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

[Danzo]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Reading the article.

Anything specific?

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I know there is a lot to read. You may want to avoid this one. It may shake your world view if you are open to such challenges. Most aren't. 

I see. If people don't consider the same evidence you do, don't assign the same weight to each piece of evidence they consider that you do, don't have the same priorities you do, don't have the same interests you do, don't see the world as you do, don't see their religion as you do, don't see science the same way you do, don't assign the same import to any piece of scientific data (or any combination of scientific data) that you do, don't read the same books that you do, don't use the same paradigms that you do to evaluate evidence, and so on, it's because we don't like to read, we're all simply horribly frightened at what might result, afraid to face the truth, terrified that our worldviews might be shaken to the core!

Yep!  We confess!  You got us!  Save us from our benighted ignorance, Teancum!  In Princess Leia's immortal words, "Save us, Teancum!  You're the only one who can!"   Nope!  No condescension there!  (I would use stronger language than that, but it would get me banned from the thread ... it would probably be worth it, since I'm not really interested in participating further, anyway, but ...)

Attempting to dialogue with you is useless, because you demand that all of your interlocutors share your exact same assumptions, then, when they tell you that, in good faith, in reasonable intelligence, for perfectly valid reasons, they do not, you dismiss them with barbs like this. I don't know why I even bothered. Have fun in your very-exclusive-but-very-lonely universe, population … um … one. Cue the wounded, “I'm-just-here-trying-to-dialogue-in-good-faith-and-I-don't-have-any-idea-why-anyone-would-respond-with-such-'venom'-as-Kenngo1969-just-did” act in ...

Three …

Two …

One!

Edited August 25, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

I speak from my own personal experience and that of many, many other gay people.  (If that matters to you at all).  

If sexual orientation change is possible, then where are all the success stories?  Where do I go for this kind of help?  Why has this been discredited time and time again? 

 

In a search just now, I found this:

And there's this, in Psychology Today, from an author who takes a very pro-gay stance but nevertheless questions that sexual orientation really is unchangeable. He quotes a woman in there who, when she was in high school, was very much into being the "hot" heterosexual female, but after getting exposed to feminist ideology and politics, voluntarily changed her orientation.

Quote

I also believe in the Kinsey scale.  I acknowledge that not everybody is so far on either extreme of it.

If the Kinsey scale is indeed valid, can we conclude that at least some people who self-identify as homosexual (or bi-sexual) are capable of fostering a heterosexual orientation, even leading to a fulfilling heterosexual marriage?

Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's a political piece in which various studies were excerpted and cherry-picked to "prove" a pre-determined point.

Your assurance that cherry-picking has occurred could only come from your awareness of and access to reputable studies that provide conclusive evidence for the biological (rather than psychological) nature of 'sexual orientation' -- research that the authors of the metastudy passed over in order to bolster their a priori conclusions. Please do provide the links for us!

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't like propaganda disguised as science.

That's odd. I could have sworn that you positively adore the current gay rights agenda.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't experience my straightness as an addiction. 

Thank you for -- repeatedly -- demonstrating the totalising nature of socially/culturally constructed reality. One of the most basic but most interesting things to emerge from comparative anthropology is just how thoroughly persons in radically different societies all perceive their way of being as the only, normal, natural way of being.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours 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.

Large numbers of men and women still live in societies completely devoid of the concept of 'sexual orientation'. In their cases, the 'external stimuli' usually come in the form of Western popular culture and the work of Western-based institutions (including NGOs). This is precisely how culture spreads ... though in this case the power imbalance is more a colonising of the imagination.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Coyne is a fool who has no comprehension whatsoever about philosophy or epistemology.

My Rorty quote below and its basis is completely beyond his comprehension must less his ability to refute it.

I held a positivist position like Coyne's until it was destroyed by studying William James and Rorty.  Positivism just doesn't work

I thought you had not read Coyne's book?  Have you read anything by Coyne?  Is this an example of an ad hominem like Scott claimed that Johnie Cake posted above?

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Reading the article.

Are you talking about the article MFB posted or the actual metastudy?

Because the actual metastudy doesn't seem as cherry picked as the article (surprise....articles are notorious for getting the actual research article wrong).

I'm slowly working my way through the first part which seems to be the part that people (and the article) are most fixated on -  "born that way" argumentation.

It's fairly interesting.

