Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

[mfbukowski]

A new article on gender identity maintains that everything the media tells us is wrong, and perhaps implies that a conservative position like that of the church, may be scientifically accurate.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almost-everything-the-media-tells-you-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-is-wrong/

I must admit I am not an expert on the journal which published the article, nor the studies, nor anything else about this subject, but I wondered what others here might think.  What I DO know is the site covering the article is associated with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Christian-based organization

But as grown-ups hopefully none of us actually think anything in the media is "objective" anyway.   The question as I see it- is how good is the science behind the article?

Here are some quotes from the website summarizing the published article:

Quote

 

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The report, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” is co-authored by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. Mayer is a scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.

 

And here is a link to the article itself in the journal New Atlantis

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

Since I really do not know much about the science behind any of this, I will probably not have much to say

 

[Teancum]

If you don't have you admittedly don't know much about this and you don't have much to say about it why start a thread about it?

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you don't have you admittedly don't know much about this and you don't have much to say about it why start a thread about it?

Perhaps from a desire to learn more through discussion.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If you don't have you admittedly don't know much about this and you don't have much to say about it why start a thread about it?

Good point

I guess I will take it all at face value then.  The church is clearly right completely.  But of course I already knew that

Maybe I could just change the title to "Church totally vindicated scientifically about gays"  Would that be better?

Edited August 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps from a desire to learn more through discussion.

Give this man a cigar.   A candy one of course!

[BCSpace]

Quote

Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

All science supports the Church because the Church accepts all science.  It is probably better to say that it does not make a difference to LDS doctrine if homosexuals are born that way or not because we believe God gives us weaknesses (Ether 12:27) and that it is possible to follow all commandments (1 Nephi 3:7).

The Johns Hopkins study itself is merely a continuation of decades of research refuting the 'NAMBLA-wing of the APA' statements made in the early 1970's about homosexuality.  These studies have been suppressed for the last decade and a half because they are not politically correct.  But it seems that we are entering a new era of truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

A new article on gender identity maintains that everything the media tells us is wrong, and perhaps implies that a conservative position like that of the church, may be scientifically accurate.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almost-everything-the-media-tells-you-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-is-wrong/

I must admit I am not an expert on the journal which published the article, nor the studies, nor anything else about this subject, but I wondered what others here might think.  What I DO know is the site covering the article is associated with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Christian-based organization

But as grown-ups hopefully none of us actually think anything in the media is "objective" anyway.   The question as I see it- is how good is the science behind the article?

Here are some quotes from the website summarizing the published article:

And here is a link to the article itself in the journal New Atlantis

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

Since I really do not know much about the science behind any of this, I will probably not have much to say

 

Johns Hopkins and Arizona State are reputable institutions. They don't strike me as the type to employ cranks. 

[Storm Rider]

When good science meets the demand to be Politically Correct then science will fail every time.  Nothing is allowed to stop the demands to make PC fantasy a reality.  It is really strange how this occurs so reliably.  It is almost as if there is a evil force at work to twist the understanding of humanity to the point that black is called white and evil good. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

A new article on gender identity maintains that everything the media tells us is wrong, and perhaps implies that a conservative position like that of the church, may be scientifically accurate.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/22/almost-everything-the-media-tells-you-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-is-wrong/

I must admit I am not an expert on the journal which published the article, nor the studies, nor anything else about this subject, but I wondered what others here might think.  What I DO know is the site covering the article is associated with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Christian-based organization

But as grown-ups hopefully none of us actually think anything in the media is "objective" anyway.   The question as I see it- is how good is the science behind the article?

Here are some quotes from the website summarizing the published article:

And here is a link to the article itself in the journal New Atlantis

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

Since I really do not know much about the science behind any of this, I will probably not have much to say

 

Does the journal have a political bias or agenda?  I'm going to guess Yes

[Johnnie Cake]

Well it didn't take me but a simple google search to confirm my suspicions.  The Atlantus Journal is partially owned by a Christian Think Tank in Washington DC 

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Formation	1976
Founder	Ernest W. Lefever
Headquarters	1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C.
President	Edward Whelan
Vice President	Michael Cromartie
Website	EPPC.org

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) is a conservative^[1][2]Washington, D.C.-based think tank and advocacy group. Founded in 1976, the group describes itself as "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christianmoral tradition to critical issues of public policy."^[3] The EPPC is active in a number of ways, including holding conferences,^[4] publishing written work^[5] from the group's scholars,^[6] and running programs^[7] intended to explore areas of public concern and interest.

