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

[CMZ]

On 8/22/2016 at 8:33 PM, BCSpace said:

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).

 

So true. The discussions here and elsewhere on homosexuality very rarely take into account the two things you mentioned. They seem to center on, "Are people born gay or do they make it up later? And if they ARE born gay then clearly there's nothing that can be done about it. Or if they made it up after they were born then they can repent or seek therapy or whatever. So let's see which viewpoint we can prove scientifically." The science behind it all may be worthy of some discussion but both viewpoints miss the greater point that God will help everyone eventually enter a fulfilling heterosexual relationship (D&C 131 and 132 have some relevance here, as do other scriptures) and that we shouldn't be surprised when there are things in mortality that seem to make that goal difficult, real or perceived homosexuality being only one of those things. Remove the gospel perspective and everything ends up on a much more tenuous footing.

Edited August 27, 2016 by CMZ

[guerreiro9]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

What does the recency of the construct have to do with its validity? If the construct were older would it be more valid? In 100 years will it be more valid than it is now?

 

Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by non-biological factors?

Define gay and I'll be able to respond more succinctly.  I shouldn't have used it in my response as it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.

Define sexual orientation, and I'll provide what evidence I can.

-guerreiro9

[BlueDreams]

This is a little late in and I'm a slow reader (particularly during the work week). So I've only read the first half. My basic assessment of it is that it's interesting,  especially once you're past the introduction. There is bias, but all studies do. A lot of this oddly isn't as new to me. At least in concept and I think they have some fair critiques. Such as not having a solid definition of what constitutes sexual orientation. I had already been to a workshop that noted the mixed distinctions of identity, attraction, and orientation and the presenters saying it really ranged. The Kinsey scale in general is considered a little dated. And Dimensions to sexuality and sexual expression are moving in. His points of identity, attractions and partners is somewhat like that. But the model I like entails aesthetics, social, romantic, and erotic tendencies that were rated on variations of attraction or aversion. I've seen it more helpful to help better understand one's sexuality.

I know a number have noted that obviously they wouldn't think so if you had a gay child or person and watched the conflict etc. But the thing is I have known a number of people who's sexual identity and reported attractions altered sporadically throughout their life (And I'm not talking throughconversion therapy or something). Or who's sexual identity wasn't as easily nailed down. It's also a trend in younger generations to not like labels to their sexual identity. It may also be a concept that was more able to have coalesced as a consistent identity when sexual orientation is more oppressed. The more "out" group would likely be those who's sexuality isn't as fluid whereas those who do have fluidity would be able to stay within the parameters of their era/culture/personal desires/etc. Or to not even be all to aware if you do have some fluidity. I also knew the problem with brain research (any sort)...it's hard to prove causality or the direction of causality. Especially post effects because people brains can alter based off of experiences as well.

The part I was most skeptical on dealt with the larger proportion of LGB's with sexual abuse as a potential cause. I'm well aware that sexual abuse can effect sexual behaviors and relationships. I see it all the time in cases of sexual aversion/phobias, poor sexual boundaries, or excessive partnering that run antithetical to their actual personal relationship desires. But I'm not as certain and haven't had enough exposure to wonder about sexual orientation. So I'm more hesitant to agree.

Most of it reads of pointing out holes in the research, pointing out possible inferences, and stating, we could use more research or that the general conclusion doesn't support the conventional phrase of "born that way"...BUT it also doesn't mean that the attraction itself is as fluid for each person or that taking care of past emotional baggage will rearrange sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does exist and the dialogue around sexual orientation may need to acknowledge that more. Very few psychological/sociological phenomena are that set with scientific studies to back up the idea of genetic predetermination.

Personally I've thought for a while there is a problem with narrative in the idea of born that way. It's reactive to those that have insisted it's a choice. I've heard and seen stories where this doesn't fit, either end. It doesn't touch on the complexity of identity and expression. It's a little too dichotomous. Adopting a different dialogue around this doesn't mean that gay rights need be in question...just that there may need to be more capacity to talk about those who do not fit the expected dialogue.

