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

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But worth responding I see.

Unfortunately I am also feeding the troll as you are.

[Honorentheos]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

There is an important distinction to be considered where, were the cultural context different, the potential for psychological harm or pain would not exist or be lessened. The findings reported on also make note of this potential. 

Perhaps I'm too jaded now, but I guess while reading anything I tend to skim past bias and look for what holds beneath it. Regardless of the positions taken, there are pretty clear reasons for taking seriously the potential for doing harm out of reasons not really aimed at the well being of the individual but rather an externality such as an institution or one's affiliation to a certain type of tradition.

If the science is out, but the potential to cause harm is evident, it doesn't seem like such a difficult ethical dilemma in and of itself. Inserting something like belief that the LDS church has some sort of authority in this matter is problematic on many levels. Not least because it's assuming the Church knows something the science doesn't when the outcome causes an increase in the total harm caused in society.

That's my take away.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What we are seeing right in this thread is people dismissing science for deeply held non-religious beliefs, apparently.

Well I did say we all like scientific data that supports our biases. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Which fit well with your smug question 

I really didn't mean it that way.  I apologize if it came off as such.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We could compare it to apologetics. We can't prove our faith, but science can be useful in fending off attacks. There's not a thing wrong with doing that. 

Is science useful if it casts doubt on a faith position?

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Metastudy' is another good term ... though Gray does seem determined for some reason to downplay the 'scientificness' of this particular piece of research.

I just urged caution given the political bias of the source. This is their interpretation of the scientific literature, but people are treating it like a it's a new finding. Given your own peculiar take on this topic, I'm not surprised that you don't seem to approach this with any sense of caution.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

20 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

Finding a female's breast attractive is a learned behavior tied to cultural norms.  In some cultures they are considered attractive, in others they are not.  What we find attractive does not develop in a vacuum and is certainly not set at birth.

When I was younger I used to find pregnant women unattractive.  After passing through multiple pregnancies with my wife, I now find her, and other women attractive when pregnant.

So which attraction was I born with?

-guerreiro9

Mormonism produces thousands of gay men who are absolutely desperate to be straight, and unable to change despite turning their lives upside down in an attempt to do exactly that (and often left in such desperation by their failure to do so that they end up taking their own lives). That doesn't seem to fit your learned behavior theory.

What is attractive to me has changed as I age as well. I now find women my own age attractive, where I didn't before (meaning I find older women attractive now, but did not when I was a younger man). But I've never found men attractive, despite my sympathies for gay people. .

Edited August 24, 2016 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I just urged caution given the political bias of the source.

Interesting. Is your standard method of urging caution regarding possible bias to dismiss a metastudy as merely an essay?

Quote

People are treating it like a it's a new finding.

No, it's certainly not new. It's been there all along for anyone who actually wanted to look and see.

Quote

Given your own peculiar take on this topic...

By which I assume you mean the clear consensus of historians, linguists and anthropologists. You do like to dismiss/downplay things you dislike, don't you?

Edited August 24, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Is science useful if it casts doubt on a faith position?

Perhaps, but not all "science" is created equal.   There can be good science and there can be bad science.  Good science can, in its realm, be very useful; bad science, not very.  (Frankly, I lack adequate grounding to determine if the science from the OP is good science or bad science.)  I wouldn't be overly concerned about science purporting to contradict a faith position if it's not good science.  

If it is likely to be good science and purports to provide evidence contradicting a faith position, then I might very well reexamine my assumptions, try to determine if any incongruity between the two might stem from a misunderstanding of what the science actually says (or from what my faith actually says), and so on.  If the purported conflict remains even after I have gone through this process, then one of my choices certainly is to abandon my faith because "the science doesn't support it," but it's not my only choice: I can choose to remain faithful and to reserve judgment until I've had a chance to discuss the matter directly with The Universe's Chief Scientist, which would probably be what I would choose.  

Whatever conflicts I might perceive between the two, I'm not required to view matters of faith through a scientific paradigm, just as a scientist is not required to view matters of science through a faith-based paradigm, even if the scientist happens to be a person of faith.

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting. Is your standard method of urging caution regarding possible bias to dismiss a metastudy as merely an essay?

