Monday, November 28, 2005

An Optimistic Monday Post-Holiday Wrap-Up

Right now the MCPS health classes under contention are being developed by school district staff. Sounds like they've got some good people working on it, we're not worried about what they'll produce. The world being what it is, I imagine the new curricula will undergo an extra layer of review by the legal team. We hope that the school board has the fortitude to trust their experts without making any political adjustments to the course content.

The new citizens advisory committee will meet for the first time in a couple of weeks. I'm on that committee, and will try to walk a fine line blogging about the process while participating in it. The goal is to help the committee come to a consensus on a good curriculum, and blogging of course is secondary to that. That doesn't mean I can't talk about it, it just means that I may not say every little thought that comes into my head. If you know what I mean.

The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, it seems to me, are running out of steam. They made a mistake last week by holding a meeting and having their featured speaker undermine the nutty parts of their agenda. The fact is, if you put the research on the table and look at it, there's nothing there to support their extreme opinions. When they invited Warren Throckmorton to speak at their "informational meeting," I think they expected him to support them, but he was very careful not to. Yes, he leans a certain way that favors them, but he was very careful in his wording, and frequently mentioned that you can't go beyond the research, and that if you don't have scientific evidence for something, you shouldn't teach it in school: our view, exactly. We may discuss how to interpret medical and scientific research, and we might not agree on everything, but this is no place to float off into theological judgments and speculations.

It appears to me that the CRC seems to be fracturing into the True Believers, who want to press forward their self-righteous ideological agenda no matter what, and those who are simply conservative. You can't talk to the True Believers, that's not what they do. They live in an all or nothing world, and to tell you the truth, they had their chance and blew it.

Other members of the group seem to be people who have conservative views. These are simply parents who are concerned about raising their kids too fast and exposing them to too much at too young an age. Some may want to protect their children from worldly influences or demeaning popular culture, and some are just a little modest about talking about sex.

And you know, the members of our group feel that way, too, we worry about what our kids are picking up. I wouldn't let my kid watch certain TV shows until he got big enough to take the remote control away from me by force, I just thought it was a bad influence. We all have some boundaries, and as the school district develops a curriculum and the citizens committee evaluates it, we should be grown-up enough to shift those boundaries back and forth. Some of us will insist on getting all the facts, and on being fair and respectful to the sexual minorities in our society. Others will insist on emphasizing the risks of sexual behaviors and on making sure teenagers aren't given the idea that casual sex is just fine if you wear a condom. Cool, let's talk about it and figure out how to do all that, or get as close as we can. We all want the same thing, we just emphasize different parts of it.

The history of this is that the CRC began as an attempt to recall the entire school board over the new curriculum that was adopted last November. After the 2004 elections, they thought they had a mandate. But over the months we -- and others in the community -- have consistently and firmly pointed out the ugliness of their message, the lies, the inconsistencies. In desperation they pulled off a last-minute legal maneuver that had the result of causing the school district to start over again. It was a cheap shot, they baffled the judge about what was in the curriculum and what was in some teachers' background resources, won a 10-day temporary restraining order, and then negotiated a deal with the school district to prevent further lawsuits. It was a very weak outcome to a long and contentious controversy. They got what they wanted, that is, the blocked the curriculum, but in doing it they lost what community support they might have had, and demonstrated that they could not win on the strengths of their arguments, but only by legal chicanery.

I expect the CRC will sue again, they've told the papers they would, and it's all they've got left. They have refused to comply with the school board's rules for applying to the citizens advisory committee, and want to put an ineligible person on it. They have actually said that they shouldn't have to follow the board's rules, only the terms of their legal agreement.

If they want to participate in the process of curriculum development, then they need to be willing to negotiate and compromise. If they want to hold the line on their nuttier ideas, and here I am thinking of the business about "ex-gays," then they will not be seen as participating in the process, but trying to wreck it. That won't surprise anybody, but it will not work for them, either.

Quickly, the "ex-gay" thing, for those who have not followed this discussion. There is a clever strategy by the religious right to claim as a fact that gay people can be converted to heterosexuals through prayer and psychotherapy. They like to call these people "ex-gays," and then pretend that this group of people are being discriminated against. In this case, they say you should "teach both sides," you should teach about gays and "ex-gays."

Well, it is not really clear that anybody has ever really changed their sexual orientation. You only know from self-report, a person is what they say they are, and most of the people who say they are "ex-gays" are religious activists who have a lot to gain by claiming to have changed, both financially and personally. If anybody has changed, there are not very many of them; it is an insignificant phenomenon.

The concept is a tool for evangelizing, for bringing religious ideas into the classroom. You won't find anybody who talks about "ex-gays" as a secular concept, there is no scientific support for the phenomenon. There is no place for this topic in the classrooms of Montgomery County, and I'm sorry, but if they insist on this kind of silliness they will be shot down again and again.

But if they want to actually develop a curriculum for our kids, to negotiate, persuade with reason and evidence, and compromise, I for one welcome that. With recent developments, I think we are coming to this point. The radicals are losing their place, their extreme views have failed to convince anyone. I am hoping that the moderate ones, the conservative ones, the ones who are willing to open a dialogue, will come to the front now, and we can move forward cooperatively.

198 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There has still not been produced on this website any evidence that:

1. Homoesxuality is not a disease

2. Homoesxuality is not a choice

3. Homoesxuality cannot be changed

All I ever see is a bunch of name-calling and sweeping claims without any substantiation.

November 28, 2005 10:24 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, that's the consensus in the medical and psychological communities at this time. The burden is on your side to show why it should be considered a disease, to show that sexual orientation is a choice (good luck with that one!), and that it can be changed.

C'mon, man, that should be easy, right?

JimK

November 28, 2005 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, it's not our burden. You're the one claiming that you have a facts base on science. The reference to the associations is simply an underhanded way to try to imply to the students that these things are facts.

Gay rights groups pressured these assocaitions to take positions based on a perceived right. The associations did it because they knew that these things could never be proved one way or another so. Now, after pressuring these associations, they are saying that the positions of the associations represent proof and claiming the associations were compelled to take these positions by science. If so, teach the facts not the opinions.

Could you imagine a physics curriculum that read "The American Association of Cosmologists agree that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared."?

Teach the kids what we know, what different people think and have thought and what has influenced those views not what GLAAD would like them to believe.

November 28, 2005 10:53 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, please. Let's be a little realistic. Imagine, at least that the "The American Association of Physicists agree that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared."? You don't think that should affect how physics is taught in school?

There's no reason to call it a disease, as it does not impair a person in any way, other than forcing them to deal with people who are prejudiced against them.

Nobody recalls choosing their sexual orientation. Do you? So why would you argue such a counterintuitive and weird belief?

If homosexuality can be changed, then ... show us. It seems that the only people anybody can come up with are a small number of guys who are going out giving speeches and collecting donations on the basis of their "ex-gay" status. Show me the research that says that any significant proportion of gay people can change their sexual orientation.

JimK

November 28, 2005 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, please. Let's be a little realistic. Imagine, at least that the "The American Association of Physicists agree that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared."? You don't think that should affect how physics is taught in school?"

Well, no, I don't. I don't think you'd find any other curiculum that would imply something's true based on the opinion of an association. Kids should be taught and shown how facts are arrived at.

"There's no reason to call it a disease, as it does not impair a person in any way, other than forcing them to deal with people who are prejudiced against them.

Nobody recalls choosing their sexual orientation. Do you? So why would you argue such a counterintuitive and weird belief?

If homosexuality can be changed, then ... show us. It seems that the only people anybody can come up with are a small number of guys who are going out giving speeches and collecting donations on the basis of their "ex-gay" status. Show me the research that says that any significant proportion of gay people can change their sexual orientation."

All these are based on your subjective experiences (giving you the benefit of the doubt.) If your opponents base anything on personal experience, you go ballistic, demanding a scientific study. Yet, when anyone asks you to substantiate your claims, you wander off into what you have observed.

Interesting dichotomy. You'd almost think you were coached on this strategy.

November 28, 2005 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: I do not need a scientific study that tells me why I am homosexual. I didn't choose to be homosexual, I AM homosexual. Just, as I am guessing, you are heterosexual...and I know you didn't choose your orientation. There are plenty of things about your sexual orientation I could critize, and go to court over, and even propose a Constitutional Amendment to address, and with just cause, but you know what? I simply don't care what your sexual orientation is! I wouldn't care if you were left-handed either. Experience has shown me one thing though: the people who are as obsessed about homosexuality...or in fact just sex...are really the folks we need to worry about. Talk about PFOX...perhaps there ought to be an organization for you, too. PFOOS - Parents and Friends of Obsessed Sexophobics(and maybe one day, hopefully, ex-sexophobics!)
"Not so anonymous Bob"

November 28, 2005 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob

You're being as illogical as Jim. You seem to think unless I stop arguing with your inanities, I must be anormally obsessed with the topic. Really doesn't address anything and is common of the attemtped personal attacks that pass for reasoned argumentation here.

The school board and the old CAC and TTF want to trick kids into believing something that is not true. It's not any more complicated than that.

November 28, 2005 1:14 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Why don't you go ahead and spell that out for us, then, Anon? What is it that bothers you?

If you need to refresh your memory, the 8th and 10th grade curricula are linked over on the righthand side of this page. Go ahead and copy and paste the parts that you think are untrue, and explain where the error is.

JimK

November 28, 2005 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MCPS board, discredited CAC and propagandistic TTF wants kids to believe that there is a scientific basis for believing:

1. Homoesxuality is not a disease

2. Homoesxuality is not a choice

3. Homoesxuality cannot be changed

November 28, 2005 1:25 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I see, so you're not saying these statements aren't true, they just haven't been proven by process of binary-logic that meets your standard.

And do you think anything in science has been "proven" to be true? If so, give an example.

JimK

November 28, 2005 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm saying there is no evidence that was considered when these organizations took their positions and there is no evidence being offered to students to substantiate these assertions.

Binary, dewey decimal, eleven-dimension string theory- doesn't matter. Not one shred of evidence is presented to kids but the supposed gravitas of some supposed authoritative association is supposed to fool the kids. It's like in "Miracle on 34th Street" when the lawyer uses the "authority" of the U.S. Post Office to prove that Santa Claus is real.

November 28, 2005 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Julian said...

Scientific basis for sexual orientation? Dream on.

1. Heterosexuality is not a disease.
2. Heterosexuality is not a choice.
3. Heterosexuality cannot be changed.

Do the above three points even need to be taught? It's common knowledge no? (Despite #3 being debatable considering anecdotal evidence.)

Such scrutiny on homosexuality is unjust. Why must it always be the one to be put under the spotlight? Because people don't like it? Since when did that become a good reason?

November 28, 2005 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it's such common knowledge, why does TTF keep talking about following the science?

November 28, 2005 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[Wow, I just reread my comment and it IS long. but when you read a whole bunch of comments, many thoughts come to mind, so here goes}
This argument about the exact nature of science doesn't really get us anywhere, especially where you are talking about social science which has to rely so much on what people say or observations and conclusions of how they act, so data can be open to interpretation perhaps more so than in other scientific disciplines. Still, it seems to me, as a non-scientist, that when an organization representing a profession of people trained in a certain field makes a policy statement or defines something (like a disease), most people would and should give that group and the statement a high level of credibility. The substance of the statement/policy may yet be proven wrong, but those views usually represent the state of the art at that time. You can argue forever about whether you can prove every scientific view/judgment as a fact or not (because there can be different standards of proof), but surely there are expert opinions based on what is known today that deserve attention. And, when it is necessary to make a decision about your health, or what to teach kids about their physical and mental health, you can do some research (as the former CAC did) and weigh your sources, look at minority views if there are any, and make a choice. As to the minority opinions, which are generally supported by less evidence or in some cases no evidence,it seems to me that for practical purposes, you go with the mainstream view when you are acting on behalf of the community (like the schools). Government entities and schools have to make decisions about resources all the time and they have to base those decisions on something.

As an aside on minority views in science and again as a layperson, I know that the fact that there is a minority view, often is what leads to more study and yes, sometimes it turns out the minority is correct or that both views are wrong!! NIH, for example, is studying various complementary medical approaches and bit by bit information is coming in that shows one thing or another. A friend of mine who is a scientist and was on the advisory committee for the NIH program explained to me that very often studies in any field are driven first by anecdotal evidence, i.e., people saying that something made them feel better, for example, or that some technique worked. Or practitioners begin to notice patterns and begin talking about it at conferences and then that leads to more study. she also explained how studies are done in bits and pieces, i.e., you might look at whether massage is good for one thing; you don't try to do a study all at once to prove it is good for all the things that massage practitioners and recipients say it is. What people say and people observe is a starting point.

It also happens that lots of people don't like the results when a minority view is proven wrong, and remain convinced that something works even if there is no concrete scientific evidence of it. Certainly, those people are free to decline the state of the art treatments and can pursue whatever they think/believe will work. They, of course, take the risk that they are wrong. such people, however, cannot force those treatments on everyone else.

Also, we all know that scientific research is also driven by the cultural values of a particular time and place. For example, if there were virtually no STDs in the population of a given country, the doctors in that country would be less likely to pursue studies on how to prevent the spread of stds. Or, when I was a teenager, cultural values held that teenagers shouldn't have sex in the first place, so there were probably very few studies on what methods of birth control would be most successful among teenage girls.

And, we all know that cultural values sometimes provide answers to "why" questions when no other information is available. Thus, one could argue that lepers were inflicted because of sin, or that people who said they heard voices, must be listening to the devil, unless you were listening to an angel. We know better now, but those views were once "mainstream."

so here's my point: mainstream medical and mental health organizations, which generally do representative their membership, think that same sex attractions are not a disease. We don't have to know exactly what causes same sex attractions to rule out this one view. We also know that there considerable anecdotal evidence that most gays state that they knew they were different from very early on and that they don't think or believe they could (or should) change their orientation. So I think the revised curriculum was on sound ground when it stated that mainstream mental and medical groups do not think homosexuality is a disease. The minority view is at this time a "very" minority view, so stating more than the mainstream view would be likely to confuse the kids and would actually lead to much more discussion and time on the topic than it appears the curriculum writers wanted.

No one denies that one can choose sexual behaviors; thus, a gay person could choose to be celibate or could choose to have only sex with the opposite sex if they had a reason (like religion) to do so. After all, no one ever said that you can't have sex and make babies even if you don't particularly like the sex: we all know there were long periods in our history when many hetereosexual couples had lousy sexual experiences and the women didn't enjoy it all that much; nevertheless, they did their duty. However, we also now that in the 21st century most people expect to have a satisfying sex life and western culture tends to approve of that. So there has been a change in our western cultural values about sex. The real question is whether people with same sex attractions should be forced back in the closet and to have sexual relationships with people they are generally not attracted to because of a set of values that are out of the mainstream.

The people who believe that same sex attraction is a sin, apparently DO believe that it would be okay to make it so uncomfortable for gays that they would choose celibacy or enter into traditional hetereosexual relationships, whether they like it or not! But they can't say that because they know that our cultural values HAVE changed and most people wouldn't agree with them. That is, of course, what they are really disturbed about: the changes in cultural values (or traditional values, as they like to say). So instead they keep arguing about whether homosexuality is a disease or not and they desparately want to be able to teach children in our public schools that it is a disease, like having cavities in your teeth, so they can teach how to fix it.

But where would that get us. There are lots of "diseases" that people have, mental or physical, and we don't unnecessarily draw attention to them in our classrooms and if we do mention them, as a matter, for example of hygiene, we don't explain every controversial treatment out there. Moreover, we don't teach our kids that people who have certain diseases must be forced into treatment, especially a kind that is out of the mainstream. We don't force people to get treatment they don't want. (unless they are a danger to themselves or others. I'm not sure whether in a public health crisis, people can be forced to take treatments or whether they would just be quarantined. ).

So why does Anon and others want to single out homosexuality as one of the major diseases they want the schools to teach about. It is because they think it is a sin and/or they are homophobes (whether they know it or not). Well no one in teachthefacts wants to infringe on anyone's right to believe what one wants or to teach their children what they want in the privacy of your home and in your church/synagogue/mosque, temple, etc. ALL the currculum wanted to say was that homosexuality is not a disease. The curriculum didn't say anymore than that, i.e., whether it is moral or sinful, where it comes from, etc.

If Anon has a kid who thinks he or she may have same sex attractions, his/her family will have to work it out however they see fit. I'm not comfortable with parents of teenagers forcing them into a bootcamp in order to "change" sexual orientation, which some experts believe may be harmful to the child's mental health, but if that is not viewed as illegal, then I guess I have to live with that though I may speak out against it. The point is that the school system shouldn't be the one to tell the kid or his/her classmates that although homosexuality isn't a disease, it is sinful and not a good thing. It is the school's responsibility, if it undertakes to teach topics related to health and sex, to state that promiscuity is dangerous to everyone who engages in it whether you are gay or heterosexual.

November 28, 2005 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the last comment Oops. I meant to say on that last comment that it was from AmyH, not anonymous, but I can't figure out how to post on this thing with a name.

November 28, 2005 6:35 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Binary, dewey decimal, eleven-dimension string theory- doesn't matter...

Anon, it's not such a fancy concept. Binary logic reasons with statements that are either true or false. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Let me ask you some easy questions, and you answer Yes or No, the statement is True or False. Are swans white? Do birds sing? Are girls pretty? Does alcohol make you happy?

Come on, man, Yes or No.

You see how un-useful this kind of reasoning is, when you're talking about real things.

Science cannot deal in binary concepts. Every truth has degree and conditions and exceptions. Truth is statistical, it is not Boolean.

One reason we trust the experts and not you, Anon, is that they have spent years considering the nature of true propositions and the validity of inferences. A scientist's training is not just in his subject area, but in the methods of science particularly, including hypothesis formation, valid measurement, research design, analysis of data, and inference from the data. They aren't just some guys with an opinion, they have been educated in the fine traditions of natural philosophy. And you haven't.

JimK

November 28, 2005 6:45 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it. I'm not an expert on sexual orientation, but on sexual (gender) identity. There was no scientific research on transsexualism beyond the work with the intersexed in Germany in the 1920s until the 70s, and nothing truly scientific until the 90's. Calling transsexualism a mental illness was a choice made by professionals BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. There isn't even any mention of the phenomenon in the Bible of any peoples. Now we have professionals who study evidence and have changed their position. Sounds like good science and public policy to me. If new evidence arises we will have to process that, too.

Sometimes the scientic process is slow and cumbersome, but at least there's an accepted process. Not so with religion.

The same situation holds, roughly, with sexual orientation. The concept was also defined by the Germans, integrated into medicine by the Germans in a positive sense, then pathologized by the Nazis and spread to England and the US. But the important point is that there has never been any scientific evidence that being homosexual is a mental illness, and your saying it doesn't make it so. There is more than enough scientific evidence to show it is a biological phenomenon, and none to show it is not. Even Warren Throckmorton, and some of the conversion therapists, agree that it cannot be changed. Only behavior can be changed.

Those Christian-based ministries don't really think it's a disease, because they are not qualified to discuss the issue. They think it is a sin. Fine. They are entitled to that. But they understand that in a secular society you cannot promulgate laws based on theology, Antonin Scalia aside, so they try to prove that it's a disease. They haven't, and they can't.

I presented a paper this summer to an eminent group of scientists in the field of human sexuality on the effects of the endocrine disruptor, DES, on human gender identity. I was well received, though fiercely challenged, as it should be. Now, there is a wealth of evidence in mice, rats, guinea pigs, Japanese quail, etc. that DES cause gender variance. I collected data that it has as well in humans. The only argument I got, and it's a good one from a scientific perspective, is that I did not prove that the subjects had been exposed to DES. I couldn't, since the records have disappeared; it's been a very long time in most cases. So I can accept that, until we have developed a molecular marker that is characteristic of in utero DES exposure, I will not be able to scientifically "prove" my case. But I have presented sufficient evidence for a very strong case. A legal analogy would be "clear and convincing" but not "beyond a reasonable doubt." And that's only for humans; in animals it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So please explain to me why I should have to sit quietly when Ben Patton and Steina Walter and Co. rant to the BoE that I'm mentally ill, or the CRC throws a fit about the mention of trans people to high school students?

November 28, 2005 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Binary, dewey decimal, eleven-dimension string theory- doesn't matter...

Anon, it's not such a fancy concept. Binary logic reasons with statements that are either true or false. That sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Let me ask you some easy questions, and you answer Yes or No, the statement is True or False. Are swans white? Do birds sing? Are girls pretty? Does alcohol make you happy?

Come on, man, Yes or No.

You see how un-useful this kind of reasoning is, when you're talking about real things.

Science cannot deal in binary concepts. Every truth has degree and conditions and exceptions. Truth is statistical, it is not Boolean."

This is an interesting diversion, Jim, but not appropos to the discussion unless you want to expand a little. I can see why you need diversion, though.

"One reason we trust the experts and not you, Anon, is that they have spent years considering the nature of true propositions and the validity of inferences. A scientist's training is not just in his subject area, but in the methods of science particularly, including hypothesis formation, valid measurement, research design, analysis of data, and inference from the data. They aren't just some guys with an opinion, they have been educated in the fine traditions of natural philosophy. And you haven't."

I'm not asking anyone to trust me. I'm asking someone to provide some support for the ideas ascribed to professional associations in the old curriculum. If the AMA's position is the result of the evidence presented by Wertsch at your forum, it sounds like the fine traditions of natural philosophy have failed.

Of course, that assumes all professionals agree. I remember when some of those studies Wertsch cites came out. There was wide disagreement about their meaning among researchers. Haven't heard that any of it's been resolved.

Their opinion is valid in their field of expertise. None of this is based on that. What is normal and whether we have a choice about what we feel is the domain of philosophy and religion not science.

By the way, I haven't read the lengthy comments of Dana and Amy H but will try to get to them later today.

November 29, 2005 7:06 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

So, you acknowledge it's not really about the science, but it's natural phiosophy and religion. Thank you. We can now put the scientific arguments to rest, and, as many of us have pointed out, it is simply your religious beliefs that power your resistance. It's quite clear that even when science presents an incontrovertible case about sexual orientation, you will not accept it. I have presented a very powerful case on sexual identity, and you've done nothing to contradict that, either. Maybe you haven't attacked trans persons out of respect for me, or because you accept my case, or because your Bible says nothing about it, so you're free to go with the science. Whatever, I do appreciate it.

But we can now be clear, that since your personal religion condemns homosexuality, you do as well, and that's all there is to it.

And, as I've pointed out, the main difference between science and religion is that science is open to new data and new hypotheses, and scientists, for the most part, are willing to change their views. Fundamentalists simply are not. That sums up the main reason science has been on the rise and Christian fundamentalism on the decline for the past five hundred years.

November 29, 2005 8:15 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

So gay groups pressured the AMA and the APA and other major groups into saying homosexuality is not a disease and not a mental disorder and can't be changed- even got a surgeon general to agree. Yeah, sure. This is just like the sound judgements I hear about Jews on the Yahoo news boards- we are all powerful and we can make everyone do everything(and with us only being 1/6 of 1% of the world population- wow-how come I still have to work at a desk job everyday- why aren't I running a multinational corporation). I believe one of the outstanding experts of gay bigotry- Robert Knight- claims that gay people are only 2 or 3 % of the population. But they are such a powerful small group that they can undermine the major medical, psychiatric and psychological associations. Amazing

So kettle to pot - who is making sweeping claims without any substantiation?

November 29, 2005 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana,

Still didn't read your post from yesterday but this one is more my speed. Being a non-scientist, my attention span doesn't go past three paragraphs. Here goes:

"So, you acknowledge it's not really about the science, but it's natural phiosophy and religion. Thank you. We can now put the scientific arguments to rest,"

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated: I don't want the schools to teach my personal views. Normality and choice are in the realm of metaphysics- if you teach it to kids, you need to expose them to all widely hel views. My point is that the whole thing doesn't have a scientific basis. You people have been claiming it does and trying to get the schools to promote your view.

"and, as many of us have pointed out, it is simply your religious beliefs that power your resistance. It's quite clear that even when science presents an incontrovertible case about sexual orientation, you will not accept it."

That's not true.

"But we can now be clear, that since your personal religion condemns homosexuality, you do as well, and that's all there is to it."

I don't think that I've ever been foggy on that. Still, there are others in society that feel it's wrong, because of general societal effects, and most other religions hold the same position.

"And, as I've pointed out, the main difference between science and religion is that science is open to new data and new hypotheses, and scientists, for the most part, are willing to change their views. Fundamentalists simply are not."

I can't speak for fundamentalists because, as I've stated, I'm an evangelical. I have informed the readers here though that a distinctive of Christianity is that it has a specific doctrine called "general relativity" which states that God reveals himself through nature and, thus, Christianity will always reconcile itself to new discoveries- it is obligated to do so.

On the specific topics, saying homosexuality is not a disease doesn't violate any principle of my religion. We believe it's a sin. We don't believe murder or bank robbery are diseases either.

Saying homosexuality is not a choice doesn't violate any principle of my religion. As a matter of fact, there are Bible passages that would lead one to conclude that homosexuality is not a choice.

My problem is that certain people make claims that science has found some discoveries to enlighten these questions and it hasn't. They want to change the perceptions of kids by making false connections.


"That sums up the main reason science has been on the rise and Christian fundamentalism on the decline for the past five hundred years."

Actually, fundamentalism of every kind is and has been a major force for the last 500 years. The only real bastion of secularism is Western Europe and they're widely viewed as in decline as a cvilization.

November 29, 2005 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So gay groups pressured the AMA and the APA and other major groups into saying homosexuality is not a disease and not a mental disorder and can't be changed- even got a surgeon general to agree."

I didn't hear about the surgeon general. Which one said it and what did he say?

"Yeah, sure. This is just like the sound judgements I hear about Jews on the Yahoo news boards- we are all powerful and we can make everyone do everything(and with us only being 1/6 of 1% of the world population-"

Bringing up those Nazis again- just like your buddy, Jim. And just think, it wouldn't come up in a search either.

"wow-how come I still have to work at a desk job everyday- why aren't I running a multinational corporation)."

I think it might be your personality. Why can't you be nice like Dana and Silly?

"I believe one of the outstanding experts of gay bigotry- Robert Knight- claims that gay people are only 2 or 3 % of the population. But they are such a powerful small group that they can undermine the major medical, psychiatric and psychological associations. Amazing"

It is amazing, isn't it? I mean how did they get the APA to take an official position that the majority of its membership didn't agree with?

"So kettle to pot - who is making sweeping claims without any substantiation?"

I provided the only substantiation that has come from either side so you must be addressing another pot.

November 29, 2005 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amy H,

A new reasonable voice to go with Dana and Silly.

"This argument about the exact nature of science doesn't really get us anywhere, especially where you are talking about social science which has to rely so much on what people say or observations and conclusions of how they act, so data can be open to interpretation perhaps more so than in other scientific disciplines."

Absolutely right. I've tried to make that point many times here.

"Still, it seems to me, as a non-scientist, that when an organization representing a profession of people trained in a certain field makes a policy statement or defines something (like a disease), most people would and should give that group and the statement a high level of credibility."

Yes, and that's why you would choose to consider their view. Unfortunately, these organizations haven't provided any rationale for their decision so you can't get past "consider" with any integrity.

"The substance of the statement/policy may yet be proven wrong, but those views usually represent the state of the art at that time. You can argue forever about whether you can prove every scientific view/judgment as a fact or not (because there can be different standards of proof), but surely there are expert opinions based on what is known today that deserve attention. And, when it is necessary to make a decision about your health, or what to teach kids about their physical and mental health, you can do some research (as the former CAC did) and weigh your sources, look at minority views if there are any, and make a choice."

Research would be trying to see how the associations arrived at their view. Again, we don't teach about the Big Bang because the Society of Rocket Scientists has ruled it correct. We teach what has been proven. By the way, some scientists were sceptical about the Big Bang theory at first because they thought it would tend to support deism. That's biased- and they may have run an association.

"As to the minority opinions, which are generally supported by less evidence or in some cases no evidence,it seems to me that for practical purposes, you go with the mainstream view when you are acting on behalf of the community (like the schools)."

Is there any data on what the mainstream view is? It's curious that polls of scientists don't seem to exist.

"Government entities and schools have to make decisions about resources all the time and they have to base those decisions on something."

How about the truth? Something like this:

Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children.

"As an aside on minority views in science and again as a layperson, I know that the fact that there is a minority view, often is what leads to more study and yes, sometimes it turns out the minority is correct or that both views are wrong!! NIH, for example, is studying various complementary medical approaches and bit by bit information is coming in that shows one thing or another. A friend of mine who is a scientist and was on the advisory committee for the NIH program explained to me that very often studies in any field are driven first by anecdotal evidence, i.e., people saying that something made them feel better, for example, or that some technique worked. Or practitioners begin to notice patterns and begin talking about it at conferences and then that leads to more study. she also explained how studies are done in bits and pieces, i.e., you might look at whether massage is good for one thing; you don't try to do a study all at once to prove it is good for all the things that massage practitioners and recipients say it is. What people say and people observe is a starting point."

A very good point. You start looking somewhere for some reason. You may decide to study whether homosexuality is a mental problem because it seem irrational and people engaged in it seem to have a lot of problems.

"It also happens that lots of people don't like the results when a minority view is proven wrong, and remain convinced that something works even if there is no concrete scientific evidence of it. Certainly, those people are free to decline the state of the art treatments and can pursue whatever they think/believe will work. They, of course, take the risk that they are wrong. such people, however, cannot force those treatments on everyone else."

That's true. Like people who say reparative therapy should be illegal. They shouldn't be able to take away a person's right to try to change. Yet they've tried to do it but declaring it unethical.

"Also, we all know that scientific research is also driven by the cultural values of a particular time and place."

Yes, remember, APA's dubious decision took place during the hey day of the sexual revolution. We've been through a lot since.

"For example, if there were virtually no STDs in the population of a given country, the doctors in that country would be less likely to pursue studies on how to prevent the spread of stds. Or, when I was a teenager, cultural values held that teenagers shouldn't have sex in the first place, so there were probably very few studies on what methods of birth control would be most successful among teenage girls.

And, we all know that cultural values sometimes provide answers to "why" questions when no other information is available. Thus, one could argue that lepers were inflicted because of sin, or that people who said they heard voices, must be listening to the devil, unless you were listening to an angel. We know better now, but those views were once "mainstream."

so here's my point: mainstream medical and mental health organizations, which generally do representative their membership, think that same sex attractions are not a disease. We don't have to know exactly what causes same sex attractions to rule out this one view. We also know that there considerable anecdotal evidence that most gays state that they knew they were different from very early on and that they don't think or believe they could (or should) change their orientation."

I could share some anecdotes that I've heard of the opposite but the frequenters here would howl about lack of scientific studies. It's the dichotomy I mentioned yesterday. It's hypocritical.

"So I think the revised curriculum was on sound ground when it stated that mainstream mental and medical groups do not think homosexuality is a disease. The minority view is at this time a "very" minority view, so stating more than the mainstream view would be likely to confuse the kids and would actually lead to much more discussion and time on the topic than it appears the curriculum writers wanted."

Don't need to teach either view. As I said above, the truth will suffice. The kids can get the moral interpretations outside the public schools.

"No one denies that one can choose sexual behaviors; thus, a gay person could choose to be celibate or could choose to have only sex with the opposite sex if they had a reason (like religion) to do so. After all, no one ever said that you can't have sex and make babies even if you don't particularly like the sex: we all know there were long periods in our history when many hetereosexual couples had lousy sexual experiences and the women didn't enjoy it all that much; nevertheless, they did their duty. However, we also now that in the 21st century most people expect to have a satisfying sex life and western culture tends to approve of that. So there has been a change in our western cultural values about sex. The real question is whether people with same sex attractions should be forced back in the closet and to have sexual relationships with people they are generally not attracted to because of a set of values that are out of the mainstream."

You know it's possible that a fleeting attraction can develop into something deeper given the right circumstances. The public schools saying it's cool might be a factor.

"The people who believe that same sex attraction is a sin, apparently DO believe that it would be okay to make it so uncomfortable for gays that they would choose celibacy or enter into traditional hetereosexual relationships, whether they like it or not! But they can't say that because they know that our cultural values HAVE changed and most people wouldn't agree with them."

I'm not sure that's so. You may have a provincial view.

"That is, of course, what they are really disturbed about: the changes in cultural values (or traditional values, as they like to say). So instead they keep arguing about whether homosexuality is a disease or not and they desparately want to be able to teach children in our public schools that it is a disease, like having cavities in your teeth, so they can teach how to fix it."

Most of them would prefer this type of education remained outside the public school so this implication that they're trying to get public schools to teach their views is wrong.

"But where would that get us. There are lots of "diseases" that people have, mental or physical, and we don't unnecessarily draw attention to them in our classrooms and if we do mention them, as a matter, for example of hygiene, we don't explain every controversial treatment out there. Moreover, we don't teach our kids that people who have certain diseases must be forced into treatment, especially a kind that is out of the mainstream. We don't force people to get treatment they don't want. (unless they are a danger to themselves or others."

Who's suggesting that?

"I'm not sure whether in a public health crisis, people can be forced to take treatments or whether they would just be quarantined. )."

Only if they present an imminent public danger.

"So why does Anon and others want to single out homosexuality as one of the major diseases they want the schools to teach about."

For the gadzillionth time, I don't.

"It is because they think it is a sin and/or they are homophobes (whether they know it or not). Well no one in teachthefacts wants to infringe on anyone's right to believe what one wants or to teach their children what they want in the privacy of your home and in your church/synagogue/mosque, temple, etc."

No, they want to contradict it and tell kids that science has proved the contrary.

"ALL the currculum wanted to say was that homosexuality is not a disease. The curriculum didn't say anymore than that, i.e., whether it is moral or sinful, where it comes from, etc."

Some people think it is and there is no way of proving which view is correct.

"If Anon has a kid who thinks he or she may have same sex attractions, his/her family will have to work it out however they see fit. I'm not comfortable with parents of teenagers forcing them into a bootcamp in order to "change" sexual orientation, which some experts believe may be harmful to the child's mental health, but if that is not viewed as illegal, then I guess I have to live with that though I may speak out against it. The point is that the school system shouldn't be the one to tell the kid or his/her classmates that although homosexuality isn't a disease, it is sinful and not a good thing."

No one has suggested that the schools teach about sin. This constant assertion is either a serious misunderstanding or a lie.

"It is the school's responsibility, if it undertakes to teach topics related to health and sex, to state that promiscuity is dangerous to everyone who engages in it whether you are gay or heterosexual."

Why don't you just leave out the "gay or heterosexual"?

November 29, 2005 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said

I provided the only substantiation that has come from either side so you must be addressing another pot.



**************

Nah...Andrea got the right pot when speaking to you..a potful of bigotry coming from your pot full biased views.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Free,

You sure you and Andrea aren't the same person?

November 29, 2005 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Free,

You sure you and Andrea aren't the same person?



Nah..just your conscience speaking.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children.

*************

Anonymous are you sure about the above as you wrote it? Provide your sources.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The American Association of Pediatrics

November 29, 2005 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The American Association of Pediatrics

__________

Specific quotes from such.... Provide them....

Is that your only source?

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

go on their website- it was under a section advising doctors how to deal with the issue

November 29, 2005 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous are you now saying homosexuals are more likely to abuse children..since you are implying that for them to become homosexuals they themselves were abused, etc...and will now become sexual abusers of children?

Of course you are also implying to be a homosexual you had to have been abused and not just wired that way from beginning.

Come on anonymous clarify your source quotes, etc. if you can.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous are you now saying homosexuals are more likely to abuse children..since you are implying that for them to become homosexuals they themselves were abused, etc...and will now become sexual abusers of children?

Of course you are also implying to be a homosexual you had to have been abused and not just wired that way from beginning.

Come on anonymous clarify your source quotes, etc. if you can."

The pediatric association has all those things stated except that child abusers are often victims of child abuse. This is commonly reported in the mainstream media- have they been reporting falsely?

I did put those two together but everything else:

"those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population"

and

"People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents"

come from the Association (or is it, Academy?) of Pediatrics.

Try to find it for you tonight if you are denying it exists.

November 29, 2005 3:46 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

First, Andrea only posts as herself- I do not use other tags(I am Andrear since there was another andrea). I don't care to hide what I say even if you do.

Second, gee, I am so hurt that I am not as nice as other people here- boo, hoo. I will be going to Dale Carnegie right now.

Third, I never said anything about Nazis- you lied again. I do not assume nor did I say that the people who post anti-semitic crap on Yahoo news boards are Nazis. So don't you dare say I did.

David Satcher in a Call to Action- July ,2001 (go to the Surgeon General's website and look at Calls to Action- there is one on sexual health- July, 2001)says that there is no proof homosexuality is a choice and that sexual identity is established by adolescence if not sooner.

And don't expect me to know which anon is which- use a name if you care.

November 29, 2005 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, Andrea only posts as herself- I do not use other tags(I am Andrear since there was another andrea). I don't care to hide what I say even if you do.

Second, gee, I am so hurt that I am not as nice as other people here- boo, hoo. I will be going to Dale Carnegie right now."

My apologies- I thought you were Andrea. Don't blame you for wanting to avoid that association.

"Third, I never said anything about Nazis- you lied again. I do not assume nor did I say that the people who post anti-semitic crap on Yahoo news boards are Nazis. So don't you dare say I did."

Give me a break.

"David Satcher in a Call to Action- July ,2001 (go to the Surgeon General's website and look at Calls to Action- there is one on sexual health- July, 2001)says that there is no proof homosexuality is a choice and that sexual identity is established by adolescence if not sooner."

Thanks. I'll check it out. I met Satcher once. He came to my church to speak in a series we have in the summer called "Faith in the Workplace."

By the way, is there any proof that whether you like fruitcake or not is a choice? Is lack of choice some default position that bears the burden of refutation?

"And don't expect me to know which anon is which- use a name if you care."

I won't lose any sleep over it.

November 29, 2005 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said "Try to find it for you tonight if you are denying it exists."

You said it...you provide your own sources like everyone else does.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said..."child abusers are often victims of child abuse. This is commonly reported in the mainstream media- have they been reporting falsely?"

Now anonymous what does that have to do with homosexuals? You implied that homosexuals were abused to become homosexuals therefore they will be abusers of children.

Are you now backing off that?


"anon free"

November 29, 2005 4:48 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

This is from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAP, THE respected and reputable organization that represents America's pediatricians. Not the Association of Pediatrics, which is run by Christian fundamentalists to confuse the issue, as usual, since they have no data. The date is 2004:

ETIOLOGY AND PREVALENCE

Homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available.4 Societal attitudes toward homosexuality have had a decisive effect on the extent to which individuals have hidden or made known their sexual orientation.

Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12 The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11

A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed.5 Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain.5 Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.1,2,4,5

---------------

That you would imply that gays are more likely to abuse because they have been abused is not only counter-factual, but hateful. I think it's safe to say, though I haven't done the study, that straight men are responsible for the vast majority of abuse and genocide that is human society. And what would be my point, exactly, in saying that?

You keep acting as if one can have a sex-ed class and not talk about partners. Why? Because the default mode is heterosexual, which suits you just fine. But if a student had the gall to ask about homosexual sex, the teacher is not permitted to answer. If you're not preoccupied with the issue, why not let the teacher answer? Why not let the teacher teach one lesson about sexual orientation?

Well, you answered that one, too, because you believe that a little experimentation can lead to a life-long proclivity. Again, a belief for which there is absolutely zero evidence. So to play it safe, for your side, you want to condemn an entire class of people.

Again, the science is there, and growing every day. You have nothing.

We cannot discuss religious beliefs, sin and all that, in the schools. Something your side went to court about, and an issue I agree is better left out of things. So if there is no basis to discuss sin, there is no basis to NOT discuss homosexuality.

As I write this, I glance over at your first comment (I assume that was you, you continue to make this so difficult by refusing to "come out"), and I see that no evidence produced can sway you. All those issues have been dealt with by our side, and even your man, Throckmorton, agrees with us.

As for the other issues to which you responded (I don't want you to think I'm ducking anything):


>>"So, you acknowledge it's not really about the science, but it's natural phiosophy and religion. Thank you. We can now put the scientific arguments to rest,"

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated: I don't want the schools to teach my personal views. Normality and choice are in the realm of metaphysics- if you teach it to kids, you need to expose them to all widely hel views. My point is that the whole thing doesn't have a scientific basis. You people have been claiming it does and trying to get the schools to promote your view.<<

You are a true master of distortion. I said that schools are obligated to teach the science, and you said it's not really about the science, but about religion. For YOU it's about religion, for me and the vast majority of county residents it's about the science.

>>"and, as many of us have pointed out, it is simply your religious beliefs that power your resistance. It's quite clear that even when science presents an incontrovertible case about sexual orientation, you will not accept it."

That's not true.<<

That's my inference, since you've ignored every bit of scientific data that has been provided. Oh, and since some have provided references, I suggest you read "Evolution's Rainbow," by Joan Roughgarden, a Professor of Biology at Stanford. She presents plenty of data, though she also takes Darwin to task for his theory of sexual selection. Wow, real science, and not towing the party line!

>>"But we can now be clear, that since your personal religion condemns homosexuality, you do as well, and that's all there is to it."

I don't think that I've ever been foggy on that. Still, there are others in society that feel it's wrong, because of general societal effects, and most other religions hold the same position.<<

I understand that, and they are entitled to their beliefs. But they are not entitled to shut down discussion, acting as if even the mention of the dreaded "H" word would infect their children. That's paranoia.

>>"And, as I've pointed out, the main difference between science and religion is that science is open to new data and new hypotheses, and scientists, for the most part, are willing to change their views. Fundamentalists simply are not."

I can't speak for fundamentalists because, as I've stated, I'm an evangelical. I have informed the readers here though that a distinctive of Christianity is that it has a specific doctrine called "general relativity" which states that God reveals himself through nature and, thus, Christianity will always reconcile itself to new discoveries- it is obligated to do so.

On the specific topics, saying homosexuality is not a disease doesn't violate any principle of my religion. We believe it's a sin. We don't believe murder or bank robbery are diseases either.

Saying homosexuality is not a choice doesn't violate any principle of my religion. As a matter of fact, there are Bible passages that would lead one to conclude that homosexuality is not a choice.<<

That's very good of you to point out. I have noted the distinction, though I can't keep track of which Anon is a fundamentalist and which is an evangelical. And I do seem to recall that there are many fundamentalist evangelicals, just by turning on the media on occasion.

>>My problem is that certain people make claims that science has found some discoveries to enlighten these questions and it hasn't. They want to change the perceptions of kids by making false connections.<<

And apparently there is nothing I can say or report or describe that will convince you otherwise, because you have ignored it. I'm no longer amazed that every time I discuss the biology of gneder identity all I get in response is silence.


>>"That sums up the main reason science has been on the rise and Christian fundamentalism on the decline for the past five hundred years."

Actually, fundamentalism of every kind is and has been a major force for the last 500 years. The only real bastion of secularism is Western Europe and they're widely viewed as in decline as a cvilization.<<

Oh, yeah, right. Europe is in decline, so I guess it's a good thing they are undergoing a significant rise in Muslim fundamentalism. Straighten them out.

As for responding to some of your comments to the others, I'll leave that for later.

12:02 PM

November 29, 2005 5:13 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I have not had the time to read all the comments closely, but there seem to be two issues being raised by some posters:

1.

Q: Where is it that the major health care professionals say that homosexuality is not an illness and that reparative therapy approaches are dangerous to people's emotional health?

A: Here's what you need to do to find out. Click on the Resources page of this website and then look for a link on the left side of the page that says Fishback 7/27/05 BOE Testimon (with attachments). The attachments are the position papers of the AMA, etc. For your convenience, it begins with an index with page numbers for each document.

2.

Q: Why does the school system need to talk about homosexuality at all?

A: It is very important to do so in the 8th and 10th grade health education courses because if we do not, children who happen to be homosexual will likely think there is something wrong with them and that they are somehow "beyond the pale," since everything else seems to assume that everyone is heterosexual. In essence, all that the proposed revised curriculum was going to present was the simple fact that all major health professional associations have concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, along with a few clarifying statements (fleeting same-sex attraction does not mean you are gay, having gay parents does not predispose a person to being gay, there are families in our community headed up by same-sex couples, most experts believe that homosexuality is not a choice). The deafening silence on this matter was harmful to students -- both gay and straight. We need to provide this basic factual information to so that gay students do not feel marginalized and that straight students understand that the medical community does not regard gays as freaks.

November 29, 2005 5:59 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I have not had the time to read all the comments closely, but there seem to be two issues being raised by some posters:

1.

Q: Where is it that the major health care professionals say that homosexuality is not an illness and that reparative therapy approaches are dangerous to people's emotional health?

A: Here's what you need to do to find out. Click on the Resources page of this website and then look for a link on the left side of the page that says Fishback 7/27/05 BOE Testimon (with attachments). The attachments are the position papers of the AMA, etc. For your convenience, it begins with an index with page numbers for each document.

2.

Q: Why does the school system need to talk about homosexuality at all?

A: It is very important to do so in the 8th and 10th grade health education courses because if we do not, children who happen to be homosexual will likely think there is something wrong with them and that they are somehow "beyond the pale," since everything else seems to assume that everyone is heterosexual. In essence, all that the proposed revised curriculum was going to present was the simple fact that all major health professional associations have concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, along with a few clarifying statements (fleeting same-sex attraction does not mean you are gay, having gay parents does not predispose a person to being gay, there are families in our community headed up by same-sex couples, most experts believe that homosexuality is not a choice). The deafening silence on this matter was harmful to students -- both gay and straight. We need to provide this basic factual information to so that gay students do not feel marginalized and that straight students understand that the medical community does not regard gays as freaks.

November 29, 2005 5:59 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Dana, thanks for clearing that up. Since I googled the AAP- and saw the heroes of homophobia - like Knight and Narth- blasting them on their statement that gay parents can provide a good home- I couldn't imagine they said that other stuff.

Andrea

November 29, 2005 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goes to show you that if anonymous says anything..ask for the source.

Seems like anonymous can never come up with that.

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a web address for the AAP paper I cited earlier:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827

Here's the pertinent quotes:

"Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will"

"Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,... and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine."

November 29, 2005 7:31 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

From the same article- the parts you left out- "Nonheterosexual youth are at higher risk of dropping out of school, being kicked out of their homes, and turning to life on the streets for survival." "are 2 to 4 times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school"- and if you read Satcher's report- he says that the suicide and depression are a result of society's treatment of gay people. Kids kicked out of their homes and living on the streets- well, I doubt any kid in that situation makes good choices about drugs or alcohol and is certainly more likely to have unwanted sexual contact- how many kids do we hear about on the streets who turn to prostitution-this is not because they are gay or straight- but because they are kids alone and unwanted. and get victimized.

November 29, 2005 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"1.Q: Where is it that the major health care professionals say that homosexuality is not an illness and that reparative therapy approaches are dangerous to people's emotional health?

2.Q: Why does the school system need to talk about homosexuality at all?"

Uh, David, I don't think anyone here asked those questions but thanks for sharing- twice.

Hey, you're not trying to divert attention, are you?

November 29, 2005 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827




Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12 The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11


From anonymous's source.....

"anon free"

November 29, 2005 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:



Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will"


"Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,... and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine."

_______________________

(Actual Full Paragraph and not just tiny portion handpicked by anonymous)



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827

Nonheterosexual youth are at higher risk of dropping out of school, being kicked out of their homes, and turning to life on the streets for survival. Some of these youth engage in substance use, and they are more likely than heterosexual peers to start using tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs at an earlier age.20 Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will,20 putting them at increased risk of STDs including HIV infection. In a recent study of HIV seroprevalence, 7% of 3492 15- to 22-year-old males who have sex with males living in 7 US cities were HIV-seropositive. Among adolescent males who have sex with males, HIV seroprevalence rates in descending order were highest among black adolescents, then "mixed race or other" adolescents, and then Hispanic adolescents and were lowest among Asian and white adolescents.21 Women having sex with women have the lowest risk of any STD, but lesbian adolescents remain at significant risk because they are likely to have had sexual intercourse with males. Youth in high school who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual; engage in sexual activity with persons of the same sex; or report same-sex romantic attractions or relationships are more likely to attempt suicide, be victimized, and abuse substances.20,22 Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,16,19,23,24 are 2 to 4 times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school,16,23 and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization of gender nonconformity, stress, violence, lack of support, dropping out of school, family problems, acquaintances’ suicide attempts, homelessness, and substance abuse.2,25 In addition to suicidality, young gay and bisexual men might also suffer body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors for some of the same reasons.26



"anon free"

November 29, 2005 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"From the same article- the parts you left out- "Nonheterosexual youth are at higher risk of dropping out of school, being kicked out of their homes, and turning to life on the streets for survival." "are 2 to 4 times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school"- and if you read Satcher's report- he says that the suicide and depression are a result of society's treatment of gay people. Kids kicked out of their homes and living on the streets- well, I doubt any kid in that situation makes good choices about drugs or alcohol and is certainly more likely to have unwanted sexual contact- how many kids do we hear about on the streets who turn to prostitution-this is not because they are gay or straight- but because they are kids alone and unwanted. and get victimized."

It's a long paper. I showed the quotes that contain the information that some of you fools were accusing me of making up. I didn't say what caused the antisocial behaviors. I'm saying they're there and will cause problems regardless of the cause. Stigmatization is no doubt part of it but there are numerous other stresses that follow along with the condition and which could reasonably be expected to cause problems. (let me know if you'd like me to elaborate) The point is, the schools should not present this lifestyle as if it were normal and problem-free. The fairy tale presented by GLAAD, GLSEN and PFLAG is not a reality based.

November 29, 2005 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

free

Now that you've read the article, which part was I making up? It does say the following, does it not?:

"those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population"

"People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents"

November 29, 2005 8:12 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

No, it doesn't say that. Neither of those two quotes are in this article.

PB

November 29, 2005 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will"


"Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,... and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine."

These are two exact quotes. They say the same thing a this:

"those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population"

"People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents"

If you disagree, explain.

November 29, 2005 10:25 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

Two points:

1) It say this: "Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers. . . " Yes, very true. These kids are at risk. They are not at risk because they have a homosexual orientation, but because having that orientation leads to a higher incidence of all these untoward consequences.

2) The paper said this is a small proportion of all gays. One could find subgroups of other groups who have problems that stand out. And we often do. That means nothing, other than there is this group that needs help. They don't need bigotry.

I can easily make the case that these kids are as normal as your kids. Most of them looked pretty normal to their parents and neighbors. It was when they acted less masculine than they were supposed to, or came out, or feared the consequences of being who they are, that their problems began. You apparently don't know any, so I would suggest you get to know some families with gay kids and see how things are in real life. Problem-free? Of course not. That's why we're trying to educate their peers, so they will have fewer problems in the future.

November 29, 2005 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said:

If you disagree, explain.

Anonymous as usual you got caught lying and leaving out huge portions.

__________________________

(Actual Full Paragraph and not just tiny portion handpicked by anonymous with his inserted quotes)



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827

Nonheterosexual youth are at higher risk of dropping out of school, being kicked out of their homes, and turning to life on the streets for survival. Some of these youth engage in substance use, and they are more likely than heterosexual peers to start using tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs at an earlier age.20 Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will,20 putting them at increased risk of STDs including HIV infection. In a recent study of HIV seroprevalence, 7% of 3492 15- to 22-year-old males who have sex with males living in 7 US cities were HIV-seropositive. Among adolescent males who have sex with males, HIV seroprevalence rates in descending order were highest among black adolescents, then "mixed race or other" adolescents, and then Hispanic adolescents and were lowest among Asian and white adolescents.21 Women having sex with women have the lowest risk of any STD, but lesbian adolescents remain at significant risk because they are likely to have had sexual intercourse with males. Youth in high school who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual; engage in sexual activity with persons of the same sex; or report same-sex romantic attractions or relationships are more likely to attempt suicide, be victimized, and abuse substances.20,22 Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,16,19,23,24 are 2 to 4 times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school,16,23 and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization of gender nonconformity, stress, violence, lack of support, dropping out of school, family problems, acquaintances’ suicide attempts, homelessness, and substance abuse.2,25 In addition to suicidality, young gay and bisexual men might also suffer body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors for some of the same reasons.26



"anon free"

November 29, 2005 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said "People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children."

_____________

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41


Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?


C Jenny, TA Roesler and KL Poyer

Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

OBJECTIVE. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. DESIGN. Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse. SETTING. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. PATIENTS. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. RESULTS. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.

CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.



"anon free"

November 29, 2005 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous as usual you got caught lying and leaving out huge portions."

Didn't lie and you know that. Thus, you are lying.

I suggested a few statements that might be part of a curriculum. You asked where I got the facts in the statement. I showed you.

Now, you're saying I lied because I didn't post the whole text of a statement where I pulled the facts from. The paper I pulled the facts from had references to studies and statistics. I could have simply posted those references.