 

WIth luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

What does the recency of the construct have to do with its validity? If the construct were older would it be more valid? In 100 years will it be more valid than it is now?

Social constructs are how we organize our world and view people. I don't know if it removes validity and it certainly doesn't remove current impact. Social constructs still have power even if they're still just social constructs. Because we live in a society...societies are framed by social constructs. At the same time all social constructs come with a price. The previous price tag for orientation repression was pretty steep for those who didn't fit within the constructs expected of them. The current price for the social constructs is more ammenable, but does mean that voices who do not fit into the constructs in the way we prefer (think of Josh Weed for an obvious example) become dangerous in our current social construct that needs to rearrange, neutralize, or inaccurately trump up to fit other people's social construct around choice and biology. Personally I prefer constructs that allow for more complexity to be acknkowledged and utilized.  

I think I feel for those who carry more complex identities than the competing dialogues allow for because my personal identity(ies?) is also often at odds with the social constructs and narratives I've been given...just not on sexuality as much.

 

EDIT: Ironically this would also make sexual orientation more parallel to race, as a social construct . 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 27, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

On August 26, 2016 at 5:38 PM, ALarson said:

So, your answer to my question:  "Do you believe that some people are born gay?", is that "you have no answer"?

Ok.

It's a reasonable response, if you don't know the answer to a question, to say you don't know. And it is not "dodging the question" to make that admission.

Do you want me to pretend I have an answer when I don't? Is that the only way, in your mind, for me to avoid "dodging the question"? I really don't follow your reasoning on this. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

On 8/26/2016 at 10:06 PM, guerreiro9 said:

Define gay and I'll be able to respond more succinctly.  I shouldn't have used it in my response as it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.

Define sexual orientation, and I'll provide what evidence I can.

-guerreiro9

Gay = attracted to people of the same gender as you.

Sexual orientation = what gender or genders you are attracted to.

[bcuzbcuz]

On 27 August 2016 at 6:13 PM, BlueDreams said:

Social constructs are how we organize our world and view people. I don't know if it removes validity and it certainly doesn't remove current impact. Social constructs still have power even if they're still just social constructs. Because we live in a society...societies are framed by social constructs. At the same time all social constructs come with a price. The previous price tag for orientation repression was pretty steep for those who didn't fit within the constructs expected of them. The current price for the social constructs is more ammenable, but does mean that voices who do not fit into the constructs in the way we prefer (think of Josh Weed for an obvious example) become dangerous in our current social construct that needs to rearrange, neutralize, or inaccurately trump up to fit other people's social construct around choice and biology. Personally I prefer constructs that allow for more complexity to be acknkowledged and utilized.  

I think I feel for those who carry more complex identities than the competing dialogues allow for because my personal identity(ies?) is also often at odds with the social constructs and narratives I've been given...just not on sexuality as much.

 

EDIT: Ironically this would also make sexual orientation more parallel to race, as a social construct . 

With luv,

BD

Sexual orientation more parallel to race? How so? Race as defined by supposed skin colour or perceived attributes? And born that way ? Or conforming to perceptions?

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Sexual orientation more parallel to race? How so? Race as defined by supposed skin colour or perceived attributes? And born that way ? Or conforming to perceptions?

In the sense that race is a social construct. It's how society interprets and groups  physical traits. Race is not actually genetic, but how we interpret specific features. Our categories also change as time moves forward. LGB are social constructs/identities based loosely off of sexual attractions, behaviors, relationships and experience. Not all people who experience same-sex or both-sex attraction are comfortable with said identities, because the social constructs around them do not fully fit their lived experience and choices for their life. I'll give you an examples in race and sexual identity.

