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

[Calm]

I am not making judgments on the report since I haven't read it myself or done a smaller version of their lit review to see if they covered the field sufficiently.  Certain representations of it seem decent science (or scientific analysis if you prefer).  Others present it in a way that I would find problematic if accurate.  Given who is saying what I am not decided either way and since I haven't heard of any actual significant influence of behaviour I see no reason to condemn it at this point.

Bluedreams is a professional in a closely related field as well as being not that far out of grad work so I figure she's significantly more up on the research than anyone else on the board even if her focus wasn't on the exact topic of sexual orientation.

Having read her partial review, I am not seeing anything that points to the report itself causing problems save for the idea of sexual abuse being a significant contributing factor (and for that I have info from a professional who does focus on sexual orientation and he has stated a few years ago that while when he started there was a high percentage of sexual abuse as their first sexual experience for the homosexuals he knew, that currently that is not the case).  I don't see this aspect as likely to influence parents in a negative way, but more likely if they believed abuse contributed they would be more sympathetic and cautious (except the screwed up ones and those can find justification for their treatment in reading of tea leaves).

I hope she has time to finish the report sometime soon (no pressure though  ).

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am not making judgments on the report since I haven't read it myself or done a smaller version of their lit review to see if they covered the field sufficiently.  Certain representations of it seem decent science (or scientific analysis if you prefer).  Others present it in a way that I would find problematic if accurate.  Given who is saying what I am not decided either way and since I haven't heard of any actual significant influence of behaviour I see no reason to condemn it at this point.

I have read it and find it lacking scientific merit.  So when it gets parroted about on the internet as a valid scientific study and incorrect conclusions are published I think it's quite fair to call that negative fallout.  I'm rather surprised that you would take issue with that.

[Calm]

See my add-on comments.

I have no doubt you see it that way.  I don't.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

See my add-on comments.

I have no doubt you see it that way.  I don't.

I don't see the conclusions from the Mayer/McHugh paper as that problematic either, though I question their scientific method (or lack thereof).

What I find problematic is the incorrect representations being made by the article in the OP and the IFI article that I cited.  That's where the negative fallout would come from.

If, after next October's General Conference addresses are publish, organizations began publishing false representations about what was said would you consider such actions free of negative fallout because "people have already made up their minds" about Mormonism anyway?

[Calm]

Probably if I didn't see any behavioral change.  You and I probably define the context surrounding the word differently.

And I am confused...are you saying the report has negative fallout due to misrepresentations, but not because of actual content?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not making judgments on the report since I haven't read it myself or done a smaller version of their lit review to see if they covered the field sufficiently.  Certain representations of it seem decent science (or scientific analysis if you prefer).  Others present it in a way that I would find problematic if accurate.  Given who is saying what I am not decided either way and since I haven't heard of any actual significant influence of behaviour I see no reason to condemn it at this point.

Bluedreams is a professional in a closely related field as well as being not that far out of grad work so I figure she's significantly more up on the research than anyone else on the board even if her focus wasn't on the exact topic of sexual orientation.

Having read her partial review, I am not seeing anything that points to the report itself causing problems save for the idea of sexual abuse being a significant contributing factor (and for that I have info from a professional who does focus on sexual orientation and he has stated a few years ago that while when he started there was a high percentage of sexual abuse as their first sexual experience for the homosexuals he knew, that currently that is not the case).  I don't see this aspect as likely to influence parents in a negative way, but more likely if they believed abuse contributed they would be more sympathetic and cautious (except the screwed up ones and those can find justification for their treatment in reading of tea leaves).

I hope she has time to finish the report sometime soon (no pressure though  ).

I can't guarantee any time super soon. It's the end of the month which means case notes and lots of them. But after that hopefully...

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

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. 

My family posts a lot of crazy stuff on FB. It's not indicative of changing minds and more so an indicator of pre-existing bias. I'm really really doubtful that IFI  will be more than a drop in the bucket. In spite of that, I get your concern. A while back in the 90's came this lovely book call the Bell Curve that used stats to make a case for racial genetic differences in intelligence (you can take a guess which races were considered the lowest). It was systematic, controversial, polarizing, etc. But by now, it's a blip. And not to say racism is cured, obviously, but that it did nothing to really alter dialogue or thought. And some of those same stats and research fueled other research that debunked the book pretty solidly or found sociological factors more in play (surprise!)....but it hasn't massively effected bias. This was a book. An article is even less likely. It moves in social trends, narrative, and generations. You can see this in more recent concerns not related to this, such as gun regulation or police shootings, or climate change, or trump debates, or immigration, or meat eating, or Syrian refugees, or church spending, or the change in LGBT rights narrative or whatever else. Stats and research doesn't change opinion that easily...it's too cold and cerebral. Emotion moves people faster and just saying a bunch of numbers does very little to assuage people's opinion one way or another. And it jades what we read anyways.

 

With luv,

BD 

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can't guarantee any time super soon. It's the end of the month which means case notes and lots of them. But after that hopefully...

My family posts a lot of crazy stuff on FB. It's not indicative of changing minds and more so an indicator of pre-existing bias. I'm really really doubtful that IFI  will be more than a drop in the bucket. In spite of that, I get your concern. A while back in the 90's came this lovely book call the Bell Curve that used stats to make a case for racial genetic differences in intelligence (you can take a guess which races were considered the lowest). It was systematic, controversial, polarizing, etc. But by now, it's a blip. And not to say racism is cured, obviously, but that it did nothing to really alter dialogue or thought. And some of those same stats and research fueled other research that debunked the book pretty solidly or found sociological factors more in play (surprise!)....but it hasn't massively effected bias. This was a book. An article is even less likely. It moves in social trends, narrative, and generations. You can see this in more recent concerns not related to this, such as gun regulation or police shootings, or climate change, or trump debates, or immigration, or meat eating, or Syrian refugees, or church spending, or the change in LGBT rights narrative or whatever else. Stats and research doesn't change opinion that easily...it's too cold and cerebral. Emotion moves people faster and just saying a bunch of numbers does very little to assuage people's opinion one way or another. And it jades what we read anyways.

 

With luv,

BD 

Just depends on whose ox is being gored.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can't guarantee any time super soon. It's the end of the month which means case notes and lots of them. But after that hopefully...

My family posts a lot of crazy stuff on FB. It's not indicative of changing minds and more so an indicator of pre-existing bias. I'm really really doubtful that IFI  will be more than a drop in the bucket. In spite of that, I get your concern. A while back in the 90's came this lovely book call the Bell Curve that used stats to make a case for racial genetic differences in intelligence (you can take a guess which races were considered the lowest). It was systematic, controversial, polarizing, etc. But by now, it's a blip. And not to say racism is cured, obviously, but that it did nothing to really alter dialogue or thought. And some of those same stats and research fueled other research that debunked the book pretty solidly or found sociological factors more in play (surprise!)....but it hasn't massively effected bias. This was a book. An article is even less likely. It moves in social trends, narrative, and generations. You can see this in more recent concerns not related to this, such as gun regulation or police shootings, or climate change, or trump debates, or immigration, or meat eating, or Syrian refugees, or church spending, or the change in LGBT rights narrative or whatever else. Stats and research doesn't change opinion that easily...it's too cold and cerebral. Emotion moves people faster and just saying a bunch of numbers does very little to assuage people's opinion one way or another. And it jades what we read anyways.

 

With luv,

BD 

In the case of these two articles (the one linked in the OP and the IFI article) the headlines were written to elicit and emotional response.  IMO.  And then they claim "science" backs up the headline.

[Calm]

But what are you linking the fallout to, the misrepresentations or the report itself?

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

But what are you linking the fallout to, the misrepresentations or the report itself?

Yes

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

In the case of these two articles (the one linked in the OP and the IFI article) the headlines were written to elicit and emotional response.  IMO.  And then they claim "science" backs up the headline.

I meant more personal emotion. That title is sensationalistic, sure, but the emotional response was probably curiosity and a little skepticism to me (similar to a people magazine article headline) and a sense of validation for people most likely to read that article. The things most likely to change are when it feels humanized or perceives to have some immediate effect on them.

