Recent study on gender and sexuality....

[Curious_About_Everything]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I don't in this case. The belief that homosexuality per se is sinful has caused a lot of evil in the world. 

There are many beliefs that bring happiness and joy.  There are many beliefs that bring pain and suffering.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

I have not responded or reacted.  I have voiced no thoughts.  I have written no letters.

If I join an organization of my own free will, if I willingly consent to abide by the current and future policies set forth by the governing body of said organization, should I respond or react to the changes made by the leadership in any other way except what I agreed to do?

If I ask you to allow me into your home and you agree.  If you ask me to follow the current and futute rules of your home and I agree.

What response can I make to you when you change the rules?

How can I react in any other way besides compliance based on my agreement to do exactly that?

Okay.  I think I got ya.  In my view changes will always come.  Might as well be a part of it and see if I can help foster good changes. 

 

[Curious_About_Everything]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Okay.  I think I got ya.  In my view changes will always come.  Might as well be a part of it and see if I can help foster good changes. 

 

It has been said that change is the only constant in life.

If I am asked to partipicate in making changes to the system, then I have been given the green light to respond, react, and as you put it, "foster good changes."  Until then, I am bound by my agreement to abide.

Note:  There is another option.  If I have chosen to be part of an organization that is changing in ways that I disagree with and no longer desire to follow...

...I can change my membership to a different organization that I do agree with.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

It has been said that change is the only constant in life.

If I am asked to partipicate in making changes to the system, then I have been given the green light to respond, react, and as you put it, "foster good changes."  Until then, I am bound by my agreement to abide.

Note:  There is another option.  If I have chosen to be part of an organization that is changing in ways that I disagree with and no longer desire to follow...

...I can change my membership to a different organization that I do agree with.

of course.

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, maklelan said:

I have to say I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the engagement with this editorial has pretty much unilaterally ignored the actual substance of the editorial in favor of attempting to support or undermine its contribution purely on the grounds of affiliations, assumed biases, proportions of faculty represented, and the specific nature of that representation. 

Can you summarize the editorial for me, because I have read it many times and I fail to see much substantive disagreement with the actual content of the study.  All I see is criticism that the study didn't include two studies(the authors are mentioned, but he title of the studies or where to find them are absent), but It is unclear how that would alter the conclusions of the original study.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Danzo

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, maklelan said:

I have to say I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the engagement with this editorial has pretty much unilaterally ignored the actual substance of the editorial in favor of attempting to support or undermine its contribution purely on the grounds of affiliations, assumed biases, proportions of faculty represented, and the specific nature of that representation. 

My intent has been to challenge the message implied initially in the OP and in some posts on the other thread that the opinion piece amounts to the university as an institution and its faculty as a unified body denouncing/disavowing/discrediting the report. It, of course, does not, and that false impression needed to be corrected. As I said, let's keep this in perspective.

BlueDreams, for one, has addressed the substance of the editorial, saying it doesn't specifically disagree with much that's in the report.

Edited to add:

I see that Danzo has done that as well. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My intent has been to challenge the message implied initially in the OP and in some posts on the other thread that the opinion piece amounts to the university as an institution and its faculty as a unified body denouncing/disavowing/discrediting the report. It, of course, does not, and that false impression needed to be corrected. As I said, let's keep this in perspective.

BlueDreams, for one, has addressed the substance of the editorial, saying it doesn't specifically disagree with much that's in the report.

Edited to add:

I see that Danzo has done that as well. 

Just to be clear the main complaints found in the op ed piece is that the report did not take into account certain studies that pre-date it--and it names a couple.  Also, that the report was not peer reviewed, and was published in such a way as to avoid peer review.  It's contention is the report is not representative of the current science on the topic. 

I don't see where BlueDreams nor Danzo did anything of the sort.  no offense to either of them, but I don't think either even tried. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just to be clear the main complaints found in the op ed piece is that the report did not take into account certain studies that pre-date it--and it names a couple.  Also, that the report was not peer reviewed, and was published in such a way as to avoid peer review.  It's contention is the report is not representative of the current science on the topic. 

I don't see where BlueDreams nor Danzo did anything of the sort.  no offense to either of them, but I don't think either even tried. 

On the contrary, both mentioned that the report had not considered some studies. 

But you can take that up with them if they are willing. I have explained my intent, which is to set the record straight as to whether the op-ed writers can be regarded as speaking for the university and/or the faculty as a body. Others have addressed the content of the piece. They may not have done it to your liking, but they have done so nonetheless. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, both mentioned that the report had not considered some studies. 

Fair enough.  I went back and found BlueDreams post wherein she addresses the op-ed.  I don't disagree with her.  But I'm not sure she said anything about the report not considering some studies.  Ah well.  It might be in a different post. 

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you can take that up with them if they are willing. I have explained my intent, which is to set the record straight as to whether the op-ed writers can be regarded as speaking for the university and/or the faculty as a body. Others have addressed the content of the piece. They may not have done it to your liking, but they have done so nonetheless. 