Obama and I have similar genetic backgrounds. One of our parents is white American, the other is African (though from very different genetic regions). He grew up in a multiethnic family, in varying areas, with a limited relationship to his father, and at times a step-father of a different ethnic background. Same for me (though I probably have more of a relationship with my bio-dad at my age than he did). But we identify differently both on the census and in daily life. He ID's as black/African-American with white family members; I ID as mixed from a multiethnic/racial family that include black African in there. I don't ID as AA because the familial history and culture(s) are different from what I have. The difference is both in our age and how we've felt most comfortable interpreting/labeling our experiences. As well as capacity based on society to have differing labels/identities. It wasn't much of an option to openly view oneself as biracial or mixed. It is more so today.

In sexuality I would compare 3 different men: Ty Mansfield, josh weed, and let's say Daniel from the board (sorry Daniel...if you would prefer me not to use your name I would gladly choose another. You're just the first to come to mind ). They all Have experienced sexual attraction to the same sex. All have at one time had sexual relationships with the opposite sex as well. They've all expressed their feelings in differing ways with their relationships. All, from what I can tell, ID differently. Daniel, from what I see, ID's as a gay man, happily married to his husband. Ty from a couple workshops he was apart of, doesn't like labels and doesn't have one for himself currently and is happily married to his wife. Josh states clearly that he is both gay and happily married to his wife. I heard in an interview stating that he is currently a "lollisexual" (Lolli is his wife). All have similar backgrounds  And experience desire for the same sex. But they ID differently based on social constructs and their lived experience. They've also experienced their sexual desires and expressions in differing ways as well. Ergo LGB are social constructs we've made to organize our world. It works for some, but not all.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited August 28, 2016 by BlueDreams

[bcuzbcuz]

12 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

In the sense that race is a social construct. It's how society interprets and groups  physical traits. Race is not actually genetic, but how we interpret specific features. Our categories also change as time moves forward. LGB are social constructs/identities based loosely off of sexual attractions, behaviors, relationships and experience. Not all people who experience same-sex or both-sex attraction are comfortable with said identities, because the social constructs around them do not fully fit their lived experience and choices for their life. I'll give you an examples in race and sexual identity.

Obama and I have similar genetic backgrounds. One of our parents is white American, the other is African (though from very different genetic regions). He grew up in a multiethnic family, in varying areas, with a limited relationship to his father, and at times a step-father of a different ethnic background. Same for me (though I probably have more of a relationship with my bio-dad at my age than he did). But we identify differently both on the census and in daily life. He ID's as black/African-American with white family members; I ID as mixed from a multiethnic/racial family that include black African in there. I don't ID as AA because the familial history and culture(s) are different from what I have. The difference is both in our age and how we've felt most comfortable interpreting/labeling our experiences. As well as capacity based on society to have differing labels/identities. It wasn't much of an option to openly view oneself as biracial or mixed. It is more so today.

In sexuality I would compare 3 different men: Ty Mansfield, josh weed, and let's say Daniel from the board (sorry Daniel...if you would prefer me not to use your name I would gladly choose another. You're just the first to come to mind ). They all Have experienced sexual attraction to the same sex. All have at one time had sexual relationships with the opposite sex as well. They've all expressed their feelings in differing ways with their relationships. All, from what I can tell, ID differently. Daniel, from what I see, ID's as a gay man, happily married to his husband. Ty from a couple workshops he was apart of, doesn't like labels and doesn't have one for himself currently and is happily married to his wife. Josh states clearly that he is both gay and happily married to his wife. I heard in an interview stating that he is currently a "lollisexual" (Lolli is his wife). All have similar backgrounds  And experience desire for the same sex. But they ID differently based on social constructs and their lived experience. They've also experienced their sexual desires and expressions in differing ways as well. Ergo LGB are social constructs we've made to organize our world. It works for some, but not all.

 

with luv,

BD

Thank you for a detailed and informed response. I know several people who define themselves as gay or lesbian or bisexual. One male, married under pressure from his family and fellow members. The marriage was very unhappy and finally settled in divorce.

One female, who thought little about identifying with any partiular sexual definition, when her heterosexual realtionship ended badly, found herself in a lesbian relationship, that was emotionally comfortable but did not work well in the care needed for her two children. A third child from a heterosexual relationship and then back into a homosexual relationship that again did not work for her children. I, at this point, have no idea how she sexually identifies.