I wasn't familiar with the term metastudy. Essay was the best term I had at the time. It's a review of the current scientific and popular literature as the authors interpret it. People were treating this like a new finding. Essay seemed like a better descriptor than "study". 

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, it's certainly not new. It's been there all along for anyone who actually wanted to look and see.

The information is not new, time will tell if the authors' interpretation of the information is coherent. 

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By which I assume you mean the clear consensus of historians, linguists and anthropologists. You do like to dismiss/downplay things you dislike, don't you?

No, I mean your peculiar take that the recency of concepts and terminology has anything to do with their validity and explanatory power. 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I wasn't familiar with the term metastudy. Essay was the best term I had at the time. It's a review of the current scientific and popular literature as the authors interpret it. People were treating this like a new finding. Essay seemed like a better descriptor than "study". 

The information is not new, time will tell if the authors' interpretation of the information is coherent. 

No, I mean your peculiar take that the recency of concepts and terminology has anything to do with their validity and explanatory power. 

It's true that the studies of identical twins point away from a strictly genetic origin, but that doesn't mean there isn't a biological cause, let alone that it's a choice or "learned behavior." If anything, many long-term studies have shown that there aren't definite social or environmental factors that apply broadly. If it's learned behavior, we ought to see patterns in how it's learned, but we don't. If it's simply a lifestyle choice, we wouldn't see so many people trying desperately to suppress or overcome their desires (with predictable failure). At this point, it looks like there may be a spectrum of origins involving everything from socialization, environment, and epigenetics. And this is of course in line with the study cited in the OP: it's best to tread cautiously, given that we don't have definitive answers yet.

Edited August 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

Quote

 If it's simply a lifestyle choice, we wouldn't see so many people trying desperately to suppress or overcome their desires (with predictable failure).

There may be an issue of affixing the qualifier "lifestyle" to choice.  Possibly those who are using "choice" see it as more of the choice that might start out an addiction...if the choice was never made to partake the first time or how many times it took for the addiction to set in, the addiction wouldn't exist.  Once the addiction exists, the sense of choice is erased.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There may be an issue of affixing the qualifier "lifestyle" to choice.  Possibly those who are using "choice" see it as more of the choice that might start out an addiction...if the choice was never made to partake the first time or how many times it took for the addiction to set in, the addiction wouldn't exist.  Once the addiction exists, the sense of choice is erased.

If it were like an addiction, gay people would still be attracted to the opposite sex, but "addicted" to gay relationships. Homosexuality is very analogous to heterosexuality, which also does not present itself like an addiction. I don't experience my straightness as an addiction. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

If it were like an addiction, gay people would still be attracted to the opposite sex, but "addicted" to gay relationships. Homosexuality is very analogous heterosexuality, which also does not present itself like an addiction. I don't experience my straightness as an addiction. 

Agreed. It's not comparable at all to an addiction. I would still be attracted to women if I had not married and remained celibate, just as same-sex attraction is not increased or decreased by sexual activity.

Gender and sexuality are complex issues that defy attempts to put them in neat little binary boxes, as the study referenced in the OP notes. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It's true that the studies of identical twins point away from a strictly genetic origin, but that doesn't mean there isn't a biological cause, let alone that it's a choice or "learned behavior." If anything, many long-term studies have shown that there aren't definite social or environmental factors that apply broadly. If it's learned behavior, we ought to see patterns in how it's learned, but we don't. If it's simply a lifestyle choice, we wouldn't see so many people trying desperately to suppress or overcome their desires (with predictable failure). At this point, it looks like there may be a spectrum of origins involving everything from socialization, environment, and epigenetics. And this is of course in line with the study cited in the OP: it's best to tread cautiously, given that we don't have definitive answers yet.

Agreed.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Gender and sexuality are complex issues that defy attempts to put them in neat little binary boxes, as the study referenced in the OP notes. 

And lumping usages of "choice" into simplistic boxes just might be inappropriate as well.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And lumping usages of "choice" into simplistic boxes just might be inappropriate as well.

I don't think anyone was doing that. My point was that there's a false dichotomy between "born that way" and "choice." You seem to agree.

