Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are Biologically Determined -- But Bigotry is a [Dumb] Choice!
![Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity are Biologically Determined -- But Bigotry is a [Dumb] Choice!](https://thenewstalkers.com/discussion/image/discussion_image/34761/xxxlarge/_v=63f541507604693)
All of the available peer-reviewed, unbiased science indicates that sexual orientation is inborn. However, there are so many deniers here on Newsvine and elsewhere. I know that you deniers will not believe any of this, because it did not come from YOUR "science book" -- a/k/a the Holy Bible -- or from your op-ed pieces published in biased websites (and certainly NOT based on any scientific research), but for some strange reason, I am compelled to set the record straight (no pun intended).
Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.
American Academy of Pediatrics
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/09/21/dr-francis-collins-comments-on-homosexuality-and-genetics/
In case you STILL don't get the message, you can check out these articles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm
http://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/?mobile=nc
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/scientists-uncover-source-homosexuality-article-1.1218017?localLinksEnabled=false
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-upi.html
http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/wpi/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2011/07/15/new-study-sexual-behavior-changes-but-not-sexual-orientation/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/04/the-science-of-sexuality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/22/are-you-born-gay-or-is-it-a-choice-scientists-might-have-found-the-answer/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2559021/Being-gay-DNA-researchers-claim-controversial-new-study.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://www.vocativ.com/312971/scientists-destroy-anti-gay-arguments-about-choice/
Rice WR, Friberg U, Gavrilets S. Homosexulity as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. The Quarterly Review of Biology . Published online 11 December 2012.
Bocklandt S, Horvath S, Vilain E, Hamer DH (February 2006). "Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men" . Hum. Genet. 118 (6): 691–4.
Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C (November 2004). "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity" . Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 (1554): 2217–21.
LeVay S (August 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men". Science 253 (5023): 1034–7.
Blanchard R, Klassen P (April 1997). "H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men". J. Theor. Biol. 185 (3): 373–8.
McCormick CM, Witelson SF (1991). "A cognitive profile of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men and women". Psychoneuroendocrinology 16 (6): 459–73.
There is also the age-old question: if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, tell us when you chose YOUR sexual orientation. You see, if you didn't choose to be heterosexual, why would you think that homosexuals made a choice? And if you DID choose to be heterosexual, that makes you bisexual.
You who deny the truth might also consider the fact that homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it has been documented in at least 1500 animal species (besides humans). Yet bigotry and homophobia are only found in ONE species. I'll let you figure out which one that is, if you can.
And then there are those people who contend that same-sex couples make bad parents, or that children are better off having a mother and a father. Science doesn't support you there, either -- but I'm sure that means just as much to you as the science that supports sexual orientation being inborn. Still, I must make sure that the facts are presented, so...
Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus non-heterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents, or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised, have no basis in science. Our position is based on a review representing approximately 50 empirical studies and at least another 50 articles and book chapters and does not rest on the results of any one study. [9] A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. The opposition to marriage of same-sex couples, on the grounds that it fails to consider the needs or rights of children, does not consider the most relevant body of psychological research into this topic or draws inaccurate conclusions from it. Further, opposition to marriage of same-sex couples often incorrectly pre-supposes that, by preventing marriage of same-sex couples, no children will be born or raised within families where parents are of the same sex. Such an argument ignores the reality that children are, and will continue to be, born to and raised by parents who are married, those who are unmarried, those who are cohabitating, and those who are single – most of whom will be heterosexual, some of whom will be gay, and some of whom will be lesbian. Further, the literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way in which society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. [2]
Canadian Psychological Association, 2004 & 2006
As far as transgenderism is concerned, that, too, appears to be a biological issue:
a growing body of research is pointing to biological origins. The 2008 discovery by Australian researchers of a genetic variation in transgender women—their receptor gene for the sex hormone testosterone was longer, making it less efficient at communicating signals—set off speculation that insufficient uptake of male hormones in utero contributed to a "more feminised brain." And the brains of trans people do look different. Recent Spanish imaging studies have shown that the white matter of untreated trans men look much like those of biological males, and that the patterns of trans women's white matter fell about halfway between those of biological male and female control groups.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-science-of-transgender-20140730
Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.
Research suggests that development that determines biological sex happens in the mother’s womb.
Anatomical sex is determined by chromosomes that contain the genes and DNA.
Hormones that trigger the development of sex and gender in the womb may not function adequately.
For example, anatomical sex from the genitals may be male, while the gender identity that comes from the brain could be female.
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx
Gender dysphoria* was determined by twin studies to be highly heritable ( The Heritability of Gender Identity Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Twin Sample ) so there is a genetic component, but that's not the same as saying it's a "mutation". There probably isn't a transgender "gene", much less a mutation of some other gene. It's almost certainly much more complicated than that: a particular arrangement of genes that otherwise lead to cis gender identity, combined with the womb environment (which is itself driven in part by the mother's upbringing and in part by her own genes in parts that are unrelated to gender identity), and probably epigentic factors and a lot of other things.
There is strong evidence that most transgender people are born with a predisposition to being transgender that was formed prenatally. Generally gender identity seems to be fully formed before age 6 and then becomes very difficult to change or influence later.
There are thought to be 3 major factors in development, Chemical/Hormonal, Genetic and Environmental.
We know from brain studies that men and women have small yet specific and identifiable structures in the brain that are different in size and proportion. When the brains of transgender persons are analyzed they almost always consistently match the bain structure of their adopted gender not their birth sex. Male to female transsexuals have female brain structures. These changes are thought to be caused due to hormonal or chemical imbalances that cause the wrong hormones to be expressed prenatally. The sample sizes are small in these studies due to the low number of transgender persons brains for medical study after death, but research is ongoing. There is a consistent trend even with the small and growing sample size.
https://www.quora.com/What-causes-a-person-to-be-transgender
Male and female brains are, on average, slightly different in structure, although there is tremendous individual variability. Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqué Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
The transgender identity has long been associated with poor mental health, particularly the diagnoses of “gender identity disorder” and “gender dysphoria.” However, the World Health Organization is actively working towards declassifying transgender identity as a mental disorder , a change partially prompted by a recent study uncoupling the mental and physical health problems experienced by transgender people from their gender identity. Rather, those who had suffered ailments could vastly attribute their afflictions to societal stigma, discrimination, and violence.