 

The gist so far is that actual genetics have a ton of mixed results that point to a possible limited connection but is not at all as solidly determined. At best there is some (mixed) research pointing to some genetic influence. Also the numbers from the twin studies research is lower than I thought it was (in level of percentage of SS twins who are both homosexual). Hormones seem to have some influence but are also a mixed bag in showing significant results though some hormonal balances more than others may have an effect. Need more research. I'm about to read the brain one. But I have another client.

Have more to say later...

 

Quick edit: the genetic disposition research also pointed to socializing and other environmental impacts that were not biological

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is obviously a delicate subject to be handled in a delicate way, but as a student of psychology and symbolism both as well as being a heterosexual male, I think I have something to say about this.

 Certainly some men feel stronger about this than others.  And certainly this is emphasized in certain cultures more than others- and here we have the "Playboy" culture which perhaps overly emphasized this for at least one generation of American males.

But I also find it interesting that we choose a "heart" shape to symbolize love, and what is a heart shape, but two globes attached in an interesting way.

If you have ever driven through Las Vegas in the last few years, there is a sex store that advertises its wares on billboards in which there is a large heart shape, with the upper "point" of the globes coming together in a small circle

I think perhaps that is something which might be understandable as a symbol for sex both for gay and straight men.  Perhaps explaining it to your former roommate that way may have helped.

I do not know how much this applies to women, but I understand that bottoms also have their appeal for them as well

When I took anatomy at BYU our teacher discussed with us the fact that the female breast is what is classified as a secondary sex organ. It is not necessary for procreation, but helps in the lead up. In the discussion that followed there was speculation that things that men consider "sexy" such as the smaller waist and the breast are identifiers. The human male looks for things that identify a female as a female and those things turn him on.

[Honorentheos]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I disagree with the idea that this supports the Church's position. I said this up thread -
 

Quote

 

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.

 

The Church's position seems to be that causing potential harm in the near term is offset by assumptions regarding their understanding of the nature of one's sexual orientation/gender identity that justifies this harm. It seems the science says that is not known, leaving ethics to point to the best approach as focusing on the known needs of individuals instead.

 

Frankly, I think this is a blow to the Church's actions if a net neutral regarding it's rational for the actions it supports and puts forward. The Church is in no way passive in the politcal debate on the subjects surrounding the underlying questions asked and I'd go so far as to argue they are dangerously at odds with the more charitable teachings it could have chosen to focus on instead. Were the Church to reassess based on the fact the science isn't decided but the potential for harm is, I'd be much more impressed.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Honorentheos

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Anything specific?

First, the final conclusions  drawn by McHugh & Mayer don't align with the headline cited in the article linked in the OP (the same headline that was pulled into Meridian Magazine as well).  That isn't their fault.

Second, I find their use of non-scientific articles and quotes to be odd for something purporting to be a scientific research paper.

Third, and most important, I find many of their dismissals of actual scientific studies to be without merit and their corresponding conclusions to be based more upon opinion than any fact that they are able to prove.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your assurance that cherry-picking has occurred could only come from your awareness of and access to reputable studies that provide conclusive evidence for the biological (rather than psychological) nature of 'sexual orientation' -- research that the authors of the metastudy passed over in order to bolster their a priori conclusions. Please do provide the links for us!

I gather you didn't read the paper.  You'll have to start there.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's odd. I could have sworn that you positively adore the current gay rights agenda.

I am in favor of gay rights.  I'm not aware of a specific "gay rights agenda" that has garnered my adoration.

But what does any of that have to do with disguising propaganda as science?  #redherring

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Are you talking about the article MFB posted or the actual metastudy?

Because the actual metastudy doesn't seem as cherry picked as the article (surprise....articles are notorious for getting the actual research article wrong).

I'm slowly working my way through the first part which seems to be the part that people (and the article) are most fixated on -  "born that way" argumentation.

It's fairly interesting.

 

The gist so far is that actual genetics have a ton of mixed results that point to a possible limited connection but is not at all as solidly determined. At best there is some (mixed) research pointing to some genetic influence. Also the numbers from the twin studies research is lower than I thought it was (in level of percentage of SS twins who are both homosexual). Hormones seem to have some influence but are also a mixed bag in showing significant results though some hormonal balances more than others may have an effect. Need more research. I'm about to read the brain one. But I have another client.

Have more to say later...

 

Quick edit: the genetic disposition research also pointed to socializing and other environmental impacts that were not biological

 

 

With luv,

BD

Sorry, I was referring to the "metastudy" (I have a hard time calling it that, though I agree that's what it purports to be).  The article linked in the OP was ridiculous... published on a site run by a conservative think tank - it used a headline that doesn't even represent what the "metastudy" concluded.

