Article Re: Survey of Contemporary "Knowledge" of Human Sexuality and Gender

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

The Fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society consists of a careful analytical review of the scientific literature available across various disciplines on the topic of human sexuality and gender. The authors, Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, are senior scholars with impeccable credentials and qualifications to undertake a major report such as this. The report takes a careful look at the literature and decides in an informed and straightforward way what the available science does and does not say—or, more precisely, what conclusions current science does or does not justify—about these important aspects of our humanity.

I've just started reading the Special Report.  It's quite long (116 pages, plus nearly 30 pages of footnotes).  It will take a while to review and digest.  Some excerpts of the summary (see first link above):

Quote

Any reader will note that the report takes up some issues that lie close to the heart of contemporary discourse about sexual orientation and gender identity. Cynical critics will probably try to dismiss it based on supposed ulterior motives. However, if the topics covered by the report are, in fact, areas where science has been co-opted by politics, and where scientists, and laymen, have overreached in making conclusions and invoking the authority of science, then these are precisely the areas where sound, careful, rigorous scientific response is necessary. As Mayer and McHugh write:

Quote

When the research touches on controversial themes, it is particularly important to be clear about precisely what science has and has not shown. For complex, complicated questions concerning the nature of human sexuality, there exists at best provisional scientific consensus; much remains unknown, as sexuality is an immensely complex part of human life that defies our attempts at defining all its aspects and studying them with precision.

Good scientists follow the data where they lead. They are constantly open to alternatives and remain mindful of scientific and intellectual rigor. To dismiss this scientific report as merely political is to misread it—not only cynically but unscientifically. The report, with its substantial body of analyses and findings, stands on its own ground, and it certainly provides sufficient material for study and response by serious investigators. Even serious cynics have a responsibility to deal with the data.

I agree with this approach.  The authors of the Special Report appear to be well-qualified.  Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D., is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, and Paul McHugh, M.D., "is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine."  He also "was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital," he was "elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992" and "{f}rom 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics."

Back to the summary:

Quote

It’s worth reading the report in full. Here I begin by summarizing four of its principal findings. Based on the data presented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies, the report concludes:

1. Claims that sexual orientation is immutably determined by biology are not supported by scientific evidence.
2. Claims that gender identity is somehow fixed and innate, yet is also independent of biological sex, are likewise not supported by scientific evidence.
3. Since the great majority of children who experience some gender-atypical thoughts do not continue to do so after adolescence, encouraging such children to become transgender or seek invasive and sometimes drastic and irreversible medical procedures is not supported by scientific evidence.
4. The finding that non-heterosexual and transgender individuals have higher rates of mental health problems is supported by scientific evidence, while the common attribution of such findings to the effects of social stigma or stress as the only or primary cause is not supported by scientific data.

This will, I think, excite some controversy (to put it mildly).  Ironically, I think folks who find these conclusions sociologically/emotionally upsetting will end up responding with a lot of rudeness, ad hominem attacks on the authors, and very little in the way of dispassionate, reasoned analysis and discourse (I hope I'm wrong about that, of course).

I encourage you to read the above summary, and then begin reading the Special Report.

What are your thoughts?  Do you think the Special Reports assessment (that, as the summary put it, "very little of contemporary 'knowledge' in the area of human sexuality and gender is actually supported by strong scientific evidence") is meritorious?  If not, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning and analysis.

I am also curious about your thoughts about the general problems with the "Replication Crisis" in social science data, as stated in the above summary:

Quote

In recent years, both academic and clinical psychologists have begun to give much anxious attention to 'The Replication Crisis.' Put simply, researchers have discovered that the successful replication rate for social scientific studies is alarmingly low. This is troubling, given that reproducibility has always been a touchstone for scientific rigor. Over and over, Mayer and McHugh note that careful examination of the scientific evidence shows inconsistent findings, failures to replicate data, and conflicting results.

This seems to be a vital point.  Any thoughts on this issue would also be appreciated.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I've just started reading the Special Report.  It's quite long (116 pages, plus nearly 30 pages of footnotes).  It will take a while to review and digest.  Some excerpts of the summary (see first link above):

I agree with this approach.  The authors of the Special Report appear to be well-qualified.  Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D., is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, and Paul McHugh, M.D., "is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine."  He also "was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital," he was "elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992" and "{f}rom 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics."

