Everything the Media Claimed about Gender and Sexuality is WRONG

[*PhilHos*]

I'm surprised no one's linked this or talked about it. I just came across this on my Facebook newsfeed this morning.

Anyway, there was a study that was published a couple of days ago that, among other things says the following:

Quote:The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Quote:Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Quote:Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Quote:Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

Here's a link to the study:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

Full disclosure: I pulled those quotes from an article talking about it (the article was an op-ed piece so I'm not linking it). I have NOT read the study yet (it's quite lengthy), but I do plan on taking a look at it sometime in the not-to-distant-future. In the interim, I hope for those of you who would take umbrage at those quotes above to go through and point out any issues you may have with the study (i.e. cherry picking stats, etc.).

For now, let's assume that those quotes are 100% factual and supported by the evidence. What does that mean for this country? What, if any, effect does this have on policies and laws going forth?

[fredtoast]

I spent as lot of time in another thread showing what a joke McHugh is.  

Guess I'll have to go dig that back up.


**EDIT**  found it.

http://transadvocate.com/clinging-to-a-dangerous-past-dr-paul-mchughs-selective-reading-of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm

McHugh is a shill who lets his religious beliefs shape his "scientific" opinions.  he fought against stem c ell research because he considered stem cells to be "people".

[BmorePat87]

McHugh has been discussed at length here and there are pretty of opponents to his work, none of which is definitive or completely smacks down science (not media, really "the media"?) that is supportive of gender identity or sexual orientation being biological.

I believe some of his more compelling arguments were that people in more conservative areas are less likely to come out as being gay. Really? People are less likely to publicly come out as gay in places that are less accepting of being gay?

I think he has also suggested that acceptance of gay people destroyed Rome and will destroy the US...

[*michaelsean*]

I think homosexuality is innate, but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Now I know saying someone has a mental disorder is seen as labeling them as bad, but it's really not. If everything from your physical attributes all the way down to your chromosomes says you are one thing, and your mind says you are another, then that's a mental disorder.

[Belsnickel]

I don't just want to pile onto this, but the journal that was published in a partisan journal. I'm not going to say that all of what they put out is bad, there have been some interesting pieces, but when it comes to a topic like this from McHugh in a partisan journal, I have to wonder about the quality of the work. Especially given the studies done from other sources that actually do support that orientation is innate and that gender and sex are two separate things.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2016, 02:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think homosexuality is innate, but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Now I know saying someone has a mental disorder is seen as labeling them as bad, but it's really not. If everything from your physical attributes all the way down to your chromosomes says you are one thing, and your mind says you are another, then that's a mental disorder.

Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. However, not everyone that is trans has GD. Just because your gender is female and your sex is male does not mean you have GD.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I spent as lot of time in another thread showing what a joke McHugh is.  

Guess I'll have to go dig that back up.


**EDIT**  found it.

http://transadvocate.com/clinging-to-a-dangerous-past-dr-paul-mchughs-selective-reading-of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm

McHugh is a shill who lets his religious beliefs shape his "scientific" opinions.  he fought against stem c ell research because he considered stem cells to be "people".

Was this when folks were taking the word of that female blogger over McHugh's because they are open-minded? 

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't just want to pile onto this, but the journal that was published in a partisan journal. 

But no thoughts on an opinion piece written by a blogger on Transadvocate? Surely no bias there. 

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But no thoughts on an opinion piece written by a blogger on Transadvocate? Surely no bias there. 

Hey, folks.  Look at what bfine calls an "opinion piece"


Unfortunately, it appears that McHugh has decided to ignore the growing body of neurological and genetic research providing evidence of a biological basis for gender dysphoria. A 2009 study found a correlation between an increased number of a certain kind of sequence repeat in the Androgen Receptor gene and gender dysphoria. Another study in 2009 identified significant differences in cerebral grey matter structure in trans women who had yet to start hormone therapy when compared to cis men. In 2011, researchers noted that the structure of a sexually-dimorphic region of the brain, known as the intermediate nucleus, of trans women fell somewhere between cis men and cis women, while a similar difference was not noted castrated cis men. A 2013 functional brain imaging study of adolescents with gender dysphoria demonstrated a tendency for trans teens to perform more similarly to their identified sex (as opposed to their assigned sex) in a verbal fluency assessment, with similar correlation in brain activity during the assessment. Lastly, in 2013, a large study of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins where at least one twin was transgender showed a far higher concordance of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria among monozygotic than dizygotic twins (33% vs 2.6%), which is strong indicator the existence of a biological factor in a trait. 




