Johns Hopkins: No evidence people are born gay or transgender
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
I believe there are people who just are naturally homosexual.
I think most of us grew up or went school with kids who from a very early age were obviously different than most of the other kids of their gender.
How many times did someone say so and so came out as gay and everyone says we've known that since grade school.
I think most of us grew up or went school with kids who from a very early age were obviously different than most of the other kids of their gender.
How many times did someone say so and so came out as gay and everyone says we've known that since grade school.
Some lesbians have maintained that conviction for decades.
So, there's that.
So, there's that.
I agree, however it is still possible they were not born gay. I mean could it possibly be they caught a virus when they were very young or some other environmental factor that somehow affects that part of the brain?
When did you choose to be attracted to women? Or, were you just designed that way?
Take it up with the experts in the science at the premier medical research school in America.
Homosexuality and transgenderism is mental illness. The APA diagnosed both as such until political pressure and big money pressured the change.
I was about 5 and saw my first Playboy. And 7 when this smoke show called Rosemary was on my dad's bowling team, she could not bowl but boy she made me look forward to going bowling with dad.
Watch this footage of a conservative woman walking around a gay pride rally in Iowa last week (a conservative state).
If you thought people were crazy in 2016, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Holy f***** sh*t.
I spent most of the last two decades in progressive cities, by choice, and I don’t remember ever seeing anything like this. And I’ve seen a lot, all over the world.
The oligarchs somehow flipped an internal “switch” in huge segments of already-troubled people, around 2012 - 2015. They “unleashed a beast” they had been priming and socially engineering for decades.
Also, these are mostly whites too (highest suicide rate demographic in USA). I would theorize the overwhelming majority of parade attendees attended daycare, have bad relationships with their fathers, and consumed **lots** of sugar and Ritalin in their childhood. Just theories though.
Watch:
If you thought people were crazy in 2016, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Holy f***** sh*t.
I spent most of the last two decades in progressive cities, by choice, and I don’t remember ever seeing anything like this. And I’ve seen a lot, all over the world.
The oligarchs somehow flipped an internal “switch” in huge segments of already-troubled people, around 2012 - 2015. They “unleashed a beast” they had been priming and socially engineering for decades.
Also, these are mostly whites too (highest suicide rate demographic in USA). I would theorize the overwhelming majority of parade attendees attended daycare, have bad relationships with their fathers, and consumed **lots** of sugar and Ritalin in their childhood. Just theories though.
Watch:
Last edited:
Psychology used to say they were born mentally ill, just like other disorders ...
The girls started growing boobs around the 4th grade and I was hooked. By the 7th they were in full bloom. My science partner kept bumping her boobs into the table and I got all sorts of new stimuli in several locations. Sexuality has continued to be reinforced daily. No guy ever did that to me.
Exactly. Your sexuality wasn’t a choice for you. You were just attracted to women as opposed to men. I don’t see why homosexuality would be any different.
You are attracted to who you are attracted to. It isn’t a conscience choice.
The single purpose of a species is to reproduce and ensure its survival. When you have members of the species who have no interest in that one could at the least consider them abnormal.
An abnormal behavioral that leads them so some very unhealthy sexual practices as they try to mimic straight normal sex.
An abnormal behavioral that leads them so some very unhealthy sexual practices as they try to mimic straight normal sex.
Why don't women just rot an die after menopause, their continued resource consumption should be be considered abnormal.
No.
They basically proved nothing. A quote from the article.
The researchers concluded that there is not enough evidence to come to firm conclusions about the causes of gender identity.
Quite a few posters showing off their internal biases/ignorance in this thread.
Science used to say that black people were inferior to white people.
This is where I can finally make a (classic) liberal argument. It's been awhile.
Men are born gay or not gay.
There's no chance outside of prison, that a man can be socialized to prefer other men's hairy assholes to a woman - given equal access to both. Zero chance.
I'll go far as to say, that anyone who thinks it's a choice they had to make (again, given equal access to both) needs to take a long look in the mirror and consider coming out of the closet, cuz they are most likely gay. Also, men aren't bi. They are one or the other.
Also - most women are bi.
Change my mind.
How was there such a high percentage of men born gay (and pedophile judged by our standards) in classic Greek and Roman times?
Why do you keep bringing up my time at Mcalester? And as I have said before, if your cellmate is a Thai lady boy it doesnt count!!
#1 - Article is from August 2016. What social media bubble passed this off as something new?