A third, who discovered his male homosexuality while a missionary, and following exploitation from a local church authority, now identifies only as homosexual and is very content with that classification.

The term fluid that you use does not fit for any of these three. They all seem to fall in and out of love, much like many of us others. The objects of their desires may have different genders but the attraction seems motivated by attractions, not unike puppy love. Some attractions grow to a much deeper affection, others do not. 

[kllindley]

On 8/25/2016 at 7:18 PM, rockpond said:

I found that it all became easier to understand and made more sense when I just listened to and accepted the real lived experiences of gay people rather than trying to force fit things into my (previously held) religious dogma.  

But that's just me. 

Except when those real lived experiences don't fit into your (non-religious) dogma

On 8/26/2016 at 11:22 AM, rockpond said:

Predominant among which subset of people?  Those who would fall into a 1-3 on the Kinsey Scale?

If there is no way to definitely know than I guess we will just have to trust our brothers and sisters who tell us that they can't change.

But don't trust those of us who tell you that we can and have.

 

I am starting to see how this works for you.

 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Except when those real lived experiences don't fit into your (non-religious) dogma

But don't trust those of us who tell you that we can and have.

 

I am starting to see how this works for you.

 

You're twisting what I wrote - that comment was in response to a specific post, making a specific point.  I trust and believe those who say they can change.  And I honor those who commit to and are able to be successful in mixed-orientation marriages based on their religious beliefs.  And has been pointed out, I'm confident that many of those stories go untold because there is no reason for those in that particular situation to publicly disclose.  So, I think we accept both the assumption that that silent group exists and balance that will the reality of the failure rate of mixed orientation marriages.  Similarly, we listen to the real lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters who can't change their orientation, without doubt & cynicism just as we should grant the same respect to our gay brothers and sisters who share their experiences of changing (or minimizing) their sexual orientation.

[Sky]

"Change" can be defined in different ways.  But I haven't seen anybody change from gay to straight in their core sexual orientation - and I've been around a lot of gay people.  I'm not referring to actions or behaviors here.  I'm just referring to enduring, persistent feelings and inner longings.  

I have seen some pretty good examples of people being able to suppress that part of themselves, but I don't see that as the same thing as an actual change in orientation.

[rockpond]

More negative fallout coming from this "metastudy"...

This article from the Illinois Family Institute makes the ridiculous claim that the "entire LGBT narrative just unraveled" and the unjustified statement that the Mayer/McHugh paper is "far and away, the most objective, exhaustive and comprehensive study on the topic to date."

Makes me wonder if they even read it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

More negative fallout coming from this "metastudy"...

This article from the Illinois Family Institute ....

Is this current behavior any different than previous behavior? If you look at past articles you see the same level of comments.  I don't see why someone using the study as they have used other materials to support their position is that much "fallout" as opposed to business as usual.  "Fallout" implies some sort of damage being caused.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this current behavior any different than previous behavior? If you look at past articles you see the same level of comments.  I don't see why someone using the study as they have used other materials to support their position is that much "fallout" as opposed to business as usual.  "Fallout" implies some sort of damage being caused.

The damage being caused is the erroneous conclusions found in this Illinois Family Institute article as well as the article quoted in the OP that was also picked up by Meridian.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The damage being caused is the erroneous conclusions found in this Illinois Family Institute article as well as the article quoted in the OP that was also picked up by Meridian.

But the IFI had already concluded any of the inferences made from the study from what I see on their website.  This study is just another of a long list of stuff they present as supporting their position, poorly reported or not.

I can see it being a problem for people who have a more moderate position where it might cause them to change their ideas, but these guys are locked in hard and likely readers who base their opinions on those writings mostly are too.

[kllindley]

19 hours ago, Sky said:

"Change" can be defined in different ways.  But I haven't seen anybody change from gay to straight in their core sexual orientation - and I've been around a lot of gay people.  I'm not referring to actions or behaviors here.  I'm just referring to enduring, persistent feelings and inner longings.  

