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.
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.