https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5#.jyz11ej2o

*** See admin note at the bottom of the thread ***



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2016 11:03AM by Concrete Zipper.

To me, this "debate" is not important. It doesn't matter who someone is attracted to, or why. Liberty dictates that it's no one else's business, doesn't it?

Yeah. That's how I see it too. It's not a scientific question. It's a civil right.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Oh yah, John Hopkins Medicine, is a waaaay out there institution. smh.

http://transadvocate.com/clinging-to-a-dangerous-past-dr-paul-mchughs-selective-reading-of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm

https://thinkprogress.org/meet-the-doctor-social-conservatives-depend-on-to-justify-anti-transgender-hate-fe764009b93#.ps6336peh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2016 11:11PM by anybody.

I know this might get deleted because the other one did but I thought I would try again.

"Sexual orientation is not biologically fixed."

This seems so illogical. If this were the case than why does humanity exist at all? I'm attracted to women because that is what propagates the species. I also have blue eyes because sometimes the less likely genetic combination happens.


"Non-heterosexual people seem more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse."

This falls firmly under the causation and correlation category. I would like this fine person to explain what the control group was.


"Gender identity is not biologically fixed."

Same point different words. Doesn't he get how biology works?


"Both non-heterosexuals and transgender people experience a higher risk of negative mental health outcomes — and stigma and stress don’t seem to fully explain it."

Same point different words. Suss out that data dear doctor, how does one measure stigma and stress? What are your control points?


"Nothing supports affirming children as transgender."

Nothing? You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know this might get deleted because the other
> one did but I thought I would try again.

A link to the study was deleted a couple days ago without comment. But a link to Think Progress, though, no problem!

> "Sexual orientation is not biologically fixed."
>
> This seems so illogical. If this were the case
> than why does humanity exist at all? I'm attracted
> to women because that is what propagates the
> species.

Propagation. If a gene lead one to either not reproduce or making it less likely, it wouldn't last long.

Not true.

There's been plenty of research to support that a gay (sterile/non-reproducing) relative tends to increase the reproductive success of niece/nephews who share that genetic content. Within extended family units they provide extra resources and support for those other offspring for example. And this is mostly from the study of family group type animals, not just humans.

And gay people/animals do not always only have gay sex. Many have had or will have other heterosexual encounters and contribute their genes that way while they're figuring out there sexuality, or just because of the heat of the moment or whatever.

Bingo. It's not about how well an individual reproduces, it's about how the species as a whole reproduces.

We are servants to that DNA encoding: selfish genes and all.

There's also interesting research that suggests that the female relatives of gay men (grandmothers, mothers, aunts, and sisters were included in the study) have higher fertility/birth rates which might indicate a genetic component.

And yet gay people exist.

"And yet gay people exist."

No, people with developmental disorders and immature sexuality exist. There is just no science whatsoever that supports the "born that way" political narrative.

The Johns Hopkins University is the leading medical school, both for teaching and research, in the United States if not the World. No amount of blogging by uncredentialed homosexual SJW's will ever change that.

R.C., Hopkins 1982

Topper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this
> -way-study-b3e07d0354f5#.jyz11ej2o


"Think Progress"? Seriously?!

The report from New Atlantis appeared in my news feed a few days ago. I'm a parent of an LGBT teen so LGBT topics tend to drop into my news aggregator app.

If you read the report carefully, most of their statements are true, as far as they go. Most of their readers will not carefully look at the statements.

There was lots of use of language like "There is no evidence that ..."

And that's not inaccurate for certain values of evidence. When we query someone about their identity, we get that person's answer which is not the sort of evidence usually used by science for falsification or verification. We don't have a specific chemical test we can run to say what a person's sexuality or gender identity is separate from that person's perspective.

But within the limits of our current ability, it's as good as the evidence gets, and as noted above, it's really enough for society to treat the person well.

The New Atlantis piece is a clever piece that will appease its target audience. But it's not quality science.

What a complete joke. This statement by the co-author of the study says it all:

Researchers “feared an angry response from the more militant elements of the LGBT community.”

"Militant" is a word traditionally used by homophobes to slander gay activists. An unbiased scientist would likely not even know that phrase, and would most certainly never use it.

This "study" will of course be discredited like all other studies with an obvious biased motive, but I am sick to my stomach that some gay people will suffer because of it.

Next up for these researchers: "There is no proof that skin color is genetic; it has to do with your pre-mortal righteousness"

Atari Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next up for these researchers: "There is no proof
> that skin color is genetic; it has to do with your
> pre-mortal righteousness"

:D :D :D

Heritage Foundation?

...move along, nothing to see here.

"Repackaging Research To Appeal To [Whomever or Whatever They Want To Appeal]"

What crap, IMO.

As kibtext wrote: "Repackaging Research To Appeal To [Whomever or Whatever They Want To Appeal]" In this case, it's the anti-LGBT bigots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2016 06:51PM by cinda.

Normally we pull threads that turn toward homophobic arguments, but this one was based on a recent publication in a scientific journal and other posters have done a good job exposing the shoddy work and obvious political bias.

Cherry-picking evidence is a common tactic that apologists often use to try to support otherwise unsupportable positions. Even faculty at prestigious universities sometimes use the tactic when they can't otherwise publish the results that they want to. We've seen such publications before, and we'll see them again. Those of us who work in scientific fields and publish in scientific venues know that not everything that gets through the peer review process is good work. Our best knowledge of what is really true comes from looking at the research as a whole and the ability of unbiased researchers to replicate experimental results. This takes time and effort. A person who crows about a single paper that happens to agree with their prejudices is not being scientific: they're just displaying those prejudices.

CZ (admin)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2016 11:04AM by Concrete Zipper.