[thesometimesaint]

Gender is not  the same thing as sex.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does the journal have a political bias or agenda?  I'm going to guess Yes

And of course the usual media is totally right?

Oh, I mean, left?

There is no such thing as objectivity

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

It seems that the actual study in The New Atlantic is arguing for a nuanced approach to understanding gender issues. Quoting extensively -

Quote

 

The popular discussion of sexual orientation is characterized by two conflicting ideas about why some individuals are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. While some claim that sexual orientation is a choice, others say that sexual orientation is a fixed feature of one’s nature, that one is “born that way.” We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.

A prominent recent example of a person describing sexual orientation as a choice is Cynthia Nixon, a star of the popular television series Sex and the City, who in a January 2012 New York Times interview explained, “For me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me,” and commented that she was “very annoyed” about the issue of whether or not gay people are born that way. “Why can’t it be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?”^[1] Similarly, Brandon Ambrosino wrote in The New Republic in 2014 that “It’s time for the LGBT community to stop fearing the word ‘choice,’ and to reclaim the dignity of sexual autonomy.”^[2]

By contrast, proponents of the “born that way” hypothesis — expressed for instance in Lady Gaga’s 2011 song “Born This Way” — posit that there is a causal biological basis for sexual orientation and often try to bolster their claims with scientific findings. Citing three scientific studies^[3] and an article from Science magazine,^[4] Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate in 2014, claims that “homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait.”^[5] However, as neuroscientist Simon LeVay, whose work in 1991 showed brain differences in homosexual men compared to heterosexual men, explained some years after his study, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”^[6]

Many recent books contain popular treatments of science that make claims about the innateness of sexual orientation. These books often exaggerate — or at least oversimplify — complex scientific findings. For example, in a 2005 book, psychologist and science writer Leonard Sax responds to a worried mother’s question as to whether her teenage son will outgrow his homosexual attractions: “Biologically, the difference between a gay man and a straight man is something like the difference between a left-handed person and a right-handed person. Being left-handed isn’t just a phase. A left-handed person won’t someday magically turn into a right-handed person.... Some children are destined at birth to be left-handed, and some boys are destined at birth to grow up to be gay.”^[7]

As we argue in this part of the report, however, there is little scientific evidence to support the claim that sexual attraction is simply fixed by innate and deterministic factors such as genes. Popular understandings of scientific findings often presume deterministic causality when the findings do not warrant that presumption.

Another important limitation for research and for interpretation of scientific studies on this topic is that some central concepts — including “sexual orientation” itself — are often ambiguous, making reliable measurements difficult both within individual studies and when comparing results across studies. So before turning to the scientific evidence concerning the development of sexual orientation and sexual desire, we will examine at some length several of the most troublesome conceptual ambiguities in the study of human sexuality in order to arrive at a fuller picture of the relevant concepts.

 

Identifying as being anywhere on the Kinsey scale isn't necessarily biological alone. Not sure anyone who is familiar with the nature v. nurture debate would be shocked by that. It seems that the sword cuts both against the idea that "gender is eternal" given genetics and environmental play important roles in one's gender identify and sexuality. It seems clearly arguing that the science isn't settled on the topic and there is much to learn. And that sensitivity is rational.

Based on the limited reading I gave to the underlying study, it seems fairly measured and well done. It isn't arguing for a particular position and seems to be as even handed as one could hope a study to be.

IMO, of course.

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

It will be interesting to watch the reaction to this article to see if it can be refuted or shown to be flawed

THAT to me is the question really

[thesometimesaint]

Gender is not the same thing as sex. Is this refutation enough?
SEE http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course the usual media is totally right?

Oh, I mean, left?

There is no such thing as objectivity

 

This isnt scientists following the science it's a fundamentalist religious organization pushing an agenda...

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well it didn't take me but a simple google search to confirm my suspicions.  The Atlantus Journal is partially owned by a Christian Think Tank in Washington DC 

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Formation	1976
Founder	Ernest W. Lefever
Headquarters	1730 M Street N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C.
President	Edward Whelan
Vice President	Michael Cromartie
Website	EPPC.org

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) is a conservative^[1][2]Washington, D.C.-based think tank and advocacy group. Founded in 1976, the group describes itself as "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christianmoral tradition to critical issues of public policy."^[3] The EPPC is active in a number of ways, including holding conferences,^[4] publishing written work^[5] from the group's scholars,^[6] and running programs^[7] intended to explore areas of public concern and interest.

Can there be any clearer example than this of an ad hominem attack?

 

Report bad behavior.  Don't derail threads with nannying.

[Honorentheos]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It will be interesting to watch the reaction to this article to see if it can be refuted or shown to be flawed

THAT to me is the question really

What's to be refuted? That nature and nurture influence one's gender identity and sexual orientation? That the science isn't decided on the subject? That given the harsh psychological outcomes for those who struggle with gender identity issues sensitivity is needed rather than harsh judgments?

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can there be any clearer example than this of an ad hominem attack?

I'm disappointed Scott?  Your a reporter.  It's journalism 101 to follow the money...you of all people know this...  So you're denying an obvious bias in this so called scientific study?  Really?  Unbelievable.

edit to add: I'm actually surprised that you didn't expose this bias instead of me, after all you're the journalists right?

Edited August 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This isnt scientists following the science it's a fundamentalist religious organization pushing an agenda...

More ad hom. 

Shout down the study instead of dealing with it intelligently. 

And so it goes. 

[Honorentheos]

Moving past the article to the study, here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

I get that the underlying arguments aren't a slam dunk for the claim that there is something innate to gender identity or sexual orientation so perhaps it's seen as a blow for the Church's stance against SSM. Yet the study seems to walk enough of a line to be supportive that there is no clear answer so, in the words of the prelude -

Quote

As citizens, scholars, and clinicians concerned with the problems facing LGBT people, we should not be dogmatically committed to any particular views about the nature of sexuality or gender identity; rather, we should be guided first and foremost by the needs of struggling patients, and we should seek with open minds for ways to help them lead meaningful, dignified lives.

If that is the underlying point, besides the science being less settled than people seem to assume, then I don't have an argument myself.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Honorentheos

[SteveO]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It will be interesting to watch the reaction to this article to see if it can be refuted or shown to be flawed

THAT to me is the question really

Looks like this is starting to trend on social media, although not very heavily...will be interesting to see if it starts gaining traction--maybe national attention?  I know Rod Arket talked about it on the radio this afternoon.  

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Gender is not the same thing as sex. Is this refutation enough?
SEE http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

The problem is the transgender movement does blend the two together.  So they say a man is a woman if he thinks is a woman and a woman is a man if she thinks she is a man.  Then they want to change their names to reflect being the opposite sex and use the bathrooms that correspond to the opposite sex.  There are many guys who lean more feminine and women who lean more masculine but they are not attempting to be the opposite sex.  Generally I really don't care until they expect or require me to play along with their games.  Bruce Jenner will always be Bruce to me.  He can call himself by another name but to me, I will call him by no other name than Bruce. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you don't have you admittedly don't know much about this and you don't have much to say about it why start a thread about it?

Perhaps the fellow started a thread about this topic because he wants to discuss it and learn more about it?

Is that a problem for you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm disappointed Scott?  Your a reporter.  It's journalism 101 to follow the money...you of all people know this...  So you're denying an obvious bias in this so called scientific study?  Really?  Unbelievable.

I don't recall hearing this in any academic journalism courses. 

I do recognize it as a cultural meme from pop entertainment media -- which, I'm guessing, is where you got it. 

Edited to add: 

One truism I do recall from my university days is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd