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

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you are conflating the interest of the magazine in including  the article and the motivation of the scientists doing the review of over 200 peer-reviewed studies.  The experts here are not concerned about the moral implications or issues - their purpose is to review and explain what science has to say - not what "we" may want it to say or, more importantly, what the media wants science to say.  

I think this is a solid point. You may not like some opinion writer's commentary on a study, but the study itself says what it says. So don't dismiss it just because a commentator you don't agree with happens to like it. 

[thesometimesaint]

56 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you are conflating the interest of the magazine in including  the article and the motivation of the scientists doing the review of over 200 peer-reviewed studies.  The experts here are not concerned about the moral implications or issues - their purpose is to review and explain what science has to say - not what "we" may want it to say or, more importantly, what the media wants science to say.  

From your source "especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep.".

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree. An irrelevant attack on the character of an entity is ad hominem, whether the entity be a person or an organized group of people. 

Attacking the intentions of the organization is more "poisoning the well" than ad hominem. Still a fallacy.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Attacking the intentions of the organization is more "poisoning the well" than ad hominem. Still a fallacy.

Point taken. 

I do see the two as being similar. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Point taken. 

I do see the two as being similar. 

Yes, they are similar.

This is a weird thread. As Honorentheos has mentioned, the study referenced in the OP advocates caution rather than hard positions on gender and sexuality. But you wouldn't know that from the OP, which seems designed to put "critics" in the position of denying science that conflicts with deeply held but non-religious beliefs. I suppose this kind of "gotcha" post might work if the aforementioned study actually did reach hard conclusions that align with church doctrine. 

[provoman]

I wonder if the article is understood. I agree with Scott's first Hopkins and ASU are rebuttable institutions. 

From the article "However, while biological sex is an innate feature of human beings, gender identity is a more elusive concept."

The article covers two topics, biological sex and gender idenity.

Has the Church made statements about "gender identity"?

 

 

*sorry for the big font, on a mobile, can not figure out how to change it.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, they are similar.

This is a weird thread. As Honorentheos has mentioned, the study referenced in the OP advocates caution rather than hard positions on gender and sexuality. But you wouldn't know that from the OP, which seems designed to put "critics" in the position of denying science that conflicts with deeply held but non-religious beliefs. I suppose this kind of "gotcha" post might work if the aforementioned study actually did reach hard conclusions that align with church doctrine. 

If the critics have formed hard opinions on sexual identity (and I see that in those pushing the "born that way" narrative) then using this study to call them to account is justified. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If the critics have formed hard opinions on sexual identity (and I see that in those pushing the "born that way" narrative) then using this study to call them to account is justified. 

As far as I know, the science as to the origins of homosexuality is unsettled. I do think that most people understand there's something more to it than a mere "lifestyle choice." Again, I find it odd that a study that advocates caution in the midst of such uncertainty is being used to call critics to account. 

I don't much care whether people are "born that way," but I know enough to accept that people don't choose to be gay. 

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

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 -

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.

Yeah I am actually moving more in this direction myself

There has been a lot of talk about this on other LDS boards and some extremely intelligent analysis of the article, seeing the article as a summary of the literature which is certainly valuable, but with not much new information

As a summary of the literature, it is of course biased, since all such articles must be from a given point of view.  Of course I personally have no problem with that bias since my personal experience of gender identity is along lines of the study

It's complicated.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, they are similar.

This is a weird thread. As Honorentheos has mentioned, the study referenced in the OP advocates caution rather than hard positions on gender and sexuality. But you wouldn't know that from the OP, which seems designed to put "critics" in the position of denying science that conflicts with deeply held but non-religious beliefs. I suppose this kind of "gotcha" post might work if the aforementioned study actually did reach hard conclusions that align with church doctrine. 

Bing bing bing

Give this man a cigar!!  I was stirring the pot as I do occasionally.

Notice that the OP asks a question

Others have caught the tension as well.

I honestly wanted to know what others thought about this study.   I wanted to turn it around and see how the critics handled it.   Not well, I must say.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the critics have formed hard opinions on sexual identity (and I see that in those pushing the "born that way" narrative) then using this study to call them to account is justified. 

Thanks

That was my objective!

[Tacenda]

I guess you'd have to have had a son or daughter, or at least know one well enough to know, that this isn't a choice.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, SteveO said:

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

Bingo- nailed it!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I guess you'd have to have had a son or daughter, or at least know one well enough to know, that this isn't a choice.