Back to the summary:

This will, I think, excite some controversy (to put it mildly).  Ironically, I think folks who find these conclusions sociologically/emotionally upsetting will end up responding with a lot of rudeness, ad hominem attacks on the authors, and very little in the way of dispassionate, reasoned analysis and discourse (I hope I'm wrong about that, of course).

I encourage you to read the above summary, and then begin reading the Special Report.

What are your thoughts?  Do you think the Special Reports assessment (that, as the summary put it, "very little of contemporary 'knowledge' in the area of human sexuality and gender is actually supported by strong scientific evidence") is meritorious?  If not, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning and analysis.

I am also curious about your thoughts about the general problems with the "Replication Crisis" in social science data, as stated in the above summary:

This seems to be a vital point.  Any thoughts on this issue would also be appreciated.

Thank you,

-Smac

Is this the same survey about which there has already been a rather lengthy thread on this board?

[Duncan]

I dunno, I can't imagine some heterosexual guy waking up one day and saying well today i'll ....with a child, another man, animal etc. I think you'd have to have some inclinations towards that before you engauge in s&xual congress with them, who knows

[The Nehor]

While I suspect there is some truth to this report I am always suspicious of people who spend a lot of time going on about how controversial this is so we must use good science to sort this out. TRUST US! WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING! LOOK AT MY DEGREES!

I miss the good old days when I used to default to trusting people.  

You know, back when I was young and an even bigger idiot then I am now.

Edited September 11, 2016 by The Nehor

[Hagoth]

Even if gender identification was a choice like, say, the choice to convert to Mormonism, should people be disallowed, punished, or discriminated against for making that choice? Of course we all know there's a lot more to it than merely acting on a whim, but I think it's worthwhile to pose the question.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Hagoth said:

Even if gender identification was a choice like, say, the choice to convert to Mormonism, should people be disallowed, punished, or discriminated against for making that choice? Of course we all know there's a lot more to it than merely acting on a whim, but I think it's worthwhile to pose the question.

Please define disallowed, or clarify what you mean. I really could not care less whether a male wants to dress or look like a female, or whether a female wishes to dress and look like a male. I don't think any of those should be ridiculed, harassed, and worse for their choices.

Now, as to whether a female should be allowed to walk into a man's bathroom, I am a bit at odds with it. My privacy, what there is left of it in a public bathroom, is still a bit important to me. There are nuances to those questions. Unisex bathrooms, in addition to the traditional male/female would help.

Glenn

 

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate the authors willingness to state what the current science supports and what it does not.  IF, that is a gigantic "if", the report were read by all and understood it may at least assist the media in being honest about the current state of human sexuality as well as activists on all sides, as well as politicians and judges who are desperate to push agendas.

Further, I appreciate the warning that some topics will become far more clear in time and after a great deal of further research.  

The problem of the Replication Crises is of great concern.  Without the ability to reproduce an experiment throws a very, ice-cold bucket of water on the social science.  We should all be aware that the term "soft science" applies to the social sciences for a reason.  They remain soft sciences and will do so until they begin to perform more like the hard sciences or natural sciences.

In closing, with as much discussion and lip service given to the promotion of homosexuality and its associated sins on this Forum, I would hope that each member of the Church of Jesus Christ might be a little more hesitant before becoming a warrior for the gay agenda.  There are reasons why God has named this a sin.  Having said that, I acknowledge that simply being a sin does not make it acceptable and should never encourage any form of persecution for other sinners.  We are each sinners and each of us falls far short of the glory of God.  One of the great purposes of the Church is to invite all sinners to come unto Christ.  As a church we should never feel hindered in defining sin and dangerous behaviors nor should we ever use that definition as anything other than a warning and an acknowledgment of the need for repentance.  

[Calm]

On September 11, 2016 at 0:30 AM, Duncan said:

I dunno, I can't imagine some heterosexual guy waking up one day and saying well today i'll ....with a child, another man, animal etc. I think you'd have to have some inclinations towards that before you engauge in s&xual congress with them, who knows

Or get thrown in prison and have no other options but abstinence...

[guerreiro9]

On 9/11/2016 at 0:30 AM, Duncan said:

I dunno, I can't imagine some heterosexual guy waking up one day and saying well today i'll ....with a child, another man, animal etc. I think you'd have to have some inclinations towards that before you engauge in s&xual congress with them, who knows

This is exactly the problem Duncan, people try to reduce the complexity of human sexuality to an instantaneous choice as you have done.  Then they think "well I can't instantly change my sexuality so it must be immutable".  Ask yourself this Duncan, is there any aspect of yourself that you can instantly change?  Of course not, we are complex creatures and even if we have a desire to change something it may take a lifetime (or longer) to change it.  Why would sexuality be any different?