[rockpond]

On 8/22/2016 at 8:32 PM, 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

 

It's important to note that The New Atlantis is not a medical journal.  It is published by the social conservative advocacy group:  Ethics and Public Policy Center.  From the About page for The New Atlantis:

Quote

The New Atlantis is an effort to improve public understanding of the social, political, ethical, and policy implications of modern science and technology. Since the first issue of our quarterly journal in 2003, we have sought to make sense of the larger questions surrounding technology and human nature, and the practical questions of governing and regulating science — especially where the moral stakes are high and the political divides are deep.

We also seek to stir things up — to challenge the general public and policymakers who know too little about science, and to push scientists who often fail to think seriously or deeply about the ethical and social implications of their work.

Here is an excerpt from the first three paragraphs of "Part One" of the paper linked in the OP:

Quote

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

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

By contrast, proponents of the “born that way” hypothesis — expressed for instance in Lady Gaga’s 2011 song “Born This Way” — posit that there is a causal biological basis for sexual orientation and often try to bolster their claims with scientific findings. Citing three scientific studies[3] and an article from Science magazine,[4] Mark Joseph Stern, writing for Slate in 2014, claims that “homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait.”[5]

The title of the article itself is a bit of a nod to the "opinion" orientated nature of this piece.

 

[Jeanne]

It doesn't matter much to me about scientific studies as there are scientists who disagree I am sure.  What I don't understand is how this could be a choice.  There are people inside and outside of many churches who have pleaded to God to make them straight...and somewhat gone through a living shock treatment to no avail.  We CANNOT possibly know how this all works unless we are one of them.  My question outside any study is the connection of everything between two people outside sexuality.  The connection that is just the same as that of our own spouses..I just don't think that we can ever understand.

Edited to add:  The scientist with great knowledge and comprehensive study will do us no good..unless he is gay.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It doesn't matter much to me about scientific studies as there are scientists who disagree I am sure.  What I don't understand is how this could be a choice.  There are people inside and outside of many churches who have pleaded to God to make them straight...and somewhat gone through a living shock treatment to no avail.  We CANNOT possibly know how this all works unless we are one of them.  My question outside any study is the connection of everything between two people outside sexuality.  The connection that is just the same as that of our own spouses..I just don't think that we can ever understand.

Edited to add:  The scientist with great knowledge and comprehensive study will do us no good..unless he is gay.

Well, the study linked in the OP is not a scientific study.  It's a political piece in which various studies were excerpted and cherry-picked to "prove" a pre-determined point.  Sadly, Meridian Magazine has picked up on it and published it out to church members which will, unfortunately, push the collective understanding backwards.

[guerreiro9]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Mormonism produces thousands of gay men who are absolutely desperate to be straight, and unable to change despite turning their lives upside down in an attempt to do exactly that (and often left in such desperation by their failure to do so that they end up taking their own lives). That doesn't seem to fit your learned behavior theory.

What is attractive to me has changed as I age as well. I now find women my own age attractive, where I didn't before (meaning I find older women attractive now, but did not when I was a younger man). But I've never found men attractive, despite my sympathies for gay people. .

It is very difficult to find something unattractive once we are attracted to it (not impossible, but difficult), but this does not imply we were born with this attraction.  It also does not preclude us from developing additional attractions.  We are never attracted to something until we are exposed to it, and the manner of our exposure affects our attraction.  I don't see how members of the church developing an attraction to the same-sex conflicts with this.

Human sexuality is substantially more complicated than the dichotomy presented: "it's inborn" (baloney), "it's an instantaneous choice" (double baloney).

The survey of history, and current scientific literature indicates as much, despite Lady Gaga's insistence to the contrary.

-guerreiro9

Edited August 24, 2016 by guerreiro9
Grammar

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's important to note that The New Atlantis is not a medical journal.  It is published by the social conservative advocacy group:  Ethics and Public Policy Center.  From the About page for The New Atlantis:

Here is an excerpt from the first three paragraphs of "Part One" of the paper linked in the OP:

The title of the article itself is a bit of a nod to the "opinion" orientated nature of this piece.

 

I think I have pretty much conceded that point, and bring with it the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity

The question as I see it is - are the studies quoted in this summary of the literature good science or not?

