Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[Teancum]

You may recall a recent thread on gender and sexuality a number of you here were happy to use to bolster the LDS Church's opposition to homosexuality and such things.   One the apparently Elder Oaks was happy to refer to.  Well it appears that many of the author's peers have denounced the study:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-lgbtq-hopkins-20160928-story.html

 

from the article:

Respect is the cornerstone of university life: respect for speech and a diversity of views; respect for students, colleagues and patients; and respect for science, which is our lifeblood as an institution.

As faculty at Johns Hopkins, a major educational, research and health institution, we are writing to express our concern about a recently published report that we believe mischaracterizes the current state of the science on sexuality and gender.

Science, and particularly the fields of psychiatry and psychology, has made major advances in our understanding of the complex issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, accumulating data support the concept that gender identity is not strictly a binary phenomenon. And scientific evidence clearly documents that sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same and/or different sexes are normal variations of the diversity of human sexuality.

Homosexuality is no longer considered an illness by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association or any of the other mainstream professional organizations in the health field. These organizations have come to affirm what LGBTQ people and their loved ones have known for years: that being gay or transgender is perfectly consistent with being healthy and well.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

 

From the article:

Quote

The authors are all faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Chris Beyrer (cbeyrer1@jhu.edu) is the Desmond Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights. Dr. Robert W. Blum (rblum@jhu.edu) is William S. Gates Sr. Professor and chair of the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health; he also served on the Institute of Medicine Committee on LGBT Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities. Tonia C. Poteat (tpoteat@jhu.edu) is an assistant professor in the Departments of Epidemiology and International Health. The following Johns Hopkins faculty members also contributed to this article: Danielle German, David Holtgrave, David Jernigan, Michelle Kaufman, Joanne Rosen and Dr. Ron Valdiserri. The views expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Johns Hopkins University.

(Emphasis mine.)

So what we have here is a newspaper op-ed piece written by three authors with six other faculty members listed as having "contributed."

I don't know how many faculty there are at Johns Hopkins, but this may well reflect a minority view.

Furthermore, it is important to note the disclaimer I have put in bold face. This is not Johns Hopkins denouncing the report, as Teancum has inaccurately stated.

I suspect what we have here is something driven by internecine politics. Note the reference to a threat against Johns Hopkins from the Human Rights Campaign, which is a strident, gay-rights pressure group whose targets have included the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

From the article:

(Emphasis mine.)

So what we have here is an editorial page op-ed piece written by four authors with six other faculty members listed as having "contributed."

I don't know how many faculty there are at Johns Hopkins, but this may well reflect a minority view.

Furthermore, it is important to note the disclaimer I have put in bold face. This is not Johns Hopkins denouncing the report, as Teancum has innacurately stated.

I suspect what we have here is something driven by internecine politics. Note the reference to a threat against Johns Hopkins from the Human Rights Campaign, which is a strident, gay-rights pressure group whose targets have included the Church of Jesus Christ.

Ok I will revise my statement to this:  a number of the peers of the  author study have voiced opposition to the study.

Now can you provide evidence of what you "suspect?"   I suspect your  comments  are driven by your religious bias which is stridently anti homosexual. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will revise my statement to this:  a number of the peers of the  author study have voiced opposition to the study.

Now can you provide evidence of what you "suspect?"   I suspect your  comments  are driven by your religious bias which is stridently anti homosexual. 

Suffice it to say I am underwhlemed at this point.

It is scarcely surprising that liberal faculty members at an eastern university would take exception to a report that calls into question some past assumptions on which the gay-rights movement has relied rather heavily but which are lacking in merit.

Let's see what further developments there are. For now I remain unconvinced that this op-ed piece reflects the views of a majority at Johns Hopkins faculty, or even a majority within the university's School of Public Health. Had it done so, I feel certain they would have indicated so in the about-the-authors note.

Contrast this with what happened in 2004, when the entire membership of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at BYU issued a statement rejecting certain claims of one Grant Palmer.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will revise my statement to this:  a number of the peers of the  author study have voiced opposition to the study.

 

I just refreshed my page.

You haven't revised your OP yet. It still states falsely that Johns Hopkins has "denounced the study."

[rpn]

There is apparently a real concern that one of their big grants will be pulled because the study doesn't show support for LGBT?   I'm thinking that since scholars started to study these issues, we've had a steady line of challenges for bias on one side or another.   And given that the response to anything that isn't wholeheartedly pro everything LGBTQ community wants to do/be is to boycott until any other viewpoint is completely silenced, it will be harder and harder to conduct real science, even as collecting the data should become easier.

It's pretty easy to see that as the future for climate change concerns too.

We're getting a world where group think is prized over freedom of thought, and thoughtful understanding of viewpoints that we don't share is replaced by an argument that no one should be allowed to have those views in public space.

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just refreshed my page.

You haven't revised your OP yet. It still states falsely that Johns Hopkins has "denounced the study."

Done.

and I see you provide nothing to support your religiously biased "suspicions."

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, rpn said:

There is apparently a real concern that one of their big grants will be pulled because the study doesn't show support for LGBT?   I'm thinking that since scholars started to study these issues, we've had a steady line of challenges for bias on one side or another.   And given that the response to anything that isn't wholeheartedly pro everything LGBTQ community wants to do/be is to boycott until any other viewpoint is completely silenced, it will be harder and harder to conduct real science, even as collecting the data should become easier.

It's pretty easy to see that as the future for climate change concerns too.

We're getting a world where group think is prized over freedom of thought, and thoughtful understanding of viewpoints that we don't share is replaced by an argument that no one should be allowed to have those views in public space.

Your last sentence sounds an awful lot like LDS Sunday school and priesthood meetings.  Also it reflects what happens to Latter Day Saints whose thoughtful viewpoints that may differ from church leaders are shared in a public venue.  Such actions often lead to excommunication.  Public expression of free thought by active LDS members is not welcome in by the LDS church leadership.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You may recall a recent thread on gender and sexuality a number of you here were happy to use to bolster the LDS Church's opposition to homosexuality and such things.   One the apparently Elder Oaks was happy to site.  Well it appears that many of the author's peers have denounced the study:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-lgbtq-hopkins-20160928-story.html

 

from the article:

Respect is the cornerstone of university life: respect for speech and a diversity of views; respect for students, colleagues and patients; and respect for science, which is our lifeblood as an institution.

As faculty at Johns Hopkins, a major educational, research and health institution, we are writing to express our concern about a recently published report that we believe mischaracterizes the current state of the science on sexuality and gender.

Science, and particularly the fields of psychiatry and psychology, has made major advances in our understanding of the complex issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, accumulating data support the concept that gender identity is not strictly a binary phenomenon. And scientific evidence clearly documents that sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same and/or different sexes are normal variations of the diversity of human sexuality.

Homosexuality is no longer considered an illness by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association or any of the other mainstream professional organizations in the health field. These organizations have come to affirm what LGBTQ people and their loved ones have known for years: that being gay or transgender is perfectly consistent with being healthy and well.

 

It seems God disagrees.  

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[RevTestament]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Done.

and I see you provide nothing to support your religiously biased "suspicions."

Religion is a bias towards the right as taught by God. The end.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems God disagrees.  

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So I assume you stone sabbath breakers and adulterers as well?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So I assume you stone sabbath breakers and adulterers as well?

That was done away in Christ. It doesn't make it a healthy lifestyle though.

Really, and truly. If Yeshua were to come and say, I didn't create you to lie with another man... Would you accept that as God's will? And something to try to live by?

Or would you tell Him, I believe that it is perfectly healthy to His face?

[Calm]

Never mind...a hypothetical I shouldn't ask

Edited September 29, 2016 by Calm

[Sky]

45 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It seems God disagrees.  

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

You must have missed this: 

Quote

Where the Church stands: 

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people.  The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is.  Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.  With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God's children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.  

 

...I feel no love and understanding from you.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Done.

and I see you provide nothing to support your religiously biased "suspicions."

This is not a quid pro quo to induce you to do what honor would require you to do anyway. You made a statement that was flatly and demonstrably false. The only proper course of action was to correct it unconditionally. 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

 

You must have missed this: 

 

...I feel no love and understanding from you.  

Love the sinner, hate the sin. The Lord said lying is an abomination too, but I don't go around killing liars. Sorry you missed that.

Edited September 29, 2016 by RevTestament

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It seems God disagrees.  

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

yup, I am sure that is what god said. There is no way that could just be some ancient scribe talking.  

Edited September 29, 2016 by sunstoned

[maklelan]

I weep for our community.

[rpn]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your last sentence sounds an awful lot like LDS Sunday school and priesthood meetings.  Also it reflects what happens to Latter Day Saints whose thoughtful viewpoints that may differ from church leaders are shared in a public venue. 

Teaching church doctrine and the official view of church doctrine and practice AT CHURCH is not the same as shutting down discussion of such things in the public square.   Of course we don't discuss contrary views of official things in mandatory church meetings: that would confuse members, deprive members of time for learning what the church has determined the Lord wants members to learn during those precious moments.   (And challenging official church positions other than in prayer with God and in the way one lives one's own life or steers their own family, is short sighted and/or unseemly anyway of faithful members.)

But yes, I'd agree that some members do not do their own due diligence to confirm inspiration and leadership counsel through the Holy Ghost.   And I would also agree that some leaders do not fully allow for the discussion leading up to the confirmed by the Holy Ghost decision, that assures God-based decisions in councils.   And all council members both do not seem to acknowledge that when there is dissent, one of three things is happening, one side is wrong (either in believing they have spiritual confirmation, or in understanding what they were inspired), the other side is wrong,  or both's belief they have received spiritual confirmation and understand the inspiration correctly is wrong.   That is why councils are supposed to operate on a consensus basis.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, maklelan said:

I weep for our community.

Am I interpreting this post correctly as showing sympathy and support for our gay brothers and sisters? If so...I applaud your post

[Gray]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

yup, I am sure that is what god said. There is no way that could just be some ancient scribe talking.  

Funny how God always hates the same people that those who decide to speak for God seem to hate. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

The report doesn't say much other than to suggest, "well we don't really know stuff".  We don't know whether being born that way is possible. 

Quote

The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding. The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation.

 

We don't know why there is a higher rate of mental health cases among homosexual people. 

Quote

While non-heterosexual and transgender individuals are often subject to social stressors and discrimination, science has not shown that these factors alone account for the entirety, or even a majority, of the health disparity between non-heterosexual and transgender subpopulations and the general population. There is a need for extensive research in this area to test the social stress hypothesis and other potential explanations for the health disparities, and to help identify ways of addressing the health concerns present in these subpopulations.

Regarding Transgender:

Quote

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. The findings that do exist often have sample-selection problems, and they lack longitudinal perspective and explanatory power. Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

In the end, I don't see the report doing anything near calling "into question some past assumptions on which the gay-rights movement has relied rather heavily but which are lacking in merit."

Additionally, here's what the report says:

Quote

 Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).

 

However, 80% of the adolescent males who had reported same-sex attractions at Wave I later identified themselves as exclusively heterosexual as young adults at Wave IV.130 Similarly, for adolescent males who, at Wave I, reported romantic attraction to both sexes, over 80% of them reported no same-sex romantic attraction at Wave III.131

So we have one study that estimates as many as 80% of MALE adolescents...

Elder Oaks reported:

Quote

They studied 500 scientific studies about the problem were talking about. One of their findings was that when young people are feeling gender confusion when they are young, 80% of them will lurk through that and not have that gender confusion when they’re older. 

 

The Gender confusion part of the report says, regarding 80%:

Quote

Pooling data across studies showed that, after receiving sex-reassignment procedures, 80% of patients reported improvement in gender dysphoria, 78% reported improvement in psychological symptoms, and 80% reported improvement in quality of life.93

It seems Elder Oaks confused some things.  His claim just isn't supported by the report. 

[Johnnie Cake]

I was verbally attacked on this board when I pointed out the obvious flaws in the motivations and bias's of this study when it was first discussed on this board.  So now that it is coming under greater scrutiny and its flawed finding being exposed...can I expect an apology from those who criticized me?  I won't hold my breath. I know the policy of those board members is to not seek apologies nor to give them

[Gray]

From the reactions I have read so far, it seems like this "meta study" was too selective and ignored some of the most recent research on the topic.

But that's no surprise given the political backing behind it. Politics and science do not make good bedfellows. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was verbally attacked on this board when I pointed out the obvious flaws in the motivations and bias's of this study when it was first discussed on this board.  So now that it is coming under greater scrutiny and its flawed finding being exposed...can I expect an apology from those who criticized me?  I won't hold my breath. I know the policy of those board members is to not seek apologies nor to give them

You certainly deserve one.