"Anti-LGBT conservative outlets have been abuzz this week about a new report that seems suspiciously designed to make it look like those who oppose LGBT equality have science on their side.
They don’t."
Right away we have the attempted poisoning of the well, the attempted painting of "conservative outlets" as "anti-lgbt". It never crosses Zack Ford's mind that instead perhaps we're pro-sanity? Pro-not redefining all of society to appease the extreme minority? Perhaps that we're actually pro-science? Nope, in his mind, anyone who isn't all for every single sexual deviancy they come up with, is automatically "anti-lgbt". Children think like this. Children also come up with conspiracy theories to hand wave away facts and reality when it smacks them in the face. Such as here where we open up with painting the science as being "suspiciously designed" and that if you disagree with them you're "anti-lgbt equality". Please name a single point at which anyone in the Rainbow Letter Gang, are somehow unequally treated? Except of course for when they get preferential treatment as a "minority". Now Zack seems to think the science isn't on our side? Let's see if he bothers to expound and prove us incorrect, aside from simple ad hominem attacks on the scientists who wrote the paper, or somehow calling their credibility into question. I'm not holding my breath in case you're wondering.
"The “Sexuality and Gender” special report, published by The New Atlantis, claims to undermine the belief that LGBT people are “born that way.” It purports to be a thorough analysis of the research on LGBT identities that just so happens to lend legitimacy to many of the arguments against affirming LGBT people and protecting them under the law"
And here we are with yet more conspiracy theory jargon. Where, in any place in the entirety of the U. S. of A., are those who claim to be "lgbtqaaip" not equal? He can't come up with anywhere, or he would've cited them in this article. Also, if the science shows that those who claim to be "transgender" are actually mentally ill, or have some other treatable issue that, once treated, can help them live happy and productive lives, why does he fight so hard against it? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the suicide rate go down to zero, or as close as is possible for these people. Yet those who attack the science seem to think that just because we had a 30 year long study proving that mutilating one's body in an effort to make it conform to what you think it should be doesn't lessen the rate of suicide an iota, that doesn't mean we should find an alternative or find the real cause, because that's just "hateful". Let that sink in for a second. Leaving the astronomically high suicide rate where it is, isn't hateful, but looking at the facts and trying to get to the bottom of the problem is. That's called insanity.
"But the report has no new information, no new arguments, and — despite its 143 pages of analysis — is still more notable for what it doesn’t say."
Of course the report doesn't have new information! It wasn't a new study, but a compilation and examination of past studies! Over 200 in fact! The whole point is that while the Rainbow Letter Gang has been running around touting that their position is the scientific one, these scientists actually compiled the science, and showed them they are wrong!
"The report’s conclusions include the following:
•Sexual orientation is not biologically fixed."
Actually, it states there is no "gay gene" so that it cannot be claimed homosexuals are "born that way".
"•Non-heterosexual people seem more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse."
A stat which most of the scientific and mental health community have been saying for decades yet has been largely ignored.
"•Gender identity is not biologically fixed."
Here's a direct quote from the study: "*The suggestion that we are “born that way” is more complex in the case of gender identity. In one sense, the evidence that we are born with a given gender seems well supported by direct observation: males over-whelmingly identify as men and females as women. The fact that children are (with a few exceptions of intersex individuals) born either biologically male or female is beyond debate. The biological sexes play complementary roles in reproduction, and there are a number of population-level average physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. However, while biological sex is an innate feature of human beings, gender identity is a more elusive concept.*" So let's not play at trying to twist what's being said in the study. That's dishonest.
"•Both non-heterosexuals and transgender people experience a higher risk of negative mental health outcomes — and stigma and stress don’t seem to fully explain it."
Again, something the scientific and psychological community have been saying for decades, yet people would rather ignore this fact and continue letting the mass suicides continue!
"•Nothing supports affirming children as transgender."
Again, I just feel like saying "DUH!" It's a well established fact that over 80% of those who claim to be "transgender" outgrow it by the end of puberty.
"In addition to these claims, digging a bit deeper into the report’s origins supports the idea that it’s little more than anti-LGBT propaganda."