First and foremost, is gender identity genetic? It seems the answer is yes – though, as with most traits involving identity, there is some environmental influence. One classic way for scientists to test whether a trait (which can be any characteristic from red hair to cancer susceptibility to love of horror movies) is influenced by genetics is twin studies. Identical twins have the exact same genetic background, and are usually raised in the same environment. Fraternal (nonidentical) twins, however, share only half their genes, but tend to also be raised in the same environment. Thus, if identical twins tend to share a trait more than fraternal twins, that trait is probably influenced by genetics. Several studies have shown that identical twins are more often both transgender than fraternal twins, indicating that there is indeed a genetic influence for this identity. So, what genes might be responsible?
In 1995 and 2000 , two independent teams of researchers decided to examine a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) in trans- and cisgender men and women (Figure 2). The BSTc functions in anxiety, but is, on average, twice as large and twice as densely populated with cells in men compared to women. This sexual dimorphism is pretty robust, and though scientists don’t know why it exists, it appears to be a good marker of a “male” vs. “female” brain. Thus, these two studies sought to examine the brains of transgender individuals to figure out if their brains better resembled their assigned or chosen sex.
Interestingly, both teams discovered that male-to-female transgender women had a BSTc more closely resembling that of cisgender women than men in both size and cell density, and that female-to-male transgender men had BSTcs resembling cisgender men. These differences remained even after the scientists took into account the fact that many transgender men and women in their study were taking estrogen and testosterone during their transition by including cisgender men and women who were also on hormones not corresponding to their assigned biological sex (for a variety of medical reasons). These findings have since been confirmed and corroborated in other studies and other regions of the brain, including a region of the brain called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (Figure 2) that is believed to affect sexual behavior in animals.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
It would be nice if those of you who want absolutes regarding the origins of sexual orientation and gender identity could tell us why it matters.
I have published these links in so many of my posts refuting the uninformed who maintain that homosexuality is a choice, so I'm sure that any of you who have read those threads have seen this before. I hope that those of you who insist that sexual orientation is a choice (you know who you are) can at least get a little educated from this, but I'm not holding my breath.
Tags
Do they?
I don't think they do. I imagine those who were straight when they went in are straight when they leave, and resume hetero relationships.
Desperation causes them to turn to whatever source of relief they can find. And I imagine there's a bit of establishment of dominance going on, as well. Rape is a method of exerting power over another, even if that other is a man, and the perpetrator is straight.
Very true, it needs to be repeated. Rape is not a sexual crime, or 80 yr old women would never be raped. It's a crime of violence, it's used for domination. That is why it doesn't matter what you are dressed like, or what you say, or your actions. It's all in the mind of the rapist, and it's his insecurity that is the motivation.
I have a Nephew who was serving a prison term for possession of drugs. He was straight, rather thin and somewhat short. But, he was ex-Air Force and not too bad at self defense. When he first went into the prison he was given a choice by the dominant person in his area to either become his 'Bitch' or get beaten severely. My Nephew chose the beating as he did not want to become any man's sex toy. As a result of the beating he lost both front teeth, a broken jaw, broken hips, three broken rib and a fractured skull.
He spent a nearly two months in the prison infirmary to recover. But, once he returned to his area of the prison no one bothered him anymore.
I heard that this happens in women's prisons as well. While some men and women are straight when they enter prison, there are those who choose to endure the dominance of others rather then risk their life. However, that does not mean that they all also become homosexuals themselves, and remain straight when released from prison.
Just from my own observation of those who have served time.
Yet another uninformed comment from the king/queen of the uninformed.
Men do not "come out of prison" gay; prison sex is like rape: it is about power, not about sex. Seriously, get an education.
Many inmates who identify as heterosexual change their sexual habits while in prison, possibly as a victim or perpetrator of abuse or due to lack of access to the opposite sex, said Christopher Hensley, a University of Tennessee at Chattanooga criminal justice professor. But a change in sexual behavior does not necessarily equate to a change in sexual orientation.
It’s possible that people go into prison unaware of their sexuality, and then once they are exposed to homosexual behavior as an inmate, they realize that they are gay or bisexual, Helen Eigenberg, who also studies prison sexuality as a professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, said in an interview with PolitiFact. This isn’t necessarily captured in Hensley’s research, she said.
Eigenberg added that sometimes victims of sexual abuse -- in prisons that can mean gang rape, prostitution or other forms of coercion -- are sometimes confused. They might think that just because they played a role in a homosexual act, they are now gay, which is not necessarily true.
The myth of the "homosexual predator" is groundless. Perpetrators of rape typically view themselves as heterosexual and, outside of the prison environment, prefer to engage in heterosexual activity. Although gay inmates are much more likely than other inmates to be victimized in prison, they are not likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse.
I'd say we're not more than 20 years away from finding definite biological or genetic characteristics that cause homosexuality. But there are some consequences of that.
It would then be possible for someone to test to see if someone is gay which in a repressive society could be a nightmare. It would also be possible for parents who do not want gay children to test for that and abort if it turns out that in fact they'd be gay.
It's a nasty thought, but I'd be curious for these born-again yahoos if they'd choose the evil of abortion over having a gay son or daughter. The born agains I know are highly homophobic - I'd guess they'd choose to abort.
It's a second point, but looking in the past, we've come a long way from where we assumed homosexuality was created entirely by nurture - if your son or daughter was gay it was because the opposite sex parent was overly dominant and it was your fault. Not only that, but homosexuality wasn't natural it was a disease - classified as a type 2 sexual disorder by psychotherapy which was considered sound science.
One thing for me is given the history of the accuracy of social "science", to me subjects like psychology and sociology have very little credibility. Science doesn't change with the social tide it's true based on observations and the truth. Social sciences aren't there. One of the many ramifications of putting too much credibility on these things is the unnecessary suffering homosexuals have had to endure.
"It would then be possible for someone to test to see if someone is gay which in a repressive society could be a nightmare. It would also be possible for parents who do not want gay children to test for that and abort if it turns out that in fact they'd be gay.
There are many on the left that think it is OK to abort just because it is going to be a baby. There are those that think it is OK to abort be cause they are going to have a boy baby instead of the girl baby they wanted. Here you are saying it is wrong to abirt vecause it may be gay?
Not only that, but homosexuality wasn't natural it was a disease - classified as a type 2 sexual disorder by psychotherapy which was considered sound science.