 

with luv,

BD

[Calm]

On September 1, 2016 at 5:40 AM, rockpond said:

Yes

So that means to you (right?) at least some of the fallout is the responsibility of the report, which seems inappropriate to me as the authors can't control how people misrepresent it.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Calm

[mikegriffith1]

Science is always catching up with God.

It is a sign of how far down the drain our society has gone that we have people who claim that it is "bigoted" and "discriminatory" to insist that teen boys can't shower with teen girls just because those teen boys claim they feel more like girls. And whatever happened to the right of privacy? You know, the right not to be forced to show yourself nude to a person of the opposite gender?

There are scientific differences between males and females. Male and female brains are different, and even transgender apologists admit that there are "small differences" between boys' and girls' brains.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said:

Science is always catching up with God.

And religion is always catching up with science. 

[Calm]

Or everything is progressing in the same direction just at different speeds in different areas.

[thesometimesaint]

On 9/4/2016 at 3:34 AM, mikegriffith1 said:

Science is always catching up with God.

It is a sign of how far down the drain our society has gone that we have people who claim that it is "bigoted" and "discriminatory" to insist that teen boys can't shower with teen girls just because those teen boys claim they feel more like girls. And whatever happened to the right of privacy? You know, the right not to be forced to show yourself nude to a person of the opposite gender?

There are scientific differences between males and females. Male and female brains are different, and even transgender apologists admit that there are "small differences" between boys' and girls' brains.

Roman public baths.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_bathing

[BlueDreams]

My week is slowing down a little bit and I have a little time to at least read part 2 today. in the meantime I did find one or two articles (ok, one is a blog post on patheos) that I thought looked interesting. Overall, at least from what I can see, this is not being picked up beyond very one-sided sources one way or the other....either denouncing it or extolling and exagerating its claims. And even that is really really limited pick up. I think the one from the washinton times may be the one with the broadest base that I've seen and is still in the realm of moderate-right conservative news source that may have more undecided readers. But the article they wrote reflects that . Here are the other 2:

This one is super short and part of a newsletter apparently

http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/provocative-new-study-questions-the-science-of-gender/11978

This was interesting, because it entails a response by one of the editors of the new atlantis journal inserted in.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/08/27/editor-of-the-new-atlantis-responds-to-my-critique-of-the-mayer-and-mchugh-article/.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 6, 2016 by BlueDreams

[CMZ]

“the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex… is not supported by scientific evidence.”

But we know that people have spirits that are a separate entity from the physical body (though they can combine to form a soul) and that those spirits have a gender. So there is indeed something separate from biological sex that does have a gender.

Edited September 7, 2016 by CMZ
punctuation

[BlueDreams]

On 8/31/2016 at 10:42 AM, Calm said:

I am not making judgments on the report since I haven't read it myself or done a smaller version of their lit review to see if they covered the field sufficiently.  Certain representations of it seem decent science (or scientific analysis if you prefer).  Others present it in a way that I would find problematic if accurate.  Given who is saying what I am not decided either way and since I haven't heard of any actual significant influence of behaviour I see no reason to condemn it at this point.

Bluedreams is a professional in a closely related field as well as being not that far out of grad work so I figure she's significantly more up on the research than anyone else on the board even if her focus wasn't on the exact topic of sexual orientation.

Having read her partial review, I am not seeing anything that points to the report itself causing problems save for the idea of sexual abuse being a significant contributing factor (and for that I have info from a professional who does focus on sexual orientation and he has stated a few years ago that while when he started there was a high percentage of sexual abuse as their first sexual experience for the homosexuals he knew, that currently that is not the case).  I don't see this aspect as likely to influence parents in a negative way, but more likely if they believed abuse contributed they would be more sympathetic and cautious (except the screwed up ones and those can find justification for their treatment in reading of tea leaves).

I hope she has time to finish the report sometime soon (no pressure though  ).

