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

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Yeah and one man's terrorist is another's liberator

Challenge the science not the source.  If you can't challenge the science you are just proving you are as prejudiced as you allege they are

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course the usual media is totally right?

Oh, I mean, left?

There is no such thing as objectivity

There was a study done on twins. More often than not when one is gay, the other is not. That doesn't seem to support the position too well that sexual identity is genetically oriented. Of course you won't hear that in the media... because they are always right...

I mean left... gosh now you got me doin it.

[mfbukowski]

21 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

Uh, no

Where is the data?  And did you even read the other article?  

[maklelan]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The problem is the transgender movement does blend the two together.  

No, it does not. That's why there are two separate categories: transgender and transsexual. Not all transgender people identify as transsexual, nor do all transgender people undergo surgery. The fact that others prefer to maintain the socially constructed alignment of the two categories in no way, shape, or form indicates the two are blended together.

Quote

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. 

Which is just another way of erasing their experience and their right to exist because it doesn't make sense to you. I find it far more of a concern for someone to assert that their experience in the world should govern those of others, particularly when that person is in a position of privilege and benefits from the systemic oppression of the other. 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Sez you.

And your view totally follows completely objective science, right?  No prejudices whatsoever.

Edited August 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[SteveO]

I'm getting the feeling this post is more of a "social experiment" to reverse the roles of apologist and critic...

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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.  

Arquette. 

I know him from 30-plus years ago when I worked for the Ogden Standard-Examiner and he worked out of the same newsroom as a reporter for KUTV Channel 2. 

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah and one man's terrorist is another's liberator

Challenge the science not the source.  If you can't challenge the science you are just proving you are as prejudiced as you allege they are

Come on really?  So you take FoxNews as Balanced I'm guessing also right?  And MSNBC never spins a story...

Im honestly gobsmacked that I appear to be the only one (at the moment) not taking this hook line and sinker.  This board is filled with smart intelligent posters. I'm just surprised that no one else sees the obvious bias and the pushing of an agenda. Wow

Edited August 23, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Arquette. 

I know him from 30-plus years ago when I worked for the Ogden Standard-Examiner and he worked out of the same newsroom as a reporter for KUTV Channel 2. 

Funny, I've never seen his name in writing even though I listen to him often on the drive home.  He doesn't strike me as someone to do sensational pieces for ratings, so this is probably a more reputable study.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Since the 1970s, Follow the money has been used several times in investigative journalismand political debate. One example is Follow the Money, a series of CBS reports.

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, maklelan said:

No, it does not. That's why there are two separate categories: transgender and transsexual. Not all transgender people identify as transsexual, nor do all transgender people undergo surgery. The fact that others prefer to maintain the socially constructed alignment of the two categories in no way, shape, or form indicates the two are blended together.

Which is just another way of erasing their experience and their right to exist because it doesn't make sense to you. I find it far more of a concern for someone to assert that their experience in the world should govern those of others, particularly when that person is in a position of privilege and benefits from the systemic oppression of the other. 

This raises an interesting questions related to whether or not Mormons  affirm that their spiritual experiences (should) / (should not) govern others.

I am in the "should not" camp on THAT question.  I have a testimony others do not.  Does that mean that my testimony is right and they are wrong or vice-versa?

So am I inconsistent?

Is there a point beyond which we should NOT let our experiences govern our personal behavior?  Is that limit "unhealthy" behaviors?  What about anti-social behaviors?

I am not saying those with gender identity problems are "anti-social" or that they are hurting others, but do we have evidence to show that gender identity problems are "healthy"?

Help me think this through

Edited August 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[maklelan]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

This raises an interesting questions related to whether or not Mormons  affirm that their spiritual experiences (should) / (should not) govern others.

I am in the "should not" camp on THAT question.

So am I inconsistent?

Is there a point beyond which we should NOT let our experiences govern our personal behavior?  Is that limit "unhealthy" behaviors?  What about anti-social behaviors?

I am not saying those with gender identity problems are "anti-social" or that they are hurting others, but do we have evidence to show that gender identity problems are "healthy"?

Help me think this through

I wouldn't say you're inconsistent, but we'd probably disagree on where to draw that line. I think the line gets drawn where the social contract determines it is drawn, but no matter where the line is drawn, I don't think it's right to impose our ideologies on others where it is oppressive or an exercise in privilege. Right now, the social contract allows us to get away with a lot of that, and I oppose it. 

I have a concern with calling it a "gender identity problem" because while there are obviously emotional and health issues associated with these cases, what is demonstrably far more unhealthy than those situations is the erasing of their experience and the denial of their right to exist. Suicide, rape, murder, etc., all increase exponentially when the identities and the lived experiences of transgender people are marginalized, vilified, and condemned. We're not doing anyone any favors by kicking them out of the frying pan and into the fire. 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Come on really?  So you take FoxNews as Balanced I'm guessing also right?  And MSNBC never spins a story...

Im honestly gobsmacked that I appear to be the only one (at the moment) not taking this hook line and sinker.  This board is filled with smart intelligent posters. I'm just surprised that no one else sees the obvious bias and the pushing of an agenda. Wow

Where do you get this stuff??

Where did I say anything like that??

Take off your blinders and read the words ok?  I stated in the OP that there was no such thing as objectivity

Man this is turning into a Rorschach test!  Talk about bringing out the prejudices!!

[Honorentheos]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This raises an interesting questions related to whether or not Mormons  affirm that their spiritual experiences (should) / (should not) govern others.

I am in the "should not" camp on THAT question.  I have a testimony others do not.  Does that mean that my testimony is right and they are wrong or vice-versa?

So am I inconsistent?

Is there a point beyond which we should NOT let our experiences govern our personal behavior?  Is that limit "unhealthy" behaviors?  What about anti-social behaviors?

I am not saying those with gender identity problems are "anti-social" or that they are hurting others, but do we have evidence to show that gender identity problems are "healthy"?

Help me think this through

The question of whether or not identity conflicts with traditional norms are healthy is really a non-starting point for a discussion or for determining an ethical approach. Because of that, I can see why Johnnie Cake feels as s/he does towards the article because it is easy to take the positional assumptions towards findings reviewed in the study as cause for various forms of anti-LGBT professional and cultural care. It's interesting to me that the findings and the relevant conclusions can be presented by people in such skewed ways.

I don't think one is justified in viewing a person who is in a cultural context where conflict with their inner identity creates psychological harm or pain as "unhealthy" or otherwise. It's probably the conclusions of the study that I think are most correct: The science isn't decided, and sensitivity is warranted when dealing with these issues. If the data gets skewed in that presentation to emphasize the lack of confirmed absolute hardwired gender identity and sexual preferences, I guess it shows another example of how quickly people are to categorize analog nature into binary positions.

If nature is analog, and perhaps one sees compassion and the human condition one of brotherhood/sisterhood then I think the conclusion is one of taking a sensitive approach to matters where our own perspective fails to give us clear insight into anything other than a fellow is in pain and in need of support.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Calm]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There was a study done on twins. More often than not when one is gay, the other is not. That doesn't seem to support the position too well that sexual identity is genetically oriented.

For some reason, I can't access the first page of this thread so will have to read and maybe comment on the report tomorrow, but can comment on this quote here immediately.

The science claim is now not usually that homosexuality and other identities are genetically determined, rather the focus is on biologically determined, meaning there is a combination of biological contributors, only one of which is genetics.  Identical twins may not both be gay, but there is a higher rate of correlation than between fraternal twins and other siblings, while those have higher rates as opposed to random nonfamily members.  Iirc the science is currently exploring how much influence the various hormones the fetus is exposed to that may contribute to a predisposition.  There could be several other factors as well.  Genetics are not the sole prebirth biological influences on our formation as individuals.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, maklelan said:

I wouldn't say you're inconsistent, but we'd probably disagree on where to draw that line. I think the line gets drawn where the social contract determines it is drawn, but no matter where the line is drawn, I don't think it's right to impose our ideologies on others where it is oppressive or an exercise in privilege. Right now, the social contract allows us to get away with a lot of that, and I oppose it. 

I have a concern with calling it a "gender identity problem" because while there are obviously emotional and health issues associated with these cases, what is demonstrably far more unhealthy than those situations is the erasing of their experience and the denial of their right to exist. Suicide, rape, murder, etc., all increase exponentially when the identities and the lived experiences of transgender people are marginalized, vilified, and condemned. We're not doing anyone any favors by kicking them out of the frying pan and into the fire. 

Well I don't know that anyone would disagree with this and that is perhaps the problem.   I can see your point about the word "problem" being itself a problem, and frankly I was kind of searching for words as I wrote that because I knew it would cause problems.  But I let it go.

On the other hand this:

Quote

 I don't think it's right to impose our ideologies on others where it is oppressive or an exercise in privilege

sounds straight out of my old professor Angela Davis when I was at UCLA in the previous century.

I guess my point is that THAT is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.  Does that qualify as imposing your experience on others?   I am serious- that's not a rhetorical snarky question at least it is not intended to be.

How is imposing your ideology different than me imposing mine?

We all have opinions on what society SHOULD be, at what point is expressing an opinion "oppressive"?   Is that a first amendment issue?  

Does the prevailing view of academia represent an "exercise in privilege" for those fortunate enough to have learned those opinions?   At what point is that "elitism"?

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The question of whether or not identity conflicts with traditional norms are healthy is really a non-starting point for a discussion or for determining an ethical approach. Because of that, I can see why Johnnie Cake feels as s/he does towards the article because it is easy to take the positional assumptions towards findings reviewed in the study as cause for various forms of anti-LGBT professional and cultural care. It's interesting to me that the findings and the relevant conclusions can be presented by people in such skewed ways.

I don't think one is justified in viewing a person who is in a cultural context where conflict with their inner identity creates psychological harm or pain as "unhealthy" or otherwise. It's probably the conclusions of the study that I think are most correct: The science isn't decided, and sensitivity is warranted when dealing with these issues. If the data gets skewed in that presentation to emphasize the lack of confirmed absolute hardwired gender identity and sexual preferences, I guess it shows another example of how quickly people are to categorize analog nature into binary positions.

If nature is analog, and perhaps one sees compassion and the human condition one of brotherhood/sisterhood then I think the conclusion is one of taking a sensitive approach to matters where our own perspective fails to give us clear insight into anything other than a fellow is in pain and in need of support.

I have no problem with this other than this part:

Quote

I don't think one is justified in viewing a person who is in a cultural context where conflict with their inner identity creates psychological harm or pain as "unhealthy" or otherwise.

I don't think that statement as it stands can be supported.

Clearly there are psychotics in mental anguish because of their "inner identity" causing them pain who are demonstrably "unhealthy".

I would argue that continuing psychological pain caused by conflict with anyone's "inner identity" is clearly unhealthy.   It has to be hell to live like that.  That could describe depression or virtually any mental disorder and that is very clear I think

[maklelan]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I don't know that anyone would disagree with this and that is perhaps the problem.   I can see your point about the word "problem" being itself a problem, and frankly I was kind of searching for words as I wrote that because I knew it would cause problems.  But I let it go.

On the other hand this:

sounds straight out of my old professor Angela Davis when I was at UCLA in the previous century.

I guess my point is that THAT is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.  Does that qualify as imposing your experience on others?   I am serious- that's not a rhetorical snarky question at least it is not intended to be.

How is imposing your ideology different than me imposing mine?

We all have opinions on what society SHOULD be, at what point is expressing an opinion "oppressive"?   Is that a first amendment issue?  

Does the prevailing view of academia represent an "exercise in privilege" for those fortunate enough to have learned those opinions?   At what point is that "elitism"?

Scholarship is dealing at this very moment with the question of how appropriate it is for us to try to structure power in our favor, even if we feel we're doing it for all the right reasons. I would say the biggest issue is whose will is being sidelined. Is it people who have a lot of privilege and can live perfectly comfortable lives without enforcing their ideology on others, or is it people whose health, stability, or very lives are threatened by having the ideology of others imposed upon them? At some point authority has to be exercised, and that may or may not agree with the court of public opinion, but in a religious community where our two great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor, I am going to prioritize loving my neighbor.

[strappinglad]

Science is rarely " settled ". Not long ago the scientific consensus about the human genome was that a large percentage of it was Junk DNA left over from evolution. Now , further study is showing that  a high %age if not all has function. Even gravity, which has been around for a while and studied a lot , eludes our ability to control it and hence knowledge is not settled. As for the OP , my experience in life has shown that most human traits fall on some kind of Bell curve with the vast majority showing up within a couple of SD from the mean and a small percentage as outliers. I see no reason to think sexuality/gender is any different. Then again ,I have been wrong before, twice at least, once when I thought I was wrong and it turned out I wasn't.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

Well I simply asked a question.   But it seems we all love science when it confirms our bias and are happy to dismiss it when it doesn't. 

in my experience and in what I read this seems more so in people with deeply held religious beleifs. 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No it is not a problem.  I simply asked a question. Is that a problem for you? 

And the answer I got from the thread starter was a smug answer.   

[Gray]

9 hours 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

 

As near as I can tell, this is not a scientific study. It's more of an essay summarizing what they understand about the science, sourced from other popular articles and essays in the media, as well as actual scientific studies. Whether or not their understanding of the science is accurate is anyone's guess - I'm sure researchers will be combing through this for errors.

Not to belabor the point, but political advocacy organizations have a poor track record when it comes to accurately representing science, especially if the science contradicts their political views. Scientific studies show up in scientific journals. When scientific studies get filtered through political groups, there is a real danger of distortion.

Does that mean that's what happened here? Of course not, but I would approach it with caution.

In any case, I don't think the conclusions from the executive summary support the church's position, which is more about their interpretation of Biblical morality and less about the innateness of sexual orientation.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

Absolutely nothing in this study would surprise the historians I work with. I've repeatedly found it sadly amusing to watch scientists hope to 'prove' the biological nature of something that clearly is a historical novelty.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

How can it possibly be "Ad Hominem" when the source is being questioned? Ad Hominem means "homo", the person, an argument against the person.  Attacking a persons character, abilities or intentions is ad hominem. Attacking the intentions of anorganization cannot be ad hominem, by definition. 

[JLHPROF]

9 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.

Where did you think such a study would be published - Out Magazine?

The question isn't who published the study.  The question is the validity of the study.
The study could 100% prove homosexuality is a choice and it would still only be published in "religious" magazines and receive no press from liberal publications.