One thing for me is given the history of the accuracy of social "science", to me subjects like psychology and sociology have very little credibility.
Actually it's precisely because psychiatry and psychology have become more rigorous in their scientific approach that homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder.......it's because there was never any credible scientific support for that categorization, just a pervasive social bias against gays.
.
Science doesn't change with the social tide it's true based on observations and the truth. Social sciences aren't there.
Psychiatry isn't a social science per se and only certain specialties of psychology are. I think your criticism is really with the inherent fuzziness of fields which involve subjective experience, or at least with traits which can't be defined by dissecting a corpse. But the fields which indirectly study & treat neurological traits have become more rigorous, just as the so-called "hard sciences" did when Karl Popper introduced the notion of falsifiability.
I don't have the same confidence you do that social "science" has risen above swaying with the current social mores.
To me at the end of the day, anything labeled science should be hard science - based on observations or clearly logical inferences to support or put down a hypothesis.
I think we get something out of exploring patterns of human behavior or patterns inherent in different social structures. My fundamental objection is to label them in any way as science. They just aren't.
I guess it depends on what you consider "science", but mine would include quantifiability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. When human subjects and subjective experiences are involved those goals become more difficult but that doesn't mean it's not science. Here's a relevant example from psychology which tests the hypothesis that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal:
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
.
While the experiment design can be criticized in several aspects, it's really quite elegant and simple. Note that several other studies have since confirmed these results. It also meets my definitional requirements of quantifiability, falsifiability, and reproducibility.
If you or someone you care about is gay and were extremely stigmatized by what was accepted "science" about what causes homosexuality back in the 60s, can you see how someone might be extremely skeptical that psychiatry is reformed now and more objective? I'm not even gay and I'm extremely skeptical myself.
For the study you cited, I think the results are probably correct but as a scientist, I'd smell a skunk in terms of personal bias for the results. To be fair, if the conclusion was that homophobes have no more attraction to the same sex as anyone else, I'd still smell a skunk.
That unusual skepticism is in part a natural byproduct of passing pop culture off as science for too long.
If you or someone you care about is gay and were extremely stigmatized by what was accepted "science" about what causes homosexuality back in the 60s, can you see how someone might be extremely skeptical that psychiatry is reformed now and more objective? I'm not even gay and I'm extremely skeptical myself.
I think that's a fair point but the reality today is that psychiatry and psychology are subject to academic peer review and unfounded claims are rejected by academic publications. That's why homophobes and transphobes like George Rekers, Mark Regnerus and Paul McHugh no longer are able to get their bigoted crap published by any credible peer-reviewed journal.....and the one paper which erroneously slipped through has since been retracted and fully debunked. Despite his sterling credentials in unrelated areas, McHugh's anti-LGBT crap is now relegated to the op-ed pages of non-scientific publications, and no academic journal will accept any of Regnerus' nonsense. Equally important is that no court today gives any credence to the claims made by these bigots.
Our understanding of psychiatry back in the 60s when homosexuality was the class 2 sexual disorder was that it was subject to academic peer review and unsubstantiated claims were thrown out. That didn't work out so well as it turns out.
Maybe psychiatry and other social sciences are doing a better job, but I understand why people don't believe it.
I think there's a very good chance that 50 years from now, people will be shaking their heads in wonderment at what people think is sound "science" now. If by chance that doesn't happen, just maybe psychiatry and other branches of social "science" will recover a bit of credibility. I won't be around to see that, but here in 2017 skepticism is utterly justified.
I take it you're a psychologist? If I were you I'd be far more concerned about the level of corruption and lack of ethics revealed by the APA's cooperation with Bush's torture program. It will be a very long time before that APA has any credibility again despite the changes to the board.
and it was changed ONLY because of Gay activism.
False. It was changed because there never was any credible science to support the previous classification, just nutty Bronze-age superstitions and pervasive social bias. Activists merely brought that fact to the APA's attention. I suggest you read the APA's statement since they clearly state this.
.
There still are plenty of Social scientists out there who feel it still is a mental disorder,
Really? Name them. They're perfectly free to conduct research and submit their findings to a credible peer-reviewed journal. So why don't they do so? The only one I know who has done so in recent years is Mark Regnerus and not only was his research roundly debunked but the journal retracted it due to academic fraud. He hasn't published in any scientific journal since......and even his own department says his work is junk.
.
Along with WHO , for now.
The WHO standards haven't been updated in decades and this is just one of many categories which will be updated when the new edition is released next year. While the WHO standards aren't actually used for treating transgender folks (it's WPATH and the APA which are the current standards used), WHO has stated that their very old guidelines have unfortunately contributed to the persecution and stigmatization of transgender folks. And apparently you're citing them in order to do exactly that.
and it was changed ONLY because of Gay activism. Main stream world view political correctness has infiltrated the Hard and Soft Sciences.. conform or die .. that is how it is..
That's nice. prove it! That story itself has been debunked. It was changed because there was no scientific evidence or support to show it was a disorder.
There still are plenty of Social scientists out there who feel it still is a mental disorder, Along with WHO , for now. But the political pressure and bullying, funding.. all of that stuff will force them to change their views.
Funny how they offer nothing credible to support their assertions!
Well staying on topic....
Back in the 60s, it was settled science that homosexuality was explained by Freudian theory that the behavior results from an overly dominant opposite sex parent. And homosexuality was clearly considered unnatural and deviant. It was also possible according to psychiatry that homosexuality could be fully cured with psychoanalysis.
To me, it's more than logical to figure that psychiatry would suffer an extreme credibility problem based on what we know now. And to your point, if there are other credibility problems for psychiatry that shouldn't be so surprising either.
Back in the 60s, it was settled science that homosexuality was explained by Freudian theory that the behavior results from an overly dominant opposite sex parent. And homosexuality was clearly considered unnatural and deviant. It was also possible according to psychiatry that homosexuality could be fully cured with psychoanalysis.
To me, it's more than logical to figure that psychiatry would suffer an extreme credibility problem based on what we know now.
Are you arguing that because these fields are subject to change upon new evidence (and thus aren't dogmatic like religion) that they lack credibility? Quite the opposite is the case......that's exactly how science is supposed to work.
and it was changed ONLY because of Gay activism.
WRONG. As has been pointed out to you numerous times:
The American Psychiatric Association ( APA ) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. This decision occurred in the context of momentous cultural changes brought on by the social protest movements of the 1950s to the 1970s: beginning with the African-American civil rights movement, then evolving on to the women's and gay rights movements.
Just as influential in the APA's decision were the research studies on homosexuality of the 1940's and 1950's . Alfred Kinsey's and colleagues' study on male and female sexuality marked the beginning of a cultural shift away from the view of homosexuality as pathology and toward viewing it as a normal variant of human sexuality. Kinsey had criticized scientists' tendency to represent homosexuals and heterosexuals as "inherently different types of individuals." Therefore, he introduced a 0 to 6 scale to classify sexual behavior or fantasy from "exclusively heterosexual" to "exclusively homosexual" (the " Kinsey Scale "). The " Kinsey Reports " found that 37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm; furthermore, 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. This is where the frequently quoted "10%" figure comes from. 2-6% of women reported more or less exclusively homosexual experience or response. A more modest 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence until the time of the interview.
Psychologist Evelyn Hooker 's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.
Gay activists began to confront the APA about its position on homosexuality. There were a series of dramatic encounters between activists and psychiatrists at the annual meetings of the APA between 1970 and 1972. While the opposition to the activists was vehement by some in the APA, there were increasing numbers of psychiatrists (e.g., Judd Marmor ) who supported the activists' view.
Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.
There still are plenty of Social scientists out there who feel it still is a mental disorder
So tell us who they are.
I would say that if we're into the 1960s and it's settled "science" that homosexuality is a disease based on the actions of a dominating opposite sex parent, it makes the very concept of considering psychiatry as a valid social "science" laughable on the face of it. If views like this were held 200-300 years ago and we advanced, I could buy it.
This is so absurd that I still have serious doubts about social "science". I'd say psychology and sociology give us good discussion points about either what makes us tick as individuals and as societies. But I don't think they rate as science and especially today I would consider any conclusions they come up with as worthy of extreme skepticism.
I do not have faith today they're reformed. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now they'll do better. But I don't buy it now.
I would say that if we're into the 1960s and it's settled "science" that homosexuality is a disease based on the actions of a dominating opposite sex parent, it makes the very concept of considering psychiatry as a valid social "science" laughable on the face of it. If views like this were held 200-300 years ago and we advanced, I could buy it.
This is so absurd that I still have serious doubts about social "science". I'd say psychology and sociology give us good discussion points about either what makes us tick as individuals and as societies. But I don't think they rate as science and especially today I would consider any conclusions they come up with as worthy of extreme skepticism.
I do not have faith today they're reformed. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now they'll do better. But I don't buy it now.
I would say that if we're into the 1960s and it's settled "science" that homosexuality is a disease based on the actions of a dominating opposite sex parent, it makes the very concept of considering psychiatry as a valid social "science" laughable on the face of it. If views like this were held 200-300 years ago and we advanced, I could buy it.
I can't defend that earlier view which was so clearly based on the pervasive social stigma against gays but I will not that it wasn't 200-300 years in the past but more like 80. The very concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist until the mid to late 1800s and psychiatry is still a very young field today.
Moreover all science involving human development and human behavior suffers from a significant obstacle regarding the ethics of doing a controlled study. In most cases it simply isn't ethical to use a direct approach so indirect controls are needed. For example, we can't ethically test on a human fetus what we strongly suspect is the hormonal switch for sexual orientation. In most cases we can't even properly measure the prenatal hormonal environment due to the risk to the fetus.
Who is online
102 visitors
oh this is going to ruffle quite a few feathers, eginnj !
Yeah, I can't wait!
But I'm SO good at that, as you both know only too well!
That's not the only thing you're SO good at eginnnj.
You're also good at researching and blowing peoples counter arguments out of the water. BTW, yours is an excellent and informative article.
i guess i must have learned it from you then, eginnj
i've unintentionally done the same recently, eginnj lol
Thanks, gordy -- I try to emulate your style!
Then my work on Earth is done!
I think you have that backwards. It's your style I try to emulate.
i suppose you have done a fabulous job, eginnj
That's the only way she knows how.
I seem to remember that Phoenyx13 is part of your admitted tag-team, eginnj. Isn't that interesting that you have your tag team going around and applauding you here as well?
you seem to be mistaken since i take no sides and have no "team", j
if you'll recall - i was a member of your nation on NV as well and befriended you as well along with being a member of some other conservative nations (and liberal nations), j
in fact, if i was just a part of eginnj's "admitted tag-team" then i wouldn't have befriended anyone else on this site, correct j ?
you may not like eginnj or have a vendetta against eginnj - but please leave me out of it, that's between you two only, j
That's because Eginnj has posted a logical, factual, well thought out article which is worthy of applause and praise. Perhaps we applause her because of those qualities and because we happen to agree with her. It sounds like you're jealous and/or whining that you were proven wrong and that we do not agree with you. You certainly haven't posted anything worthy of applause. Not even in the slightest!
Social conservatives will never take the time to read that or possibly reconsider their views because their views are not based on facts and logic. Their conservative views are instead based on religion and emotions.
We need Marge, Dennis and Kappa Man Stew to complete the Newsvine refugees.
Much too long to read.
Sexual orientation is not a choice, but sexual identity is.
What was the point of the post?
When did you choose your gender idnetity and why did you choose it?
"Marge" is now on board.
Welcome to the dark side.
Sexual orientation is nature; not a choice Not so sure about gender identity. I suspect it is part nature and part nurture.
Exploring this a bit ... informally.
Personally there is no way I could change my sexual orientation from heterosexual male to homosexual male. Not a chance on the planet for me to somehow be attracted to hairy, squarish, masculine creatures and lose attraction for the curvy, soft, nice-smelling, feminine wonders of human biology.
However, I suppose it is conceivable that I could choose to identify as a woman like Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner. She is still quite attracted to women (orientation) but she has decided (or has given in to her predisposition) to identify as a woman.
Very confusing situation IMO. Seems to me I would need some innate underlying desire to identify as a woman to drive me to make the choice to wear women's clothing, makeup, long-hair, take hormones, go by a female name, etc. But, then again, I can see life experiences influencing one to a particular gender identity. But no way would that change sexual orientation.
While it's likely that there's a social aspect to gender identity (ie things like gender expression norms), the case of Nicole and Jonas Maines would tend to indicate that the neurological trait is set very, very early - most likely prenatally.
Welcome "Marge" !
this place is rather interesting.......
Caitlyn was born with a female gender identity and tried very hard to hide/suppress it for the first 30+ years of her life. She may have appeared to others to be male but I'm certain that those who knew her closely had hints of her inner female gender identity that she likely expressed via cross-dressing and bisexual actions when she felt safe from prying eyes. It took until she was 50+ for her to make this public but this wasn't new to her and it wasn't her choice to be Caitlyn. She was always Caitlyn, even if she hid it very well.
Gender identity is determined in utero and cannot be changed, even by brain surgery.
Alright! Things just got interesting!
Something drives an individual to make such drastic changes in their life. So I do not see gender identity as a potential choice like preference in fashion, food, etc. It seems more complicated and more innate. Be interesting to see what emerges from more scientific study. But at this stage I am not convinced gender identity is purely a function of nature.
I know, that is why I used her as my example of "some innate underlying desire".
I think on gender identity you presume too much. Sexual orientation seems clearly a function of nature, but I am not yet persuaded by the scientific findings to make such a bold statement regarding gender identity.
Another slightly off topic but interesting point is that arguably nothing is a choice neurologically. That all of our choices and seemed free will are illusions fabricated by our conscious mind which basically interprets choices made by lower brain functions as its own. Kind of like an observer taking credit for what others do.
To the degree one accepts that science, it is difficult to deem anything a choice. One could argue that I drink espresso drinks not by choice but by nature.
Gender identity ( a person feeling of being male or female) is fixed before birth and cannot be changed. The behaviors that we choose to express are is a social construct. Being transgendered is when the physical gender of the body doesn't align with the person's gender identity. They could be either psychologically male with a female body or psychologically female with a male body.
Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation, so a person could be both transgendered and homosexual or bisexual in addition to being heterosexual in their identified gender role. There are some trans' people who are androgynous because of hormones or other factors.
That is possible. We don't know enough about our DNA, the brain and how we react to outside stimuli to make a definitive statement.
I've been known to add a double shot to a cup of black coffee on occasion. I am well aware that my tastes have changed as I have aged because I no longer have a sweet tooth and prefer bitter tastes much more now.
Yep, but I think I've now earned an uppercase S. More recently I was Marge43 to see if the moderators went easier on a female name (and they did).
Note that the Maines zygomatic twins were raised in the same household by the same conservative parents, yet one of them was pretty clearly a transgender kid by the age of two. Both parents deserve credit for recognizing fairly early on that one of the twins needed help which they couldn't provide, despite the fact that the father was quite resistant to the concept of gender identity.
The simple fact that there are several different stages of hormone-controlled prenatal sex differentiation in humans means that there's the potential for variation in how that sex differentiation occurs, and that's exactly what we observe.
If you're sufficiently interested to watch an hour-long video this is well worthwhile and addresses the current science, and it also includes the personal observations of a neurobiologist who is a transgender man who transitioned as an adult. Unsurprisingly he knows firsthand how men and women are treated quite differently in this society.
Oh heck, I wish Kappa Man would show up here. He'd be a great addition.
Gender identity is a form of mental illness.
Being lesbian or gay is pretty much determined by one's DNA (nature), and to some extent by their external environment (nurture, or the lack of it).
Jenner is still biologically a male. Nothing more than a female impersonator.
That claim is an unsupportable opinion because psych professionals disagree.
Medical science cannot change a person's DNA. That DNA doesn't determine a person's gender identity.
He's still a male, no matter what is said about him. What he thinks he is, is irrelevant.
No kidding? How could you possibly conclude I thought they were the same from my comments?
Hold on there armchair scientist. You might want to wait for science to catch up with your opinion before making such a bold claim. For example:
As I have consistently noted, I suspect gender identity is more nature than nurture. My point has been that sexual orientation seems to be conclusively nature but science is not as far along on gender identity .
Unless you are directly conducting research on this topic your claims should not go beyond current findings and conclusions of the scientific community. And you should never make claims of certainty on matters of science. Science works on levels of confidence and never closes the door on theories. All theories remain falsifiable no matter how confident we are in the explanations they provide.
So you might be right; but your claim is premature and your certainty is wholly unsubstantiated.
While we definitely are just scratching the surface of DNA, etc. that is really not the origin of this. This is neuroscience - studying the live brain and studying cause and effect. The research strongly suggests that our choices are made before we are consciously aware of them.
Try to wrap your mind around that. Science, nowadays, is often counter intuitive.
You are making a definitional comment, right? In other words you are simply saying that a person who is physically structured as a male is physically a male. So, going to Oxford, we have:
That would mean that Caitlyn Jenner is physically male. I will assume that is your point. Similarly, because Caitlyn Jenner has X and Y chromosomes, she can never physically be anything other than male if DNA is used as the determiner of physical gender.
So let's go past the physical. Caitlyn Jenner identifies as a woman. She does not feel correct as a male but does so (ostensibly) as a female. She is physically male but would you say she is mentally male? She does not think so.
Of course, the gender identity is biological in origin. I never hinted otherwise because if it is determined before birth it had to be biological in origin. There is now some evidence that there are structures in the brain that may allow gender identity conflicts to be diagnosed in the future via an MRI.
The physical body doesn't determine who we are. Our sense of self is in the brain and not in your DNA or your sex organs.
She has been a woman for the past 5+ years since she began her transition. It could be argued that she has been a woman all of her life because she was born with a female gender identity. It isn't our sex organs or our DNA that make us who we are.
Sounds like you have a rather naive and simplistic view not just of gender identity, but of biological sex. This link might help with a lay explanation which shows that even genetic sex isn't binary.
Dennis was here, but I haven't seen him for a while.
I learned a lot from Dennis. I was hoping that he was here.
You did not understand my comment.
Me, too. Last comment on his history is from about 2 months ago
Good to see you Marge,
Good to see you too, Mr Frost! I still haven't decided if this is the right place for me, but I thought I'd give the various options a fair try.
I, for one, am glad you're here, and I hope you stay. We do make a good tag team (along with our other "partners in crime")!
Hello there Mr. Frost !
i suppose i have been included in that group
Of course!
ROFLMAO! A so-called "Christian" conservative group, which does not conduct studies of its own, should be believed?