If you think one of my statements is a lie, tell us which one. You can't because they're all facts and you're an inflammatory liar and an example of why this issue is so difficult to resolve.

Right, Kay?

November 30, 2005 9:04 AM  
Blogger andrear said...

Anon- You call us fools but you started talking about fruitcake-now you are the pot and the kettle. And as to diverting people- how many times do any number of us have to point out where major medical/psychological associations say homosexuality isn't a disease and reparative therapy is dangerous to one's emotional health. I can give you a direct personal quote from Dr. Harold Eist, former prez of the American Psychiatric Association- he said "reparative therapy is bs(I leave the words out so as not to offend those who might be offended)"- but of course, he didn't say it is dangerous to emotional health- although one would think that something that is bs would be dangerous.

November 30, 2005 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41


Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?


C Jenny, TA Roesler and KL Poyer

Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

OBJECTIVE. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. DESIGN. Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse. SETTING. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. PATIENTS. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. RESULTS. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.

CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people."

Kay,

This study only says that most child abusers are not gay. It doesn't say whether gays are more likely to abuse children.

I'm not saying they are but just that there are reasons to suspect it might be so. I certainly hope it's untrue. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The fact that a high percentage of gays were abused as children and the fact that perpetrators of this crime often report they were victims of it as adolescents.

2. The national scandal in recent years of institution that employed gays to work with adolescents and suffered crippling liability when large numbers of sexual abuse incidents occurred.

3. There is a national gay organization with the mission of legalizing sex between gay men and minors.

November 30, 2005 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon- You call us fools but you started talking about fruitcake-now you are the pot and the kettle. And as to diverting people- how many times do any number of us have to point out where major medical/psychological associations say homosexuality isn't a disease and reparative therapy is dangerous to one's emotional health. I can give you a direct personal quote from Dr. Harold Eist, former prez of the American Psychiatric Association- he said "reparative therapy is bs(I leave the words out so as not to offend those who might be offended)"- but of course, he didn't say it is dangerous to emotional health- although one would think that something that is bs would be dangerous."

As we've discussed again and again, these associations have not provided any substantiation to these two claims you cite. I'm saying that as a direct response to your post not a diversion.

November 30, 2005 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously, the sexual abuse thing didn't go over well with the gay agenda crowd here. How's this for a suggested curriclum?

"Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents."

Let me know your thoughts. (like I could stop you)

November 30, 2005 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous spouted to all,"I suggested a few statements that might be part of a curriculum. You asked where I got the facts in the statement. I showed you."

_____________________

Anonymous we are taking time out of our busy days laughing at this lie you just told above.

"anon free"

November 30, 2005 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said to Kay, "2. The national scandal in recent years of institution that employed gays to work with adolescents and suffered crippling liability when large numbers of sexual abuse incidents occurred.

3. There is a national gay organization with the mission of legalizing sex between gay men and minors.

**************

First anonymous who said pedophiles are only homosexuals? Pedophiles abuse children. Would you be talking of Catholics, etc.?

As to any organization what does that have to do with sex ed?


"anon free"

November 30, 2005 3:27 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said:

It doesn't say whether gays are more likely to abuse children.

**************

Tell me where any study says gays are more likely to abuse children.

Kay R

November 30, 2005 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous we are taking time out of our busy days laughing at this lie you just told above."

Well, the course of the discussion is above for anyone who wants to read it and see that what I described is the actual sequence of events.

Who is "we" anyway? Is this another example of multiple personalities?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

November 30, 2005 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anonymous said:

It doesn't say whether gays are more likely to abuse children.

**************

Tell me where any study says gays are more likely to abuse children."

It doesn't- and neither do I. The AAP paper cite statistics that gays are more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children. I noted that the media commonly reports that perpetrators of sexual abuse are often former childhood victims of it. How do these two statistics relate- that is the question raised?

Obviously, there is a serious issue and regardless of whether it implies there is a greater incidence of this stuff among gays, there is no justification for assumptions about any individuals.

November 30, 2005 3:55 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Yall, I'm looking at that article: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827 , and I don't find any mention that anybody was "sexually abused" one way or the other. Could you please show me where that statement is? What paragraph is that in? I reckon my "search" thing on my browser doesn't work rite sometimes.

PB

November 30, 2005 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will,"

This quote is copied many times in various comments above.

November 30, 2005 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous post the whole thing and not just one sentence that you put quotes to.

"anon free"

November 30, 2005 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you go:


"Nonheterosexual youth are at higher risk of dropping out of school, being kicked out of their homes, and turning to life on the streets for survival. Some of these youth engage in substance use, and they are more likely than heterosexual peers to start using tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs at an earlier age.20 Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will,20 putting them at increased risk of STDs including HIV infection. In a recent study of HIV seroprevalence, 7% of 3492 15- to 22-year-old males who have sex with males living in 7 US cities were HIV-seropositive. Among adolescent males who have sex with males, HIV seroprevalence rates in descending order were highest among black adolescents, then "mixed race or other" adolescents, and then Hispanic adolescents and were lowest among Asian and white adolescents.21 Women having sex with women have the lowest risk of any STD, but lesbian adolescents remain at significant risk because they are likely to have had sexual intercourse with males. Youth in high school who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual; engage in sexual activity with persons of the same sex; or report same-sex romantic attractions or relationships are more likely to attempt suicide, be victimized, and abuse substances.20,22 Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,16,19,23,24 are 2 to 4 times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school,16,23 and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization of gender nonconformity, stress, violence, lack of support, dropping out of school, family problems, acquaintances’ suicide attempts, homelessness, and substance abuse.2,25 In addition to suicidality, young gay and bisexual men might also suffer body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors for some of the same reasons.26"

November 30, 2005 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the reference cited by the AAP paper in discussion:

Garofalo R, Wolf RC, Kessel S, Palfrey SJ, DuRant RH. The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics.1998; 101 :895 –902

November 30, 2005 4:25 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anonymous, several times you quoted:
"those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population"

and

"People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents"


but no matter how hard I look, I don't see those words in this article. Did you make them up, or what am I not getting here?

PB

November 30, 2005 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB

Those quotes are from somewhere in the above labyrinth of comments. They are my words, as a suggestion for part of the curriculum.

Someone asked (rudely, I might add) the source of the information and I provided other direct quotes from the AAP paper which back up these statements.

November 30, 2005 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "They are my words,"

Exactly.....glad you finallly got it.

"anon free"

November 30, 2005 4:37 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

OK, that's weird. You quoted yourself.

Did you notice this part of the article that you quoted: It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization...

PB

November 30, 2005 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Here's the reference cited by the AAP paper in discussion:

Garofalo R, Wolf RC, Kessel S, Palfrey SJ, DuRant RH. The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics.1998; 101 :895 –902

___________________

Note last line.

"anon free"


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/5/895

The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents

Received Feb 17, 1997; accepted Jan 2, 1998.

Robert Garofalo*, , R. Cameron Wolf¶, Shari Kessel#, Judith Palfrey*, and Robert H. DuRant
From the Divisions of * General Pediatrics and Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital/Harvard Medical School; JRI Health/Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center; ¶ Harvard School of Public Health; and # Massachusetts Department of Education, Boston Massachusetts.

Objective. This study is one of the first to examine the association between sexual orientation and health risk behaviors among a representative, school-based sample of adolescents.

Design. This study was conducted on an anonymous, representative sample of 4159 9th- to 12th-grade students in public high schools from Massachusetts' expanded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Sexual orientation was determined by the following question: "Which of the following best describes you?" A total of 104 students self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB), representing 2.5% of the overall population. Of GLB youth, 66.7% were male and 70% were white (not Hispanic). Health risk and problem behaviors were analyzed comparing GLB youth and their peers. Those variables found to be significantly associated with GLB youth were then analyzed by multiple logistic regression models.

Results. GLB youth were more likely than their peers to have been victimized and threatened and to have been engaged in a variety of risk behaviors including suicidal ideation and attempts, multiple substance use, and sexual risk behaviors. Four separate logistic regression models were constructed. Model I, Onset of Behaviors Before Age 13, showed use of cocaine before age 13 years as strongly associated with GLB orientation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45-15.20). Early initiation of sexual intercourse (2.15; 10.6-4.38), marijuana use (1.98; 1.04-4.09), and alcohol use (1.82; 1.03-3.23) also was associated with GLB orientation. Model II, Lifetime Frequencies of Behaviors, showed that frequency of crack cocaine use (1.38; 1.06-1.79), inhalant use (1.30; 1.05-1.61), and number of sexual partners (1.27; 1.06-1.43) was associated with GLB orientation. Model III, Frequency of Recent Behaviors, showed smokeless tobacco use in the past 30 days (1.38; 1.20-1.59) and number of sexual partners in the previous 3 months (1.47; 1.31-1.65) were associated with GLB orientation. Model IV, Frequency of Behaviors at School, showed having one's property stolen or deliberately damaged (1.23; 1.08-1.40) and using marijuana (1.29; 1.05-1.59) and smokeless tobacco (1.53; 1.30-1.81) were associated with GLB orientation. Overall, GLB respondents engaged disproportionately in multiple risk behaviors, reporting an increased mean number of risk behaviors (mean = 6.81 ± 4.49) compared with the overall student population (mean = 3.45 ± 3.15).

Conclusion. GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than are their peers. These findings suggest that educational efforts, prevention programs, and health services must be designed to address the unique needs of GLB youth.

November 30, 2005 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PasserBy said...
OK, that's weird. You quoted yourself.

Did you notice this part of the article that you quoted: It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization...

PB

____________

Yes anonymous knew it. Just hoped no one else read the whole thing to catch what anonymous chose to leave out as usual.

"anon free"

November 30, 2005 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB

Pay close attention:

my suggested curriculum wording:

"those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population"

corroborating quote from AAP:

"Although only representing a portion of youth who someday will self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, school-based studies have found that these adolescents, compared with heterosexual peers, are 2 to 7 times more likely to attempt suicide,... and are more likely to engage in frequent and heavy use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine."

and

"putting them at increased risk of STDs including HIV infection."

my suggested curriculum wording:

"People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents"

corroborating quote from AAP paper:

"Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to have had sexual intercourse, to have had more partners, and to have experienced sexual intercourse against their will,"

November 30, 2005 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OK, that's weird. You quoted yourself."

Look, you moron, I quoted myself because one of your friends had been calling me a liar and I was comparing what I said to what was in the AAP paper.

November 30, 2005 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Note last line.

"anon free"


Conclusion. GLB youth who self-identify during high school report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors, including suicide, victimization, sexual risk behaviors, and multiple substance use. In addition, these youth are more likely to report engaging in multiple risk behaviors and initiating risk behaviors at an earlier age than are their peers. These findings suggest that educational efforts, prevention programs, and health services must be designed to address the unique needs of GLB youth."

"PasserBy said...

Did you notice this part of the article that you quoted: It is important to note that these psychosocial problems and suicide attempts in nonheterosexual youth are neither universal nor attributable to homosexuality per se, but they are significantly associated with stigmatization...

PB"

What you two idiots fail to recognize is that I didn't post this paper. I merely cited it, when requested to give a source of facts. I was suggesting a curriculum of facts. The two quotes you give above are interpretations of data but not the data itself. They're not unfeasible conclusions but they are open to dispute while the facts I cited are not.

Your suggestion that I was trying to deceive someone is wrong and I personally think it's feigned ignorance.

November 30, 2005 4:55 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

I've been trying to follow all of this, and last night I was reading this stuff about how gay kids had been "sexually abused," and I was going through the reference section of this paper you cited, trying to figure out where it said that. And then today, you kept quoting it, and ... I said something yesterday, and then I asked again today.

I actually thought there was something wrong with my web browser, becuase I couldn't find any of this text in the article.

Maybe I am a moron, I've been called worse no doubt, but it had not occurred to me that a guy talking about a journal article would repeatedly quote himself in the discussion, including putting quotation marks around his own words, giving his own made-up interpretation more emphasis than the article that he himself had told everybody to read. Just call me dumb, I didn't think of it.

PB

November 30, 2005 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, PB, my apologies if I jumped to a conclusion. Let me ask you this:

Do you now see where the AAP paper and its cited source say that homosexuals are more likely to have suffered sexual abuse than heterosexuals?

November 30, 2005 4:59 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you keep calling people names I'm gonna start deleting your comments. Please cool down.

JimK

November 30, 2005 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Jim, I think they are trying to solicit this response. I'm just trying to keep the customer satisfied.

November 30, 2005 5:06 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon,
if you look at that abstract, which reports high-level results of regression analysis, you see that the significant predictor variables almost all appear to be consequences of homosexuality, not causes. If there was sexual abuse, as you say, I don't see it mentioned here in this abstract (but I'm hurrying); if it is a significant variable, then the way this study is designed, that would mean that once a kid has declared himself gay, or started taking on that identity, then he is more likely to be abused, which I take to mean he will be hit on by an adult. I suppose that refers to boys, because, straight teenage girls get hit on plenty by adults. Though if you added the gay boys to the straight girls, that is, adolescents who adult males go after, it might produce a significant regression coefficient.

"There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation."

PB

November 30, 2005 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB

I don't think I ever insinated that the sexual abuse caused the homosexuality (and I'm not saying it doesn't either). I never said anything about causation at all. I said that from what the cited study said, that a higher percentage of adult homosexuals had been abused as children than hetrosexuals. It may well be because they had to seek out anonymous sex but there is still a question what emotional effect that would have.

Again, here are the exact words of the AAP paper:

"Nonheterosexual youth are more likely to...have experienced sexual intercourse against their will"

I've now posted the whole paragraph and the relevant sections many times so don't first accuse me of taking it out of context when I post a part and then say you can't find the relevant part when I post the whole thing.

November 30, 2005 5:32 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Ok, Anon, I think I got it now. When it says that gay teens have sex against their will more than straght kids, we'll assume that means the adults take advantage of them more frequently. So the question would be, what do you conclude from that?

PB

November 30, 2005 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "Someone asked (rudely, I might add) the source of the information and I provided other direct quotes from the AAP paper which back up these statements.
_______

Anonymous you are a liar. You were asked the following by me:

"Anonymous are you sure about the above as you wrote it? Provide your sources."

What is so rude? Tha fact that you had to actually cough up something that turned out to be you own inserted words with quotes?


"anon free"

November 30, 2005 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Passerby said, "Maybe I am a moron, I've been called worse no doubt, but it had not occurred to me that a guy talking about a journal article would repeatedly quote himself in the discussion, including putting quotation marks around his own words, giving his own made-up interpretation more emphasis than the article that he himself had told everybody to read. Just call me dumb, I didn't think of it.

PB


___________

Well anonymous likes to see what he can slip by. He just hates getting caught making things up.

"anon free"

November 30, 2005 8:46 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Looks like this blog is the happening place.


Wonder why CRC message board cannot be this much fun?
Nevermind..when only one side is presented how much fun can that be?

November 30, 2005 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children."
Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Now that we've thoroughly gone over all the sources, how about the following as a way to fulfill the state requirement for teaching about sexual "orientation"?:


Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children.

December 01, 2005 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about the whole stigmatization angle? All these associations blame these behaviors on the stigmatization but how did they come to this conclusion? There are many other stresses that go along with this lifestyle. Might not those stresses be the culprit? There are other elements of society that have been stigmatized. Do they display these behaviors?

December 01, 2005 8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ok, Anon, I think I got it now. When it says that gay teens have sex against their will more than straght kids, we'll assume that means the adults take advantage of them more frequently. So the question would be, what do you conclude from that?"

Well, just the obvious. But the real point is that it's information the kids need to have if you're teaching about sexual preferences. If they are experiencing same-sex attraction, they need to have all the information about drawbacks before they can decide whether to pursue these feelings or this lifestyle. Hopefully, given the facts, they'll go another way.

You know, it's true you can't keep a bird from flying into your hair but you can keep it from building a nest there. There is a sense in which people are responsible for their feelings.

December 01, 2005 9:31 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

... decide whether to pursue these feelings or this lifestyle. Hopefully, given the facts, they'll go another way.

Yes, this is what I assumed your point was, that they should go another way. Anonymous, I am assuming you to be a heterosexual male -- please tell me if I'm wrong, though the following comments will apply to anyone (that being the point).

How would you like to "go another way?" Does that sound appealing to you? How would you like to live in a world where other people tried to persuade you to "go another way," to pursue another "lifestyle?" Would you feel a little resentful about that? Would you find yourself just a little bit unmotivated to give it a try? If you lived in a world where all you heard about was the ugliness and dangers of heterosexual sex -- pregnancy, syphilis, gonnorhea, herpes, messy emotional situations -- would you be tempted to switch? Somehow I don't think that would be my response...

The hardest thing is to take on someone else's perspective. Try it for a second, see what you would do.

And remember, there is a sense in which people are not responsible for their feelings.

JimK

December 01, 2005 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, I am assuming you to be a heterosexual male -- please tell me if I'm wrong,"

Jim, if you could see my wardrobe, you'd realize I don't even qualify as metrosexual.

"How would you like to "go another way?" Does that sound appealing to you? How would you like to live in a world where other people tried to persuade you to "go another way," to pursue another "lifestyle?""

I do live in that world. We all do. It's really no big deal. You tend to gravitate to those who support and encourage you. Sounds like gays have a support network.

"Would you feel a little resentful about that?"

No.

"Would you find yourself just a little bit unmotivated to give it a try? If you lived in a world where all you heard about was the ugliness and dangers of heterosexual sex -- pregnancy, syphilis, gonnorhea, herpes, messy emotional situations -- would you be tempted to switch?"

These dangers apply to promiscuous fornicaters and adulterers. Yes, kids should know about those dangers too. I thought you knew my position on that. Monogamous marriage is the safe harbor.

"Somehow I don't think that would be my response...

The hardest thing is to take on someone else's perspective. Try it for a second, see what you would do."

I'm actually pretty good at that. That's why I understand this whole thing better than you. Of course, saying that will probably cause your friends here to start questioning my sexuality again.

"And remember, there is a sense in which people are not responsible for their feelings."

Jim, if kids in the classes have those feelings, they are nascent, by definition, given their age. They can make decisions to indulge these feelings or not.

Several of you have made the point that homosexuals can perform heterosexual acts. It's difficult to believe they can if it's not pleasurable. The more they do, the more they will go that way. It's simply a Pavlovian response. There may be certain individuals that have persistent same-sex twinges but many people have certain sexual fantasies that are never fulfilled. They still have happy and fulfilling lives. And, truthfully, homosexuals have little chance of being fulfilled because their fantasies are unrealistic. Something else these kids have a right to know. Teach the reality not the fairy tale.

December 01, 2005 10:59 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Mr. Hollis,

Anonymous said...

>>How about the whole stigmatization angle? All these associations blame these behaviors on the stigmatization but how did they come to this conclusion? There are many other stresses that go along with this lifestyle. Might not those stresses be the culprit? There are other elements of society that have been stigmatized. Do they display these behaviors? <<

I, for one, know all about this, having lived it, as did many of my friends. And, guess what? We had all these stresses before we engaged in any kind of non-stright, non-heterosexual lifestyle.

And, yes, other groups in society experience the same problems as a result of their own stresses. For example, fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt have very high rates of unwed pregnancy, teen preganancy, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, and illiteracy. Since they haven't said otherwise, I will assume they're all straight.

December 01, 2005 11:28 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Mr. Hollis,

I wanted to respond last night, but the blog had frozen.

I, too, take issue with you inserting your own words, in quotes, into a research paper.

What the paper said is that a small segment (2-7%) of the LGB population had the reported consequences. So, one can infer that the vast majority did not. Therefore, it would not be logical to state "Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide . . . ," but to state that "some people who engage in homosexual sex, as well as those who engage in heterosexual sex, report the following . . . "

I'm rather surprised that you actually expect to get this sleight-of-hand past us. Maybe the PFOX group, but not us.

Also, as far as abuse goes, you do the same thing. A small segment of gay teens, particularly those homeless and working the streets, ends up sexually, physically and emotionally abused. True. The same happens to striaght kids in similar circumstances. You know, the cliche "slut daughter throuwn out of her home by her straight, alcoholic, abusive father." But you know full well there is no evidence that CHILDHOOD abuse predisposes one to any particular sexual orientation. That Freudian nonsense went out of style with the "refrigerator moms" who "caused" schizophrenia. So you might as well stop proposing it, because it is no longer anything but a canard. The belief that those who were abused as children are more likely to be abusers has been shown to be the case statistically, but you can't extrapolate to any given individual, since each life experience is very different. In addition, the vast majority of those abused were straight kids who became straight adults.

December 01, 2005 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I, too, take issue with you inserting your own words, in quotes, into a research paper."

I never did that. I assumed everyone understood that and Kay was making her usual non-contribution.

"What the paper said is that a small segment (2-7%) of the LGB population had the reported consequences. So, one can infer that the vast majority did not. Therefore, it would not be logical to state "Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide . . . ," but to state that "some people who engage in homosexual sex, as well as those who engage in heterosexual sex, report the following . . . "

I'm rather surprised that you actually expect to get this sleight-of-hand past us. Maybe the PFOX group, but not us."

I was trying to get anything by you. That "small segment" if I read the paper correctly are those who eventually self-identify as homosexual.

"Also, as far as abuse goes, you do the same thing. A small segment of gay teens, particularly those homeless and working the streets, ends up sexually, physically and emotionally abused."

Maybe it's a grammatical error on their part but it didn't say this problem was limited to homeless teens.

"True. The same happens to striaght kids in similar circumstances. You know, the cliche "slut daughter throuwn out of her home by her straight, alcoholic, abusive father." But you know full well there is no evidence that CHILDHOOD abuse predisposes one to any particular sexual orientation."

I didn't say that. I said that it's been reported that victims of childhood abuse have a higher chance of eventually becoming perpetrators. And that, based on what the AAP paper said, gays are more likely to have been abused as adolescents.

"That Freudian nonsense went out of style with the "refrigerator moms" who "caused" schizophrenia. So you might as well stop proposing it, because it is no longer anything but a canard."

I don't know what you're talking about but I'm so glad to see one of three philosophical enemies of the 20th century has a declining reputation. First, Marx. Now, Freud. Coming up, Darwin!

"The belief that those who were abused as children are more likely to be abusers has been shown to be the case statistically, but you can't extrapolate to any given individual, since each life experience is very different."

Right you are and it would wrong to burden an individual with a statistical norm. Still, kids being taught and developing their life's philosophy need to know the risks.

"In addition, the vast majority of those abused were straight kids who became straight adults."

I agree. American victims of valueless sex-ed. We saw the fruit at Abu Graib (spell check, please).

December 01, 2005 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt have very high rates of unwed pregnancy, teen preganancy, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, and illiteracy."

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, I don't think anyone, including they, would blame stigmatization for the problem.

You know, practicing evangelicals would have a zero illiteracy rate because so much of their religious activity centers around reading the Word.

December 01, 2005 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

Several of you have made the point that homosexuals can perform heterosexual acts. It's difficult to believe they can if it's not pleasurable. The more they do, the more they will go that way. It's simply a Pavlovian response. There may be certain individuals that have persistent same-sex twinges but many people have certain sexual fantasies that are never fulfilled. They still have happy and fulfilling lives. And, truthfully, homosexuals have little chance of being fulfilled because their fantasies are unrealistic. Something else these kids have a right to know. Teach the reality not the fairy tale.



_____________

Wow...now we know what another bigot sounds like.


"anon free"

December 01, 2005 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I, for one, know all about this, having lived it, as did many of my friends. And, guess what? We had all these stresses before we engaged in any kind of non-stright, non-heterosexual lifestyle."

What are you, anyway, Dana? I thought the story was that you had an operation to change your gender. Are you now saying you're attracted to the gender you switched to or are you talking about your pre-surgery life?

December 01, 2005 12:12 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anon said........

I never did that. I assumed everyone understood that and Kay was making her usual non-contribution.

********************

Funny how your hatred of me shines through even when I am not involved. Why is that? Seems like you feel the same for Andrea..must be a woman thing with you.

Well Anon I have been away attending to a nephew in a coma so I would not give me credit.

Interesting that there were a good number of folks on on this blog who nailed you and "your quotes."

I enjoyed reading it of course. I expect more of the same coming your way today.

December 01, 2005 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

100

December 01, 2005 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow...now we know what another bigot sounds like.


"anon free""

Now, we know what people do when they don't have an argument.

December 01, 2005 12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems like you feel the same for Andrea..must be a woman thing with you."

Nah, I think Dana, Silly and David usually have something to say and we've got all three genders represented there.

You and Andrea just usually make a bunch of sarcastic non-sequiturs (spelling check, please.)

December 01, 2005 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, per the title of this post:

Are we feeling optimistic yet?

December 01, 2005 12:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, I'm jumping in here today... It seems to me that you leave no argument. Your basic assumption is that it's better to be straight, even if your own nature tends the other way. You don't have good reasons why it's better, you just figure that adolescents growing up with homosexual feelings should be steered away from them. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the implication of someone's feelings being different from yours.

Well, none of us can understand what it's like to be someone else, of course, but in the meantime we can respect one another and allow them the right and the privilege to be who they are. If a guy falls in love with another guy, where's the harm? What's it to you?

I think it's a little harsh to call you a "bigot," seeing that you are at least trying to explain yourself. But your blindness to realities that differ from your own, I'm afraid, puts you in that class. You don't have to be it, you don't have to understand it, but your fundamental insistence that there's something wrong with it is ... never mind. Let's just say it makes it impossible to reason with you. For you, it's like looking at something red under a red light.

JimK

December 01, 2005 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous spouted about Kay and Andrea, "You and Andrea just usually make a bunch of sarcastic non-sequiturs (spelling check, please.)"

Funny coming from you anonymous..too bad you spend time emoting bigotry everyday. Just figure that is who you are in real life when not on blog too.

"anon free"

December 01, 2005 12:55 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Are we feeling optimistic yet?

Absolutely, man. I notice there's a total of one of you, and your logic is transparent for all readers.

JimK

December 01, 2005 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,

The reason this whole blog went on so long is because your group wants to divert attention from the original point I made:

Your group wants to lead kids to believe that science has come to conclusions on these issues instead of informing them about the different and viable viewpoints that are held by experts.

Don't be a hypocrite. Advocate teaching the facts an live up to your name.

December 01, 2005 1:16 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

But Anon, you have not demonstrated that there are "different and viable viewpoints that are held by experts." As the new curriculum said, "experts agree."

I think you have failed to show us any experts who support your point of view.

JimK

December 01, 2005 1:19 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

okay, I am going to bet that this last anon is not EHollis or Orin. Am I right, anon? This is a question, not a sarcastic non sequiter.

Andrea

December 01, 2005 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But Anon, you have not demonstrated that there are "different and viable viewpoints that are held by experts." As the new curriculum said, "experts agree."

I think you have failed to show us any experts who support your point of view."

Throckmorton said there were and you just say the other day, you agreed with most of what he had to say.

What about the first part, Jim, has science proven the things you want to have kids believe?

December 01, 2005 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"okay, I am going to bet that this last anon is not EHollis or Orin. Am I right, anon? This is a question, not a sarcastic non sequiter.

Andrea"

You're the good Andrea, aren't you? I was referring to the VP of this organization (although, maybe I've been confused all along.)

December 01, 2005 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

I documented that five years after the APA declassified homosexuality as a disease, the overwhelming majority of experts disagreed. No doubt, many of these experts survive. You have not demonstrated when or if they universally changed their mind and it's obvious that associations don't necessarily represent their membership. The only judgment the other groups have made is to cite the APA decision.

Virtually, all the association who have position papers have correctly stated that science hasn't determined what causes same-sex feelings. When the curriculum says "experts have concluded you have no choice", it's simplistic, misleading and unscientific. You're trying to make kids think orientation is biologically determined and not only does the research done not prove that, it casts doubt on it.

December 01, 2005 2:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

First of all "I" am not trying to make kids believe anything.

Second, Experts do agree it's not a choice. You have a distorted view of what a scientific fact is, as if it were something proven in the deductive sense or something beyond doubt. That's just wrong. A scientific fact, if you are to take a skeptical view of it, is nothing more than the beliefs of the experts in a field. There's just nothing more to it.

Nobody said sexual orientation was biological, I didn't say it, and it doesn't matter, it might infiltrate the soul via starlight for all I know. You don't have to prove it's biological to say it's not a choice. That's like these dumb CRC people who say, "It must be a choice because there's no gay gene." It's bad reasoning, straw-man reasoning, and I'm not falling for it. Nobody said there's a gay gene, nobody said it's biological. I would say: nobody knows how it happens.

Everybody knows they don't choose their sexual orientation. Shrinks who sit day after day picking apart neurotics' minds agree that it's not a choice. Pediatricians who deal with adolescents going through the struggle to discover who they are agree it's not a choice. Theorists who interview people and conduct surveys, ex-ex-gays who have tried to change ... everybody agrees it's not a choice.

I don't know what straw you think you're clinging to here, but it seems to be pure unsubstantiated hope.

JimK

December 01, 2005 2:18 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Anon,
I am always considered the good Andrea by everyone who knows me except you and your friends over at CRC but of course, you don't really know me. I am the VP of TTF and like another good(if mythical person) person, I fight for truth, justice and the real American way- along with all of my colleagues here.

December 01, 2005 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your basic assumption is that it's better to be straight"

That's my belief, Jim, but I'm not suggesting teaching that. I'm just saying teach the facts and let them decide for themselves.

Your assumption is that it's a neutral position and you do want the kids taught that and shielded from any fact that would contradict your belief.

"Well, none of us can understand what it's like to be someone else, of course, but in the meantime we can respect one another and allow them the right and the privilege to be who they are. If a guy falls in love with another guy, where's the harm? What's it to you?"

We're not talking about whether this should be legal. We're talking about what should be taught to kids. Your argument here is a subterfuge.

"I think it's a little harsh to call you a "bigot," seeing that you are at least trying to explain yourself."

Moderation is a virtue so at least you're moving in the right direction.

"But your blindness to realities that differ from your own, I'm afraid, puts you in that class. You don't have to be it, you don't have to understand it, but your fundamental insistence that there's something wrong with it is ... never mind. Let's just say it makes it impossible to reason with you. For you, it's like looking at something red under a red light."

Sorry. You're the one ignoring reality.

December 01, 2005 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon,
I am always considered the good Andrea by everyone who knows me except you and your friends over at CRC but of course, you don't really know me. I am the VP of TTF and like another good(if mythical person) person, I fight for truth, justice and the real American way- along with all of my colleagues here."

Yuck.

December 01, 2005 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said, " We're talking about what should be taught to kids. Your argument here is a subterfuge.


_______________

Now what would you have taught to kids....that homosexuality is an abomination and if you think you are a homosexual
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE?


"anon free"

December 01, 2005 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all "I" am not trying to make kids believe anything."

Please. You describe repeatedly here what view you think kids should take of homosexuality.

"Second, Experts do agree it's not a choice. You have a distorted view of what a scientific fact is, as if it were something proven in the deductive sense or something beyond doubt. That's just wrong. A scientific fact, if you are to take a skeptical view of it, is nothing more than the beliefs of the experts in a field. There's just nothing more to it."

This idea that facts are whatever the consensus of experts believe is wrong and someone who believes that shouldn't be influencing the curriculum. No other area of science would have a curriculum based on the views of an association.

Besides that, calling associations experts is misleading too. Experts are researchers and practitioners. I've shown that when the decision was made to declassify homosexuality as a mental disease, the experts didn't agree. No one here has documented what the experts believe currently or, if there is a consensus, what it's based on.

You keep implying that I'm playing games with words by insisting on absolute "beyond a doubt" proof. I'm not. I don't think there is even circumstantial proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Nobody said sexual orientation was biological, I didn't say it, and it doesn't matter, it might infiltrate the soul via starlight for all I know. You don't have to prove it's biological to say it's not a choice. That's like these dumb CRC people who say, "It must be a choice because there's no gay gene." It's bad reasoning, straw-man reasoning, and I'm not falling for it. Nobody said there's a gay gene, nobody said it's biological. I would say: nobody knows how it happens."

But if it's not biological, it's not saying much because it's then not any different than any other desire you may have. Truth be told, mental health experts don't really think you have a choice about any feelings you have. The deception here is to make kids think it's more immutable than any other feeling. Sex is biological based on hormones, there is no proof orientation is.

"Everybody knows they don't choose their sexual orientation. Shrinks who sit day after day picking apart neurotics' minds agree that it's not a choice. Pediatricians who deal with adolescents going through the struggle to discover who they are agree it's not a choice. Theorists who interview people and conduct surveys, ex-ex-gays who have tried to change ... everybody agrees it's not a choice."

These type of experts sat with these same types of people thirty years ago and concluded differently. You haven't documented what the consensus of experts believe now and even if they all believe what you say they do, you apparently believe "everybody" was wrong before.

"I don't know what straw you think you're clinging to here, but it seems to be pure unsubstantiated hope."

Where's your substantiation, Jim?

December 01, 2005 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now what would you have taught to kids"

Some people say they are sexually attracted to people of the same gender. Researchers have not been able to find any biological basis for this attraction and it is unknown what causes it.

Although those who engage in homosexual behavior have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, random promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease than the general population, many have managed to function in society in many ways. People who report this attraction are also more likely to have been sexually abused as adolescents and studies have shown that those who sexually abuse children often have been abused as children.

December 01, 2005 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Junk talk anonymous as usual. Just because you said it makes it the thing to be taught..right anon?



"anon free"

December 01, 2005 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous spouted,"I've shown that when the decision was made to declassify homosexuality as a mental disease,the experts didn't agree."


HA HA HA..no you didn't.


"anon free"

December 01, 2005 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Junk talk anonymous as usual. Just because you said it makes it the thing to be taught..right anon?



"anon free""

You asked what I would teach and I answered. Your comment again shows that what you're "free" of is intelligence.

December 01, 2005 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous spouted,"I've shown that when the decision was made to declassify homosexuality as a mental disease,the experts didn't agree."


HA HA HA..no you didn't.


"anon free""

Indeed I did. And your side has yet to show any proof of what most experts believe now. If you got any, show it.

December 01, 2005 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said again,
"Indeed I did. And your side has yet to show any proof of what most experts believe now. If you got any, show it."



HA HA HA..no you didn't.


"anon free""

December 01, 2005 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "You asked what I would teach and I answered"

Again junk talk

"anon free"

December 01, 2005 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

free

Are you in counseling?

December 01, 2005 4:34 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

This idea that facts are whatever the consensus of experts believe is wrong and someone who believes that shouldn't be influencing the curriculum.

Knowledge is often defined (since Socrates' time) as "justified true belief." But the actual truth of an empirical statement as it applies to every relevant instance in the universe can never be known. Therefore its truth cannot be confirmed and is never know with certainty. Justification can be inductive and misleading, but that's often all you have. What are you left with? Belief.

Though the truth of a statement can never be proven beyond a doubt (remember, Goedel proved that even the fundamental axioms of mathematics rely on unsupported assumptions), it can be known to be more or less probably true, and the methods of science increase the probabilities of statements being true by using valid measurement, hypothesis nullification, inferential statistical methods, and the social process of paradigmatic challenge, competition, and "standing on the shoulders of giants." This increase of probability is the inductive justification I was describing, which is logically inadequate for proof, and scientific certainty never hits a hundred percent.