#2 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beware-bogus-theories-of-sexual-orientation/?redirect=1
Since apparently nobody reads the links, I'll summarize:
"a new study published in the fall issue of the nonpeer-reviewed journal The New Atlantis by Johns Hopkins University's Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh"
...and...
One clue comes from the journal's co-publisher, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” Already we're off the science page.
...and..
according to geneticist Dean Hamer, emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, “it is a selective and outdated collection of references and arguments aimed at confusing rather than clarifying our understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.” For example, Mayer and McHugh claim that the concept of sexual orientation is “ambiguous” and that there are “no agreed-upon definitions for purposes of empirical research.” Not so. The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes,” and as Hamer points out, sexual orientation is far less “ambiguous” than personality traits like “self-esteem” and “warmth” that scientists study without religious and political ramifications.
and
Mayer and McHugh also appear to be data snooping when they reference only one of six studies in the peer-reviewed literature of the past 16 years that employ proper probability-sampling methods, “and it just so happens to be the one with the lowest estimate of genetic influence of the entire set,” Hamer says.
and
Moreover, the entire article is gainsaid by a massive meta-analysis study by Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey and his colleagues published in the September issue of the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, showing that “there is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial causes of sexual orientation than social causes.” Evidence includes: “moderate genetic influences demonstrated in well-sampled twin studies; the cross-culturally robust fraternal-birth-order effect on male sexual orientation; and the finding that when infant boys are surgically and socially ‘changed’ into girls, their eventual sexual orientation is unchanged (i.e., they remain sexually attracted to females). In contrast, evidence for the most commonly hypothesized social causes of homosexuality—sexual recruitment by homosexual adults, patterns of disordered parenting, or the influence of homosexual parents—is generally weak in magnitude and distorted by numerous confounding factors.”
tl;dr - OP didn't read past the headline, but it reinforces his worldview, so it must be legit.
Yeah. Yep. Uh huh, on yeah, finally something i can agree with the bornfollower on.
There ya go. See, you had to-- um. okay. We can agree on something once every 30 years.
Women are all two glasses away from it. Hell they'll check each other out stone sober. What throws me every time is lesbians. They still retain the female sensitivity, linear thinking and all the worst female traits without any of the chemistry. That, and their lack of availability has frequently acted like catnip to a tomcat with me. I still have yet to flip one. When I was a kid most of the lesbians around were ugly. No more man, they get MARRIED now. Also, men getting married to each other is a joke. The gay married men I know make no pretense of monogamy.
What does it matter if it's born or developed? And not to complicate this any further, but as a farmboy, ducks have to be the gayest animal on earth. I've seen male ducks just go village people on each other. There wasn't any liberal programming at work on that one. It exists in nature apart from homos apiens. Wtf does it matter? It's not an excuse if it's "natural" and not a valid criticism if it's not, imo.
They posted a non-peer reviewed study in a magazine founded by a social conservative think tank.
How do you start there and arrive at them being "the" experts at JHU, or that JHU endorses any one person's conclusions?
Oh, hey, look....
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-lgbtq-hopkins-20160928-story.html
Respect is the cornerstone of university life: respect for speech and a diversity of views; respect for students, colleagues and patients; and respect for science, which is our lifeblood as an institution.
As faculty at Johns Hopkins, a major educational, research and health institution, we are writing to express our concern about a recently published report that we believe mischaracterizes the current state of the science on sexuality and gender.
Science, and particularly the fields of psychiatry and psychology, has made major advances in our understanding of the complex issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, accumulating data support the concept that gender identity is not strictly a binary phenomenon. And scientific evidence clearly documents that sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same and/or different sexes are normal variations of the diversity of human sexuality.
Homosexuality is no longer considered an illness by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association or any of the other mainstream professional organizations in the health field. These organizations have come to affirm what LGBTQ people and their loved ones have known for years: that being gay or transgender is perfectly consistent with being healthy and well.
Yet LGBTQ communities have been subject to discrimination, including in health care services. A 2011 landmark report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed this history of maltreatment and affirmed that substantial health disparities exist for LGBTQ people, most often fueled by stigma, discrimination and homophobia. This key IOM report outlines an important research agenda in the field, and we are learning more each day about gender, gender identity, and transgender and gender-nonconforming people and their well-being — including best practices for gender-affirming services.
As faculty at Johns Hopkins, we are committed to serving the health needs of the LGBTQ community in a manner that is informed by the best available science — a manner that is respectful and inclusive and supports the rights of LGBTQ people to live full and open lives without fear of discrimination or bias based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
That is why the recent report, released by one current and one former member of our faculty on the topic of LGBTQ health, is so troubling. The report, "Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological and Psychological and Social Sciences," was not published in the scientific literature, where it would have been subject to rigorous peer review prior to publication. It purports to detail the science of this area, but it falls short of being a comprehensive review.