You heard it here first folks. Science is now "anti-lgbt propaganda"! Will we see any evidence of this, or is this another conspiracy theory?
"One of its co-authors is Dr. Paul McHugh, the retired Johns Hopkins University professor who is generally the only scientist whom opponents of transgender equality ever cite and who has his own history of overt anti-LGBT bias."
Ok so who had the sixth paragraph in the pool on when they'd run to the ad hominem attacks? Cause you just won the pot! Dr. McHugh's "history of overt bias" stems from the fact that he ended gender reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins when it was finally realized that it wasn't helping the transgender people who would come to them for help! So remember, trying to help and trying to find the proper way to deal with transgenderism is hate and bias, but applauding a ridiculously high suicide rate and affirming that which leads to that suicide is not. Don't bother trying to wrap your head around that. There isn't a shred of logic to be found there. The entire point is, that if "transgenderism" isn't normal, if there is something we can do to help these people, then the entire stance of "equality" goes out the window. Unless you think there needs to be "Body Dysmorphia equality"? Or perhaps "Schizophrenia Equality"? How about "Bulemia and Anorexia Equality"? See how ridiculous it is? Why is it in these cases, the people need help, yet in a related issue, we must simply embrace it and call that "loving"?
"The report was published in The New Atlantis, a journal that is affiliated with the anti-LGBT Ethics and Public Policy Center and prides itself on not being peer-reviewed."
And yet more conspiracy theories and no direct refutation of the science! As well as a dash of guilt by association. Of course as I pointed out before, if the Ethics and Public Policy Center ever disagreed with not completely falling all over themselves to affirm every aspect of the Rainbow Letter Gang, then that's all it takes to be labeled "anti-lgbt" anyway, so this "accusation" holds no weight. You can only play the "bigot" card just so often before you become the boy who cried hate. Oh, and as to it not being peer reviewed, of course not! You said it yourself that there was no new information! They're reviewing the peer reviewed material! A third peer review would be beyond redundant!
"And when it was released on Monday, the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal was ready to promote the report and the fancy featurette video that accompanies it — one that looks suspiciously like plenty of other Heritage-produced videos."
So still no response to the science or the findings, just more conspiracy theories? Isn't it just possible that Daily Signal got wind of it, and reported on it? We've certainly heard almost nothing from what we would consider "mainstream media" about this. A lot of smoke has been thrown up so far, and I'm betting a good deal more is to come. If this keeps up, I may simply end this response early. There's nothing to really respond to if all we have is inane conspiracy theories.
"Moreover, the authors are well aware their conclusions will be perceived as anti-LGBT. “We anticipate that this report may elicit spirited responses, and we welcome them,” they wrote. McHugh’s co-author Lawrence Mayer also explains in his preface that some researchers didn’t want to even be acknowledged in the study because they “feared an angry response from the more militant elements of the LGBT community.”"
Actually this speaks more loudly about the Rainbow Letter Gang than it does about the scientists. So even though these people knew that folks like those at "Think Progress" (though honestly I've seen no thinking AT ALL yet in this article) would react negatively, even to the point that some who helped work on the study didn't want to be named, they still published it any way, and that's somehow a mark against them? They even say they welcome the response! That's what scientists are supposed to say! You welcome the responses and criticisms because it points out any errors in your work, and it can then be corrected! That's the scientific method! That's science! Only a left wing ideologue so deeply buried in their narrative they can't see above it, would claim that scientists welcoming criticism is somehow "anti-lgbt".
"What’s interesting about the report is that most of the analysis is respectable. Mayer and McHugh examine a lot of valid studies and write about them in fair ways, with most of the necessary caveats to avoid distortion."
Remember this in a moment, the fact that Zach admits that the analysis is respectable. He's about to contradict himself again.
"Where it goes wrong is in the research that it omits and the conclusions it draws that seem to completely ignore how LGBT people live their lives, despite claiming not to “discuss matters of morality or policy.”"
Here is a glaring example of emotionalism overriding clear, logical thought. The study looked at over 200 papers! There wasn't anything "omitted" or at least one example would've been cited. Also, how someone lives their life, is irrelevant to science. There's where the emotionalism comes in. It's the "Well I know a transgender person and they're a great person" line. Anecdotal experience is not science. I could easily say the same in reverse. (I actually could. There is a pre-op male to female transgender that lives near me, and while he suffers no bullying, in fact quite the opposite, he freely admits he's extremely unhappy.) The entire idea of avoiding the morality is shown in the very fact that they don't take such anecdotal evidence into account! Zack here is apparently unaware of how science actually works.
"In some places — particularly the case of transgender children — it openly rejects affirmation of LGBT identities, but in many other places it simply lays out all the dots for a reader to connect them that way. As such, instead of serving as any new resource about LGBT lives, the report seems to function more as a litmus test for anti-LGBT bias."
So if one does not start by affirming your position, it's somehow unscientific? That's called begging the question. Again, if this were the case, then an example would've been cited. I'm writing this with the report open in another tab, and referring to it often. As I pointed out before, the vast majority of children who claim to be transgender, outgrow it by the end of puberty. Also, if this study shows that transgenderism is somehow a mental disorder, or like it says, not an inborn trait, then reinforcing the notion of pumping children's growing bodies with dangerous and harmful chemicals, chemicals that shorten their life spans by decades, only to have them grow out of it a few years later is gross misconduct and child abuse! Perhaps the well being of the person should be kept in mind, and not the furthering of a left wing agenda? Instead we see more buzz words like "anti-lgbt bias". Like I said, put the people above the narrative just once!
"The main thrust of the New Atlantis report is the paired questions of whether sexual orientation is a “fixed and innate biological property” and whether gender identity is “fixed at birth or at a very early age.” In a sense, these are straw man questions that Mayer and McHugh set up to knock down, because their answers are not particularly insightful."
Umm that's not a strawman. Zack's characterization of their argument is a strawman. And he seriously work for a "news" agency? Also, simply because he disagrees, doesn't make them "not insightful", it just means Zack couldn't get passed their bias to see the science. By the way, still waiting for the refutation of the scientific information!
"On the question of “sexual orientation,” the authors expound at length about how the very concept is so “ambiguous.” It’s not clear, they argue, whether the term is always being used to describe “sexual desire,” “sexual attraction,” or “sexual arousal,” noting that “sexual orientation and identity are understood not only in scientific and personal terms, but in social, moral, and political terms as well.” That’s true, and likewise, many people’s sexual orientations don’t fit neatly into discrete categories of heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality."
Actually they do, except folks such as Zack seem to be of the mind that there are as many genders and orientations as there are people. All of them fall into one category or another. Either homosexual, or heterosexual. I'll even give you the third option of bisexual. If you are attracted to people of the same gender, its homosexuality. If you're attracted to people of the opposite gender, it's heterosexuality, if you're supposedly attracted to both then it would be bisexuality. There isn't another category, and I would argue that bisexuality would fit more closely in the homosexual category anyway. There is no other option, and that bares out in that again, no examples are given. Even things like "pansexuality" would still fall under the "bisexual" category.
"Despite this ambiguity, the available evidence they provide from twin studies and genetic research nevertheless leads them to the conclusion that a person’s genetics likely does inform their sexual orientation. But, they insist, it just doesn’t tell the full story. For example, it doesn’t explain how sexuality can be fluid over time, nor does it explain one particular study that found that heterosexuality seemed to be more “stable” over time, fluctuating less than other sexualities."
Ah yes, the twin studies. While it's true that fairly often when one twin is homosexual, so is the other. What sinks this as the "silver bullet" for a genetic cause for homosexuality is those instances where the twins are not both homosexual. In fact, this study concludes that while there may be a predisposition towards homosexuality, that it's more likely directly effected by ones environment and experience. This takes it firmly out of the "gay gene" realm. Now as to the idea of other sexualities being "more fluid" it's really quite simple. Heterosexuality is the norm. It is stable because that is how humanity is designed. All other sexualities are a deviation from this normal state, and therefore are unstable by nature. This is borne out even by Zack's own admission to what the study says.
"As Warren Throckmorton points out, they notably omit a massive recent review of research on sexual orientation, which found that generally only women’s sexuality is fluid, and that there is “considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes.” Whereas the researchers behind that massive review concluded that “sexual orientation is an important, fundamental trait that has been understudied because it is politically controversial,” Mayer and McHugh suggest instead downplaying the importance of identifying with sexual orientation:
*We may have some reasons to doubt the common assumption that in order to live happy and flourishing lives, we must somehow discover this innate fact about ourselves that we call sexuality or sexual orientation, and invariably express it through particular patterns of sexual behavior or a particular life trajectory. Perhaps we ought instead to consider what sorts of behaviors — whether in the sexual realm or elsewhere — tend to be conducive to health and flourishing, and what kinds of behaviors tend to undermine a healthy and flourishing life.*
It’s these kinds of dogwhistles that undermine the report’s attempts at impartiality."
Except the study Zack cites says basically the same thing, they simply add more emphasis to twin studies, which as I explained above has a major flaw. Namely that it isn't 100% of twins that will both be homosexual. "*No causal theory of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support. The most scientifically plausible causal hypotheses are difficult to test. However, there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes. This evidence includes the cross-culturally robust finding that adult homosexuality is strongly related to childhood gender nonconformity; moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially “changed” into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females).*"
http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/2/45.full.pdf+htmlf
Add to this, the "dog whistle" comment, and you have all the makings of an article built on confirmation bias. This is a fallacy where one cherry picks ideas or evidence to suit their agenda, while ignoring the rest. I'd like to point out that the single study cited (versus the over 200 by the one in contention) is selected because Zack believes it bolsters his worldview. It does not. Mr. Ford also ignores the point behind the passage (ripped out of context) of the rest of the study. It's saying, "Instead of just blindly accepting that which may be harmful and lead to a miserable life, we need to focus on that which is harmful and attempt to help correct it." Of course Zack is apparently much happier with the idea of astronomical suicide rates and people living vastly diminished and sickly lives, all in the name of "equality". A term that is never actually defined.
"For years, religious conservatives have used “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric to try to distinguish identity from behavior, as if loving a person in spite of their orientation is on par with loving a person, including their orientation. Anyone who believes that people shouldn’t identify with their sexuality or that gay sex is unhealthy will feel affirmed in those beliefs by this conclusion."
How is loving someone enough that you don't want to see them go to hell, rhetoric? If a man is walking blindly off of a cliff, do you let them go and say "It's their choice! I don't want to limit their freedom!" Yet when someone cares enough to call out and say "Hey buddy! There's a cliff there watch out!" You'd say "How dare you deny him his equality!" We also know, based on both the study Mr. Ford is misrepresenting, and the one he cited, the entire spectrum of the Rainbow Letter Gang is not healthy! Incredibly high suicide rates, incredibly high disease rates, incredibly high mental illness rates, etc, etc. If this is healthy, then what do you consider the converse of the lgbtqaaip equation when these things are an outlier as opposed to lgbtqaaip lives where this is the core? Loving a person is being willing to tell them when what they are doing is wrong or dangerous. You don't let children play with matches, you don't let blind men walk near open pits, you don't let people go to hell without at least having heard the truth. The fact that people like the writer of this article are so angry and railing so hard against it, seems to lend weight to the point.
"Another dogwhistle reinforces a trope frequently used by proponents of ex-gay therapy. Mayer and McHugh cite research that shows that LGB people tend to have experienced higher rates of childhood sexual abuse. They then speculate as to whether this suggests that such abuse causes a non-heterosexual orientation, finding no conclusive answer. They don’t bother to mention that such speculation does nothing to explain the majority of LGB people who never experience such abuse."
Here we are again with the conspiracy theories. Using terms like "dog whistle" to try to impugn the people reporting on the facts, and those who attempt to help homosexuals turn from their homosexuality. The fact that it does work (not in every case of course but in some) seems to be irrelevant to the proponents of the Rainbow Letter Gang. I wonder if it ever occurred to Zack if the point isn't in explaining all cases of homosexuality, but those that actually have a correlation to instances of sexual abuse? This never seems to dawn on him. The fact that they report they found no direct link and admit such, seems to also be irrelevant. Why mention a possible causal link between homosexuality and sexual abuse in those who are not sexually abused? Especially when you've just admitted there is insufficient evidence to support the idea? How is this admission a "dog whistle"?
"Likewise, Mayer and McHugh show absolutely no evidence that there is any way to manipulate people’s sexual orientation, either as children or adults, openly acknowledging that it’s not a choice and not even mentioning ex-gay therapy. But that doesn’t stop them from insinuating otherwise:
*The most commonly accepted view in popular discourse we mentioned above — the “born that way” notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically innate or the product of very early developmental factors — has led many non-specialists to think that homosexuality or heterosexuality is in any given person unchangeable and determined entirely apart from choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts. However, as the following discussion of the relevant scientific literature shows, this is not a view that is well-supported by research.*"
They show absolutely no evidence huh? Too bad Zack stopped his quote right before the research was cited! "*For example, in 2000, psychologist J. Michael
Bailey and colleagues conducted a major study of sexual orientation using
twins in the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
Twin Registry, a large probability sample, which was therefore more
likely to be representative of the general population than Kallmann’s.33
The study employed the Kinsey scale to operationalize sexual orientation
and estimated concordance rates for being homosexual of 20% for men
and 24% for women in identical (maternal, monozygotic) twins, compared
to 0% for men and 10% for women in non-identical (fraternal, dizygotic)
twins.34 The difference in the estimated concordance rates was statisti-
cally significant for men but not for women. On the basis of these findings,
the researchers estimated that the heritability of homosexuality for men
was 0.45 with a wide 95% confidence interval of 0.00–0.71; for women,
it was 0.08 with a similarly wide confidence interval of 0.00–0.67. These
estimates suggest that for males 45% of the differences between certain
sexual orientations (homosexual versus heterosexuals as measured by the
Kinsey scale) could be attributed to differences in genes.
The large confidence intervals in the study by Bailey and colleagues
mean that we must be careful in assessing the substantive significance of
these findings. The authors interpret their findings to suggest that “any
major gene for strictly defined homosexuality has either low penetrance
or low frequency,”35 but their data did show (marginal) statistical signifi-
cance. While the concordance estimates seem somewhat high in the mod-
els used, the confidence intervals are so wide that it is difficult to judge
the reliability, including the replicability, of these estimates.*" And this was just in the first couple of paragraphs after he decided to end his quotation. They even used the debunked "Kinsey Scale" giving an even greater advantage to the proponents of sexual deviancy! (http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/23/0956797615598617.abstract)
There are more instances of dishonesty of course but the existence of one example is enough (if the rest of the article wasn't) to show us all we need to know about the writer of this article. He is untruthful. No that's too lenient. Zack is an outright liar peddling false information under the guise of journalism to promote his social justice worldview, and to defend his homosexuality! Sorry Zack, we're not buying it! I gave the link to Zack's original piece for those who wish to torture themselves further. I'll leave you with this screenshot of Zack's Facebook post promoting his "article", and an excerpt from his blog. I'll point out one thing; the "I read it so you don't have to" line is in short deceptive. I'll tell you straight out, read his article, read both studies I linked to, make your own decision. I won't demean your intelligence and hope to blow a smokescreen. That line is designed to stop thought, not encourage it. If Zack truly believed that the study was faulty, or created a false narrative, he'd have you running to the study instead of cherry picking quotes out of context, and then telling you not to check for yourselves. Don't take my word for it, I urge you to read for yourselves. God bless!
"People who blog anonymously or write anonymous letters but expect to be taken seriously do not get a whole lot of respect from me, because it seems to me they are more or less cowards." (http://zackfordblogs.com/whoiszackford/)
There's a reason many of us blog anonymously Zack, and its because people like you have no compunction about doc dropping and fomenting hatred and attacks against us. You can find me on G+ with the same handle, as anyone can, and you'll notice I leave my comments section open. Feel free to drop by for a free journalism lesson and a strong does of the Gospel!
**UPDATE**
It had occurred to me while writing this that someone had recently interviewed Mr. Ford on a similar issue, and pointed out his hypocrisy and errors quite well. I found it in the form of a Steven Crowder clip on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=22Hg2zRCRYg
No comments:
Post a Comment