The interpretation is the interpretation- and everyone can debate the interpretation til doomsday, but if the science behind the interpretation is good- then it all becomes a question of opinion and everyone will have their own

On the other hand though, I don't even think "science" is objective and I have a lot of good reason to believe that.   But that is not what the thread is about

I think the question remains as to whether or not this summary of the literature helps or hurts the church position

That has not really been addressed, except by one poster who correctly pointed out that science can neither confirm nor deny religious belief if one is inclined to a logical position on either

But as Mormons we love to ignore that very simple and very true notion.

We love to debate the importance of science to religion and history to religion

Well here is a chance to examine that idea for those who always like to use science to "disprove" religion.   In this case we have science supposedly supporting religion.

That turns the tables on the critics who find history and science on their side- or love to think that is correct.

So the question remains- is the summary itself flawed and therefore helpful or not to those who believe science can prove or disprove religion?

To me, frankly, neither side is right.   Science has nothing to do with supporting or denying religion.  But it is fascinating to see the interplay here once people figure out that this thread is really about the nature of science and religion in general- not about gender.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So the question remains- is the summary itself flawed and therefore helpful or not to those who believe science can prove or disprove religion?

To me, frankly, neither side is right.   Science has nothing to do with supporting or denying religion.  But it is fascinating to see the interplay here once people figure out that this thread is really about the nature of science and religion in general- not about gender.

This study is not "science".  It's a selective review of scientific studies.  The summary itself is not flawed in that it serves its purpose as a political piece (it is flawed if one is taking it as a scientific study).  But it does absolutely nothing to answer your question about whether science can prove or disprove religion.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

It is very difficult to find something unattractive once we are attracted to it (not impossible, but difficult), but this does not imply we were born with this attraction.  It also does not preclude us from developing additional attractions.  We are never attracted to something until we are exposed to it, and the manner of our exposure affects our attraction.  I don't see see how members of the church developing an attraction to the same-sex conflicts with this.

Human sexuality is substantially more complicated than the dichotomy presented: "it's inborn" (baloney), "it's an instantaneous choice" (double baloney).

The survey of history, and current scientific literature indicates as much, despite Lady Gaga's insistence to the contrary.

-guerreiro9

I'm not aware of any evidence that would lead anyone to conclude sexual orientation is by an large acquired by exposure to external stimuli. 

I've certainly been exposed to homosexuality and to naked guys in the locker room. I've even had a couple of guys try to seduce me. No effect.  

And certainly if repeated exposure could alter sexual orientation, we'd have seen a lot of altered sexual orientation from all of the gay men being advised to marry women in the church in years past. That program didn't seem to work so well, as the church has stopped giving out that kind of advice. The result of that kind of thing seems to be broken marriages rather than altered orientation. 

Surely there's a difference between acquiring a taste for blondes vs brunettes and acquiring a different sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not the same thing as fetish, after all. 

 

[guerreiro9]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not aware of any evidence that would lead anyone to conclude sexual orientation is by an large acquired by exposure to external stimuli. 

I've certainly been exposed to homosexuality and to naked guys in the locker room. I've even had a couple of guys try to seduce me. No effect.  

And certainly if repeated exposure could alter sexual orientation, we'd have seen a lot of altered sexual orientation from all of the gay men being advised to marry women in the church in years past. That program didn't seem to work so well, as the church has stopped giving out that kind of advice. The result of that kind of thing seems to be broken marriages rather than altered orientation. 

Surely there's a difference between acquiring a taste for blondes vs brunettes and acquiring a different sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not the same thing as fetish, after all. 

 

It's hard to have meaningful conversations when we talk past each other and reduce each others arguments to the shallowest possible interpretation.  I certainly did not suggest that everyone who has been exposed to naked men and the concept of homosexuality will instantaneously become attracted to such, and it is a little disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.

I'm not sure where to go with this part of the conversation as you don't seem to really want to engage with what I wrote.

I am interested in your last statement though.  What is the difference between sexual orientation and a fetish?  What is sexual orientation?

-guerreiro9

Edited August 24, 2016 by guerreiro9
Grammar