 

-guerreiro9

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

This is exactly the problem Duncan, people try to reduce the complexity of human sexuality to an instantaneous choice as you have done.  Then they think "well I can't instantly change my sexuality so it must be immutable".  Ask yourself this Duncan, is there any aspect of yourself that you can instantly change?  Of course not, we are complex creatures and even if we have a desire to change something it may take a lifetime (or longer) to change it.  Why would sexuality be any different?

 

-guerreiro9

Sometimes I think people who rail against homosexuality think that if it is a choice then they can make it too and are afraid of that. I wish there are aspects I can instantly change!

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

This is exactly the problem Duncan, people try to reduce the complexity of human sexuality to an instantaneous choice as you have done.  Then they think "well I can't instantly change my sexuality so it must be immutable".  Ask yourself this Duncan, is there any aspect of yourself that you can instantly change?  Of course not, we are complex creatures and even if we have a desire to change something it may take a lifetime (or longer) to change it.  Why would sexuality be any different?

 

-guerreiro9

And where there is no desire, the difficult becomes impossible. Hence the widespread conventional assumption that no one can change. 

[guerreiro9]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wish there are aspects I can instantly change!

Don't we all...

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Sometimes I think people who rail against homosexuality think that if it is a choice then they can make it too and are afraid of that.

I am not afraid of it for myself, I am too old and set in my ways.  When I was younger perhaps.  I am afraid for my children and grandchildren.

As homosexuality is more accepted in a society its prevalence increases.  In some societies it increased to near complete participation.

We'll have to wait and see what the levels of homosexual participation settle out at in our western society, but it is certainly on the rise.

-guerreiro9

[carbon dioxide]

16 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

I am not afraid of it for myself, I am too old and set in my ways.  When I was younger perhaps.  I am afraid for my children and grandchildren.

As homosexuality is more accepted in a society its prevalence increases.  In some societies it increased to near complete participation.

We'll have to wait and see what the levels of homosexual participation settle out at in our western society, but it is certainly on the rise.

-guerreiro9

The world will get more wicked so we can expect it to increase.  So when the time comes that societies including ours is destroyed, it will be said that it did it to itself and deserved it. 

[RevTestament]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:58 AM, smac97 said:

I am also curious about your thoughts about the general problems with the "Replication Crisis" in social science data, as stated in the above summary:

This seems to be a vital point.  Any thoughts on this issue would also be appreciated.

Thank you,

-Smac

I think the "replication crisis" is a result of the emotional aspect which is beginning to permeate this issue. In other words I believe some persons are skewing the data in order to support preconceived notions. If not, then possibly it is the result of a highly subjective nature of "gender identity" rather than it having a biological basis. If it is purely a product of "social feelings" one would expect a lot of subjective results....

[thesometimesaint]

On 9/13/2016 at 6:38 PM, Glenn101 said:

Please define disallowed, or clarify what you mean. I really could not care less whether a male wants to dress or look like a female, or whether a female wishes to dress and look like a male. I don't think any of those should be ridiculed, harassed, and worse for their choices.

Now, as to whether a female should be allowed to walk into a man's bathroom, I am a bit at odds with it. My privacy, what there is left of it in a public bathroom, is still a bit important to me. There are nuances to those questions. Unisex bathrooms, in addition to the traditional male/female would help.

Glenn

I assure you that the ancient Romans knew who was male and who was female despite communal bathhouses.

[RevTestament]

Another thought just came to mind....

I believe it has become somewhat popular to tell children they can "become whatever they want to be" or "whatever they set their minds to...."

While I have always encouraged my children to do their best, I think it possible there may be a complicating factor in telling young children in our society things like the above. For instance very young girls might take a general liking to Michael Jordan, and decide they want "to be like Mike." This might mean being a basketball star, and then being a male basketball star where all the money is.... etc. This kind of fantasizing might play a role in sexual identity. Perhaps less athletic boys might fantasize other ways of getting attention.

I'm sure these thoughts might prove unpopular, but just some thoughts about raising children in our modern society. Maybe schools should emphasize a variety of gender specific heroes...people who accomplish great things through self-sacrifice and thinking of others. A variety of extracurricular activities in elementary school besides sports may help as well... in other words I think it possible that helping children find something they excel at or really enjoy may be an important factor or even crucial factor as children are forming their identities.... perhaps our society is failing some children in this area... anyway just some thoughts...