So called Christian? Lol!
don't you think it'd be a good idea to get a more non-biased source for your information ? or would you rather just research information that already conforms to your preconceived notion ?
from:
i guess you should get a more non-biased source if you want anyone to take your "proof" you offer more seriously.... looks like you did this:
from:
when you'd like to debate seriously - please let me know, i'd be more than happy to debate with you
But ... but ... Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve ...
Oh come on. I'm sure Adam and Steve make a fabulous couple.
And a classy trucker hat!
A non-existent God didn't make Adam and Eve so the argument evaporates.
how did they bigot Cain?
And wasn't Eve actually a transgender clone made from some dude's rib?
I think clone sex should be banned......it's too much like masturbation and the bible says that's a "sin."
And then Adam was married twice. Everyone forgets poor Lilith.
Oh, wait. It's ok for a man to be married more than once, so long as it's concurrently.
I think the word you mean is "begot." And I don't put much stock in biblical myths or fairy tales.
No, they wouldn't.
Merely your opinion.
The main cause of bigotry is not "dumb"ness as the title would suggest, but the result of norms based on ignorance that people are exposed to by their parents, friends and teachers. People who don't ever get a chance to learn and know better are doomed to their ignorance. It's true that many people who should know better maintain these views, but there are so many insular communities in the world, INCLUDING our country, that the majority of these people in question have no chance of knowing better. One would think that in this day and age there would be less of this, but that's just the facts.
Word to eginnj,
Welcome to you. This community is smaller and more intimate than Newsvine. There is surely partisan bickering here, but far, far less than any other place I've ever been to. The opportunities for vigorous, healthy debate between ideologies are excellent here. At first glance, your avatar does not welcome this. Perhaps you should give yourself and The NewsTalkers a try, before attempting to recreate the echo chamber environment that Newsvine was.
I hope to interact with your further.
The title doesn't suggest that bigotry is caused by dumbness. It states that bigotry is a dumb choice.
Again, it's back to choice. The FACT is that we are only as 'insular' as we choose to be. The vast majority of even the most remote parts of this country have internet access which allows us to educate ourselves on any given interest or issue. I learned to dress a rabbit online.
I submit that the most of those that 'maintain these views' do so willfully and in fact must practice cognitive dissonance because they KNOW that it's based on BS but support it anyway.
I don't see eginnj's avatar as an attempt to stifle debate. It's obvious from eginnj's post history already that he/she is already giving this venue a chance.
I'd also question why you inferred that eginnj is 'attempting to recreate the echo chamber environment', especially since you participated in that 'echo chamber environment' wholeheartedly as an Admin, a seeder and a commenter.
It seems to me that eginnj's article is an attempt to quell the 'echo chamber environment' about this issue, here at NT. I presume that you support that endeavor.
I don't see eginnj's avatar as an attempt to stifle debate.
If you don't view eginnj's avatar as a pejorative statement about those that he/she opposes, then it is not likely than anything I could say here would change your mind. It's the first thing you see about a poster, and the poster chooses this.
I was an admin in a Newsvine nation. One that did not block or delete those who visited. As most people, I had strong opinions on a number of topics. Those opinions did not involve direct insults, ad hominem attacks or pejorative characterizations of fellow posters.
I stand by my original post.
What does Eginnj's avatar have to do with anything? It's what she says, the facts she posts, and the logic and rationality of her arguments that matters. She posted a well written article, backed with facts from multiple sources, and logically and rationally supported her statements and arguments. That speaks far more about her than her avatar. If criticizing her avatar is all you have, then you have nothing! I still have the default NT hat avatar. What does that say about me then? Or anyone else who has the same avatar?
I stand by my original post.
Thank you for reaching out.
Have a nice day.
That's nice. And?
Read between the lines, you received your answer.
Why don't you indulge me and spell it out.
I had almost forgotten about the bad faith goal post moving. You stated:
You didn't say anything about her avatar being a 'pejorative statement' about anyone.
Actually, I had no clue what her avatar said until you made an issue of it.
I was blocked from the nation that you Admined...
What was the nation?
What was my NV name?
I presumed that your NV name was Jonathan. If not, my bad.
One cannot 'belong' to an ideology, one follows an ideology.
As for demanding sensitivity and deference, au contraire. I actually couldn't care less if you want to be crass, classless, boorish, disrespectful and thoughtless. Have at it. I'm a big girl and have taken a punch from bigger and better men than you.
Conversely, I choose to treat everyone, even conservative putzs and/or bible thumpers with respect and equality.
But when it comes to you, or anyone else trying to codify your religious animus against me and mine. It's on...
What exactly are you claiming that I am protesting about? Or was that your way of skirting the CoC and calling me a liar?
After reading just the headlines of some of the discussions today, I don't think what her avatar says could possible be considered inappropriate on this cite.
You finding my avatar inappropriate is wrong.
See, I can do that, too!
That infers that the types of articles you seed do not represent you. IMHO, they do and I'm pretty sure that those who seed article with what I consider 'inappropriate' headlines do so with that intent.
I really don't care whether you "understand" or not.
I never used my avatar on news vine or here to denigrate or put down those who have differing political viewpoints from mine.
Oh, the hypocrisy! You fully participated in that "echo chamber" for which you are now criticizing Newsvine.
Guess I can't say the same about "looking forward" to interacting with you further, given your attitude and hypocrisy.
Thank you for your response.
Have a great day.
What in the (bleep) is this incoherent mess? People arent made LGBT because of their parents, friends, and teachers.
Isn't he actually commenting on bigotry? It seemed that way based on that snippet.
Which is true. If a person is raised to think a certain way, they are unlikely to change even when faced with facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
The incoherence was created by your cut and paste job, which omitted the first part of the post.
Please go back and see what you left out. I think you'll be able to understand the context a bit better.
I read the entire post multiple times. It wasn't pasted to the reply when I copied it.
If that is true, then how do people from conservative religious families end up being LGBT, even though they were abused and ostracized because of their sexuality/gender identity?
You need to understand that being LGBT isn't learned or a choice, despite what you choose to believe or have been told.
Are you now suggesting that you had a change of mind and now admit that being LGBT isn't a choice and they arent mentally ill?
No, I'm suggesting that when you cut and paste, you cut and paste the ENTIRE THOUGHT, instead of leaving out key parts of what someone wrote.
Just curious:
Are you serious?
Could you point out where I gave any indication as to my thoughts on the topic of LGBT?
