.
  • The prevailing definition of Lesbian for research (and for everything else, for that matter) is based on ultra-simplistic self-report, which is incredibly flawed. All it takes is for someone to simply claim she is a Lesbian and everybody usually takes her word for it. BUT: that premise is 100 percent wrong. Any woman cannot magically “become a Lesbian”, and all the lies in the world won’t turn her into one. So if a ton of the research subjects are LYING about being a Lesbian, guess what? The data gathered is NOT ABOUT LESBIANS. Duh.
  • Research gathers A LOT of data. It is up to the researcher to determine what data to assemble, how to analyze the data, how to decide what data to even analyze, and how to interpret the data. If the researcher herself is basing the very definition of “Lesbian” on her own skewed perception, while using a faulty hypothesis with a false set of subjects, it is inevitable that the results and implications will be wrong.

The above list is just a basic, general overview of why the information in the academic books/articles about Lesbians which has been written by academic Straightbians is completely unrecognizable to biological Lesbians (which, after all, are the ONLY real Lesbians). Future posts will elaborate on specific Straightbians and the flaws in their thinking, theories, research, and conclusions.

Obviously, Dirt and I cannot stop all Heterosexuals/Straightbians from hetsplaining Lesbian ~ but we can, and will, continue to expose these people for their multitudinous lies, misinformation, perversions, and all-around inaccuracies about Lesbians. We will do our best to OUT them to the Lesbian community. The more information Lesbians have in our arsenal, the better chance we have of fighting the onslaught of lesbophobia harming our lives.

11 thoughts on “Why Most Published “Lesbian Research” Is Completely Unrecognizable to Real Lesbians

  1. “If you know of anything about Lesbians written by an academic that is actually and accurately LESBIAN, by all means, please let me know.”
    Well, that sounds like a challenge, if ever I heard one, but one which I am unable to meet, though I used to have a library fuller of books by and about lesbians than ever about gay men, hard to explain and even harder to justify.
    Have you read Jeanne Córdova’s “When We Were Outlaws”? Nobody would describe her as an academic, but it’s a (partly) honest account of her involvement in the Gay Liberation movement, and more. I knew Jeanne when I was (very) young, and strongly disliked her, so we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, plowing stony ground (choose your own images) if that’s the best I have to offer.
    As you know better than I, “academic” lesbians “invented” lesbianism around 1969, and their first task was to erase all trace of lesbian life before that, or reinterpret it in terms of nouveau lesbianisme. There IS older stuff, including from the “barren years” of the early 20th century, much of which is preserved in the wonderful Women’s Library at the LSE in London, but it would take a lot of hard work to burrow through it, and even harder determination to go against the prevailing trend in “Women’s Studies” in presenting it. If you expect me to even mention so-called “Gender Studies”, well it seems I just did, didn’t I? It won’t happen again.
    There are bucket-loads of French stuff, which the nouvelles lesbiennes would rather you didn’t know too much about until it’s been filtered through their ideological lens, so if you unearth interesting material there, I would be more than happy to put on my translator’s cap, when and if needed.
    Good luck!

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Yes, there is journal articles that is scholarly and articles that are primary out there written by lesbians. They do not need to adress their own sexuality in their research, and their is the topics written by them based on sexuality as well.
    You can not put that out their in your research it would be considered an open bias.
    My professor has showed me plenty of women who have done research on women’s sexuality. These women focused on the realm of lesbian in today’s culture. So next time do a better job researching, make sure you exhaust all of your sources, and don’t research until you know. This makes you look un researched and not creditable.

    Also what you have posted about the transgender community is indeed false. Where have you received your information from what databases? I would love to check your credibility. There is so muct wrong with everything you wrote. I can’t even start. Was this researced or your personal opinion?

    Like

    • Helpful hint: If you want to actually have a conversation with someone, it really helps to approach the person in a manner that is NOT snippy, condescending, rude, and/or arrogant. In other words, your approach sucks a fat one.

      Second: Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing. You should try it sometime.

      Did I say that Lesbians didn’t ever write academic journal articles? No, I said that there were no journal articles WHICH ARE ACCURATE ABOUT BEING A LESBIAN that have been written by actual Lesbians THAT I KNOW ABOUT.

      Sure, Lesbian academics may have published articles on the three-toed sloth or the Korean War or whateverthefuck — but you already know darn well (if you can read) that that’s NOT what I am referring to.

      If you are really a student researcher, as you claim to be, you are perfectly capable of looking up studies/books/etc. for yourself and ascertaining the accuracy of the information. I am not your assistant.

      Furthermore, I have never cited or said anything inaccurate and to say I did is ludicrous.

      Moreover, I have only ever mentioned anything whatsoever about trans in just a couple of posts.

      One of those posts was CLEARLY delineated as an OPINION post about my concerns about the trans trend from the perspective of being a Lesbian and a psychologist…so: no citations were needed BECAUSE I AM THE CITATION, Einstein.

      The other post was about the potential dangers of testosterone listed in a typical informed consent form, which are not only well-documented everywhere, but, more importantly to my point here, I also cited and linked the actual document I was referring to IN THE POST ITSELF.

      So…accurate. Do your research.

      In fact, most of my posts contain direct quotes and/or links to whatever I am talking about when it is relevant to do so.

      This is a BLOG…in case that obvious fact somehow escaped your eagle-eyed notice.

      News flash: This is NOT an academic journal requiring citations, nor is it intended to be (although, as I said earlier, I do include quotes/links even though I don’t have to).

      You would love to check my credibility, huh? My real name is posted right here on this very blog. Some “researcher”. SMH.

      Next time, do a better job of not being a dickweed — and a particularly uninformed one at that.

      Have a nice life. Or not. Whatever floats your special little boat.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oh your Professor told you? Well, then, it has to be true! *sarcasm font*

      Jesus Christ on a cracker, kid, learn some critical thinking skills and get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself on a stranger’s blog.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, M.

        Good point — I missed that part about “my PROFESSOR told me…”

        That is the ENTIRE POINT of this post…the academics don’t know WTF they are talking about especially when it is about Lesbians.

        “Thinking” like this is worrisome because it is an indicator of the sorry state of our educational system. Critical thinking skills need to be put on the curriculum.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “My professor has showed me plenty of women who have done research on women’s sexuality. These women focused on the realm of lesbian in today’s culture.”
        All these people’s opinions or testimonies are enormously subjective. They depend on judgments made by 1. your professor, 2. the women doing the research 3. the women whose sexuality was researched, and 4. yourself; to that one must add the rather imponderable “realm of lesbian [I note the singular, but maybe just a typo] in today’s culture”.
        While I am perfectly prepared to accept that what I do (linguistics) and what Saye does (psychology) may be accounted “soft science” when weighed against hard science like physics or chemistry, what you are describing is just liberal arts stuff “dressed up” as science. That doesn’t mean that anything you or your professor or any of the women in between “feel” about it is wrong, just that the chain of argument that would allow you to draw any legitimate conclusion is lacking.
        “I can’t even start,” you write. You mistake yourself. What you cannot (apparently) do is finish.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s