I have seen some pretty good examples of people being able to suppress that part of themselves, but I don't see that as the same thing as an actual change in orientation.

I can't argue with what you have or haven't seen. I can state positively that I have experienced sexual orientation change and have seen many other men experience similar change.  I don't mean supression. I mean fundamental shifts in the way we feel, what we desire, and how we are attracted to others.

Kinsey 6 to 0? No.  6 to 4? Yes. 5 to 3? Yes. It is a straw man argument to suggest that "straight" is the goal.  I'm very content with "able to live a woman deeply and sincerely and not disturbed by any attractions to other individuals."  

 

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the IFI had already concluded any of the inferences made from the study from what I see on their website.  This study is just another of a long list of stuff they present as supporting their position, poorly reported or not.

I can see it being a problem for people who have a more moderate position where it might cause them to change their ideas, but these guys are locked in hard and likely readers who base their opinions on those writings mostly are too.

So are you saying that because they've already published a position that matches their erroneous conclusions, there is nothing wrong with posting an article that misrepresents "research" to further support their conclusions?  I guess I'm confused at your point.

[kllindley]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

You're twisting what I wrote - that comment was in response to a specific post, making a specific point.  I trust and believe those who say they can change.  And I honor those who commit to and are able to be successful in mixed-orientation marriages based on their religious beliefs.  And has been pointed out, I'm confident that many of those stories go untold because there is no reason for those in that particular situation to publicly disclose.  So, I think we accept both the assumption that that silent group exists and balance that will the reality of the failure rate of mixed orientation marriages.  Similarly, we listen to the real lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters who can't change their orientation, without doubt & cynicism just as we should grant the same respect to our gay brothers and sisters who share their experiences of changing (or minimizing) their sexual orientation.

I want to be clear that I am against suggesting that sexual orientation ought to be "changed."  That is usually a shame driven narrative and almost universally harmful. People have to be "good enough" just as they are. I think they have to accept their current orientation for what it is and also accept that it may not change. However, that doesn't mean that we don't try to adapt and "educate our desires." I guess I do feel angry when I perceive LGBT members being encouraged to lock the door against the possibility of change. 

Maybe it is right to say that sexual orientatin doea not change. It is people who change.  I think that guerreiro9 has made some points that hit on this.  Sexual orientation has to be both a genetically influenced, biologically based, learned behavior every bit as much as any other human experience. No two people will experience attractions to other humans (sexual, romantic, emitional) the same way. Nor does any individual experience such attractions in exactly the same way at all points of his life. 

Artificially trying to separate gender from other aspects of personhood is not only illogical, it is not supported by science.  

[The Nehor]

On 8/29/2016 at 6:38 PM, Sky said:

"Change" can be defined in different ways.  But I haven't seen anybody change from gay to straight in their core sexual orientation - and I've been around a lot of gay people.  I'm not referring to actions or behaviors here.  I'm just referring to enduring, persistent feelings and inner longings.  

I have seen some pretty good examples of people being able to suppress that part of themselves, but I don't see that as the same thing as an actual change in orientation.

I have seen two cases where orientation appeared to change dramatically. One was a victim who endured extreme abuse, enough to make most anyone sick. I volunteer a lot in this field and am pretty hardened but this made me want to end the abuser's life rather violently. These experiences warped the poor teen's sexual desires for a few years. He grew out of them due to overcoming the damage.

The other was more organic. Was gay then bi then straight but still found a few guys cute though he did not seek relationships with them. You can argue that this is just slight movement but it was pretty extreme.

However I saw these from the outside and they are, of course, anecdotal. Neither were LDS.

Edited August 31, 2016 by The Nehor

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

So are you saying that because they've already published a position that matches their erroneous conclusions, there is nothing wrong with posting an article that misrepresents "research" to further support their conclusions?  I guess I'm confused at your point.