You've been lauded by others as rational and reasoned. I'd like to see evidence of that as well.
The idea that some parts were left out doesn't change what I read multiple times before I choose to C&P it in a reply.
If you are asking if I believe what I wrote. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
So mental illness is inherited.
Mental illness Causes - Mayo Clinic
What does mental illness have to do with sexual orientation? It seems you're getting off topic.
Both things we are speaking of are (homosexuallity and sexual identity) are IMO mental disorders. They should be treated as such and treated appropriately and not just passed of as OK. What deviant behavior are you going to allow next, pedophilia?
Then you are wrong!
Your slippery slope fallacy aside, you confuse behavior with orientation. And who are you to decide what is "deviant" or not? And what difference does it make? Or do you think heterosexuals aren't "deviant" themselves?
If you condone same sex relationships, next thing people will want is the right to marry a pack of wolves, their left shoe, and a grilled cheese sandwich all at once! They will demand their own tax filing status as "married to a bunch of stuff", and the economy will collapse!
I've actually heard similar arguments before. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
1. ) Being LGBT isn't a mental disorder. You should learn what a mental disorder is and what it isn't.
2.) LGBT people do not reproduce sexually so it cant be passed on to their offspring.
3.) How do you plan to cure someone of being LGBT? Reparative therapy is dangerous and it doesn't work. It does, however, kill people. What needs to be cured is the idea that LGBT is a disease or a threat to you. Bigotry is the problem.
4.) Why is it that conservtives love to try to equate being LGBT with pedophilia and beastality?
Erotophobia.
I've never been able to figure out why so many conservative hetros who have so many guns can be so afraid of a gay man.
IMO
Unfortunately those 3 letters render your opinion unworthy of serious consideration. Back up your statement with reputable scientific research and your feelings will have more weight behind them
I suspect that it is fear of being raped. It is the heterosexual male fearing that they will be blamed for asking to be raped by a homosexual male like society blames female rape victims for being raped by heterosexual males.
Myth: Only women and gay men get raped.
Myth: Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification. Most rape are spontaneous acts of passion where the assailant cannot control him/herself.
:double facepalm:
She needed a donor to reproduce, so an LGB couple cannot rep[roduce without outside aid. Trans people who have begun treatment are either sterile from the hormones or have their sex organs removed before of surgery.
In fact that was the state of Kentucky's argument against marriage equality so apparently some bigoted conservatives really are that dumb.
I do agree with 99% of your post, but this is not technically always true. If a gay couple use artificial insemination to reproduce and use one of the couples egg or sperm, then it could be. That said, in my view, sexual orientation is like a number line, if you fall exactly in the middle, then you are balanced between hetero & homo. Any point on either side of 0 will result in more hetero or more homo orientation. It's not either or, it's more a matter of degree.
First off, that's a rightwing thing. Secondly, I'm sure that if anyone actually knew about the relationship they'd likely give her condolences for it.
Only half of the LGB couples DNA is reproduced with artificial insemination. It is possible in the future it will be able for the DNA of both people to be carried by the offspring of an LGBT couple.
Comment removed personal attack 96WS6 I wonder if she's aware of your anti-LGBT blogging and if so what she thinks of you as a result?
That doesn't seem like a helpful distinction. Schizophrenia could be "who they are as a person."
I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction between homosexuality and schizophrenia. They are two completely different things. One distinction between them is, schizophrenia is a mental illness. homosexuality is not!
Your argument seems circular.
That link basically makes the case that it's pretty hard sometimes to say what is or is not a disorder. From what I have seen, these distinctions are often arbitrary, political, or simply a matter of changing perspectives. Conclusions are generally a matter of people voting, which is more politics than science. That's how Pluto went from being a planet to a "dwarf planet." They just invented a new term. It's also how "Gender Identity Disorder" became "Gender Dysphoria." The condition didn't change - only what people decided to call it. Why? Because of the effects describing someone as "disordered" or "mentally ill" had on the people with the condition, not because of the nature of the condition itself.
Some people feel the original term was the most accurate and appropriate. The change in the DSM does not make them wrong on the science. Political consensus is not science.
Unless you're claiming to be mentally ill your argument is patently ridiculous since sexual orientation is a trait which all humans have.
E.A Like what a schizophrenic would say?
"Some people" are wrong because there never was any credible science to support their anti-LGBT bias. The change in the DSM reflected that fact as the APA has clearly stated. At best your own views are a reflection of that socially regressive, superstitious and unscientific cultural bias. The fact that no medical or scientific organization today supports your views should tell you something, but feel free to submit your own research to a credible peer-reviewed journal in an effort to justify your bias. Pro tip: leave out the Bronze-age mythology from your submission.
Then why are you moving the goal posts? The comment was about 'reproducing sexually'. Your cousin did NOT reproducing 'sexually'. Sheesh!
You missed a perfectly good opportunity to refute epistte's inartful post but it went right over your head.
You have no freaking clue what the people here on NT have done.
BTW, I would worry about your 'conservative' friends here harassing her. You've made her an easy target for them. I suggest you warn your cousin.
I suggest you rethink your 'oversharing' of your family's lives. It should be up to them whether pictures of their children and their facebook pages should be 'shared' on an open forum.
That's a ludicrously false comment since those are the two most common false comparisons made by conservatives in their churches, their anti-gay lobbying and in their legal briefs against equal rights for gays. Anyone paying attention would know that. They also made those exact same false comparisons against mixed-race marriage.
And for some unknown reason conservatives are obsessed with the sexual aspect of being gay, not the other aspects of a relationship.
Speaking an uncomfortable truth doesn't automatically indicate that an unreasonable bias is present. Were the editors of the DSM biased all those years that it was a disorder? Or maybe they were just calling a thing what it is.
As it turns out, when the change was made, some of the people who objected to the change were actually LGBT advocates. I kind of doubt they had an anti-LGBT bias.
Others argue that GID should stay in the DSM in some form because it provides a solid legal defense for transgender people who have experienced discrimination based on their gender identity.
“Having a diagnosis is extremely useful in legal advocacy,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We rely on it even in employment discrimination cases to explain to courts that a person is not just making some superficial choice ... that this is a very deep-seated condition recognized by the medical community.”
Speaking of "advocates," here is a good article from The Advocate discussing the change. I draw your attention to the fact that this was never about science, either before or after the change, but is rather, about the cultural impact.