McHugh and Mayer's plea for additional research is admirable but it almost comes across as pandering given that they spent so many prior pages simply dismissing research that is widely accepted in the medical community.

 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Large numbers of men and women still live in societies completely devoid of the concept of 'sexual orientation'. In their cases, the 'external stimuli' usually come in the form of Western popular culture and the work of Western-based institutions (including NGOs). This is precisely how culture spreads ... though in this case the power imbalance is more a colonising of the imagination.

Right, just like the culturally conditioned concept of being a mammal. Of course absent that made up designation, large numbers of organisms still fed their young with milk for millions of years. 

[Gray]

21 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

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

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at. 

Without googling the term "fetish", I'd define it as the very specific ways in which sexual attraction and orientation is expressed. There are many fetishes or individual preferences within heterosexuality, for instance, that seem to be partially conditioned by life experiences. But I'll admit to not having studied fetishes. 

Maybe a step down from fetish might be particular preferences. Some people are very attracted to a visual profile - women with short dark hair, men with deep voices, people of a certain ethnicity, etc. These preferences seem to be relatively fluid. They're also not usually exclusive - someone who really prefers blondes is probably also attracted to brunettes. 

Sexual orientation is about gender, not whether someone prefers blondes or brunettes. Sexual orientation does not seem to have the fluidity of mere a preference or fetish. And there are plenty of people at either end of the spectrum who are not attracted at all to the same sex or the opposite sex, no matter what they look like. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at. 

Without googling the term "fetish", I'd define it as the very specific ways in which sexual attraction and orientation is expressed. There are many fetishes or individual preferences within heterosexuality, for instance, that seem to be partially conditioned by life experiences. But I'll admit to not having studied fetishes. 

Maybe a step down from fetish might be particular preferences. Some people are very attracted to a visual profile - women with short dark hair, men with deep voices, people of a certain ethnicity, etc. These preferences seem to be relatively fluid. They're also not usually exclusive - someone who really prefers blondes is probably also attracted to brunettes. 

Sexual orientation is about gender, not whether someone prefers blondes or brunettes. Sexual orientation does not seem to have the fluidity of mere a preference or fetish. And there are plenty of people at either end of the spectrum who are not attracted at all to the same sex or the opposite sex, no matter what they look like. 

I think that's the problem: trying to find a reasonable analogy to orientation, and there isn't one. People have mentioned the "success" of programs to change sexual orientation, but "success" as defined by these programs is successfully suppressing desire for the same sex, not successfully feeling desire for the opposite sex. It's been a while, but as I recall, the most successful such program had a success rate of 8% after a year, meaning that 92% were unable to suppress their desire over a year's time. So, it's better to call these programs "suppression" programs rather than reorientation programs. 

I understand that church doctrine is that people can and should suppress those desires (at least to the point of not acting on them) over a course of a lifetime. That's different from becoming heterosexual.

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think that's the problem: trying to find a reasonable analogy to orientation, and there isn't one. People have mentioned the "success" of programs to change sexual orientation, but "success" as defined by these programs is successfully suppressing desire for the same sex, not successfully feeling desire for the opposite sex. It's been a while, but as I recall, the most successful such program had a success rate of 8% after a year, meaning that 92% were unable to suppress their desire over a year's time. So, it's better to call these programs "suppression" programs rather than reorientation programs. 

I understand that church doctrine is that people can and should suppress those desires (at least to the point of not acting on them) over a course of a lifetime. That's different from becoming heterosexual.

Yes, I struggle at finding a good analogy for this issue. I wanted to say, it's like being a Christian, but there are many denominations within Christianity. But that doesn't work well as an analogy, really. 

I think sometimes the "success" of these programs is changing how people self-identify. But attraction has not changed at all. 

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I struggle at finding a good analogy for this issue. I wanted to say, it's like being a Christian, but there are many denominations within Christianity. But that doesn't work well as an analogy, really. 

I think sometimes the "success" of these programs is changing how people self-identify. But attraction has not changed at all. 

I don't know of any program that has had any documented success in changing sexual attraction from the same sex to the opposite sex. Scott provided a list of quotes (highlighted in yellow, no less) that speculated about the possibility of changing orientation, but I've never seen any studies showing that it can be done. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If I had a gay child, I would ask them what they wanted out of life. I would not encourage them to undergo "reparative therapy," but would tell them to decide what they want their lives to be, what they think is important, and live accordingly. If such a child were dead-set on maintaining activity in the church, I would support them but recognize that they would be forfeiting a lot of what I take for granted in having a fulfilling life. My kids are all heterosexual, apparently, so it's a moot point.

[guerreiro9]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at. 

Without googling the term "fetish", I'd define it as the very specific ways in which sexual attraction and orientation is expressed. There are many fetishes or individual preferences within heterosexuality, for instance, that seem to be partially conditioned by life experiences. But I'll admit to not having studied fetishes. 

Maybe a step down from fetish might be particular preferences. Some people are very attracted to a visual profile - women with short dark hair, men with deep voices, people of a certain ethnicity, etc. These preferences seem to be relatively fluid. They're also not usually exclusive - someone who really prefers blondes is probably also attracted to brunettes. 

Sexual orientation is about gender, not whether someone prefers blondes or brunettes. Sexual orientation does not seem to have the fluidity of mere a preference or fetish. And there are plenty of people at either end of the spectrum who are not attracted at all to the same sex or the opposite sex, no matter what they look like. 

So the difference between a fetish and a preference is a matter of degree, and the difference between orientation and the other two is orientation is related to gender and the others are not?

Why would a preference for all other things be fluid and conditioned by life experiences, but not gender?

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know of any program that has had any documented success in changing sexual attraction from the same sex to the opposite sex. Scott provided a list of quotes (highlighted in yellow, no less) that speculated about the possibility of changing orientation, but I've never seen any studies showing that it can be done. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If I had a gay child, I would ask them what they wanted out of life. I would not encourage them to undergo "reparative therapy," but would tell them to decide what they want their lives to be, what they think is important, and live accordingly. If such a child were dead-set on maintaining activity in the church, I would support them but recognize that they would be forfeiting a lot of what I take for granted in having a fulfilling life. My kids are all heterosexual, apparently, so it's a moot point.

I think the difficulty is in trying to remove an attraction.  Once we find something attractive it is very difficult to view it otherwise.  That doesn't mean we can't add additional attractions to our existing.  A number of articles have recently been written about lesbians or gays enjoying sex with a members of the opposite sex while still identifying as gay or lesbian.

Does that mean their orientation has changed if they now find the opposite sex more attractive than they did previously?

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, guerreiro9 said:

I think the difficulty is in trying to remove an attraction.  Once we find something attractive it is very difficult to view it otherwise.  That doesn't mean we can't add additional attractions to our existing.  A number of articles have recently been written about lesbians or gays enjoying sex with a members of the opposite sex while still identifying as gay or lesbian.

Does that mean their orientation has changed if they now find the opposite sex more attractive than they did previously?

-guerreiro9

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

But that's just me. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Right, just like the culturally conditioned concept of being a mammal. Of course absent that made up designation, large numbers of organisms still fed their young with milk for millions of years. 

Even without the idea of "organisms" and "milk" and "feeding" and "years" and using those "classifications" to define the "word" "mammal"?

Who was talking about it before there were those words and classifications?  When you are running from something trying to eat you are you concerned if it is a "mammal" or not?

It's eat or be eaten.   I don't think many mammals even know they are mammals except one species.   The others just live it.  

Maybe we should ask other mammals if the idea of "mammal" is a human idea?   Would they agree?  Do they feel some solidarity with us because we are fellow mammals?

It's like "no death before the fall".  One could say that organic carbon recycled itself but was it "death" in our human concept?  Was there a "water" cycle before there was "water"?  Dinosaurs eating each other and contributing to the organic material for other organisms down the food chain- does that constitute the human idea of "death"?

Was it even "organic carbon"?

Was there time "before" time?

Who knew about it and what was the use of the concept before anybody thought of it that way?  

At some point of course none of it makes sense. Literally.  Without sentences nothing makes "sense" because we define"sense" as a sentence which makes "Sense"

That "something was happening" goes without saying, but saying who was doing what to whom requires words.

[guerreiro9]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

But that's just me. 

What I do not understand is the concept of an immutable sexual orientation that governs our desires.  I can't even get a consistent explanation for what sexual orientation means.  As a human male who does not identify myself sexually in any way at all the concept is foreign.

As a scientist when I am presented with a new hypothesis, theory, or even a piece of software to test it always leads to the same question: "How can I break this?".  If I can "break" it in at least one way it is invalid and must be revised.  It doesn't matter how many times it appears to be valid, if a single solitary exception can be found it is incorrect.

Exceptions to the concept of an immutable sexual orientation can be found pretty easily.  It doesn't matter how many times it appears to correctly describe a person's experience it is still invalid.  Something else is going on.

To me the most plausible explanation is also the simplest:  Our sexual desires develop in the same way all our desires develop.

-guerreiro9