John Hopkins Study Says No Evidence People Born LGBT

[prisonchaplain]

This article is from Christian Post, but the material comes from John Hopkins:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/no-scientific-evidence-that-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender-johns-hopkins-researchers-say-168263/

[Guest]

I decided to check out the opposition's response to this:

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/12/15/scary-science-johns-hopkins-university

Perhaps it's too early to expect a point by point rebuttal of evidence or arguments for the JHU position.  But the entire rebuttal, if you can call it that, was a bunch of ad hominem attacks on the report and its authors.  They included some anecdotal examples of experiences that were contrary to the position, but I found even those "prime examples" to be unconvincing.

And if you're going to do ad-hominem attacks on the most prestigious psychiatrist in the past fifty years, you've got to have more than "he hates gays" as your mantra.

[rpframe]

Quote

 

A study by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health tracked the sexual orientation of children aged 7 to 12 in 1994-1995 and again in 2007-2008 when they were young adults.

The study found that 80 percent of male respondents who had reported same-sex attraction and both-sex attraction in their childhood, later identified as exclusively hetrosexual. Meanwhile, more than half of the females respondents who reported both-sex attractions as children, reported being exclusively attracted to males as adults.

 

I don't feel like most 12 year olds know what attraction really is. Let alone 7 year olds. Their brains are still developing.

I understand the importance of determining if attraction is an environmental/learned behavior or not... but I don't think asking 7 year olds if they are attracted to boys or girls is realistically a good measure of that.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I don't feel like most 12 year olds know what physical/sexual attraction really is. Let alone 7 year olds. Their brains are still developing.

I understand the importance of determining if attraction is an environmental/learned behavior or not... but I don't think asking 7 year olds if they are attracted to boys or girls is realistically a good measure of that.

I agree with the first line.  The second line is not what the study says.  Maybe with more context, that would be correct.  But the portion you quoted does not say that.

[rpframe]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The second line is not what the study says.  Maybe with more context, that would be correct.  But the portion you quoted does not say that.

Well the rest of the thought says:

Quote

"The idea there that sexual orientation is fluid, that people change as people grow," Mayer told The Christian Post in an interview last Friday. "There are probably some people that identify as hetrosexual that then later on identified as homosexual, so it goes both ways. The importance there is the fluidity and flexibility that these things change in time."

So yes you are correct that they are referring to it mostly in trying to provide evidence that there is attraction fluidity as you age.. but I don't think it is a good measure for that either for the same reason.

And even if someone disagrees with me and feels like children do have their own concept of attraction that is valid... It doesn't mean that genetics do or do not determine who you are attracted to in maturity.

Anyway... just trying to make the point that I don't think that study in particular is a very good measure of anything.

[Guest]

@rpframe

I think something got lost in the crypticity (copyright Carborendum 2016).  Here's what I meant.  While children have varying "awareness" of what their attraction is (which is the part I agree with) those same individuals grow up.  With the benefit of maturity and hindsight they,as adults, can express what they were feeling back when they were kids.  The small excerpt you originally gave could have indicated that they surveyed adults and asked them what they felt their attraction was when they were younger vs what they feel now.  In that case, the study would be much more useful.

Proper context would clear up that meaning behind the study's verbiage.

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Guest

[Traveler]

A quick history – Everything changed for the LGBT community – I believe it was 1973 – when the American Psychiatric Association declared that same sex attractions were not psychiatric disorders.  Without going into all the details – the declaration was without scientific evidence.  The basis was that same sex attractions requires scientific evidence to declare such a psychiatric disorder.  The basis sounds good but the next thing to happen was that any government funded research to prove LGBT a psychiatric disorder was promptly removed and other government sponsored funding threatened to any university involved in researching LGBT as a psychiatric disorder.  As a result we are totally dependent on studies not directly researching LGBT as a psychiatric disorder.  Also it is interesting that since the declaration there has not been any research that proves LGBT as an unlearned or un-acquired behavior.

We do have over 150 years of research and study into human behavior.  We do know, for example, that in intelligent species – cognitive behaviors are learned.  Learned is the scientific notation – we can also call it acquired.  In essence a cognitive behavior is a behavior that an intelligent species must be cognitively aware of – or they will not respond.  An example is Pavlov’s dog that salivates when conditioned to the turning on of a light.  This conditioning is called the lowest cognitive level of learning.  Memorizing that the word “said” is spelled s-a-i-d is what we call memorizing or the higher than lowest cognitive level of learning. 

Frederick Goebbels did a lot of research on what is known in layman terms as “brain washing”.  He proved that any cognitive behavior can be altered and changed using various training technics associated with the lowest cognitive and higher than lowest cognitive levels of learning.  We also know from research that a wide variety of both negative and positive reinforcement can induce the same brain washing responses.  As a side note – one sign that a behavior is cognitive and not inborn is that the behavior widely varies in a species.

I personally find it offensive that assumes a scientific conclusion despite or contrary to evidence.  I am not surprised that any study that does not support the conclusion of emotionally charged fools to be labeled by such fools as bigoted and hateful.  We are living in a time when political correct conclusions preempt science when such reason interferes with (acquired) personal wants, desires and passions.

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

On 8/22/2016 at 2:48 PM, prisonchaplain said:

This article is from Christian Post, but the material comes from John Hopkins:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/no-scientific-evidence-that-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender-johns-hopkins-researchers-say-168263/

science wise we still have a long long long ways to go to understanding the brain (not that there havent been any good breakthroughs or whatnot), it's development (especially this), and how dna relates to it, all the nittty gritty stuff that it would require (ethics tends to be a dampener in this area)... the science for either side of the argument is not very strong, if i'd have to lay money down it would be on the side that supports heteroattractionism.

