Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[SteveO]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Question is who's God is right?  Give me some evidence that your God is correct on this issue and I will pay some attention. Your own personal metaphysical experiences don't count here.

I almost hesitate to ask...so what is the definitive authority for you then?  Science?

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well, Gee I wish we could look 50 years into the future and see if our prophets today were wrong; but right now it's all we have to go on if we want to remain faithful Later-day Saints. I am willing to bet there will be no change on this subject;
it's something that is too far set in the stone. 

The scriptures, properly understood, already give us all the principles needed to conclude that gay marriage is proper and godly. 

[Curious_About_Everything]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you're looking to get at the intended meaning of the authors, you need to start by dropping the literalist approach. The closest you will get to authorial intent will be through academic Biblical studies. 

However, the authors were a bunch of human beings, as fallible as you and me. So there is no need to limit the way we interpret scripture to just authorial intent. 

With no limits on how we interpret scripture, what happens when interpretations clash?

Your version says <insert personal interpretation>.

My version says <something different>.

Are we both correct?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Flexible said:

Yes, and we all know how tolerant BYU iwould be of publicly-expressed faculty dissent in support of Grant Palmer.  Good grief. 

BYU didn't initiate this statement. It was the members of the Smith Institute, any of whom could have declined to sign on to it with no repercussions. None did. 

Good grief yourself. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

The scriptures, properly understood, already give us all the principles needed to conclude that gay marriage is proper and godly. 

??????

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, maklelan said:

My well thought-out and fact based approach was when I shared the link in the OP last night in the original thread on the original article. My comment here reflects how sad I am to see so much wriggling around the data and making excuses to try to maintain this flawed notion that LGBT are less than and other. It is tragic.

so it was just a comment on other comments.

 

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The evangelicals per se did not come up with the curse of Cain doctrine - as a movement they're relatively young. But their predecessors did.

From the essay:

 

 

Well, believe it or not, I still hear that justification used from time to time--even among BYU students when I went there. 

I see the explanation as a result of ignorant church members--not something that necessarily influenced the leadership in making the policy.  I see the priesthood ban as a way to placate the vast majority of membership unable to see blacks as their equal in the priesthood.  A sop to human weakness.

Are you saying the current stance of the brethren with regards to gender and sexuality is an effort to placate the "intolerant" general church membership not ready for such liberal change?

[Curious_About_Everything]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

The scriptures, properly understood, already give us all the principles needed to conclude that gay marriage is proper and godly. 

What scriptures are you referring to?  What verses in which books support your conclusion?

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's already been pointed out that the report was not from Johns Hopkins. 

Thanks. One quick clarification on the recording. I don't think it's "lurk through" that he said, but "work through."

I'm not super worried about getting a couple of details wrong. Since it's off the cuff, I'm assuming he didn't have the study right in front of him and if he hadn't read it recently (read, the day before) a lot of the details are bound to get fuzzy. 

I'm more curious about the 500 studies assertion. I didn't know while reading the report how many studies they were covering, how they chose them, etc. So if it were 500 studies or 50 or any form of methodology I would love to know. 

That said, the basic gist of what Elder Oaks said isn't all that bad. Still awkward (As I think Christofferson said, they still need more study in this and their dialogue can sometimes show that). For one, when people/leaders have used comparisons, they've often used ones that are negative in context. Such as comparing drinking, addictions, random sins, etc to SSA. When he used a comparison he used one that was actually positively innocuous: Texans. Ok, maybe some find that negative, but I'm glad to see people move away from a negative association to a more neutral one that assumes general diversity in experience instead of very negative associations. The other is that he started with iterating that no matter what path one went down, whatever differences are there, etc one shouldn't interact in a way that allienates or divides others from their lives. The first chunk is that we all have challenges (again his examples were diverse and not innately a critique/assumption of challenges that have a great deal of personal choice), that whatever these are, they're not meant to divide us but to make agentic decisions (I think he specifically said, make choices in the light of the circumstances that we're in). He also stated that anything that separates us from loving one another is not pleasing to our heavenly father. He also stated "Don't stop loving, helping, and associating (?) with one another, whatever the nature of the challenge." And that for all of us, our primary identity is child of God and that another identity shouldn't take precedence over that...at least that's what I got from it.