"Negative fallout".... Pointing to the representation of the report on this site as such.  Inaccurate, misreprenting, etc....I see those as appropriate descriptions, I just don't see a description implying that this instance has caused additional damage as accurate.  I think nothing has changed, good or bad when it comes to the level of entrenchement in their position and likely of their readers.  Their minds have already been made up.

I understand there are concerns, but I don't see a same ole, same ole article as evidence this report is causing trouble.  As to it being posted elsewhere, then that would depend on if they have open minded readers who take their articles as truth and the article misrepresents the report.  I wouldn't have said anything if you had posted a site which fulfilled both conditions.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"Negative fallout".... Pointing to the representation of the report on this site as such.  Inaccurate, misreprenting, etc....I see those as appropriate descriptions, I just don't see a description implying that this instance has caused additional damage as accurate.  I think nothing has changed, good or bad when it comes to the level of entrenchement in their position and likely of their readers.  Their minds have already been made up.

I understand there are concerns, but I don't see a same ole, same ole article as evidence this report is causing trouble.  As to it being posted elsewhere, then that would depend on if they have open minded readers who take their articles as truth and the article misrepresents the report.  I wouldn't have said anything if you had posted a site which fulfilled both conditions.

I was trying to google to see reports and from what I can tell you're exactly right. The only articles I found on it were from the Christian/right news sources (most of them I had never heard of) and then a few liberal articles with very critical responses. Nothing in between. This isn't altering anyone's opinion but just another that retrenches both sides. So talking about damage doesn't make sense. Just look at this board. I don't know if anyone has changed their mind or altered their opinion at all. 

 

With luv,

BD

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"Negative fallout".... Pointing to the representation of the report on this site as such.  Inaccurate, misreprenting, etc....I see those as appropriate descriptions, I just don't see a description implying that this instance has caused additional damage as accurate.  I think nothing has changed, good or bad when it comes to the level of entrenchement in their position and likely of their readers.  Their minds have already been made up.

I understand there are concerns, but I don't see a same ole, same ole article as evidence this report is causing trouble.  As to it being posted elsewhere, then that would depend on if they have open minded readers who take their articles as truth and the article misrepresents the report.  I wouldn't have said anything if you had posted a site which fulfilled both conditions.

 

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I was trying to google to see reports and from what I can tell you're exactly right. The only articles I found on it were from the Christian/right news sources (most of them I had never heard of) and then a few liberal articles with very critical responses. Nothing in between. This isn't altering anyone's opinion but just another that retrenches both sides. So talking about damage doesn't make sense. Just look at this board. I don't know if anyone has changed their mind or altered their opinion at all. 

 

With luv,

BD

I think I understand what you both are saying but I still disagree.  

Yes, the readers of those sites have largely made up their minds but that doesn't mean all of them have.  

And, I didn't google anything to find the IFI article.  It was posted by a church member on Facebook.  That means the false representation of the Mayer/McHugh paper is getting more exposure. 

One more person who can use this misrepresentation to support bigotry is negative fallout.  One more person who can use this as justification to deny equality is negative fallout.  One more person who makes their LGBT child feel worse is negative fallout. 

If we value truth we should condemn the false portrayal of this "research" rather than decide that it's okay for additional publication of misstatements. 

[Calm]

Thinking that it changes nothing is in no way saying that it is okay to misrepresent what the report accomplishes. (Using an example that has nothing to do with the report but just demonstrates what I am saying here...I might say there has been no negative fallout from a report on road rage if I hear someone who is verbally abusive using the report to justify his abuse ('everyone is doing it, so no big deal') because he has always found justication over the years for his abuse.  I am hoping I don't have to say I would never be okay with abuse just because it was same ole, same ole just as I don't require you to make clear you are not reacting in a "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" manner just because you see the approving use of the report most places (everywhere?) as negative fallout.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

But this IFI article has undoubtedly reached people who had either not made up their mind or who are likely to be swayed by something cited as valid research.  Erroneous conclusions made from false representations are the negative fallout.  Any actions they take based on those conclusions are further negative fallout.