I know this is pretty late. But I did want to say that I finally had time to finish reading the report. I would state that the sexual abuse is probably the most problematic inference. But after the 1st part I found little that I was innately concerned about or deem as abjectly harmful. Much of it was pointing to holes in research, the limitations in research, and taking a more cautionary approach to the language we use and the growing interventions, particularly with those who have gender dysmorphia (which isn't exactly the same as transgender). I found his discussion about the definition of sex as a biological construct a little ironic because the way we define sex is still a construct that we place to define parameters to make universal constructs as means of study. In other cultures sex is defined differently. It makes me wonder what would have happened if these models of sex/gender had won out in the long term. Of course that's completely hypothetical. But it felt like a round of proving who's construct is better and the winner was the one that was the most simplified and easier to set definitions to. I don't know if that discussion was absolutely necessary for his points. Because social constructs are still important and the reality is that we live in a world where most people view themselves and simply male or female without a lot of questions of biological sex but on sociological expression. 

That stated his concerns in sex change operations and the very little information we have on transgender development seem pretty even. There's not a lot to go on, there are few people that can be studied because it's a very very tiny minority and hard to catch for larger scale studies. Yet in spite of minimal and conflicting scientific studies, we're developing or promoting treatments that may have long lasting and irreversible effects (surgery, hormone treatments, etc) particularly in children. And it may be proverbially barking up the wrong tree when it comes to increasing mental health. I find it a valid point.

Unlike what Rockpond said where needing more research was a gratuitous point they tacked on, I find it as one of the main points they were trying to make. That we have major holes and that what we do have doesn't necessarily support a simplified narrative. They focus on "born that way" but I think the same research could also critique the other simplified counter-narrative of "choice." They're both oversimplified. They seem particularly cautious of really commenting on social stances based on this, but more about medical and therapeutic assumptions that may create holes in treatment in a vulnerable population. I also find that valid. Some affirmative therapy methods that I see getting adopted are helping people integrate all parts of the person to match what they value. Sexuality is only one part of that. People's identity, experiences, and life desires  may not match up or may change from the LGBT narrative/community as well as from hyper-conservative ones as well. If a therapist adopts a narrative that is strictly promoting of identity that places LGB as one that's of great importance, it may lead people who experience same-sex attraction or sexual behaviors who do not identify or want to identify with that as strongly falling through the cracks.

Therapeutically, I've seen a focus on narrative and sharing approaches that allow for the person to self-actualize in LGB issues. The "T" and particularly gender dysphoria I don't have enough exposure to to give any concrete conclusions. To date, I've only met 2 people in real life who have experienced such. Both have drastically different results...one hasn't gotten any hormone and surgical treatment and publically ID's male (his biological sex) while privately experiencing femaleness. Another had full surgical and hormone treatment and publically/privately ID's as female (her non-biological sex). I would be pressed to tell you which one is "healthier" emotionally/psychologically. I do know that the majority of people who are transgender in some way, do not get full surgery in the first place. 

That said I noticed a couple things that I found odd. For example, it quoted a Guardian article at one point that summarized a research paper, which was more for introduction and wasn't analyzed. I just found it weird for a research paper. The other is that snow-ball and convenience studies (minus in Transgender studies) were missing. I think I get why they decided that (they had one study that compared convenience sampling verse more randomized sampling and found that there was a significant difference in results). But I also know there's a good chunk of research in this that falls under that. Explaining more why it was excluded would have made this a stronger paper. It also is biased towards large-scale studies. I know there are some interesting qualitative studies, particularly in this area that may be particularly helpful in therapeutic efforts. 

The metastudy is a good start but I think it could have been a little bit more "meta" in including more research, comparing and contrasting varying methods to study, etc. Still it's a start and a needed one to help open up further research studies into what we actually "know" about sexuality and gender in contrast to  common knowledge and catch-all slogans. What I have seen in sexual orientation, Identity, and expression make me believe that its development is more complicated than either camp really allows it to be. Some therapeutic models are starting to show that. For example, a number of therapists don't like the Kinsey model anymore because it oversimplifies sexuality and leaves a number of those with complicated sexual and relational identities kinda floating (which I think in some points, this research captures by showing the discrepancy in defining orienation based on behavior, identity, and attractions). Another model is taking it's place that more graph oriented than linear base that scaled in vary areas based on level of attraction or aversion in areas of social, romantic, erotic, and aesthetic attraction. So for example, I saw a case example where a person who ID'd as gay was erotically attracted to women but had a severe social and romantic aversion to them...men were erotically more neutral but there was more romantic and social attraction towards them. Whereas I, who ID as straight, am aesthetically more attracted to women but have a moderate erotic aversion towards women. 

I agree with the main message that sexual identity, orientation, and attraction is more complicated than we're often admitting, that transgender issues and gender dysphoria needs more research.

 

With luv,

BD    

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I know this is pretty late. But I did want to say that I finally had time to finish reading the report. I would state that the sexual abuse is probably the most problematic inference. But after the 1st part I found little that I was innately concerned about or deem as abjectly harmful. Much of it was pointing to holes in research, the limitations in research, and taking a more cautionary approach to the language we use and the growing interventions, particularly with those who have gender dysmorphia (which isn't exactly the same as transgender). I found his discussion about the definition of sex as a biological construct a little ironic because the way we define sex is still a construct that we place to define parameters to make universal constructs as means of study. In other cultures sex is defined differently. It makes me wonder what would have happened if these models of sex/gender had won out in the long term. Of course that's completely hypothetical. But it felt like a round of proving who's construct is better and the winner was the one that was the most simplified and easier to set definitions to. I don't know if that discussion was absolutely necessary for his points. Because social constructs are still important and the reality is that we live in a world where most people view themselves and simply male or female without a lot of questions of biological sex but on sociological expression. 

That stated his concerns in sex change operations and the very little information we have on transgender development seem pretty even. There's not a lot to go on, there are few people that can be studied because it's a very very tiny minority and hard to catch for larger scale studies. Yet in spite of minimal and conflicting scientific studies, we're developing or promoting treatments that may have long lasting and irreversible effects (surgery, hormone treatments, etc) particularly in children. And it may be proverbially barking up the wrong tree when it comes to increasing mental health. I find it a valid point.

Unlike what Rockpond said where needing more research was a gratuitous point they tacked on, I find it as one of the main points they were trying to make. That we have major holes and that what we do have doesn't necessarily support a simplified narrative. They focus on "born that way" but I think the same research could also critique the other simplified counter-narrative of "choice." They're both oversimplified. They seem particularly cautious of really commenting on social stances based on this, but more about medical and therapeutic assumptions that may create holes in treatment in a vulnerable population. I also find that valid. Some affirmative therapy methods that I see getting adopted are helping people integrate all parts of the person to match what they value. Sexuality is only one part of that. People's identity, experiences, and life desires  may not match up or may change from the LGBT narrative/community as well as from hyper-conservative ones as well. If a therapist adopts a narrative that is strictly promoting of identity that places LGB as one that's of great importance, it may lead people who experience same-sex attraction or sexual behaviors who do not identify or want to identify with that as strongly falling through the cracks.

Therapeutically, I've seen a focus on narrative and sharing approaches that allow for the person to self-actualize in LGB issues. The "T" and particularly gender dysphoria I don't have enough exposure to to give any concrete conclusions. To date, I've only met 2 people in real life who have experienced such. Both have drastically different results...one hasn't gotten any hormone and surgical treatment and publically ID's male (his biological sex) while privately experiencing femaleness. Another had full surgical and hormone treatment and publically/privately ID's as female (her non-biological sex). I would be pressed to tell you which one is "healthier" emotionally/psychologically. I do know that the majority of people who are transgender in some way, do not get full surgery in the first place. 

That said I noticed a couple things that I found odd. For example, it quoted a Guardian article at one point that summarized a research paper, which was more for introduction and wasn't analyzed. I just found it weird for a research paper. The other is that snow-ball and convenience studies (minus in Transgender studies) were missing. I think I get why they decided that (they had one study that compared convenience sampling verse more randomized sampling and found that there was a significant difference in results). But I also know there's a good chunk of research in this that falls under that. Explaining more why it was excluded would have made this a stronger paper. It also is biased towards large-scale studies. I know there are some interesting qualitative studies, particularly in this area that may be particularly helpful in therapeutic efforts. 

The metastudy is a good start but I think it could have been a little bit more "meta" in including more research, comparing and contrasting varying methods to study, etc. Still it's a start and a needed one to help open up further research studies into what we actually "know" about sexuality and gender in contrast to  common knowledge and catch-all slogans. What I have seen in sexual orientation, Identity, and expression make me believe that its development is more complicated than either camp really allows it to be. Some therapeutic models are starting to show that. For example, a number of therapists don't like the Kinsey model anymore because it oversimplifies sexuality and leaves a number of those with complicated sexual and relational identities kinda floating (which I think in some points, this research captures by showing the discrepancy in defining orienation based on behavior, identity, and attractions). Another model is taking it's place that more graph oriented than linear base that scaled in vary areas based on level of attraction or aversion in areas of social, romantic, erotic, and aesthetic attraction. So for example, I saw a case example where a person who ID'd as gay was erotically attracted to women but had a severe social and romantic aversion to them...men were erotically more neutral but there was more romantic and social attraction towards them. Whereas I, who ID as straight, am aesthetically more attracted to women but have a moderate erotic aversion towards women. 

I agree with the main message that sexual identity, orientation, and attraction is more complicated than we're often admitting, that transgender issues and gender dysphoria needs more research.

 

With luv,

BD    

Did I say that "needing more research" was a "gratuitous point they tacked on"?  I don't recall that.

I question their methods of how they selected the studies that they repeatedly declared to be flawed.  But based on what they did select and how they chose to dismiss the research, "more research" was really the only reasonable conclusion.

The second problem I have is that I believe more research has been done.  I just don't see how their paper addresses it.

The gratuitous add-on was in the various publications that picked up the paper and made declarations about how almost everything the media tells you about sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong.  Those publications focused on saying:  hey, look... all these ideas being promoted are incorrect.  When all Mayer/McHugh really did was reject a bunch of research (who knows how they chose the research) to then conclude that we need more research.  The conclusion of the paper did not match the headlines.

 

[Calm]

BD, Thanks for taking the time on this, very appreciated.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

On 9/13/2016 at 2:13 AM, Calm said:

BD, Thanks for taking the time on this, very appreciated.

Calm ...I noticed that you posted this at 2:13 am...I hope you got some sleep Tuesday night/morning. Hope you are doing okay.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Jeanne

[BlueDreams]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:53 AM, rockpond said:

Did I say that "needing more research" was a "gratuitous point they tacked on"?  I don't recall that.

I question their methods of how they selected the studies that they repeatedly declared to be flawed.  But based on what they did select and how they chose to dismiss the research, "more research" was really the only reasonable conclusion.

The second problem I have is that I believe more research has been done.  I just don't see how their paper addresses it.

The gratuitous add-on was in the various publications that picked up the paper and made declarations about how almost everything the media tells you about sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong.  Those publications focused on saying:  hey, look... all these ideas being promoted are incorrect.  When all Mayer/McHugh really did was reject a bunch of research (who knows how they chose the research) to then conclude that we need more research.  The conclusion of the paper did not match the headlines.

 

Sorry I looked back and realized you said something along the lines of a call for research was admirable but considering the context seemed almost like pandering (something close to that). In which case, I still disagree.

Though that does remind me of another concern I did have of the research. The methodology for collecting papers and deciding what to include is not mentioned or given. This is a huge weakness and it makes it hard to figure out if this is comprehensive and/or representative of the research available. I can get the concern with snowball research or convenient sampling, particularly if you're wanting a broad view of LGBT groups. It could easily become an echo chamber. But still. There is no systematic approach for critiquing this or acknowledging how they sampled the research or if they were focusing solely on larger long-term studies. I get the idea of that was what they lean towards and were biased to grab up and study. But it's never laid out in clear terms

Also you've mentioned that you believe there is more research. Is this belief more of a hunch or sense on your part or something that you have access to and could substantiate. Particularly in their focus in large-scale or longitudinal studies.

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

On September 15, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jeanne said:

Calm ...I noticed that you posted this at 2:13 am...I hope you got some sleep Tuesday night/morning. Hope you are doing okay.

I am actually doing really well, sleep is still way off normal time but hopefully even that will be resolved eventually if this good patch sticks around long enough.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am actually doing really well, sleep is still way off normal time but hopefully even that will be resolved eventually if this good patch sticks around long enough.

Good news.  I get up at 3 to go to work...I would like to think someone is getting some sleep.  Hope good patches last longer each time.