Much of the general stuff he stated, I agree with. But this is probably off topic for the actual point of the thread. 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 29, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Danzo]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

 

 

I am sorry, but this statement is where the authors of the study lose their credibility.

They try and lump everything in to one group. when they are separate conditions. To me this shows that this article is not at all interested in educating or clarifying, or adding to our knowledge.

Gender dysphoria  (the "T" in LGBTQ) apears to be listed as a diagnosis for the APA.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet.pdf

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, maklelan said:

Yes, that is correct. So much misunderstanding and judgment is tragic.

Well I've often been on the opposite side of positions that you've taken online both on this and other boards maklelan, but today I'm glad that we stand together on this issue

[BlueDreams]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am sorry, but this statement is where the authors of the study lose their credibility.

They try and lump everything in to one group. when they are separate conditions. To me this shows that this article is not at all interested in educating or clarifying, or adding to our knowledge.

Gender dysphoria  (the "T" in LGBTQ) apears to be listed as a diagnosis for the APA.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet.pdf

Gender dysphoria and Transgender identity are not one and the same. There are those who may be transgender who do not have psychological distress over their bodies and able to function healthily in their lives. They would be transgender but not having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria must have a marked level of psychological distress that impairs functioning. The differences between gender dysphoria and transgender identity is similar to an apple and fruit. Apples are a type of fruit but not all fruits are apples. gender Dysmorphia may be a part of some transgendered people's experience. But not all transgendered people have gender dysmorphia.

It's also one of the more contested diagnoses. It may not make it the next time they decide to adjust DSM.

With luv,

BD

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Gender dysphoria and Transgender identity are not one and the same. There are those who may be transgender who do not have psychological distress over their bodies and able to function healthily in their lives. They would be transgender but not having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria must have a marked level of psychological distress that impairs functioning. The differences between gender dysphoria and transgender identity is similar to an apple and fruit. Apples are a type of fruit but not all fruits are apples. gender Dysmorphia may be a part of some transgendered people's experience. But not all transgendered people have gender dysmorphia.

It's also one of the more contested diagnoses. It may not make it the next time they decide to adjust DSM.

With luv,

BD

I can't imagine it going anywhere

If there is nothing wrong, why have treatment?

If there is no diagnosis, who will pay for the treatment?

to quote from the DSM 

" To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group was concerned that removing the condition as a psychiatric diagnosis—as some had suggested—would jeopardize access to care."  http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet.pdf

 

Always follow the money.

[BlueDreams]

Kay, I read the op-ed.

My first sense that this isn't actually addressing the report seems accurate. There are a number of points that the report doesn't necessarily disagrees with. Mainly:

- LGBT are not in and of themself dysfunctions or diagnosable problems in and of themselves and can be consistent with being healthy and well. 

- LGBT are subject to discrimination

- Importance of serving the health needs of LGBT communities

- The need for scientific debate.

I softly disagree with calling psychology and psychiatry a science in the way that they do...because it sounds like it's putting it in the same area as medical science. Psychiatry somewhat is. But psychology is a social science. And it's very much susceptible to social trends, personal biases, etc in our interpretations and data.

At one point it feels like they're more concerned about being reviewed by the HRC more so than they are the report. 

The title to the article itself is slightly sensational, in the sense that it's really some of the faculty, not all and probably not even close to a majority....though I'm sure there are others there that also would agree with the Op-ed.   

Lastly, I really really wish there was even a minimal indicator as to how the report chose its studies to review. I think it's a fair point that the Op-ed gives about missing research. But I'm not an expert in the research available and I have no clue how they chose the research. It's the one thing about the report that's really starting to bother me. Beyond that, I've said my piece about the report early.

 

With luv,

BD

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Well, Gee I wish we could look 50 years into the future and see if our prophets today were wrong; but right now it's all we have to go on if we want to remain faithful Later-day Saints. I am willing to bet there will be no change on this subject;
it's something that is too far set in the stone. 

The scriptures, properly understood, already give us all the principles needed to conclude that gay marriage is proper and godly. 