DSM-V To Rename Gender Identity Disorder 'Gender Dysphoria'
So, science and medicine didn't enter into it. By their own admission, the editors of the DSM were not going for a more accurate scientific term, but rather, had as their goal: easing people's hurt feelings.
Are you saying that you do not want people with mental illness to be accepted into our society? Do you have any concept of how many Vets would be ostracized by your position? Do you realize that over 50% of Vets with PTSD do not seek treatment and that the treatment the rest receive is sorely inadequate?
Seriously, I hope that your post is an instance where you failed to think things through rather than an example of how you actually feel about our fellow citizens and especially our Vets.
"Are you saying that you do not want people with mental illness to be accepted into our society? "
I never said that did I. Mental illness should be treated not covered up and nit just accepted because it is easier to accept tban it is to treat.
And sexual orientation is not a mental illness. until you understand that, you'll always be wrong on that point.
You may not have wanted to say that but you sure as hell DID.
Your statement clearly advocates for the ostracization of those with mental illness. Period, full stop.
In answer to that I'll just reiterate what Gordy said:
And sexual orientation is not a mental illness. until you understand that, you'll always be wrong on that point.
Are you saying that you're mentally ill because you have a sexual orientation?
I guess we all are. And we all have a gender identity, too.
BTW, I lol'ed at your comment
interesting.. are you suggesting that homosexuals have children who are homosexual, arkpdx ? i've been told countless times that homosexuals aren't able to have children but what you are posting seems to contradict that, arkpdx
i wasn't aware that sexual orientations had to be "treated", arkpdx. Should we "treat" bisexuals, sapiosexuals and asexuals as well, arkpdx ?
"I've been told countless times that homosexuals aren't able to have children but what you are posting seems to contradict that, arkpdx"
If I use your satatement as fact the enire arguement that sexual orientation is normal, natural and genetic goes straight out the window. If mental disorders can be and are in many cases caused by genetic factors and can and are treated then the mental condition of sexual irientation and identy cand by treated.
Please explain how the entire argument goes out the window, arkpdx
are we going to "treat" all sexual orientations and sexual identities or just the ones you choose, arkpdx ?
So sexual orientation is a mental condition/disorder and heterosexuality can be treated and cured?
Settle down a bit and maybe you wouldn't come off as both totally ignorant about everything pertaining to this discussion as well as semi-literate. First off, have you identified these "genetic factors?" If so, there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it. No one has identified all the factors or combination of factors that are involved in establishing sexual preference as an adult. So, obviously no one is being treated with "genetic factors" for homosexuality or transgenderism for the purpose of making them heterosexual. But what if there were treatment like that f for people who wished to have it? Would you make it mandatory and force ones who were happy with their sexuality to undergo that treatment. That would be a bit weird for someone who frequently throws a tantrum imagining some liberal is trampling on his rights. BTW, here's an article about past forced therapy on unwilling homosexuals:
Furthermore, the mechanism of establishing sexual preference may be far more complex than just "genetic factors." There may be a myriad of hormonal and other biochemical processes at work. One thing seems certain: there won't be just one factor.
Having said all that and knowing it won't stop you and others from blithering on about a subject about which you have innumerable prejudices and zero facts, I'd really rather have it that way than suddenly see you've actually learned something. The shock might give me a heart attack.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that sexual orientation is controlled by multiple factors including prenatal hormones and genetic & epigenetic factors, particularly Xq28 for males. Studies with mice have also confirmed the presence of a prenatal hormonal "switch" during a critical development period of sex differentiation in the brain. That kind of experiment can't be ethically performed on human fetuses but we can presume a similar mechanism exists.
But with gender identity we have a few examples of zygomatic twins where one is trans and the other is cisgender, so it's reasonable to assume that genetics per se doesn't control gender identity. Unfortunately the animal models fail us here since we can't (yet) ask a non-human what its subjective gender is. But there is strong evidence of prenatal hormone influence on sex-related behavior not related to mate selection.
Atypical sexual behavior is not necessarily mental illness.
I need not list examples of sexual behavior (and we could even restrict the list to practices of monogamous, heterosexual, married adult couples) to make this point, right? So in general, do atypical sexual practices by a married couple mean the two are mentally ill? If not then why would one consider homosexuality a mental illness?
Ultimately the natural reproductive process produces homosexual individuals about 3.8% of the time . Red-heads are even rarer - less than 2% of the time . Nature produces exceptions to the statistical norm. Those exceptions are natural.
I will presume you are joking. The 'in general' portion of my question makes it apply to all atypical practices for all married couples. Paraphrasing my question just in case you misunderstood it:
Do atypical sexual practices by a married couple necessarily mean the two are mentally ill?
Too bad medical science flatly contradicts you -- and I think we'll take the word of the experts, who have done the research, over yours.
No it doesn't. Even the APA agrees that in part, homosexuality is environmentally taught. Much like those that involuntarily become pedophiles due to experienced sex abuse.
The APA didn't even remove it from their list of mental disorders until LGBTQ raided their conferences and place political pressures upon them to have it removed, they didn't even provide any new or suddenly revealing studies in order to have it removed, they just did it through political pressure from the Left.
No, the behavior might be taught, for lack of a better term. But the orientation itself is not!
Pedophilia is a sexual paraphilia, not an orientation.
Wrong! It was removed because there was no evidence to suggest or support the position that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
can you tell me what exactly about homosexuality is "taught", j ? is it the same type of things that are "taught" about heterosexuality, j ?
Hey Phoenyx, it looks like some feathers got ruffled. LOL
My, my, you do pack a lot of false into few words. Homosexuality was removed as a disease from the DSM in 1973, long before gay activism was a factor. And there's no evidence at all anywhere for that second sentence-full of horseshite.
oh you have no idea Gordy ! i'm a bit amazed actually...
There certainly is a lot of support that homophobia is a mental illness. It's very often associated with gay men trying to fight against their natural inclination. But whether it's genetic or not has yet to be determined.
It's probably not genetic per se but since it does have such a strong correlation with the disorders of Republicanism and religious extremism it's quite likely to be caused by the same neurological syndrome which causes some people to have authoritarian tendencies.
Bigotry is learned from the cradle. It's familial but not hereditary.
Now there's something that should be a mental disorder. Fortunately, it's best treated with education, empathy, and understanding. But it's also a case of where "prevention is the best medicine" applies.