Also remember that the vast bulk of science is dry, boring stuff that the public would never want to read or be able to understand. I subscribe to Science, which has articles from every field, and I promise you, scientists in one field cannot understand the literature of another. It takes years of careful, focused study to understand the details of any scientific discipline. The experts in other words have specialized knowledge, and to try to challenge their specialized study in the public forum is naive and disrespectful.

In the long run, scientific fact is only the opinions of those highly educated, intensely focused, extremely motivated experts in the field. They may debate among themselves the details of the reasoning that have led them to their belief, and they may point to chains of logic that sway their particular point of view one way or the other, but if you're looking for some Big Blackboard in the Sky where facts are beyond dispute, they jes ain't none.

So, Anon, for you it seems to come down to a battle of authorities. You accept the word of religious authorities who interpret the Bible for you, and reject the word of scientific authorities who tell you what the research concludes. If that's all it is, then every discussion with you will end in a stalemate.

JimK

December 01, 2005 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said again,
"Indeed I did. And your side has yet to show any proof of what most experts believe now. If you got any, show it."



HA HA HA..no you didn't.


"anon free"""

I guess this is your way of saying: No, I don't have any evidence- please stop asking!

December 01, 2005 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said, "I guess this is your way of saying: No, I don't have any evidence- please stop asking!"

_______________________

Just pointing out when you lie anonymous. Let me see several pointed that out to you over the last week.

"anon free"

December 01, 2005 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

free

Are you in counseling?
___________________________

This blog is very therapeutic and you know that which is why you are here. You need an outlet for that bigotry you spout and want others to live by.

"anon free"

December 01, 2005 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have no evidence- yikes!

December 01, 2005 4:56 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

I tried to supply some of the history of this phenomenon, but you either didn't read it or pay attention.

As far as I know, neither APA has ever surveyed all their members, not now or in the 1970s. There are shrinks of all types who still hold to the old beliefs. I even know some of them. So what? The Associations have determined, based on their analysis of the available data, that homosexuality is not a disease. I presume if anyone provides credible evidence to the contrary they will revisit it. I have also discussed how there never was any evidence it was a disease in the first place, so the fact that they changed their collective mind is really no big deal.

Is it biological? I think it is, and by that I mean I believe the predisposition to be either homo or hetero is determined in utero. The process must be extremely complex -- genetci, epigentic, hormonal, nerve growth factors, neurotransmitters and all that. We know very little, but we know much more than we did twenty years ago. And the burden of proof is now squarely in the lap of those who think otherwise. That's the way science works.

As for myself, I am a woman, and always have been female. I have had surgery to correct my genitals, but that's about it. And I'm not gay, not that it matters. My point was that I know what it's like to know some fundamental truth about oneself and to keep it secret, and live one's life as an act. It's hell, much worse than the fire and brimstone of the fundamentalist preachers. And all of that reinforcement of living as a male for fifty years did nothing to change who I was. So while there are certain behaviors that can be positively reinforced, this is not true for sexual identity and sexual orientation. And even Throckmorton agrees with that. Oh, if you want to make me a third gender, that's fine, though I have never considered myself that. Intersex is not a third gender.

December 01, 2005 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana said: And all of that reinforcement of living as a male for fifty years did nothing to change who I was. So while there are certain behaviors that can be positively reinforced, this is not true for sexual identity and sexual orientation.

****

Anonymous will never understand the above. One has to have empathy and sympathy and let people be who they are.

Anonymous wants everyone to conform to his "ideals."


"anon free"

December 01, 2005 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is it biological? I think it is, and by that I mean I believe the predisposition to be either homo or hetero is determined in utero. The process must be extremely complex -- genetci, epigentic, hormonal, nerve growth factors, neurotransmitters and all that. We know very little, but we know much more than we did twenty years ago. And the burden of proof is now squarely in the lap of those who think otherwise."

Why is that? What finding has been made that's so strong that it requires refutation?

"As far as I know, neither APA has ever surveyed all their members, not now or in the 1970s. There are shrinks of all types who still hold to the old beliefs. I even know some of them. So what?"

Jim says none of them exists if you read above. That's the "so what".

I really don't understand why no one has polled professionals on such a controversial topic. It's a suspicious piece of evidence to be lacking and last time they did do it, as far as any of us know, it wasn't even a close call.

"The Associations have determined, based on their analysis of the available data, that homosexuality is not a disease. I presume if anyone provides credible evidence to the contrary they will revisit it. I have also discussed how there never was any evidence it was a disease in the first place, so the fact that they changed their collective mind is really no big deal."

It all goes back to something you and had agreed on at one point. They didn't review any data because there was none. Whether something is a disease depends on your definition of normal. They aren't the keepers of the English language.

Homosexuality leads people to do irrational things which are harmful to themselves. Common usage would call that a mental disease. Should we discuss some of these irrational things?

December 01, 2005 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous will never understand the above. One has to have empathy and sympathy and let people be who they are.

Anonymous wants everyone to conform to his "ideals.""

We are not discussing letting people be who they are. I'm fine with letting them do whatever they want to themselves.

What we're discussing is do you teach the truth about them to kids in school.

Do you want people to conform to your ideals? If not, what kind of ideals are those?

December 01, 2005 8:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I'll say it again. There was never any evidence that either transsexualism or homosexuality were mental illnesses in the first place, so there is no need for evidence to refute that position. However, as a scientist I have tried to present the data to you. I suggest you read Roughgarden's book as well as Deborah Rudacille's "The Riddle of Gender." They do a much better job than I.

Yes, and society defines illness by its standards. One can easily define religious faith as a mental illness, but we choose not to. OK. Delusions, belief in the unseen, resistance to reason, concrete thinking, hallucinations -- you know, it sounds like schizophrenia to me. But we, as a society, choose to treat it differently.

Same with sexual variance. In the past, this society chose to view anyone who was not straight as deviant, just as it chose to view anyone who was not white as inferior, and not male as inferior. Times have changed. Even you are better off because of it. I think you'll survive this change as well. After all, I don't expect it personally impacts you very much.

December 01, 2005 10:48 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said: Homosexuality leads people to do irrational things which are harmful to themselves.

***************

Are you saying the things that homosexuals do....heterosexuals do not?

Such as......????????

December 01, 2005 11:13 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Anon said....I really don't understand why no one has polled professionals on such a controversial topic. It's a suspicious piece of evidence to be lacking and last time they did do it, as far as any of us know, it wasn't even a close call.

Are you still talking about the 1977 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality survey that was summarized in a February 1978 issue of Time magazine, Anon? That was another source you had difficulty quoting correctly. You left out "and compiled the first 2,500 responses" and the last few sentences without even noting with "..." that you'd left out any portions of the quote. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten that you then explained that in your opinion, it was not important that you left out part of the quote.

Here's another suggestion for you (like signing your posts, it's only a suggestion): If you're going to play the role of a scholar here on this blog, you should learn how to conduct yourself like one. Scholars quote sources accurately or else they paraphrase. Paraphrasing when citing a reference inside quotation marks is a definite no no.

Back to the discussion at hand: You disagreed with "the logic" of my suggestion that perhaps APA members with a negative view of homosexuality (specifically the view that homosexuals are not trustworthy in some jobs) responded in greater number to the survey than those who did not hold that "lowly view."

I could not find the original 1977 survey on line so I called Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality publisher's office in New Jersey (Telephone 973/701-2740. Fax 973/701/8895.). Kathy Knapp (direct dial 973/206-8964) left me a message saying they don't keep old reprints so I went to the library and obtained a personal photocopy of the original survey. (Lief, H.I., Sexual Survey #4. Current Thinking on Homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 110-111, November 1977.)

Harold I. Lief, M.D. provided "interpretive remarks" for the survey report and said, "The results...are surprising in that an American Psychiatric Association poll of its own membership in 1974 agreed by a small majority that homosexuality should not be defined as a disorder unless the person is dissatisfied with that sexual orientation. The present findings suggest three possibilities:.1) The APA vote was influenced by political and social considerations, in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals; 2) Those who were more inclined to answer this survey had stronger feelings about their point of view than those who did not respond; 3) Psychiatrists' opinions on the matter have changed since 1974."

In regard to the finding that more APA members who returned completed questionnaires said "yes" than said "no" in response to, "Are homosexual men generally less happy than others?" Dr. Lief noted, "The greater unhappiness of homosexuals is understandable in terms of society's condemnation. Psychiatrists also tend to see those who are distressed."

Anon said...What do you think? Do you think most practitioners agreed with the association at the time?

Well, it was 1973 when the APA decided that homosexuality did not belong in the DSM-II and the 1974 APA poll showed a majority of APA members agreed that homosexuality is not a disease. So yes, I do think that the majority of psychologists agreed that homosexuality is not a disease.
The 1977 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality report which includes information on the 1974 APA poll of its members confirms my view.

The 1974 APA poll is closer in time to the APA decision so it more accurately represents the views of the membership in 1973 than the survey you erroneously keep holding up as the *only* poll on the subject. Further, in 1978 the US Supreme Court ruled affirmatively in the Bakke "reverse discrimination" case, so we all need to consider what were the "political and social considerations" in 1977 when MAHS made its survey. The MAHS survey was conducted during a period of backlash against the slow but steady progress being made by minorities who have long suffered discrimination.

Christine

December 02, 2005 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrear writes,

okay, I am going to bet that this last anon is not EHollis or Orin. Am I right, anon? This is a question, not a sarcastic non sequiter.

Andrea


Since I have been posting to this forum I have always signed my name...always (hummm, sounds like a well known commercial jingle). And just in case you are wondering, I am for real...just google my first and last name. The reason I use the "Anonymous" identity is because I find it easier and faster to post.

Interesting thread...read quite a bit...skimmed the rest. I do wonder if private schools (secular) have the same fixation on having sex ed taught? Somehow I think that private schools (again, let me be clear...SECULAR ones) simply do not give it much thought because they know more clearly what parents are paying for...and it is not sex ed, either of a liberal or conservative flavor.

Sincerely,

Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO

December 02, 2005 8:33 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Orin,

We are grateful that you have signed your name, and I would just ask that you continue to do so. On my computer, at least, it takes no more effort to sign in as myself as it does as an anonymous.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy with your libertarian bent, but there is a great chasm between you and Mr. Hollis, for instance. If, as the active Christians believe, sexual morality is on the decline (which I don't believe, but just for argument's sake), then there is a need for sex-ed in the schools. Because the only way for it to be declining among teens is if parents are not doing an adequate job, and instead are leaving it up to the schools. Check out Noel Epstein's piece in this past Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section on that very issue. I also know this personally, having been married to an English teacher who, over the years, has been doing ever more parenting jobs and fewer teaching English jobs.

Following your prescription, we would just leave well enough alone, and we could assume the trendlines would continue moving in the same direction.

Maybe the difference between you and Anon is you don't believe things are getting worse, and he does. I, for one, actually think the data shows an improvement, and I'm just concerned that students learn human biology and get the facts about pregnancy, STI's, etc., because as a physician I know most of their parents don't have the background to present it properly.

December 02, 2005 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Silly

Don't have as much time as usual today for responses but didn't want to think I was dodging your research on the consensus thing. Anyway we can get the survey taken by APA in 74 or find out if they've done any since?

While you have a little to go on, I still don't think hearsay evidence that APA had "a small majority" in 1974 constitutes evidence of a consensus of experts. Although, if it holds up, it would say that there wasn't a consensus of APA members who answered it was a disease at the time. Depending on what size the "small majority" was, it may constitute an split vote, which would be significant given the social trends at the time.

Interesting what Dr. Leir had as possible explanations:

"1) The APA vote was influenced by political and social considerations, in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals;"

This is what I've suspected all along and still think it's true. After all, at that time, I think you've all conceded, there was little research that had been done.

"2) Those who were more inclined to answer this survey had stronger feelings about their point of view than those who did not respond;"

This is what you had surmised but what would be the reason one side would be more passionate than the other five years down the road?

"3) Psychiatrists' opinions on the matter have changed since 1974."

If that were true it would be interesting that tide was going a different way. I think you're right that the Carter era was different than the Nixon/Ford era but I think 74 was more aberrational.

Finally, Silly, after reading the paper, do you still think Dr Leif's statistical sampling methods were faulty?

As for your snide comments, I've never held myself out to be a scholar. I'm just a lone person trying to make sense of a bunch of propaganda. I've think I've done pretty well considering that, two days ago, my line of reasoning had you reeling to such an extent that you had to close down the comment section on a blog for hours so you could all brainstorm on how to counter it.

December 02, 2005 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Check out Noel Epstein's piece in this past Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section on that very issue."

I read that too, Dana. It's true and scary. Another reason responsible parents need to et their kids out of public school.

December 02, 2005 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said,"As for your snide comments, I've never held myself out to be a scholar. I'm just a lone person trying to make sense of a bunch of propaganda. I've think I've done pretty well considering that, two days ago, my line of reasoning had you reeling to such an extent that you had to close down the comment section on a blog for hours so you could all brainstorm on how to counter it.
---------------------

Anon you are so full of yourself that it is hilarious.

Overinflated ego comes to mind along with your record of lying and/or spouting your own opinions in quotes and trying to pass them off as facts.

You got caught all over the place. I suspect you cannot help yourself and people on this blog with catch you over and over again.

In fact people are so on to you that it is relatively easy to expose your bigotry and lies.

"anon free"

December 02, 2005 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I still don't think hearsay evidence that APA had "a small majority" in 1974 constitutes evidence of a consensus of experts."

December 02, 2005 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Don't have as much time as usual today for responses but didn't want to think I was dodging your research on the consensus thing. Anyway we can get the survey taken by APA in 74 or find out if they've done any since?"

Silly, I realize the above quote from myself contained grammatical errors, so here's a fix:

"Don't have as much time as usual today for responses but didn't want you to think I was dodging your research on the consensus thing. Anyway can we get the survey taken by APA in 74 or find out if they've done any since?"

If any experts out there want to quote me, could use the second version? I know I'm going to.

December 02, 2005 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I read that too, Dana. It's true and scary. Another reason responsible parents need to et their kids out of public school."

Dana, this quote from myself should read as follows:

"I read that too, Dana. It's true and scary. Another reason responsible parents need to get their kids out of public school."

Scholars,

See previous comment.

December 02, 2005 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Silly, I just realized, I did it again. That's right: spelling errors. I won't quote myself again but, just, if any experts want to quote me please correct the spelling of Dr. Lief's name. It's L-I-E-F not L-E-I-R or L-E-I-F.

You know, it's really interesting that an expert like him would make a suggestion like this:

"The APA vote was influenced by political and social considerations, in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals"

I've said this is a possibility many times and you've all assured me that they would only make a statement based on careful consideration of the research. Looks like we've got an expert that would take issue with that.

December 02, 2005 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The 1974 APA poll is closer in time to the APA decision so it more accurately represents the views of the membership in 1973 than the survey you erroneously keep holding up as the *only* poll on the subject."

Actually, Silly, I never said it was the only poll. I said it was the only one I knew of and repeatedly asked if any of you knew about another. Since personal honesty always seems to be a concern for you, let me ask you:

Did you not remember that correctly or did you tell a lie in an attempt to discredit me?

December 02, 2005 11:43 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

First off, nobody shut this blog down, and I don't need to brainstorm with anyone.

Second, in 1973 when the APA changed its diagnostic categories there was NO organized gay lobby. I don't know what country you were living in, but I, growing up in one of the most progressive cities in the world, was not aware of any lobby, let alone even a smidgen of public support. Nada. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was not created until 1973, and only by a handful of people. To imply that there were gay cultural forces at work at that time is flat out wrong.

Dr. Lief is correct to mention social and political forces, but what he's referring to is the general movement for civil rights and women's rights that blossomed in the 60's. And neither the black nor the women's movement played any significant role in the nascent gay movement which, as I've said, hardly existed at the time.

And, once again, and most importantly, claiming that homosexuality was a mental illness was a purely political decision in the first place. There was no data to support it, just Freud's theories, and they were coming under increasing scrutiny (which I know pleases you, but really ticks off Mr. Dobson who loves the stuff).

It's very much like the scientific revolution of the 16th century. Aristotelianism wasn't overturned in a day. Brunelesschi introduced infinity as perspective into art in 1425, and a few intrepid Catholic scholars had been chipping away at Aristotle and Ptolemy for centuries. But by the 16th century, with Bruno, then Copernicus, Galileo and others, the edifice just crumbled, sort of like the USSR, because there was no "there" there. There had never been any data backing up Aristotelian science, and its derivative, Ptolemaic science -- just belief, and the lack of anything better. Alternative theories frightened people, and especially the Church, so they were obstructed or ignored.

So the fact that the APA woke up in the early 1970s and declared they had been making a mistake is not an historical anomaly. It is also far from surprising that it didn't happen all at once. I would welcome such a survey today, and based on the psychiatrists I know, I would say a good 85% would agree with us. The other 15% would be made up of fundamantalists who cannot distinguish between medicine and religion, and the remnant of the Freudians.

I believe I already discussed this, but the backlash against trans women in the late 1970s was vicious. I remember it personally. From Hopkins on down, and including the gay and lesbian community arrayed against us, it was our darkest hour. So there was something in the water, a backlash of some sorts, in 1978-79.

And it's passed.

December 02, 2005 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Per Kay's request, reasons why homosexuality might be considered harmfully irrational:

1. They have forsaken a vital function that their bodies seem designed to do. (whether you believe the designer was God, Mother Nature or Uncle Natural Selection). This produces stress in not being in harmony with their calling.

2. Their sexual practices are often painful due to their unnaturalness. Many cope by abusing drugs.

3. They seem to be drawn to random promiscuity. This has resulted in a greater prevalence of life-threatening illnesses and psychological instability.

4. They seem driven to forsake safe-sex practices believing not using condoms is a lesser quality experience. This is why rates of AIDS are increasing in the gay comunity. Gays are increasingly deciding that it's worth the risk to have intercourse unprotected because they think its so much better. With a invariably fatal illness in pandemic, this seems particularly irrational.

5. They are not attracted to other homosexuals but to heterosexuals. This unreasonable expectation results in tension in relationships and depression due to unfulfilled desires.

This is not an exhaustive list and is based on subjective observation but it is observation that is common enough to make advisable study and consideration. Remember, I'm not saying it is a mental illness but simply there is enough of an indication that it is to require refutation. Also, even it were established that it's a mental illness, I wouldn't favor making it illegal. Libertarian that I am, I believe that people should be free to smoke, unbuckle their seat belts and, well, you know. The issue here is to provide teens with correct information.

December 02, 2005 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

grammar correction time

this read:

"Per Kay's request, reasons why homosexuality might be considered harmfully irrational:

1. They have forsaken a vital function that their bodies seem designed to do. (whether you believe the designer was God, Mother Nature or Uncle Natural Selection). This produces stress in not being in harmony with their calling.

2. Their sexual practices are often painful due to their unnaturalness. Many cope by abusing drugs.

3. They seem to be drawn to random promiscuity. This has resulted in a greater prevalence of life-threatening illnesses and psychological instability.

4. They seem driven to forsake safe-sex practices believing not using condoms is a lesser quality experience. This is why rates of AIDS are increasing in the gay comunity. Gays are increasingly deciding that it's worth the risk to have intercourse unprotected because they think its so much better. With a invariably fatal illness in pandemic, this seems particularly irrational.

5. They are not attracted to other homosexuals but to heterosexuals. This unreasonable expectation results in tension in relationships and depression due to unfulfilled desires.

This is not an exhaustive list and is based on subjective observation but it is observation that is common enough to make advisable study and consideration. Remember, I'm not saying it is a mental illness but simply there is enough of an indication that it is to require refutation. Also, even it were established that it's a mental illness, I wouldn't favor making it illegal. Libertarian that I am, I believe that people should be free to smoke, unbuckle their seat belts and, well, you know. The issue here is to provide teens with correct information."

it should read:

"Per Kay's request, reasons why homosexuality might be considered harmfully irrational:

1. They have forsaken a vital function that their bodies seem designed to do. (whether you believe the designer was God, Mother Nature or Uncle Natural Selection). This produces stress in not being in harmony with their calling.

2. Their sexual practices are often painful due to their unnaturalness. Many cope by abusing drugs.

3. They seem to be drawn to random promiscuity. This has resulted in a greater prevalence of life-threatening illnesses and psychological instability.

4. They seem driven to forsake safe-sex practices believing using condoms is a lesser quality experience. This is why rates of AIDS are increasing in the gay comunity. Gays are increasingly deciding that it's worth the risk to have intercourse unprotected because they think its so much better. With a invariably fatal illness in pandemic, this seems particularly irrational.

5. They are not attracted to other homosexuals but to heterosexuals. This unreasonable expectation results in tension in relationships and depression due to unfulfilled desires.

This is not an exhaustive list and is based on subjective observation but it is observation that is common enough to make advisable study and consideration. Remember, I'm not saying it is a mental illness but simply there is enough of an indication that it is to require refutation. Also, even it were established that it's a mental illness, I wouldn't favor making it illegal. Libertarian that I am, I believe that people should be free to smoke, unbuckle their seat belts and, well, you know. The issue here is to provide teens with correct information."

December 02, 2005 2:44 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Anon said...Actually, Silly, I never said it was the only poll. I said it was the only one I knew of and repeatedly asked if any of you knew about another. Since personal honesty always seems to be a concern for you, let me ask you:

Did you not remember that correctly or did you tell a lie in an attempt to discredit me?


but earlier

Anon said...I really don't understand why no one has polled professionals on such a controversial topic. It's a suspicious piece of evidence to be lacking and last time they did do it, as far as any of us know, it wasn't even a close call.

There is no need for me to "attempt to discredit" you. Your earlier statement expressed no doubt about the number of polls and did not ask if anybody "knew about another." You have said repeatedly that you have settled the debate about the APA membership's opinions based on the MAHS survey reported in Time magazine. Perhaps you asked about other polls in other posts. Cut and paste your requests for other polls if you have the time but I was responding to your earlier post accurately cited above.

FYI, here is how I learned about the 1974 APA poll. I made myself a photocopy the MAHS survey at the library on Wednesday and read it Thursday (last) night. That is when I learned for the first time there had been an APA poll done in 1974. I shared the information about it here this morning. You call that lying? Fine. You are entitled to your opinions.

Anon said....Anyway we can get the survey taken by APA in 74 or find out if they've done any since?

Sure! Go right ahead! And if you would be so kind as to share what you find with us here, all our readers will be grateful.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I didn't complain about your spelling (typos happen). I stated the difference between paraphasing and citing a quote, but while we're on the topic of spelling, it's Cilly, with a C, as in Christine, my name. If you sign your name to your posts, I promise to try to spell it correctly.

Christine

December 02, 2005 3:26 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Oops! Cilly me!

That's "paraphrasing."

Christine

December 02, 2005 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogger is a free service that
acts up from time to time, just
like some people's visions of
conspiracy apparently.

December 02, 2005 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon said...I really don't understand why no one has polled professionals on such a controversial topic. It's a suspicious piece of evidence to be lacking and last time they did do it, as far as any of us know, it wasn't even a close call.

There is no need for me to "attempt to discredit" you. Your earlier statement expressed no doubt about the number of polls and did not ask if anybody "knew about another." You have said repeatedly that you have settled the debate about the APA membership's opinions based on the MAHS survey reported in Time magazine. Perhaps you asked about other polls in other posts. Cut and paste your requests for other polls if you have the time but I was responding to your earlier post accurately cited above.

FYI, here is how I learned about the 1974 APA poll. I made myself a photocopy the MAHS survey at the library on Wednesday and read it Thursday (last) night. That is when I learned for the first time there had been an APA poll done in 1974. I shared the information about it here this morning. You call that lying? Fine. You are entitled to your opinions."

If this is where I said there was only one poll, then why did I say "as far as any of us know"? Don't get all silly on us.

Really, I assume it was an innocent mistake- I only asked because you TTFers never give any one the benefit of the doubt. You're too crazed with this dubious cause.

December 02, 2005 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Below is the mission statement of the APA. You'll notice that they don't feel it's their mission to conduct research or to evaluate research. Their mission is to protect the interests of the profession. Obviously, they'll want to avoid taking controversial positions and would be highly susceptible to "political and social considerations" as Dr. Lief so eloquently phrased it. Yeah, Dr. Lief!


"The objects of the American Psychological Association shall be to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare by

-the encouragement of psychology in all its branches in the broadest and most liberal manner
-the promotion of research in psychology and the improvement of research methods and conditions
the improvement of the qualifications and usefulness of psychologists through high standards of ethics, conduct, education, and achievement
the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association
the increase and diffusion of psychological knowledge through meetings, professional contacts, reports, papers, discussions, and publications
thereby to advance scientific interests and inquiry, and the application of research findings to the promotion of health, education, and the public welfare."

December 02, 2005 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Blogger is a free service that
acts up from time to time, just
like some people's visions of
conspiracy apparently."

yeah, it was probably all the word searches jim does that made it crash

December 02, 2005 4:34 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said:

This is not an exhaustive list and is based on subjective observation...

*************
Your subjective observation....?????

December 02, 2005 6:15 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said (added quotes)

"Per Kay's request, reasons why homosexuality might be considered harmfully irrational:"

"1. They have forsaken a vital function that their bodies seem designed to do. (whether you believe the designer was God, Mother Nature or Uncle Natural Selection). This produces stress in not being in harmony with their calling."

Are you going to tell us all that heterosexuals do not have anal sex, etc.?


"2. Their sexual practices are often painful due to their unnaturalness. Many cope by abusing drugs."


See above...


"3. They seem to be drawn to random promiscuity. This has resulted in a greater prevalence of life-threatening illnesses and psychological instability."


Listen we all have known or heard of examples of plenty of heterosexuals who could not maintain monogamous relationships.



"4. They seem driven to forsake safe-sex practices believing not using condoms is a lesser quality experience. "


Just as heterosexuals do....


"This is why rates of AIDS are increasing in the gay comunity. Gays are increasingly deciding that it's worth the risk to have intercourse unprotected because they think its so much better. With a invariably fatal illness in pandemic, this seems particularly irrational.


Aids cases are rising all over. Take a look at Africa, etc."



"5. They are not attracted to other homosexuals but to heterosexuals. This unreasonable expectation results in tension in relationships and depression due to unfulfilled desires."

Really how would you know who they are attracted to? Society denial of their rights and people like you, CRC, PFOX ,etc.. could certainly cause plenty of depression and tension.

Let people be who they are.

December 02, 2005 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"4. They seem driven to forsake safe-sex practices believing using condoms is a lesser quality experience."

The religious right insists on abstinence until monogamous marriage. They push so hard against contraceptives because all their dominating males believe that using a condom is a lesser quality experience.

Most teens who receive abstinence-only health education and sign abstinence pledges also forsake safe-sex practices because the only information (if any) they receive about condoms implies that condoms fail so often you are just as safe without one as you are with one, a very dangerous thing to teach a teenager.

Both of these problems illustrate why it is so important to include up-to-date information about condoms and sexual orientation in public school health education classes.

December 02, 2005 7:00 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

This anonymous said: "Most teens who receive abstinence-only health education and sign abstinence pledges also forsake safe-sex practices because the only information (if any) they receive about condoms implies that condoms fail so often you are just as safe without one as you are with one, a very dangerous thing to teach a teenager."
_______________________


Or those that take the abstinence pledge moving to oral or anal sex while believing they are still "pure" since it is not what they consider "real sex."

We all should note that is what the other anon is talking about when he noted what homosexuals do things that are unnatural or "not being in harmony with their calling." So heterosexuals do the same things in chosen times and even to remain "pure" until marriage.

December 02, 2005 9:00 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I will respond to this one, since others have adequately handled the rest:

"1. They have forsaken a vital function that their bodies seem designed to do. (whether you believe the designer was God, Mother Nature or Uncle Natural Selection). This produces stress in not being in harmony with their calling."

I spend a lot of time on these posts, which apparently is a waste of time. I've tried to explain the difference between brain sex and genital sex, for instance.

So, Anon, my brain was created to respond as a woman to men but my genitals were created to inseminate women. I would call that a problem. For many years psychiatrists and psychologists tried to fix the brain. They failed, utterly. So now surgeons fix the genitals. Highly successful.

I actually didn't forsake that vital function, as procreation was important to me, but I didn't particularly indulge in it, not did I enjoy it much. Doing it produced stress within me; repairing my body relieved the stress.

So, at least with transpersons, your completely wrong on this one. I would expect the same holds for gays and lesbians.

As for research, professional organizations such as the APA's don't do research. Their members do, in their practices and institutions, and the organizations then provide conferences and journals to publish the results. I think you know this.

December 02, 2005 9:06 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Dana I do appreciate your postings. You give a perspective that is unique and one we can all learn about and from.

Thanks.........

December 02, 2005 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana

You have brought this whole gender identity thing up many times and, if I'm hearing you right, you seem to be saying it has nothing to do with sex. Could you, and I'm not being facetious, explain what you think the difference is between the genders?

December 02, 2005 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dana I do appreciate your postings. You give a perspective that is unique and one we can all learn about and from.

Thanks........."

ROTFandLOL

thanks, kay

December 02, 2005 10:56 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Actually, this is a common misconception. It relates back to the coining of the term gender in the 1950s, which was then put into common use by John Money at Hopkins and picked up by feminist scholars in the 1970s.

Virtually all people to whom I speak interpret the word "sex" to mean "having sex with . . ." It doesn't matter how you compound the word, or what context you use it in -- sexual identity, sexual orinetation, transsexual, intersex, etc. -- people think it's about doing "it." They can't seem to help themselves. I once spoke with a group of post- graduate professionals for an hour, and when I had finished one very well-educated, articulate fellow whom I respect deeply said, "Oh, I get it. I've really been feeling my oats lately, getting it on with my wife." I had not said a word about sexual relationships or sex acts. It for this reason we use the term gender a lot, and gender identity instead of sexual identity, and a host of other uses.

Biologically speaking "sex" connotes those characteristics that differentiate the species into two basic groups -- chromosomes, genes, regulatory proteins, genitals, gonads, hormones, hormone receptors, morphology, brain functions . . . Statistically one can group those characteristics into two distinct piles, with some overlap that qualifies as "intersex."

Legally speaking, until very recently, sex meant "genitals." That was it, except for a stab by the International Olympic Committee to use chromosomal analysis back in the 1970s. Today courts are recognizing that brain sex is primary, not genital sex, so the old adage, "sex is between the ears, not the legs," is actually coming to mean something new and very useful.

Gender refers to the products of brain sex -- psychology, identity, behavior, social position. How one feels, male or female. How one identifies, as a man or woman. How one behaves -- mannerisms, language in all its layers, clothing, interests . . . How one is identified by others.

Finally, human beings have "sex" with one another, for various reasons. The groupings can vary, humans can have sex with animals, objects, etc.

Trannsexual people are intersex, with the brains of one sex and the genitals of the other. There are a host of types of intersex -- some women with typically female bodies but a Y chromosome, and some men with typical male bodies and two X chromosomes. And just about every possiblity in between. Not diseases, just natural variations, which, apparently, have been occuring since the advent of the species.

Now, with respect to sexual orientation, we're speaking primarily of one characteristic -- the object of one's desire. Before that makes any sense, you have to categorize the one with the desire. Once you do that, you can characterize that desire as homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or asexual. We now know desire can be broken down further -- erotic, romantic, affectional. And all this is a separate variable, which will in most cases segregate into the two most common classes -- hetero males and hetero females, but not always.

To complicate matters, all these variables interact socially, and probably biologically as well. It may be that when one says "gay" the majority think of a feminine man, but the majority of gay men are masculine. This takes us back to the difference between sexual orientation and gender, because whom you love is distinct from how you behave, and very different from who you are.

I know that most people don't care about all this, that they want it simple. But it isn't simple, and understanding it is what science is good at. That's why I want biology instruction improved, even more than sex-ed specifically.

After I spent two hours with the family of one of my oldest friends, explaining to them what I was about, what my transition meant, the parents still couldn't understand. They kept coming back to "gay." But their 9 year old son got it, saying, "It's who you are, not who you love."

December 02, 2005 11:29 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Kay2898 said...

Dana I do appreciate your postings. You give a perspective that is unique and one we can all learn about and from.

Thanks.........


I concur 100%, Kay.

Thank you Dana for having the compassion and courage to share your vast knowledge and personal experiences with us all.

It is an honor to be associated with a woman of your caliber and all the fine people who support teachthefacts.org's cause to bring a medically accurate comprehensive and inclusive health education curriculum to MCPS.

Christine

December 03, 2005 8:48 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...

Kay said:
"Dana I do appreciate your postings. You give a perspective that is unique and one we can all learn about and from.

Thanks........."


Anonymous then said:
ROTFandLOL

thanks, kay

******************

This would apply to you too anon.You could learn alot from women and in Dana's case you could learn alot from an especially courageous woman.

Kay R

December 03, 2005 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dana I do appreciate your postings. You give a perspective that is unique and one we can all learn about and from.

Thanks........."

"Thank you Dana for having the compassion and courage to share your vast knowledge and personal experiences with us all.

It is an honor to be associated with a woman of your caliber and all the fine people who support teachthefacts.org's cause to bring a medically accurate comprehensive and inclusive health education curriculum to MCPS."

"This would apply to you too anon.You could learn alot from women and in Dana's case you could learn alot from an especially courageous woman."

ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

December 03, 2005 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gender refers to the products of brain sex -- psychology, identity, behavior, social position. How one feels, male or female. How one identifies, as a man or woman. How one behaves -- mannerisms, language in all its layers, clothing, interests . . . How one is identified by others."

Thanks for your response. I think I had already understood that you meant a sexual indentity distinct from intercourse. What I was trying to ask was what do you think are the characteristics that distinguish the two genders. I'm just trying to figure out the logic in the way you think. I think I may have some problems with it but I want to understand it before I comment.

By the way, watch out for kay and silly. They're getting weird.

December 03, 2005 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous spouted, "By the way, watch out for kay and silly. They're getting weird."

Anon are you always such an ignorant person?

"anon free"

December 03, 2005 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

If you're reading, check out Ellen Goodman's op-ed piece in the
Post today. She's on your side but she's got a few good insights.

One is that saying that homosexuality is not a choice is saying it is biologically determined. If it is psychology, determined by nurture, we as a society as saying that your reactions are your responsibility. If, as you have suggested, "no choice" also could mean psychological forces, you basically are saying we're not responsible for anything we do. I don't think as a society, we're ready to say that.

Another insight is that if homosexuality were ever shown to be determined by biology, there might well be a way to repair it. Missing hormones, for example, could be replaced.

The other is that if homosexuality were ever determined to be genetic, the gay community would become pro-life because they wouldn't want parents testing their babies before birth and aborting them if they were gay.

December 03, 2005 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon are you always such an ignorant person?

"anon free""

HO HO HO!

Santa Claus is real. The Post Office, an official agency, says so.

December 03, 2005 5:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, let me interpret you to be saying that "biological" features of the organism are ones that can't be changed. You can't change the number of arms you're born with, or the color of your eyes. Those are biological, if I'm taking your meaning.

In that case, "biological" is identical to "genetic" in the popular sense of tht word.

But look, generally speaking, a phenotype -- the observed characteristic -- only emerges in the interaction of the genotype with the environment. It may be an in utero environment, or an environment comprising chemical balances within the organism, and the environment for a behavioral phenotype may be quite complex. For instance, you may be, genetically, an alcoholic, but if you never drink you'll never know. And if you drink and have a bad experience and never try it again you'll never know... The phenotype will never be expressed. You may be genetically disposed to have freckles, but if you never go out in the sun the phenotype will not be expressed.

The development of the human organism is a wonder, an incredibly complex interaction of chemistry and physics and social influence. Sexual attraction, it seems to me, is the most complicated aspect of human life. Just ponder the relative number of songs about love compared to any other subject. Finding a mate and navigating the courtship process is unbelievably difficult. We know we should "listen to our hearts" but two people's hearts may be telling them conflicting things.

And yet sexual reproduction is the most fundamental aspect of lifeforms above the amoeba. You'd think nature would've worked it out by now, wouldn't you?

To say that sexual orientation is not a choice is, in the broad sense, to pass the buck back to biology. But as biology exists in the interplay between the organism and the environment, and as no obvious single feature has shown itself -- yet -- to be singularly responsible for sexual orientation, I am perfectly comfortable saying I don't know what influences it, but it's not a choice.

I haven't read Ellen Goodman's article and am too lazy to reach across the table and look for it. (Been doing honey-do stuff all day.) But the only way I see a logical dilemma here is if we were to oversimplify, to say that genetic effects are invariant, that a gene "makes you" do such-and-such. It is more accurate to say that a gene makes you do such-and-such when this-or-that happens. This-or-that might be hormonal levels in the womb, it might be that one gene is only expressed in the presence of the expression of another gene or multiple genes. It could be some human-interaction thing, though no hypotheses about that have been supported, at least as far as sexual preference goes.

I never chose my sexual orientation, and I'll bet you didn't. I never flipped a coin or pondered the choices, I just reached a certain age and girls started becoming very noticeable. They looked nice and they smelled nice and I liked 'em and I wanted them to like me. Some other kid reached that same age, and boys became noticeable to him. I can't explain it, but it's not something he or I, or you, chose.

JimK

December 03, 2005 5:58 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said:"If, as you have suggested, "no choice" also could mean psychological forces, you basically are saying we're not responsible for anything we do. I don't think as a society, we're ready to say that."

***************
Homosexuality is not equated to murder in the sense of right or wrong. It is not wrong to be a homosexual. You are who you are.
***************************


Another insight is that if homosexuality were ever shown to be determined by biology, there might well be a way to repair it. Missing hormones, for example, could be replaced.


****************
Why should anyone repair homosexuality? Nothing wrong with it.

December 03, 2005 6:33 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Anon thinks we are weird and sarcastic and liars and yucky(thanks, Anon- that was mature!)- wonder why he comes here so often? Not to get answers, I am sure of that.

Andrea

December 03, 2005 7:20 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I agree with most of what Jim says, but I don't doubt that one day we could create a fetus with four arms. We can certainly create one with flippers instead of arms, and we did that inadvertently.

As for hormone therapy, well, people have surely tried, again and again, and it doesn't work. Not post-utero. Not for sexual orientation, nor for gender identity.

Now, will it be possible one day to monitor local testosterone levels in a fetus to determine if they're within a normal range? Maybe, but it's a really long way off. But if true, would it be ethical for a mother to change those levels? I don't see why not. And if there were a single gene for homosexuality, which there almost certainly isn't, or some other way to determine with certainty that a fetus would become homosexual, would a mother have a right to abort that fetus? Why not? I'm a libertarian on this issue, and think it's between a woman and her physician.

What I'd like to see is greater education so that people of all sexual types are accepted as valid and welcome. A recognition that with sexuality comes other desirable traits that benefit society. A recognition that one's sexuality is not such a big deal in the first place.

And I'd also like to see both men and women learn a lot more about contraception and apply it properly in the first place, so that there is little need for abortion.

As for the differences been men and women, well, I think what you're getting at is a college bull session and since I'm tired and think it's completely off topic, I'll pass. Make a good case as to why it's relevant and I'll reconsider it.

December 03, 2005 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrear said...
Anon thinks we are weird and sarcastic and liars and yucky(thanks, Anon- that was mature!)- wonder why he comes here so often? Not to get answers, I am sure of that.

Andrea
***************

Because anon would be talking to himself on CRC message board as that board is as lame and boring as it gets.

So he comes here...

"anon free"

December 03, 2005 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"scientific fact is only the opinions of those highly educated, intensely focused, extremely motivated experts in the field"

Jim, you put this up last week and I thought it did merit a response. This is actually not true. Here's the definition of a fact:

"something that has actual existence"

Your idea is a common misconception. Just because knowing anything beyond any doubt is really impossible doesn't mean there is no objective reality. This idea that truth is just someone's idea is dangerous. This idea has spilled over into ethical philosophy as moral relativism. It's not big jump from the idea there is no objective physical truth to the idea there is no objective moral truth.

If kids are simply taught to accept some "scientific expert" without understanding the basis, this country will continue to fall behind in scientific fields. Someday, there might not be any experts, or the "experts" will not know of what they speak.

December 05, 2005 12:12 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, while I'm eating my lunch here I'll take a second to comment.

"Something that has actual existence?" -That definition abysmally fails to distinguish between knowledge and the thing that is known.

A physical object is not a fact. A fact is a unit of knowledge, it requires a mind and exists in the mind that knows it. Many facts have no "actual existence," for instance, "Most people in Germany speak German" -- where is the "actual existence" of that undeniable fact? It's statistical, not "actual," it doesn't exist in any place in the world, but abstractly summarizes a number of events. There are lots of violations of this simplistic dictionary definition.

Being a unit of knowledge, a fact should be correct. But you must understand that there are degrees of correctness. Go back to Benoit Mandelbrot's discussion of the length of the coast of Great Britain. If you went around the coast with a yardstick and measured along the water's edge, you'd get one figure, but if you went around with a micrometer and measured the distance around each grain of sand, you'd get quite a different one, with Mandelbrot illustrating that the length of the coast of Britain approaches infinity -- this argument was the beginning of fractal mathematics and chaos theory.

Do you believe that there really is some number that factually represents the "actual existence" of the length of the British coast? OK, infinity...

Every fact makes assumptions about other facts. You can't talk about the forces that hold an atom together without agreement that the world is made of atoms, and that atoms are made of smaller particles with probabilistic qualities. No fact stands alone, all are entangled (to borrow a term from quantum physics).

A fact is a unit of knowledge, presumably a true one. We have seen in the course of human history that facts are constantly replaced by better facts. You might argue that this means that they weren't "facts" in the first place, but dude, that's as good as you get. Karl Popper clearly enough argued that the beliefs we call facts today will be replaced in time; somehow that does not make us doubt them in the present. Nobody can ever prove that a fact is entirely true, but a good-minded person will use the most rigorous test possible.

To summarize: a fact is a unit of knowledge; knowledge requires a mind; knowledge is always uncertain to some degree.

Now, the thing you said that makes your naive comments worth responding to is this: This idea has spilled over into ethical philosophy as moral relativism.

We all know that cliche about "moral relativism" and are not compelled to address it. The argument requires one to believe that right and wrong can only come from God, gives moral priority to whoever has the "right" god, and results necessarily in constant unending and pointless warfare. But I want to point out that moral relativism has a twin, which is called cognitive relativism. This is the belief that knowledge itself is relative, that any belief, e.g., "God created the universe in seven days," is equivalent in truth to any other, e.g., "The universe as it exists today is a consequence of physical processes."

But there is a methodology for comparing the "truthfulness" of beliefs and giving preference to the better ones. It is called science.

Science is a process that uses human interaction to improve the state of knowledge. Properly educated individuals participate together in a process of peer reviewed research and discussion to refine knowledge that is based on empirical observation, to provide explanation for observed facts. These initiates impose standards of measurement, research design, data analysis, hypothesis formation, and theoretical extrapolation upon one another, each according to the needs of their field. The result is that these scholars acquire knowledge of facts -- oh, it's never a hundred percent certain, but these facts have satisfied the consensus of a group of highly qualified skeptics. These scholars understand that their facts will almost surely undergo future revision, but they possess the best knowledge of our time on a given subject.

The closest thing society possesses to a "fact," that is, a unit of true knowledge, exists in the minds of this group of qualified, highly educated, scientists. You and I don't have the training or the background to understand the fact like they do. We haven't read the scholarly debates, gone through the reference sections looking everything up, debated with our professors and with our professors' opponents, we haven't written dissertations on minute details of the data contributing to the certainty of these facts. So to some degree, yes, "In the long run, scientific fact is only the opinions of those highly educated, intensely focused, extremely motivated experts in the field."

December 05, 2005 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

Thanks for taking a "second" to address my naive comments. The definition that you dismiss as "abysmal" is from Webster's.

The experts aren't due deferrence. They are accountable and need to demonstrate that their opinions are based on "objective" reality.

Can't believe your bringing up "peer review" again. You seem to think this validates results. Talk about naive.

December 05, 2005 2:05 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I saw where it came from, I have that dictionary at my desk.

That's a fine definition for common usage, but if we're going to dig into the epistemology of science it is simply inadequate. As I say, it fails to distinguish between a thing and knowledge of that thing. You wouldn't say that a boulder on a hillside that no one has ever seen and no one knows about is a "fact," would you? But if someone says "There is a boulder on the hillside," and other observers confirm its presence, then that is a fact. Two very different things.

Science is partly about the world, and mostly about minds. Only minds can possess knowledge, and science is nothing more than a process for improving knowledge. There is a solipsistic gap between the knower and that which is known, and it seems to me that the goal of science is to narrow that gap, in a sense.

The experts are accountable to one another. This is a much tougher audience than some religious guys with a point to prove. If one professor writes a paper, it has to pass the inspection of the other professors in his field before it can even be published. And those reviewers can be harsh, trust me -- I review lots of scientific papers, probably more than one per week on average. That kind of accountability is very rigorous.

(But note, they don't send it to People magazine to have readers vote on it. It really doesn't matter what the public thinks.)

As for your comments about peer review, well, that's what makes science work. Kuhn's paradigms are social structures, not cognitive ones. Scientific knowledge does not exist in any one person's head, but in the society of scientists, and their interactions determine the evolution of knowledge.

Peer review is what it's about.

JimK

December 05, 2005 2:26 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Well said, Jim.

I think your use of the term "naive" sums up Anon's perspective very well. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense; more in the sense of "innocent." The purpose of education is to give one the tools you described to better undertand the work of the science community, and on occasion to allow one to make a credible contribution oneself.

Anon, you laugh at peer review, but it is all that stands between us and the abyss (a little hyperbole, if you don't mind.) Just look at this debate -- you think you have some Absolute Truth on your side so you think we're all godless communists or something of that sort. There is no point of contact, not intellectually, anyway. Your assumptions about the world blind you to most of what we say. The APA, or the APA, or the American Chemical Society or . . . are just a bunch of liberal, effete snobs to you, with no grounds to decide as they do.

So what are we supposed to do? Well, we'll keep on our mission and with the support of the vast majority of county residents we will succeed.

Have you ever participated in peer review? You should try it, then you might have some respect for it. And the next time you read a post on the net, take a moment to thank the scientific community for providing you the tools to express yourself here.

December 06, 2005 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well said, Jim.

I think your use of the term "naive" sums up Anon's perspective very well. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense; more in the sense of "innocent." The purpose of education is to give one the tools you described to better undertand the work of the science community, and on occasion to allow one to make a credible contribution oneself."

The discarded curriculum pointedly failed to give the student any tools. It implied that the pronouncement of an association is a fact and didn't even bother to discuss their rationale.

"Anon, you laugh at peer review, but it is all that stands between us and the abyss (a little hyperbole, if you don't mind.) Just look at this debate -- you think you have some Absolute Truth on your side so you think we're all godless communists or something of that sort. There is no point of contact, not intellectually, anyway. Your assumptions about the world blind you to most of what we say. The APA, or the APA, or the American Chemical Society or . . . are just a bunch of liberal, effete snobs to you, with no grounds to decide as they do."

You come with as many assumptions as I.

"So what are we supposed to do? Well, we'll keep on our mission and with the support of the vast majority of county residents we will succeed."

The vast majority supported the old curriculum too. They'd also be happy if the whole topic of sexual orientation was ignored. You see, they truly don't care.

"Have you ever participated in peer review? You should try it, then you might have some respect for it. And the next time you read a post on the net, take a moment to thank the scientific community for providing you the tools to express yourself here."

Haven't you heard? The scientific community didn't provide these tools- Al Gore did.

Jim has overblown the importance of peer review, probably because GLAAD advised him too. Peer review only examines the basic logic of a paper, the reviewer doesn't redo the experiment. A completely false set of data could very well have no trouble with peer review. The real test- and a trouble for most sexual orientation studies- is replication.

December 06, 2005 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And those reviewers can be harsh, trust me -- I review lots of scientific papers, probably more than one per week on average. That kind of accountability is very rigorous."

You employed by the government, Jim?

December 06, 2005 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jim has overblown the importance of peer review, probably because GLAAD advised him too."

should read:

"Jim has overblown the importance of peer review, probably because GLAAD advised him to."

December 06, 2005 3:42 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

That comment about GLAAD is stupid.

As far as where I work, I leave my private life out of this. I do review a lot of papers, part of my job is to participate actively in research. I publish quite a bit and I review papers for a number of journals and conferences and agencies (internationally) that are reviewing proposals etc. I also travel fairly often and give talks, meet with other researchers, etc.

JimK

December 06, 2005 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof -- a deeply flawed paper can end up being published if the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions.

Could you imagine Jim objectively reviewing a paper on sexual orientation?

December 06, 2005 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream'" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones

December 06, 2005 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust.

December 06, 2005 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watson and Crick's 1951 paper on the structure of DNA was not peer-reviewed. Maybe they were nuts. Right, Jim?

December 06, 2005 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The net effect of the peer review system is that, at any given time, almost the entire research effort of the country is directed into subjects that are tacitly approved by those who comprise editorial review committees of the scientific press. Those review committees are, in turn, frequently drawn from among the more conservative scientists in the community and the system is self-perpetuating from supervisor to postgraduate to undergraduate.

December 06, 2005 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many peer-reviewed journals are less than exalted.There are said to be 5,000 peer-reviewed journals in education alone. Inevitably the quality of papers in them is of uneven quality.

One problem with peer review is that many types of research cannot be validated by a reviewer. In mathematics, for example, papers are self-contained. A reviewer can check the accuracy of the paper by reading the paper without reviewing external evidence beyond other published sources. This is not possible in experimental areas with their clinical trials. Since a reviewer cannot repeat the experiment, the review is little more than a comment on whether the research appears to be well done. Paper reviewers have no way of knowing if data is fraudulent. Erroneous papers -- in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal -- can be found on any library shelf.

December 06, 2005 5:52 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

And what is your point, that peer reviewed is not perfect, that it's flawed? Of course that's the case. But what should replace it? Your morality? James Dobson's? The Pope's?

The fact is that it's a pretty good system, though it does have flaws. But if there is a study that stands out because it is poorly conceived and executed, it usually won't be approved. And if there is a study that yields results that catch people's attention, then others will try to replicate it. And that's what happened, for instance, with Hamer's Xq28 gay gene study. It hasn't been replicated. Good for them.

As I pointed out, the Templeton Fund for Religion has ceased making contributions to ID people because they have not proposed any scientific studies. They belong in seminaries, not university labs.

If you are so sure about your theories on sexuality, why haven't you done any studies? Probably because you have no money or connections. OK, then why haven't the Dobsonites funded any such studies? Why don't they encourage the NIH and Harvard and MIT to study the biological basis of sexual orientation, to prove that there is none? You speak as if there is a great politically correct conspiracy out there, yet the only conspiracy is to shut down such studies. Your Republican friends are afraid of the truth, so they obstruct the search for the truth. And you can Google all you want to find examples of that.

December 06, 2005 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana

I think peer review is fine. I just think Jim has exalted its importance here. People need to keep its limits in mind and only believe replicated results.

What's interesting is these associations that say orientation is beyond choice when they don't have any idea if that's true or not. Meanwhile, when a study comes out on any issue without poitical implications, the scientists are always in the media telling everyone not to jump to conclusions.

December 07, 2005 8:17 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I don't see any conflicts here. Peer review is the most effective and efficient system, and it works. Not always, as nothing does, but very frequently. That being said, many studies are hard to do, have subtle statistical flaws, and cannot be replicated because there isn't the time, money or personnel to do it. So you do what you can.

Of course, the system can be abused. There has been fraud. And the political climate plays a role in who is willing to study what. Back in the 1970s, Paul McHugh was tasked with shutting down Hopkins' sex reassignment program, so he hired Jon Meyer to put together a biased study to justify his actions. That study has been universally rejected as seriously flawed, and completely out of line with all others. But that's now. Back in the late 70's, during the political backlash, no one was willing to stand up and say so. But research continued to be done, surgery was performed in the private sector, more data collected, and the medical community came around.

To me, the difference between today and then is, as I've said many times, there was no data for the accepted psychiatric position; it was simply assumed to be correct. The assumption was so profound that no one thought data even needed to be collected -- why bother?

Today, we have data, and one segment of society rants about being left out, that the data is incorrect, etc. OK. So, as I suggested before, you guys should be out there lobbying for more, not less, research to be done. You know full well that work done by the Christian Medical Association is not acceptable, so support work done by reputable scientists. The NIH has done studies on prayer and alternative therapies; why would this be so difficult. But, what we see is the religious extremists, in Congress and without, obstructing such research every chance they can get, because they fear the results.

Btw, do you have any idea who the Anonymous was who responded to a post of mine by saying, "You're all f*kng nuts"?

December 07, 2005 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Btw, do you have any idea who the Anonymous was who responded to a post of mine by saying, "You're all f*kng nuts"?"

No, you guys either have a new anon or a prank TTfer. I tried to declaim that earlier and it wouldn't let me post.

I'd never say that about your posts, Dana. I've developed a personal bias in your favor.

I keep meaning to sign and keep forgetting. A comination of genetics and natal hormones, no doubt.

EH

December 07, 2005 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

testing

December 08, 2005 1:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home