I'm confused.   Your point seems to do nothing more than refuting Elder Oaks who claimed the report was from Johns Hopkins University.  it wasn't.  The op-ed was written by faculty claiming to speak for other faculty.  Are you saying they didn't speak for other faculty?  I don't see a claim that it is a consensus among all the faculty at the school though.  But I hardly see any other faculty from the school objecting to what the od-ed said.  Do you? 

[Danzo]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Just to be clear the main complaints found in the op ed piece is that the report did not take into account certain studies that pre-date it--and it names a couple.  Also, that the report was not peer reviewed, and was published in such a way as to avoid peer review.  It's contention is the report is not representative of the current science on the topic. 

I don't see where BlueDreams nor Danzo did anything of the sort.  no offense to either of them, but I don't think either even tried. 

The editorial doesn't make clear what the factual disagreements are.

They just say there are two authors that weren't included.  It doesn't say how those author's conclusions differ.  It doesn't even  say what the titles of these studies are, where to find the studies.  To me, anyway it looks as if the authors of the editorial didn't put much time in to it and just wanted to make it known that they don't like it.

If the study is so flawed, it should be a fairly simple matter to point out the study's flaws and dispute its conclusions with their new contrary evidence. 

The editorial doesn't seem to even attempt that. 

All it's saying is that they support LGBT rights (something the study's authors claim as well).

They also seem to treat LGBT as one thing by saying that there is nothing wrong with it when, at least for the "T", there is a DSM diagnosis and extensive treatment that is often prescribed.   Its hard to believe that something normal would require an array of drugs, counseling, surgery, etc.

 

 

 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A suspicion, by definition, is not something that can at present be documented. It is an expression of opinion, a conjecture, a hypothesis, if you will, that has not yet been documented.

So for you to issue a CFR on an expression of opinion is absurd. I am the reference for my own opinion.

But I can tell you why I have the suspicion I do.

One of the three authors of this opinion piece (and that's all it is, not a scholarly paper) is a "professor of public health and human rights." Another served on something called "the Institute of Medicine Committee on LGBT Health Issues." This tells me that their strident opposition to the published report just might have as much or more to do with political agenda as anything else. They of course have a right to their political opinion, but let's not confuse that opinion with medical science when there is no justification for doing so.

And as I pointed out earlier, there is the approving reference to the threat made against the university by the Human Rights Campaign, a strident gay activist pressure group.

Furthermore, I'm fairly confident the heart's desire of these authors would be to foster a groundswell of opposition from the Johns Hopkins faculty as well as institutionally from the Johns Hopkins administration. After the study has been in the public eye for several weeks now, I don't see such a groundswell coming forth. I see instead a newspaper opinion piece by three disgruntled "authors" from the faculty with a half-dozen "contributors" (whatever that's supposed to mean). 

This lack of groundswell strikes me as remarkable. Hence, I have my suspicion.

And by the way, insisting people "keep quiet" because some don't like the opinions they express could silence a lot of contributors here, not the least of which is you.

Scott

The post I made for which you provided a response to above was out of line by me and rude. And you last sentence above is absolutely correct.  I apologize for that entire post to you that again, was very rude.  I know we can cross swords a lot but rude behavior should be avoided. I hope you can except my apology.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Curious_About_Everything said:

There are many beliefs that bring happiness and joy.  There are many beliefs that bring pain and suffering.

And both varieties can be equally true.
Sometimes truth hurts.

[Curious_About_Everything]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And both varieties can be equally true.
Sometimes truth hurts.

We cannot experience the power of healing until we drink from the bitter cup.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Scott

The post I made for which you provided a response to above was out of line by me and rude. And you last sentence above is absolutely correct.  I apologize for that entire post to you that again, was very rude.  I know we can cross swords a lot but rude behavior should be avoided. I hope you can except my apology.

 

Thanks. That took a lot of class.

 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I went back and found BlueDreams post wherein she addresses the op-ed.  I don't disagree with her.  But I'm not sure she said anything about the report not considering some studies.  Ah well.  It might be in a different post. 

I have. Mostly in the previous thread. I've noted several times that it's difficult to know how many studies were included in the report in the first place, what was the methodology to collecting them or including them in the study, etc. I have no clue how many studies they looked at. If I was a researcher (I don't ever want to be one) the idea to this report would actually be quite fun to dig around with. What does the research and studies and surveys actually say is usually more complicated and less certain than we like to believe when it comes to social sciences. Anything about social trends really.  

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  I felt it important to point out that what he said was from the report was not in the report.  Anyone can justify it or give him a pass.  That's not really the point I raised. 

And it's true the point he raised was without much point at all.  As I said, I'm not sure why he made it an issue that the media didn't report on something.  It certainly wasn't the credible study he had thought, though.  It seemed from many vantage points to be a very political report.  And to me it came off as a rather prepared portion of what he said.  But it failed because he got everything about it wrong, basically. 

I felt it needed to point out  positive growth. Honestly the picking apart of his statement (not just by you) feels a lot like nit-picking. The basic point that I think he was making was that our feelings and ways of managing them can change over time and to not get too caught up in the moment of crisis or conflict or whatever else. If someone were to look at my life trajectory at 13, it would look pretty bleak. That's not at all what happened. This wasn't an official statement (which I would guess if it were, Oaks would be more methodical in making sure he had details right...I had to look back as well to make sure the points I made were correct, and I'm more likely to catch onto the details because I have studied this a bit more than the average (or lawyer) joe) and the overall context of what Oaks was saying is actually fairly positive. If I had to take a shot in the dark, his pointing out the media stuff may have something to do with the feeling that only certain things that fit our social trends would be considered news worthy. I think there's some fairly solid reasons why this didn't grow in coverage (it's not in an official publication, it's a report, it's methodology is unknown, and yes, it runs counter to the main viewpoint and can be used irresponsibly by others to continue prejudiced attitudes) but that's me. I also think that we do need to have a more complicated view on sexuality and gender. There are problems in varying camps, but because of the politics and the social pressures, picking at these views can be deemed almost dangerous.

Also, It did not come off to me as a prepared portion. I've said similar stuff rambling off basic stats to my clients with just about as much confidence to my clients all the time. I know I at times get numbers wrong even though the basic point is still correct. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I went back and found BlueDreams post wherein she addresses the op-ed.  I don't disagree with her.  But I'm not sure she said anything about the report not considering some studies.  Ah well.  It might be in a different post. 

 

Have you read all of her posts? She wrote more than one.

Quote

I'm confused.   Your point seems to do nothing more than refuting Elder Oaks who claimed the report was from Johns Hopkins University.  it wasn't. 

I responded to rockpond about this on the other thread. Saying, "There's a study out of XYZ University that shows such and such" strikes me as commonly accepted shorthand for saying, "Researchers at XYZU have done a study showing thus and such." I'm not certain everyone typically jumps to the conclusion that a university automatically endorses the findings of every project done by one or more of its professors or researchers. So I'm willing to give Elder Oaks a charitable, benefit-of-the-doubt reading of his statement. Obviously, some are not. To each his own.

Quote

The op-ed was written by faculty claiming to speak for other faculty.  Are you saying they didn't speak for other faculty? 

I've read the op-ed piece multiple times now, and I don't see where it states the authors are speaking for other faculty at the school. In fact, what is written there seems to contradict that conclusion:

Quote

The views expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Johns Hopkins University.

This states that the piece only reflects the views of the three faculty members given as authors.
It doesn't even say it reflects the views of the six persons who are listed as "contributors." Presumably it does, but the op-ed piece doesn't say so. All we can definitively conclude from what is that this is a piece written by three specific authors at Johns Hopkins and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the university or anyone else at the university.

Quote

 

I don't see a claim that it is a consensus among all the faculty at the school though.  But I hardly see any other faculty from the school objecting to what the od-ed said.  Do you? 

 

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. We have no way to ascertain that at this point.

My hunch is that most of them don't care much about it one way or the other. I'm not in the habit of expressing views on matters I don't care about. Are you?

I do find it noteworthy that, after several weeks of the report having been in the news, only three definitively and possibly as many as nine out 580 faculty members at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine alone, not to mention the rest of the university faculty, have bothered to raise a public fuss about it.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I went back and found BlueDreams post wherein she addresses the op-ed.  I don't disagree with her.  But I'm not sure she said anything about the report not considering some studies.  Ah well.  It might be in a different post. 

Blue Dreams critiqued the research review/study awhile back on a different thread (a couple of posts over a week or two, I can't remember if she finished as she was doing it in parts, though I think she did).  She mentioned some shortcomings in those posts, including that she believed that it hadn't covered all the relevant material, iirc.

add-on:  I see she was able to respond for herself.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Blue Dreams critiqued the research review/study awhile back on a different thread (a couple of posts over a week or two, I can't remember if she finished as she was doing it in parts, though I think she did).  She mentioned some shortcomings in those posts, including that she believed that it hadn't covered all the relevant material, iirc.

She also said so in this thread.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

She also said so in this thread.

I haven't read everything in this thread myself, I suspect, or if I read it, it may not have taken.  Been very interrupted the past couple of days.

add-on:  if I take BD's posts as a measure, I missed about a day's worth for one reason or another.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Calm

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I have. Mostly in the previous thread. I've noted several times that it's difficult to know how many studies were included in the report in the first place, what was the methodology to collecting them or including them in the study, etc. I have no clue how many studies they looked at. If I was a researcher (I don't ever want to be one) the idea to this report would actually be quite fun to dig around with. 

I wondered that as well.  One of the authors mentioned that he had carefully read 500+ articles and perused another 100 or so, but the list of citations is only 373 (IIRC).  Of those, many are repeats and/or popular press magazine articles.  I would be surprised if there were 200 cited studies.  It's mentioned that they discarded studies that didn't meet their loosely defined criteria. However, I don't recall discussion of the methods used to distinguish the studies they used vs the studies they threw out.  Their methodology was not well explained. That being said... this is not my discipline, and I'm not sure how the style and structure of this paper compares to to other papers in this particular field of study.

-cacheman