For instance, the report omits post-2010 work by Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University and thereby underemphasizes the negative role that stigma and oppression play in LGBTQ mortality and health behaviors. It comes to different conclusions about complex questions such as the origins of homosexuality from those reached by a recent review of the scientific literature by psychologist Dr. J. Michael Bailey and colleagues, commissioned by the prestigious Association for Psychological Science. As now stated, the report's findings could further stigmatize and harm the health of LGBTQ communities, and the report is already being widely touted by organizations opposed to LGBTQ rights.
Because of the report, the Human Rights Campaign has warned Johns Hopkins that it is reviewing, and may remove from the institution, its high ranking in the HRC Healthcare Equality Index. The national benchmarking tool evaluates health care facilities' policies and practices related to equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ patients, visitors and employees.
We wish to make clear that there are many people at Hopkins who hold a profound and long-standing commitment to the health, wellness, well-being, and fair and non-stigmatizing treatment of LGBTQ people and communities. We do not believe that the "Sexuality and Gender" report cited above is a comprehensive portrayal of the current science, and we respectfully disassociate ourselves from its findings.
We also vigorously support the right to academic freedom and scientific disagreement and debate. Indeed, debates are the very basis of the scientific method. That same commitment to scientific debate means we must engage the dialogue in a circumstance such as this, and not stand silently by.
This summer's tragic events in Orlando reminded all of us of the virulence of the oppression of LGBTQ people. We stand with the LGBTQ community, and with their allies, for dignity, inclusion and the recognition that homophobia and transphobia have no place in our institutions. Respect requires no less from all of us.
The authors are all faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Chris Beyrer (cbeyrer1@jhu.edu) is the Desmond Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights.
Dr. Robert W. Blum (rblum@jhu.edu) is William S. Gates Sr. Professor and chair of the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health; he also served on the Institute of Medicine Committee on LGBT Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities.
Tonia C. Poteat (tpoteat@jhu.edu) is an assistant professor in the Departments of Epidemiology and International Health. The following Johns Hopkins faculty members also contributed to this article: Danielle German, David Holtgrave, David Jernigan, Michelle Kaufman, Joanne Rosen and Dr. Ron Valdiserri.
The views expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Johns Hopkins University.
Last edited:
I don't know. Wasn't it mostly a cultural thing in their militaries? I would guess it was more of a dominance hierarchy in their military system than a true preference for same sex coupling. I really don't know. I would assume it would be a similar dynamic to prisons in that there are no women to choose, and much of the sex involves power and status rather than affection or attraction.
In modern, normal social scenarios - It just seems pretty self evident that the concept of a man facing a choice of being attracted to men or women and seeing that as something they have to consider is self evidently flawed. The differences are so stark that I cannot conceive of it being a choice for men.
Again however, for women, everything I just said is out the window. Their sexuality has exceptional capacity for fluidity and some level of choice. Not so for men.
Cultural, yes. Not just in the military either. So the old joke about television shows making you gay in my opinion is true. The more it’s normalized the more people will do it. Not me of course but you guys would.
Oral sex for either gender was extremely taboo in Roman times. Now it’s just third base and no big deal.
If we were in Germany 1938, we would be Nazi soldiers. If we were aristocrats in Ancient Greece, we would be gay. Often this was just a phase before getting married and having kids.
So, you are saying that if there is less of a stigma, or a reduced chance of being stoned/burned alive, an individual would be more likely to embrace his/her natural tendencies rather than hiding them and pretending to be something he/she is not.
That's a brilliant observation.
Moral of the story: DesMoines & Iowa City (smaller than Tulsa and/or Stilly) are the bastions of attempting to be relevant in flyover Merica.
More of the state is traditional and laughs at this crap
Science denying Cretans.
So science no longer matters. (And does it ever?) It's more about what is culturally acceptable and what makes us feel better about ourselves.
So science no longer matters. (And does it ever?) It's more about what is culturally acceptable and what makes us feel better about ourselves.
It doesn't make me feel good to spell it with an "i," therefore, I will continue to use an "a" and be correct, because feelings ...
I will just leave this here.
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
No. There are more straight people now than there were when the culture was more gay. You would be gay in those times because at 12 you would have been fvcked and as an adult you would have made love to a 12 year old.
Sorry if this confuses you.
