At the National Catholic Register there is a story sure to make the writers of the National Sodomitic Reporter (aka Fishwrap) have a conniption.
Not ‘Born That Way’: New Scientific Analysis Questions ‘LGBT’ Orthodoxies
A comprehensive new survey about sexuality and gender, undertaken by leading medical experts, concludes that key theories are unsupported by scientific evidence.
A new report that examines nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity concludes that science hasn’t confirmed key theories about these subjects, including the belief that homosexuals are “born that way.”
And it rejects surgical and hormonal interventions for children who identify as “transgender,” [abomination] on the grounds that the large majority of such children outgrow identities that conflict with their biological sex.
“Examining research from the biological, psychological and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence,” reads an introductory note by Adam Keiper, editor of The New Atlantis, a leading journal of science, technology and ethics that published the report, “Sexuality and Gender.”
“The report has a special focus on the higher rates of mental-health problems among LGBT populations, and it questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex,” said Keiper.
“More effort is called for to provide these people with the understanding, care and support they need to lead healthy, flourishing lives.”
“Sexuality and Gender” was written by Dr. Lawrence Mayer, scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, and Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who served for 25 years as psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The study was released Aug. 22.
[NB] The report asserts that scientific evidence does not support the theory that “gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body.’”
Here comes the hate mail!
Moderation queue is ON.
Of course, it does not matter either way.
If a temptation to abberant sexual sins and a propensity to mutilate oneself is hard-wired, it’s just another wound in human nature made by the Fall; If a result of psychological conditions and upbringing, it is still a wound from the Fall; If totally arbitrary and based on personal mood and preference, still the Fall.
I have never understood how “born this way” could serve to rebut the natural and divine law in any way shape or form (beyond a simplistic and false understanding of both that claims God directly making someone inclined toward these sins, which is absurd on its face).
How can it be innate when active homosexuals are much more likely to have had estranged relationships with absent or distant fathers, or smothering relationships with overbearing mothers? Clearly there’s some correlation there. A young boy might exhibit innate sensitivity and gentleness, but with proper adult role models he can grow into a mature, gentle man. Absent proper role models, he looks for love in all the wrong places.
Is it peer-reviewed?
If the “born this way” paradigm is true, it “follows” that God made them that way and ipso facto, sodomy is blessed.
I humbly offer that arguments utilizing concupiscence after the Fall are not going to get a lot of traction with the LGBT crowd.
‘Homosexual persons are called to chastity.’
So how does this all work with the CCC? Are homosexual persons fashioned through socio-psychological design in order for God to call them to a life of chastity? Seems to me that the CCC regarding homosexuality assumed they were just made like that.
Furthermore, the Human Genome Project found no LGBT genes.
is it peer reviewed? Sorry that us unlikely to prove if it is true or not. The peer review process in medicine is a shambles at present. Many of the reviewers are not impartial & unfortunately it is often an insider’s game (you review my article & I’ll review yours). As examples, try:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
If you think the process is defective in medicine, wait until you look into sociology or psychology- it will be far worse. At least in medicine, a few people are concerned that lives might be involved & therefore try to be serious about the science.
The report is not peer-reviewed. But it is not introducing new data; it is just reviewing other peer-reviewed studies. The actual report is worth reading. It is very accessible, very comprehensive, and not too long.
In other news, science is also proving water is wet and that the Earth’s climate fluctuates over undefined periods. Funny that it takes science so long to study what so many of us with common sense already knew.
I believe the CCC is referring to the struggle of same sex attraction which undoubtly exists.
When and how it is brought into existance is not for the Church to determine.
This is exactly why many countries (like Russia) use laws to limit public exposure of children to perverted sexuality.
If we can rule out nature, we must do your best to properly nurture.
That same-sex attracted people (I’m one) have, let’s call it perception issues, ought to be clear as day. Thanks to grace and prayers, including a lot from people here, I’m learning false perceptions can be let go of. Looking forward to the day when Synods and bishops catch up with that instead of grabbing on to every shiny PC thing they see.
Driving to 9:00 am Mass yesterday, I tuned in to NPR for a few minutes. They were running a piece on transgender 15 yr olds getting hormone treatments. Truly an abomination! Let’s pray some of the parents wake the hell up and read some of the non-ideological literature on this.
“If you think the process is defective in medicine, wait until you look into sociology or psychology- it will be far worse. At least in medicine, a few people are concerned that lives might be involved & therefore try to be serious about the science.”
I know that. I have written about the situation of peer-review and reproducibility in science at length in the combox on this blog, citing the exact article you linked to. I am a peer-reviewer for an academic journal, so I have seen the process close-up. Still, such studies are likely to be completely ignored or pooh-poohed by the media, other than for their sensationalism, if they haven’t passed these minimal standards (which, as you say, only raises the probability of the science being correct a few points). I have no doubt, given the current climate and the press this article is getting, that it will be responded to quite shortly, however. What they did was a meta-study – a review and analysis of pre-existing literature. These can be useful, but they are not considered smoking gun definitive. I always caution my students when reading any medical article to wait five years before accepting the science. The biological sciences are in a state of flux, these days.
I gave up on the psychology of, “gender,” years ago when I saw the politics being played by the American Psychiatric Association when they re-classified homosexuality from a disorder (DSM-III or II, I forget, which) to a choice (DMS-IV). None of that was based on firm science.
All persons are called to chastity.
It appears to me that there is potential for conflict within the LGBT grand alliance. The homosexuals claim to be hardwired, but many of the transexuals seem to believe that their sex or gender, or whatever they think it is, is something quite fluid, merely a product of the will. How long can two such incompatible concepts of the human condition continue to coexist?
“All persons are called to chastity.”
Yep, copy that – well said.
It appears to me that there is potential for conflict within the LGBT grand alliance. The homosexuals claim to be hardwired, but many of the transexuals seem to believe that their sex or gender, or whatever they think it is, is something quite fluid, merely a product of the will.
There is some of this conflict, but I think the lines are drawn somewhat differently. When arguments are made publicly, both homosexuals and transgenders tend to endorse the view that their sexuality or “gender identity” is hardwired and unchangeable, that it’s part of “who they are.” (So obviously you’re familiar with the “born this way” language of homosexual advocacy, but people often will say things about Bruce Jenner such as that he has “always” been female, deep down.) It’s the academic theorists, both of sexuality and of gender, who are more inclined to say that neither sexuality nor gender is hardwired and may be fluid.
LGBTs, are the in thing at present. I suspect there may be the odd one , probably less than
.01% of the population. But if you are born with a penis, you are a man, with a vagina, a woman.
This problem in society and within the Church is about tiny minorities who are being used to dominate the TV etc.
It is basically about homosexuality which as the CCC says, is unnatural but has always been with us in some form.