[prisonchaplain]

@Blackmarch  I'm just wondering if this conversation will be allowed.  It's become orthodoxy that LGBT are born that way, and that any disagreement is an immediate sign of hate, bigotry and animosity.  @Carborendum has already found reactions that attack the authors of the study, rather than the science, methodology, etc. of the study.  Liberals make the old House Subcommittee on Unamerican Activities look like a minor inquiry.  So, if this report is allowed to stand, it just might, prayerfully and hopefully, signal a temporary delay in America's social/moral decline.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

science wise we still have a long long long ways to go to understanding the brain (not that there havent been any good breakthroughs or whatnot), it's development (especially this), and how dna relates to it, all the nittty gritty stuff that it would require (ethics tends to be a dampener in this area)... the science for either side of the argument is not very strong, if i'd have to lay money down it would be on the side that supports heteroattractionism.

Actually there is a preponderance of scientific evidence to support sexual preference is an acquired cognitive behavior and not an inborn behavior.  I mentioned in my previous post - that cognitive behavior causes wide variations in the studied species - especially intelligent species. Inborn behaviors have very little if any variances. Another is that the cognitive areas of the brain become altered.  For example it has been positively proven that the brain of a violin player is altered as is a blind person that has learned bail.  It was discovered that the brain of homosexuals is different than heterosexuals - at first it was assumed proof that sexual behavior is inborn until it was proven cognitive learning causes the kind of brain difference observed - now brain differences are no longer mentioned.  This has become an emotional issue void of cold hard science - often on both sides. 

Resiliently I asked a strong supporter of LGBT why it is so important to sell everyone on the notion that LGBT is inborn?  So what if it is an acquired behavior?  Why would that make it right or wrong - they had no answer.  So I asked why so passionately argue over a point that do not matter????  Why not start by accepting the common ground of cold hard science and leave emotions out of it.  Their only response was - why can't the LGBT be happy - why not let them be happy?  And I responded - why can't we all be happy with the truth?  and try to find common ground from there?

 

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

26 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Blackmarch  I'm just wondering if this conversation will be allowed.  It's become orthodoxy that LGBT are born that way, and that any disagreement is an immediate sign of hate, bigotry and animosity.  @Carborendum has already found reactions that attack the authors of the study, rather than the science, methodology, etc. of the study.  Liberals make the old House Subcommittee on Unamerican Activities look like a minor inquiry.  So, if this report is allowed to stand, it just might, prayerfully and hopefully, signal a temporary delay in America's social/moral decline.

I'm really hoping it will make some waves... unfortunately you are right, and not only with LGBT relations. However good science has been ignored in regards to abortion, so i'm not going to get my hopes too high- between the two issues IMO abortion has more weight, while i really hope this doesn't follow suit, it probably will get put to the wayside in the general public's eyes.

[Guest MormonGator]

Gore Vidal had an interesting quote. "There are no homosexuals or heterosexuals. Just homosexual acts and heterosexual acts." 

My personal, subjective view is that more research on both sides is needed, pc or not pc. I'm sympathetic to the thought that human sexuality is influenced by upbringing and environment, but I'm also sympathetic to it being influenced by genetics. I'm not sure many people choose to be gay, given that it'll cost them dearly with family, religion, friends, etc. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Gore Vidal had an interesting quote. "There are no homosexuals or heterosexuals. Just homosexual acts and heterosexual acts." 

My personal, subjective view is that more research on both sides is needed, pc or not pc. I'm sympathetic to the thought that human sexuality is influenced by upbringing and environment, but I'm also sympathetic to it being influenced by genetics. I'm not sure many people choose to be gay, given that it'll cost them dearly with family, religion, friends, etc. 

Just because their upbringing may be a factor, doesn't necessarily mean it's a choice.

THE ANALOGY

I believe I've given this analogy before.  I think of people like elements on the periodic table.  Some are highly reactive.  Others less so.  Most are in between.

People are the same way.  Some are born with innate sexuality.  Others not so much, but develop it through environment.  Some are more easily influenced than others.

TRANSLATION INTO THE TRAIT OF HOMOSEXUALITY

I believe such is the case with Homosexuality.  Some are so straight or so gay at birth (yes, really, at birth) that nothing is going to change them.  Others are born in whatever state they may be in, but they are pliable.  Their sexuality can be changed.  The older someone is, the less pliable they become.

This variation is why some people can be "'converted" from one orientation to another.  But others, even when going through "treatments" just don't change.

COMMENTARY ON THE WORD "CHOICE"

I don't believe that "choice" is the nature of what is happening with orientation except in some highly depraved conditions (which are becoming more frequent) or with some religiously motivated desire to "correct" oneself.  But I believe that when we relate the behavior with the physical more than the emotional and spiritual, many things get mixed up.  The physical overshadows the others and some believe their physical reactions are emotional motivations as well.  This happens in heterosexual relations just as much as homosexual relations.

So, I believe it is more of a question of how we interpret all the signals we're getting from our bodies, our minds, and our souls that govern our reactions not really our choices.  Choice comes in when we decide to DO something based on all that interpretation of data.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just because their upbringing may be a factor, doesn't necessarily mean it's a choice.

 

We agree. I think human sexual nature is more subjective then we might think-to a degree.