Yep, it's a false dichotomy: "born that way" or "lifestyle choice." But again, this thread was about baiting people into taking an 'anti-science' position so they could be ridiculed, so I don't think either of us were expecting any thoughtful discussion. At least I wasn't.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess you'd have to have had a son or daughter, or at least know one well enough to know, that this isn't a choice.

Not so much.

SEE http://patient.info/doctor/ambiguous-genitalia

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, it's a false dichotomy: "born that way" or "lifestyle choice." But again, this thread was about baiting people into taking an 'anti-science' position so they could be ridiculed, so I don't think either of us were expecting any thoughtful discussion. At least I wasn't.

It is really difficult I guess to assume that individuals just take a neutral position, do a bit of reading, and then comment.  What is strange about humans is the resistance to read anything scientific and then discuss it.  The knee-jerk response is to immediately put one's head in the sand, not read, and reject the magazine, the publishers, the scientists, more than 200 studies, and everything else and then just give an opinion and repeat that opinion non-stop so that no science can be seen or heard to conflict with one's own opinion.  

From what I read the topic remains opaque and challenging without a lot of definitive answers.  I don't know why that is so scary for some of us, but it obviously is.

The ridiculed part is a nice bit of paranoia, but if it floats your boat go for it.  I tend to like pity myself and mercy even more. 

[Thinking]

My brother once had a roommate who happened to be gay. He asked my brother (who happens to be straight) what was it about the female breast that turns men on. He just didn't get it. My brother's response: "They just do." Heterosexuals are "born that way" too.

I think there is a possibility that factors other than "being born that way" may contribute to a person being homosexual, but IMO the greatest factor is "being born that way,"

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, maklelan said:

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.

For me, this has been a very thought provoking post, thanks.

The question of "imposing ideology" is one which I have not thought about much, which is odd considering my virulent Marxist background where it would have been easy to consider the imposition of a capitalist ideology on the proletariat vs the imposition of communist ideology on socialists, with that word used in a genuine Marxist view.

Where does "libertarian freedom" exist in either of those alternatives when libertarian freedom itself can be seen as an imposition of an ideology?

Certainly the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase of revolution is exactly the intentional imposition of ideology from the left- witness the huge presence of propaganda in posters and statues etc which were omnipresent in those "communist" countries of the past, and still visible in places like North Korea today.

As a social constructivist, I am tempted to think that "imposition of ideology" is as inevitable as learning a language and therefore a culture.

So where does that leave the "individual"?   This is of course the question which the "death of man" theorists were addressing.

Quote

The ‘Death of Man’: Foucault and Humanism

Like many of the ‘–ism’ words criticised by Heidegger, humanism is a concept which is as widely used as it is indeterminate. Both its extension and value are subject to significant variations. In the English-speaking world, it is often associated with an optimistic and secular view of the world which asserts the privilege of human beings over non organic (or organic but non human) entities and defends the rights of human beings to happiness and to the development of their individual potential.1 Yet on the continent, and in particular in France and Germany, at the time of the ‘death of man’ humanism was seen by many as a dirty word, partly because of its implied anthropocentrism and partly due to some dubious political associations (the term was used by totalitarian regimes to justify their practices).2 After the post war enthusiasm for existentialism a wave of anti-humanism arose, led in Germany by Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism, which denounced the understanding of the essence of man presupposed by humanism as metaphysical. In France, the controversy about humanism was closely associated with the debates surrounding structuralism and with four main figures: Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Althusser and Foucault himself. Other players in the field of anti-humanism were literary theorists such as M. Blanchot (who emphasised the self generating character of language over the role of the writer in the production of literary pieces3) or historians from the Ecole des Annales like F. Braudel.4 Although these thinkers differed widely in their disciplines, assumptions and conclusions, they all denied the primacy of man, be it as an epistemological starting point (the subject as the foundation of all possible knowledge, as in Husserlian phenomenology) or as a practical agent (freedom as the main operator and focus of historical development as in Hegelian history). Correlatively, they emphasised the part played by unconscious structures in the determination of thought and behaviour: the ‘author’ was redefined by Foucault as a ‘function’ of the texts rather than their source5; Althusser re-described human agents as ‘bearers’ (Träger) of historical determination, not as the actors of history.6 Braudel introduced the idea of multiple durations at work in history, of which ‘eventful’ [événementielle], human history was only the most superficial.7

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~beatrice/The 'Death of Man' - Foucault and Humanism.pdf

These issues have been addressed successfully by a Wittgensteinian scholar named Chantal Bax from a philosophical point of view, but I think they are real issues politically and sociologically 

So I kind of wonder if these questions are even possible to discuss?  They seem impossibly huge, going to root issues of contingency of language and culture itself!  The "imposition of ideology" is inevitable and how does one determine who is doing what to whom?

It's like Hume trying to find a "cause" when all we have is contingent linguistic descriptions which are inherently biased simply by being uttered.

But clearly the most vulnerable in society need to be protected.  But then we have the perennial problem of "giving a fish" vs "teaching how to fish".   Do either of those alternatives represent the "imposition of ideology"?

And more relevant to this discussion, should those who subjectively find themselves deeply disturbed by gender identity confusion be treated as "patients" or "the oppressed"?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

My brother once had a roommate who happened to be gay. He asked my brother (who happens to be straight) what was it about the female breast that turns men on. He just didn't get it. My brother's response: "They just do." Heterosexuals are "born that way" too.

I think there is a possibility that factors other than "being born that way" may contribute to a person being homosexual, but IMO the greatest factor is "being born that way,"

I definitely get that.

But clearly there ARE genes which make one male or female, but apparently there are no such genes for homosexuality, at least that appears to be the science, if this summary of literature is accurate.

Notice that was a conditional clause preceded by the word "IF".

I am not in the mood to be attacked for saying there is no "gay gene".  I never have said that.  I have even seen arguments justifiying the evolution of homosexuality.

I am just a rookie in all this trying to sort it out

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess you'd have to have had a son or daughter, or at least know one well enough to know, that this isn't a choice.

I for one do not want to go on record saying it is a "choice".  That is not the question as far as I am concerned.

[thesometimesaint]

We don't know the reason(s) for homosexuality. We do know that sexual identity is established between 2 and 5 years old.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is really difficult I guess to assume that individuals just take a neutral position, do a bit of reading, and then comment.  What is strange about humans is the resistance to read anything scientific and then discuss it.  The knee-jerk response is to immediately put one's head in the sand, not read, and reject the magazine, the publishers, the scientists, more than 200 studies, and everything else and then just give an opinion and repeat that opinion non-stop so that no science can be seen or heard to conflict with one's own opinion.  

From what I read the topic remains opaque and challenging without a lot of definitive answers.  I don't know why that is so scary for some of us, but it obviously is.

The ridiculed part is a nice bit of paranoia, but if it floats your boat go for it.  I tend to like pity myself and mercy even more. 

It's not scary to me. I have no idea how humans develop sexual desire. I've read quite a bit on the subject, but yes, it is complex. I'm not averse at all to discussing the science of sexuality. I just recognize that the "social experiment," or whatever you want to call this thread, was never about thoughtful discussion. That the OP's creator has confirmed it suggests I'm not being paranoid at all. 

[Sky]

As long as we are discussing the scientific consensus of the origins of homosexuality and gender identity/expression, let's include the literature from the American Psychological Association, which unfortunately has long been at odds with traditional, conservative religious interpretations.  Blaming all of this on "the politically correct media" is a cop out.  

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Also, lacking from this discussion is the personal experience of actual gay and transgender people.  Sometimes, it feels as though what we have to say in conversations like this does not really matter to some people anyway.  

I can say with 100% certainty that sexual orientation is not a choice and that it cannot be changed.  Controlled, yes.  But that is not the same thing as change.  

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not scary to me. I have no idea how humans develop sexual desire. I've read quite a bit on the subject, but yes, it is complex. I'm not averse at all to discussing the science of sexuality. I just recognize that the "social experiment," or whatever you want to call this thread, was never about thoughtful discussion. That the OP's creator has confirmed it suggests I'm not being paranoid at all. 

I guess I just never realized that one person could control the entire thread.  It never worked for me, but obviously others are better at control.  

It is clear that the thread was started because the information did not support the tired, liberal position.  If those Liberals still wanted to support that incorrect position they would need to contradict science.  So, your answer, not to discuss it because doing so would "force" critics to abandon science in favor of....their own unrealistic opinions.  What a terrible thing - being set up to either accept reality or bury one's head in the sand and just repeat an opinion based on nothing but desire.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not really a study, though. It's an essay. 

I like the term "literature review" for these types of reports.  They are studying something, but it avoids the confusion between studies of humans, behaviors, etc. and studies of those studies.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Calm