So you are saying our Church prophets do not understand the sciptures properly?                    OK. 

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I can't imagine it going anywhere

If there is nothing wrong, why have treatment?

If there is no diagnosis, who will pay for the treatment?

to quote from the DSM 

" To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group was concerned that removing the condition as a psychiatric diagnosis—as some had suggested—would jeopardize access to care."  http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet.pdf

 

Always follow the money.

This is a constant problem. Medical insurance and clinical therapy is often at odds. The amount of therapy covered for most is brief therapy and broad, specific issues such as depression, anxiety, drug addiction, etc. Couples/family therapy is often not covered as is sex therapy, etc. Which happens to be most of my clients. To get around it, you need another diagnoses as the primary concern that fits into the categories that are more accepted as needing treatment. Luckily, these usually fit. It would basically be the same as what happens with LGB. Someone who is gay may be depressed because they are struggling with the sexual identity and that's the root to much of their depression. But that's not what therapists, clients, etc are going to have it billed as. It's going to be billed as depression. 

The bigger concern is that many of the transgendered community are below the poverty level or have experienced homelessness. As an underprivileged and very unprotected group that are likely to have several mental health concerns, the diagnoses is probably not going to be removed in the next decade. But in 20...30...40 years. Who knows. LGB also faced a number of similar concerns but were removed as a diagnosis. Of course the mode of healing, treatment, may drastically, as Trans populations may likely seek hormone or surgical treatment as well as talk therapy. LGB do not have an equivalent.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Flexible said:

Yes, and we all know how tolerant BYU iwould be of publicly-expressed faculty dissent in support of Grant Palmer.  Good grief. 

They didn't have to say anything at all, but just ignore him.

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

All scriptures are culturally conditioned, reacting to conditions in the time and place they were written. There's a reason also that scriptures don't talk about getting into doctrinal discussions on internet forums - it's the same reason why scriptures are silent on gay marriage. 

Okay, so truth is relative and it's whatever any individual wants it to be.

[Judd]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I softly disagree with calling psychology and psychiatry a science in the way that they do...because it sounds like it's putting it in the same area as medical science. Psychiatry somewhat is. But psychology is a social science. And it's very much susceptible to social trends, personal biases, etc in our interpretations and data.

Psychiatry and medical science certainly are quite susceptible to social trends, personal biases, incorrect interpretations/conclusions, among others.

[Judd]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

All scriptures are culturally conditioned, reacting to conditions in the time and place they were written. There's a reason also that scriptures don't talk about getting into doctrinal discussions on internet forums - it's the same reason why scriptures are silent on gay marriage. 

I'm understanding you to say that scriptures spoke to a day and age that has since passed on. Does that leave us, here, today, left simply with their words, written in their weakness and within their culture, trying to align them with our current cultural climate?

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

With no limits on how we interpret scripture, what happens when interpretations clash?

Your version says <insert personal interpretation>.

My version says <something different>.

Are we both correct?

If your interpretation leads you to be more loving as a human being, then you did something right. 

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They didn't have to say anything at all, but just ignore him.

Ok. I see that now. Thanks. 

[CMZ]

Love may consist of helping others to keep the commandments.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

Well, believe it or not, I still hear that justification used from time to time--even among BYU students when I went there. 

I see the explanation as a result of ignorant church members--not something that necessarily influenced the leadership in making the policy.  I see the priesthood ban as a way to placate the vast majority of membership unable to see blacks as their equal in the priesthood.  A sop to human weakness.

Are you saying the current stance of the brethren with regards to gender and sexuality is an effort to placate the "intolerant" general church membership not ready for such liberal change?

I don't think the priesthood ban was an attempt to placate membership. If anything it only fostered greater racism in the church.

Regarding your last question, no, I don't think that's happening. At some point we uncritically adopted the position of the fundamentalists in our attitude toward gay people. It has and will continue to cost us dearly. 

[Flexible]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

BYU didn't initiate this statement. It was the members of the Smith Institute, any of whom could have declined to sign on to it with no repercussions. None did. 

Good grief yourself. 

Ok. Understood. Good night Charlie Brown.