More "opinion"



 It is first important to note that Dr McHugh is grossly misconstruing the findings of the Karolinka study. The study compared the mental health of post-surgical trans people with age-matched cisgender controls. The study itself posits absolutely zero link between gender confirming surgery itself and the mental health of these people, and the [/url]authors themselves caution against interpreting the data in such a way:

Quote:“It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.”

More "opinion"


 A study published earlier this year found[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24275005]significant reductions in all comorbid anxiety and depression, as well as lowered overall functional impairment in trans individuals just 12 months after initiating hormone therapy. A study released in late 2013 showed that individuals on hormone therapy have both lower-levels of self-reported stress and lower blood cortisol levels (a key physiological marker of stress). Given the known effects of stress on physical health, this could also translate to risk reduction for a number of chronic illnesses. Even breast augmentation, often maligned as a particularly “cosmetic” intervention, demonstrated significant increases in sexual and psychosocial well-being. Other studies in 2009 and 2011 have shown similarly positive responses in both trans men and trans women who underwent gender-confirming surgeries.

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But no thoughts on an opinion piece written by a blogger on Transadvocate? Surely no bias there. 

I wasn't aware that blog was attempting to claim there was no bias. Please, go on.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

The belief in a god-is not supported by the scientific evidence.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 06:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Hey, folks.  Look at what bfine calls an "opinion piece"

No Fred, your link calls it an opinion piece. Keep that "open" mind. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wasn't aware that blog was attempting to claim there was no bias. Please, go on.

It was just interesting that one source gave you pause because it was partisan (biased); yet another did not. But at least you didn't want to pile on.  

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2016, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No Fred, your link calls it an opinion piece. Keep that "open" mind. 

Okay so what about all the factual studies included in the article?

Are you just going to ignore all of them?

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 07:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay so what about all the factual studies included in the article?

Are you just going to ignore all of them?

Nope, I'm just going to take it for what it is. An opinion piece written by an obviously biased author posted on an obviously biased website.

Keep digging and keep that mind "open" fred. I remember how funny it was last time. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-25-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was just interesting that one source gave you pause because it was partisan (biased); yet another did not. But at least you didn't want to pile on.  

It didn't give me pause because I didn't read it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to wonder about the quality of the work. Especially given the studies done from other sources that actually do support that orientation is innate and that gender and sex are two separate things.

(08-25-2016, 08:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It didn't give me pause because I didn't read it.

Guess we just disagree on something giving one pause. 

[fredtoast]

(08-25-2016, 07:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm just going to take it for what it is. An opinion piece written by an obviously biased author posted on an obviously biased website.

Keep digging and keep that mind "open" fred. I remember how funny it was last time. 

And this is why you fail at logical argument.

You can not claim that every piece of information from the other side is automatically false just because it is from the other side.  That is absurd.

I never dismiss any information just based on the source.  Instead I always produce facts or counter arguments.  It is childish to attack the source instead of the information.

[*bfine32*]

(08-25-2016, 09:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And this is why you fail at logical argument.

You can not claim that every piece of information from the other side is automatically false just because it is from the other side.  That is absurd.

I never dismiss any information just based on the source.  Instead I always produce facts or counter arguments.  It is childish to attack the source instead of the information.

No doubt I am the one who has failed in this thread. You came in hard with your biased opinion piece that you spent "a lot of time" researching, call McHugh a schill, and suggest you produce facts.

You dismiss McHugh's findings and call him a schill and then in Fred logic call someone else childish for attacking a source.

Between the 2 of us 1 has failed.

[Rotobeast]

(08-25-2016, 07:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The belief in a god-is not supported by the scientific evidence.

Could you clarify this ?

If I am correct, (it happens) there are more beneficial neuro-chemicals produced by people that "believe" in a god, than those that do not.
I'm getting ready for bed, or I'd search for the study.
I think they tried to call it "The God Gene Theory", or something of the like.
If I'm interpreting incorrectly, please forgive a tried old man.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk