New Left Neoliberal Attack on Family in the Guise of LGBT Rights – Wool Over Eye

 

Roz Ward gave the game away when she told Australia the truth about the cultural Marxists plan to take over Australia, one child and one school at a time, through the Safe School’s Coalition program. She would have been much wiser to wait for homosexual marriage to be legalised and then introduce her radical plan to degenderize our children. Instead her overreach became part of an ongoing comedy of errors by the ‘Yes’ case. The Australian newspaper article headline that said Activist Roz Ward ‘hurting’ gay marriage push tells the story well.

Roz Ward from the La Trobe University in Melbourne was one of the primary drivers behind the Safe Schools Coalition. Publicly she said that this is all about stopping bullying and suicides, but she told the Melbourne Marxism Conference in 2015 that is was a key part of a strategy to radically change society.

Pat Byrne in his incisive article ‘Safe Schools or a Radical Marxist Sexual Revolution’ says:

Marxist doctrine says that the capitalist class (the wealthy owners of capital) has used all the main institutions of society – government, the courts, the churches and the culture – to oppress, subjugate and economically exploit the working class.

Ward says that as part of this process of exploitation, capitalists have imposed cultural and moral norms around sex, marriage and the natural family that inhibit sexual freedom.

Marxism is her solution. “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change,” Ward says.

To this end, Ward lauds policies of sexual liberation introduced by the Soviet Union after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. This included the introduction of “gender neutral language … something that transgender advocates today see as the key demand to the transgender and other advocacy movements.

“They [the Soviets] also removed the fixed age of consent…”

Echoing this classical Marxist doctrine, Ward paraphrases gay academic Dennis Altman, saying that “the homosexual cannot win liberation without a general sexual liberation.” In Marxist parlance, this means that LGBT people can truly be liberated only when all people of all sexual orientations and gender identities have open sexual licence after being liberated from capitalist-imposed conventional morality or biology.

Ward’s speech puts the Safe Schools Coalition program in the ideological context of a radical sexual revolution to be pushed through Australian schools.

Mark Latham, in his brilliant essay called ‘From Reason to Radicalism: Gender Fluidity’ elucidates the deception on the Safe Schools ideology which is core belief of the Australian Teachers’ Union and is thus embedded in our education system.

When John Maynard Keynes declared “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back”, he knew what he was talking about.

 The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach Neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum…

Having lost the battle for economic and foreign policy in the 1980s, Neo-Marxists embarked on a long march through the institutions of the public sector, especially universities and schools.

Indoctrination programs like Safe Schools, BRR and Start Early are the inevitable result…

This is why Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”.

It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity.

Australia’s political leaders are sleepwalking into an educational disaster… Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation.

Mark Latham’s prescient warning in his Daily Telegraph article on August29 that “Same Sex Marriage YES Vote will Open up a Can of Worms” also showed that the current proposals for same sex marriage were in fact proposals for the de-gendering of marriage and ultimately society. The headline from France in 2012 showed us where this movement for homosexual marriage was going to take us: “France is set to ban the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.”

As George Orwell said, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool”.

Unfortunately, this open war against gender and mothers and fathers is not only happening in France but also in other western countries including America, Spain and Australia. In early 2011 President Obama removed the word mother and father from US passport applications. In Spain the radical socialist government, after introducing homosexual marriage in 2005, removed the words mother and father from birth certificates and in their place was ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’. In 2008 the NSW Parliament removed the necessity of putting the word ‘father’ on birth certificates.

For decades Australian fathers, especially single fathers, have suffered discrimination and even open hatred from government bureaucracies, family law courts and law enforcement officials. Unfortunately it looks like this open hatred is going to continue and perhaps increase.

Where did the war against gender and mothers and fathers start?

To find this out, one has to go back to some of the dedicated disciples of Karl Marx. Lenin said, “Destroy the family and you destroy society”. The Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1920s perfected Lenin’s battle plan and became the springboard for the philosophical basis to destroy family, marriage and fatherhood.

Looking at western society over the last 50 years we see that the Frankfurt School and the cultural Marxists have achieved amazing success. Roz Ward’s confession alerted us to the real agenda that lies behind the legalisation of homosexual marriage. The plague of fatherlessness confronting western society is a mute testimony to our acquiescence to their flawed ideologies, not to mention the appeasing of our own selfishness. Regrettably I include myself in the outworking of this tragedy. Unfortunately, we have all played a part in this so-called comedy of errors.

When you redefine marriage you destroy gender and when you destroy gender you destroy both marriage and family because marriage is a celebration of difference and not sameness.

So how can we turn back the tide of fatherlessness and family breakdown? How can we best protect our children caught in the middle of the darkness that comes when we willingly embark on the destruction of marriage and family?

Firstly, we must become the change we seek and put a priority on love, because as Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that!”

Let us start by loving those closest to us. As a father and a husband I speak personally. We must love our wife and children and extended family. As Mother Teresa said, “World peace begins in the home”.

Secondly, we must work at being good fathers. Hitler and Stalin both had shocking experiences with their fathers, along with Saddam Hussein. Almost 84 million people died to appease the guilt of those men’s father wound.

On the other hand, good trees produce good fruit and the effect of good fathers is felt for generations to come.

Thirdly, we must be aware of what is happening in our society and the true political implications of so-called policies to reduce discrimination and produce equality. The quote from George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ comes to mind, “Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others”. So-called policies to stop discrimination for minorities end up discriminating against majorities. Our children then bear the brunt of this diabolical discrimination as their biological right to a mother and father is removed by governmental decree.

The introduction of homosexual marriage is a carefully calculated step towards a genderless society. Children need a father and a mother. Gender is important.  Children thrive in the constant resolution of the tension between the male and the female of the species. Mothers and fathers bring something unique and precious to their natural biological children. It’s funny how nature knows best. Let’s put our children first for a change.

The people of Australia have spoken. They don’t want to keep marriage as it is and has always been for thousands of years, through countless cultures, from time immemorial. They want to redefine marriage. How sad!

The Postal Survey was mailed out to 16,006,180 Australians. Of these, 7,817,247 voted ‘Yes’. That is less than 50 per cent (in fact it is 48.84 per cent). So in spite of the fact that less than 50 per cent of the people of Australia voted to redefine marriage it appears our politicians are hell bent on redefining something that can never be redefined.

The first person I rang after the vote came in was a homosexual friend who had campaigned for the ‘No’ case. I had honestly been afraid for him should the ‘No’ vote win as the mark of those ‘Yes’ campaigners who demanded tolerance has been violence and intolerance. He was gracious and magnanimous in defeat and I was encouraged to hear the love in his voice for those who hated him so fervently.

Interestingly, the day before, I was talking to a friend in the music industry. He told me that all forty of his gay friends in the music industry had voted ‘No’ and they had individually wondered out loud to him who the rainbow collective was? They had never met them nor did they know them. How dare these gay radicals speak so strongly on their behalf without their permission? This was the beginning of the comedy of errors albeit with a touch of pathos.

It would appear the homosexual community was used unwillingly at times as a battering ram against the so called ‘capitalist conservatives’ by the cultural Marxist elites who have so cleverly infiltrated our educational, political and media spheres.

Warwick Marsh is the founder of the Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation and has worked as a musician and creative communicator/TV producer. He is editor in chief of the weekly Dads4Kids email newsletter and in 2001 received a Centenary Medal from the Governor-General for service in musical leadership for young people and the Aboriginal community and his international missions and aid work.

 

Advertisements

Gay Genetics Comprehensively Disproved Gay is Choice Not Genetics – 9 studies analysed in detail

The debate over homosexual “marriage” often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that “science” has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the “right to marry” each other.

 

Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2 to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and “neuro-hormonal differentiation.”7

 

Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to

 

 

 

  • F. Swaab and M.A. Hofman, Brain Res. 537 (1990): 141-48, as cited in Dennis McFadden and E.G. Pasanen, “Comparisons of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions,” Proceedings of the National. Academy of Science USA 95 (March 1998): 2709-13.
  • Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (1991): 1034-37.

 

  • H. Hamer, S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, Science 261(1993): 321-27, as cited in McFadden.
  • J. Sigesmund, “Let Your Fingers Do the Talking,” Newsweek “Web Exclusive,” 31 March 2000.
  • McFadden and Pasanen.
  • “Sexual orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth – startling new evidence revealed in the blink of an eye,” press release, University of East London (UEL), England, October 2, 2003, reporting on findings by the UEL’s Dr. Qazi Rahman, along with the Institute of Psychiatry’s Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson. In terms of eye-blink reactions to sudden loud noises, “The team discovered significant differences in the response between male and female, and heterosexual and homosexual subjects.” Rahman: “The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned.”

 

 

 

 

25SR-004

 

heterosexual.8 Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.” Immutability is a central tenet of demands for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”

 

Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a considerable body of previous literature about change from homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of exceptions to the “born gay” theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed with caution before declaring that science has “proved” that homosexuality is genetic.9

 

Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.10

 

Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes:

 

Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.11

 

She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females.12 Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have changed labels,” Stepp reports.

 

Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither inevitable nor impossible to resist, a number of studies have been widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance.

 

In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:

 

 

 

  • Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417.
  • See, for instance, Charles Socarides, A Freedom Too Far: A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society (Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1996), pp. 115-155, particularly pp. 151-152.

 

  • Laura Sessions Stepp, “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is a Shifting Concept,” The Washington Post, January 4, 2004, p. D-1.

 

  • Lisa M. Diamond, “Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (in press as of 2004).

 

 

 

2                                                                    25SR-004

 

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.13

 

After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is inborn.

 

In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and

 

Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:

 

“Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

 

Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies: political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991:

 

[P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks.15

 

Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the periodical Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”16

 

 

 

  • William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March 1993: 228-239.

 

  • Letter from William Byne to Dean Hamer, 2 July 1993, as quoted in Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation (New York, New York: Hyperion, 1996), p. 81.

 

  • Natalie Angier, quoted in Charles W. Socarides, “A Freedom Too Far,” (Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1995), p.

 

  • Simon LeVay, quoted in A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” 2002, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

 

 

 

 

3                                                                    25SR-004

 

In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes:

 

We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.17

 

Despite critical examination, as well as comments by the studies’ own authors that the “gay” research has been distorted or exaggerated, some of the studies are often cited as “proof” that “gays are born that way.” A few other studies have arisen in more recent years with as many flaws or have been misreported in similar fashion. Here is a brief overview of some of the studies:

 

UCLA’s Study on Genes and Mice Brains

 

In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study by UCLA researchers indicating that sexual identity is genetic.18 Reuters reported it this way: “Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported.”19 A number of other media outlets picked up on this theme, creating the impression that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic theory of homosexuality.

 

The trouble is, the study doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. All it does is support a widely accepted theory about hormones and gender. Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment:

 

The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes as no surprise.

 

But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill -informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics – in precisely the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did – either in the naïve hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Hamewith Books, Baker Books, 1996), p. 38.

 

  • Phoebe Dewing, Tao Shi, Steve Horvath and Eric Vilain, “Sexually dimorphic gene expression in mouse brain precedes gonadal differentiation,” Molecular Brain Research, Vol. 118, Issues 1-2, 21 October 2003: 82-90.

 

  • Reuters, “Study says sexual identity is genetic,” 20 October 2003.
  • E-mail correspondence, 21 October 2003.

 

 

 

4                                                                    25SR-004

 

 

The Hypothalamus

 

The first widely publicized claim for a “gay gene” came in 1991 when Salk Institute researcher Dr. Simon LeVay published a study in the journal Science noting a difference in a brain structure called the hypothalamus when evaluating 35 men – 19 homosexuals and 16 heterosexuals.21 LeVay found that the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. He concluded that the findings “suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate.”22

 

The media splashed the study on front pages and TV and radio broadcasts from coast to coast, despite the fact that LeVay himself cautioned:

 

“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. …Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.”23

 

The study also had major problems, which LeVay himself readily admits. First, all 19 of his homosexual subjects died of complications associated with AIDS. The difference in the hypothalamus might have been caused by chemical changes in the brain as a response to AIDS.

 

Dr. Byne argued in Scientific American that “[LeVay’s] inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. … Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS.”24

 

In addition, six of the “heterosexual” men died of AIDS. LeVay admitted later that he didn’t actually know whether the subjects in his heterosexual sample were, indeed, heterosexual; all of these subjects were simply “presumed heterosexual.” Given that very few straight men in San Francisco were contracting AIDS at the time (and still aren’t), this was a wildly unscientific assumption.

 

Another weakness of LeVay’s study is that his sample included major “exceptions.” Three of the homosexuals had larger clusters of neurons than the mean size for the heterosexuals, and three of the heterosexuals had clusters smaller than the mean size for the homosexuals. LeVay

 

 

  • LeVay, op cit.
  • Quoted in David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 1994): 64-71 and cited in A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, downloaded 12 January 2004.
  • Byne, “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American (May 1994): 50-5.

 

 

 

5                                                                    25SR-004

 

acknowleged that these exceptions “hint at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size.”25

 

LeVay is an open homosexual, and some comments he made to Newsweek suggest he had an agenda from the outset of the research. He said he believes that America must be convinced that homosexuality is biologically determined. “It’s important to educate society,” he said. “I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.”26

 

Since LeVay released his study, other researchers have found that life experiences can alter brain structures, so it is premature to assume inborn origins for behavioral differences. In 1997, for example, University of California at Berkeley psychologist Marc Breedlove released a study that showed that sexual activities of rats actually changed structural aspects of the brain at the base of the spinal chord. Breedlove said:

 

These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. You can’t assume that because you find a structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You don’t know how it got there.27

 

Breedlove is not an activist out to prove homosexuality is not biological. In fact, he said he believes that a genetic component exists somewhere and is doing his own research in this area.

 

The X Chromosome

 

In 1993, a group of medical researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) led by Dr. Dean H. Hamer released a study of 40 pairs of brothers that linked homosexuality to the X chromosome. The research, published in Science, reported that 33 of the pairs of brothers had DNA markers in the chromosome region known as Xq28.

 

The study won an enormous amount of media attention, and Hamer’s own activities as a homosexual activist within NCI were ignored when Hamer offered interviews only when reporters agreed not to identify him as a homosexual.

 

But even Hamer tempered his enthusiasm about the research results.

 

We knew that the genes were only part of the answer,” he said in a speech given in Salt Lake City. “We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors.28

 

 

 

 

 

  • Gelman, D. Foote, T. Barrett, M. Talbot, “Born or Bred,” Newsweek, 24 February 1992, 46-53.
  • Pat McBroom, “Sexual Experience May Affect Brain Structure,” Berkeleyan campus newspaper (University of California at Berkeley), 19 November 1997 (http://www.urel.berkeley.edu/berkeleyan/1997/1119/sexexp.html).

 

  • Dean Hamer, The Science of Desire (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 82.

 

 

 

6                                                                    25SR-004

 

In a later interview, Hamer said, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic. … [E]nvironmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. …I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”29

 

Hamer’s results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study found an identical sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all homosexual brothers in the study. In reality, what it found was matching sequences in each set of brothers who were both homosexual. Dr. Byne argues that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer would have had to examine the Xq28 sequence of homosexual men’s heterosexual brothers. Hamer insisted that such an inclusion would have confounded his study. Byne responds: “In other words, inclusion of heterosexual brothers might have revealed that something other than genes is responsible for sexual orientation.”30

 

In the same edition of Science that carried the Hamer study, Elliot Gershon, chief of the clinical neurogenetics branch of the National Institute of Mental Health, said, “There’s almost no finding that would be convincing by itself in this field. We really have to see an independent replication.”31

 

The National Cancer Institute sponsored the “gay gene” research. This study alone cost $419,000 of the institute’s taxpayer-backed funds, according to The Washington Times.32

 

The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research Integrity investigated Hamer over allegations by a colleague that he ignored evidence that conflicted with his hypothesis. NIH never released the results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. He had done the “gay gene” research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s Sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts homosexual men.

 

One of Hamer’s researchers told the Times that homosexuality is “not the only thing we study,” but it is “a primary focus of study.” Hamer reportedly stated he has pushed for an Office of Gay and Lesbian Health inside the National Institutes of Health, and he testified in opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual activists from winning minority class status. Then-Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) accused the doctor of “actively pursu[ing] … a gay agenda.”33

 

Another fact that casts doubt on Hamer’s conclusions is that other researchers tried to replicate his study but failed. In 1999, Drs. George Rice, Neil Risch and George Ebers published their findings in Science after attempting to replicate Hamer’s Xq28 study. Their conclusion: “We were not able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male homosexuality.”

 

 

 

 

  • From speech in Salt Lake City in Lili Wright, “Science of Desire Is Topic for ‘Gay Gene’ Finder,” Salt Lake Tribune, 28 April 1995.

 

  • “Evidence for Homosexuality Gene,” Science, Vol. 261, 16 July 1993: 291.
  • Joyce Price, “Federal Cancer Lab Hunts for Gay Gene,” The Washington Times, 3 April 1994.

 

 

 

7                                                                    25SR-004

 

Moreover, they added that when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.34

 

The Twins Study

 

In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.35

 

“This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing homosexuality,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “because … in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent.”36 Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that “identical twins reared together share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together,” and that narcissism, a key component of homosexuality, is more likely among identical twins who “grow up with mirror images of themselves.”37 (Italics in original.)

 

In his analysis of the medical evidence purportedly supporting a biological cause of homosexuality, Dr. Byne noted other twin studies:

 

Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute to sexual orientation … the effects of common genes and common environments are difficult to disentangle. Resolving this issue requires studies of twins raised apart.38

 

Other physicians have also criticized the study for overvaluing the genetic influence.39

 

Dr. Byne’s arguments might lead some activists to label him a “homophobe.” He is, in reality, quite the contrary. Byne readily advocates societal acceptance of homosexuality and “gay rights,” but nevertheless concludes, “Most of the links in the chain of reasoning from biology to social policy [regarding homosexuality], do not hold up under scrutiny.”40

 

Bailey conducted another study in 1999, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which actually showed less possible genetic influence on homosexuality than the first twins study. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a total of 27 in

 

  • Dean H. Hamer, George Rice, Neil Risch, and George Ebers,et al. “Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation” (Technical Comment), Science 285 (6 August 1999: 803a.

 

  • Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-96.

 

  • Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 85.
  • Lidz, “A Reply to ‘A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation’” [letter], Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 240.

 

 

 

8                                                                    25SR-004

 

which at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, none of the pairs was both homosexual. Bailey found similar results for lesbians.41

 

Hormones

 

In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated auditory systems. Specifically, the study considered differences in echo- like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person’s exposure to androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.42

 

In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this suggests that female homosexuality could result from larger exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did not show the same variation).43

 

The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to “intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations” can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. “Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently.”44

 

Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality—especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.

 

Finger Length

 

In March 2000, the media publicized a finger length study that indicated that lesbians had longer fingers than other women, perhaps because of greater exposure in the womb to androgen.

 

Typically, both sexes’ index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger—a difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the same size, but in men the index finger is more noticeably shorter.

 

In this study, Berkeley’s Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how sexual activity can change brain structure, found that homosexual women’s finger length had a tendency to follow the male pattern. But Breedlove cautioned about reading too much into the finding:

 

 

  • Stanton L. Jones, “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene,” Christianity Today, 4 October 1999, p. 53.
  • Ibid, 2709.
  • Ibid, 2712.

 

 

 

9                                                                    25SR-004

 

“There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay,” he told CNN. “… I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference.”45

 

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover commented as follows on the study:

 

A girl who develops before and into puberty with a “masculinized habitus” (the result of excess maternal intrauterine androgen stimulated by a genetic condition in the fetus)—a stocky physique, facial hair, powerful muscles, a square jaw and long fingers—may suffer so much teasing and rejection by family and peers that she comes to think of herself as “not feminine” and so will seek solace in the arms of women. Indeed, this an all-too- common pattern in the lives of “ lesbians” and illustrates exactly how a strong genetic “ association”’ can imply literally zero genetic causation whatsoever. It’s rather remarkable that the authors failed to remark on the support their study provided not for any genetic association with lesbianism, but rather for the genetic association to secondary sexual expression in homo sapiens that Vilain et al were only able to demonstrate in mus musculus. The attention paid to homosexuality in both cases, while ignoring straighforward sex, reflects the distinctly Orwellian effect that political correctness has on science: We now treat the differences between male and female as socially constructed and those between heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and genetic.46

 

Eye Blinking

 

In October 2003, a team of English researchers announced that they had found “powerful new evidence that sexual orientation is ‘hard-wired’ in the human brain before birth.”47

 

Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London and Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry said they found sex differences in the startle response – the eye blink in response to loud noises.48

 

The authors found that women had a lesser “prepulse inhibition of the human startle response (PPI),”49 that is, they blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and, more significantly, found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Private communication with the author.
  • “Sexual Orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth – startling new evidence revealed in the blink of an eye,” press release, University of East London, England, 2 October 2003.

 

  • Qazi Rahman, Veena Kumari, and Glenn D. Wilson, “Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response,” Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 117 (5): 1096-1102.

49Ibid, p. 1096.

 

 

 

10                                                                   25SR-004

 

“Because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than learned, this strongly indicates that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth,” said a press release from the University of East London.50

 

Dr. Rahman said in the release, “These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation.”

 

But the researchers themselves introduce some cautionary notes in the study:

 

Although prenatal factors may be possible precursors to the neurobehavioral profiles observed in lesbians and gay men, whether neural differences underlie sexual orientation per se, or are a consequence of homosexual or heterosexual behavior, is yet to be determined.51

 

They also write: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”52

 

The team concluded that: “Our results show, for the first time, that PPI relates to sexual orientation and that homosexual women show a robust cross- sex shift. Homosexual women showed a masculinized PPI that was no different from that of heterosexual men. … Homosexual men did not differ from heterosexual men.”53

 

Dr. Halstead Harrison, an associate professor emeritus in the Atmospheric Science Department of the University of Washington, reviewed the study, noted the small sizes of the test groups (14 lesbians and 15 heterosexual women, and 15 each of homosexual and heterosexual men) and the statistical methods, and concluded: “Data presented by Rahman et al. do not confidently support their finding that homosexual women exhibit a male-type startled-blink reflex.”54

 

Harrison further stated that “no significant differences were detected.”

 

As far as the blink reflex being utterly innate or somewhat trainable, he responded to an interviewer, “Now, that’s an open question.”55 Dr. Harrison also said he would have liked to have seen the complete data on the series of tests to see whether the subjects’ responses would change with repetition. This would indicate whether the PPI is entirely innate.

 

In his conclusion, he said: “This Comment should not be construed as falsifying the hypothesis that homosexual and heterosexual women display different prepulse startle-inhibition reflexes. That conjecture may turn out to be so, but the present data do not confidently support it.”

 

 

  • Press release, “Sexual orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth.”
  • , p. 1097.
  • Ibid,, p. 1099.
  • Ibid,, p. 1098.
  • Halstead Harrison, “A Technical Comment on the paper, ‘Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response,’” University of Washington Web site, 15 December 2003, http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~harrison/reports/rahman.pdf.

 

  • Telephone interview with Patrick Henry College senior and Culture & Family Institute intern Jeremy Sewall, 8 March 2004.

 

 

 

11                                                                   25SR-004

 

 

Neuroendocrine Hypotheses

 

In 1999, Dr. Qazi Rahman compiled a brief review of several studies purporting to show a link between neuroanatomy and sexual orientation.56

 

He wrote: “The emerging neuroanatomical account suggests that, in some key neural substrates, homosexual men show a trend toward female-typical neuroanatomy as compared to heterosexual men.”57

 

Rahman also said, “Lesbians excel at some tasks which favor heterosexual males.”

 

As in the eye-blinking study, Rahman struck a cautionary note: “But is neuroendocrine differentiation a cause or a consequence of behavior? … In addition, the differential development posited may not be causal but correlational.”

 

Rahman noted that, “Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the ‘pre -homosexual child’ view the same sex as ‘exotic’ (i.e., different from one’s self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization.”58

 

As some developmental psychologists have observed, some children may be less inclined to exhibit classic gender role differences, and this may set them up for the type of reactions from peers (or even parents), such as rejection or teasing, that make them vulnerable to developing same-sex attraction.59

 

One glaring problem with Rahman’s article is that he uncritically cites many of the studies that were thoroughly debunked by researchers such as Columbia’s Byne and Parsons. These include studies by LeVay, Hamer, Allen, Gorski, Bailey and others.

 

Rahman wraps up his piece this way:

 

To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable. [Editor’s note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to that.] Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual orientation to be excluded.60

 

 

 

  • Qazi Rahman, “Comments on the Neuroanatomy of Human Sexual Orientation and Proposed Neuroendocrine Hypotheses,” Journal of Contemporary Neurology, The MIT Press, Vol. 1999, No. 2A.
  • Ibid,, p. 2.
  • Ibid, p. 3.
  • Numerous references to this phenomenon are reported throughout Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1991).
  • Rahman, op. cit., p. 3.

 

 

 

12                                                                   25SR-004

 

Conclusion

 

Determining whether something has a biological cause is difficult, and locating a specifically genetic link is even more so. The handful of studies that purportedly add up to incontestable “proof” that homosexuals are “born that way” are inconclusive at best and, as Dr. Rahman notes, “largely correlational in nature.” In some cases, such as the twins studies, the evidence strongly indicates that early environment is more likely the dominant factor to have produced homosexual desires.

 

As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is causative. Basketball players are tall, so height correlates with playing basketball, he notes. But there is no “basketball-playing gene.” Efforts to turn some interesting correlations into causal factors have not been successful and yet have been misused to advance a political agenda.

 

Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is this, as paraphrased from Dr. Satinover: Some people may be predisposed because of genetic, prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or brain differences to have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental factors that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality biological? Not in the way that popular media and homosexual activists have presented it.

 

Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It’s not because of a homosexual “gene,” but because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don’t fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls’ emotional needs.

 

Such children’s vulnerability is all the more reason to protect them from early exposure to homosexual influences. The Boy Scouts of America, for instance, is right to screen out as troop leaders those men who desire other males sexually. The Scouts do so not out of bigotry, or a belief that all homosexual men molest boys. They do so out of genuine concern for the health and well-being of the boys in their charge, including those who might be sexually vulnerable.

 

Americans for too long have been pummeled with the idea that people are “born gay.” The people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe they have no chance themselves for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the “gay gene.”

 

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. This paper is a revised and updated version of “Born & Bred: The Debate Over the Cause of Homosexuality”(last updated in June 2000) by former Concerned Women for America staff writer Trudy Chun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda Politics Eclipsing Science, badgers John Hopkins Uni Confirming LGBT is not genetics but choice

In a remarkable case of agenda politics eclipsing science, America’s largest LGBT group has threatened harm to Johns Hopkins University if it doesn’t censor the scientific findings of leading scholars on the origins of homosexuality and transgenderism.

In a recent major study titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” researchers from Johns Hopkins found that there is virtually no scientific evidence that people are born gay or transgender.

In response, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the most powerful lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer advocacy group in the country, labelled the report an “attack on LGBT communities” and threatened to penalize Johns Hopkins University if it does not distance itself from the study.

HRC Foundation’s Healthcare Equality Index has begun rating hospitals with a numerical score this year and will evaluate whether hospitals’ practices reflect “responsible citizenship” (read: LGBT-friendly). If Hopkins’ leadership refuses to censor the study, “its Healthcare Equality Index score will be reduced substantially,” the LGBTQ group stated.

To their credit, University officials replied that while they remain committed to supporting the LGBT community they are also committed to academic freedom.

In a letter to the Johns Hopkins Medicine community, Paul B. Rothman, dean of the medical faculty, and Ronald R. Peterson, president of Johns Hopkins Health System, defended the right of scholars to publish their findings.

As an academic medical research institution, they wrote, “academic freedom is among our fundamental principles — essential to the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry, and a

As an academic medical research institution, they wrote, “academic freedom is among our fundamental principles — essential to the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry, and a privilege that we safeguard.”

Academic freedom, the officials noted, is “designed to afford members of the community the broadest possible scope for unencumbered expression, investigation, analysis, and discourse.”

The scholars conducting the study bear the highest credentials in the field. Dr. Paul R. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century, and served as director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at Johns Hopkins University for 27 years. Importantly, during McHugh’s tenure, the institute pioneered work with transgender individuals.

McHugh’s co-author is Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry and a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The scholars conducting the study bear the highest credentials in the field. Dr. Paul R. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century, and served as director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at Johns Hopkins University for 27 years. Importantly, during McHugh’s tenure, the institute pioneered work with transgender individuals.

McHugh’s co-author is Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry and a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

In their 116-page report, the scholars analyzed research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, and concluded that many of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.

“Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding,” the report said

Ever faithful to its agenda, the Human Rights Campaign wants to bully Johns Hopkins into stifling free scientific inquiry when the results run contrary to its deeply held beliefs and desires. It is willing to punish a world-class institution for protecting academic freedom.

Fortunately, officials at Johns Hopkins seem to have enough integrity to reject these heavy-handed attempts, at least for now

 

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme

Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry

by  Paul McHugh
within Bioethics, Culture, Science, Sexuality

 

June 10th, 2015

 

The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.

For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.

A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.

Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

Olympic Athlete Turned “Pin-Up” Girl

This history may clarify some aspects of the latest high-profile transgender claimant. Bruce Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion, is turning away from his titular identity as one of the “world’s greatest male athletes.” Jenner announced recently that he “identifies as a woman” and, with medical and surgical help, is busy reconstructing his physique.

I have not met or examined Jenner, but his behavior resembles that of some of the transgender males we have studied over the years. These men wanted to display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb. More often than not, while claiming to be a woman in a man’s body, they declared themselves to be “lesbians” (attracted to other women). The photograph of the posed, corseted, breast-boosted Bruce Jenner (a man in his mid-sixties, but flaunting himself as if a “pin-up” girl in her twenties or thirties) on the cover of Vanity Fair suggests that he may fit the behavioral mold that Ray Blanchard has dubbed an expression of “autogynephilia”—from gynephilia (attracted to women) and auto (in the form of oneself).

The Emperor’s New Clothes

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

How to Treat Gender Dysphoria

So how should we make sense of this matter today? As with any mental phenomenon, what’s crucial is noting its fundamental characteristic and then identifying the many ways in which that characteristic can manifest itself.

The central issue with all transgender subjects is one of assumption—the assumption that one’s sexual nature is misaligned with one’s biological sex. This problematic assumption comes about in several different ways, and these distinctions in its generation determine how to manage and treat it.

Based on the photographic evidence one might guess Bruce Jenner falls into the group of men who come to their disordered assumption through being sexually aroused by the image of themselves as women. He could have been treated for this misaligned arousal with psychotherapy and medication. Instead, he found his way to surgeons who worked him over as he wished. Others have already commented on his stereotypic caricature of women as decorative “babes” (“I look forward to wearing nail polish until it chips off,” he said to Diane Sawyer)—a view that understandably infuriates feminists—and his odd sense that only feelings, not facts, matter here.

For his sake, however, I do hope that he receives regular, attentive follow-up care, as his psychological serenity in the future is doubtful. Future men with similar feelings and intentions should be treated for those feelings rather than being encouraged to undergo bodily changes. Group therapies are now available for them.

Most young boys and girls who come seeking sex-reassignment are utterly different from Jenner. They have no erotic interest driving their quest. Rather, they come with psychosocial issues—conflicts over the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex—and presume that sex-reassignment will ease or resolve them.

The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions. Rather, they and their families find only “gender counselors” who encourage them in their sexual misassumptions.

Those with Gender Dysphoria Need Evidence-Based Care

There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.

In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry.

 

Why Reputed Scientists Object to Alarmist Interpretations of Climate Change

Why Reputed Scientists Object to Alarmist Interpretations of Climate Change

Likewise, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry wrote an editorial that broached the possibility of possible coordination between NOAA scientists and politicians eager to take aggressive action to fight climate change.

Curry, J., Is the government tinkering with global warming data?, foxnews.com, 5 November 2015

The fact that a prominent climate scientist would be willing to seriously entertain such a possibility in a public forum is quite telling. NOAA issued a press release stating the ‘death’ of the pause just as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing to issue a ‘Clean Power Plan’ designed to reduce carbon emissions by existing power plants.16 Likewise, the press release occurred a couple of months before the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) was scheduled to begin in Paris, France.17 Furthermore, Curry had already noted that if the pause were to continue for 20 years or more, a pause not predicted by any climate models, then this would raise serious questions about the adequacy of those climate models.

  • Curry, J., Implications for climate models of their disagreement with observations, judithcurry.com, 30 October 2013.

 

Hence, this paper’s publication was, in multiple ways, very fortuitous (perhaps suspiciously so) for the ‘warmist’ side of this debate. Nor is this the first instance in which suspicions of data manipulation have been aired

  • Ridley, M., Global warming: evidence high CO2 levels good for crops, oceans, The Australian, 19 October 2015, theaustralian.com.au.
  • Lemonick, M.D., Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment, Yale Environment 360, 2009; e360.yale.edu, accessed June 2015.
  • Morano, M., Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’—‘Based on Nonsense’—Leading us down afalse path’, climatedepot.com, 19 November 2015.

The well-known ‘hockey stick’ graph19 of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann (a modified version of it appeared in the movie An Inconvenient Truth) has been roundly criticized by other researchers, most notably Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.20,21,22 A summary of their criticisms is cringe-inducing: “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.”20 Worse yet, McIntyre and McKitrick have presented evidence that Mann was aware that his analysis was problematic but that he failed to disclose this.23 Their arguments have persuaded a number of high-profile scientists, including Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Muller, that the famous ‘hockey stick’ was deeply flawed.24

  • Curry, J., Implications for climate models of their disagreement with observations, judithcurry.com, 30 October 2013.
  • The graph showed a long period of relative stability of global temperature, with an extreme upward movement only in recent times, likened to a hockey stick lying on the ground with the stick’s blade poking up in the air.
  • McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R., Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series,Energy and Environment 14(6):751–771, 2003; multi-science.co.uk, accessed November 2015 | doi: 10.1260/095830503322793632..
  • McKitrick, R., What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? Invited Special Conference Presentation ‘Managing Climate Change—Practicalities and Realities in a Post-Kyoto Future’ before the Parliament House, Canberra, Australia, uoguelph.ca, 19 April 2005.
  • McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R., Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance, Geophysical Research Letters 32(3): L03710; climateaudit.info, accessed November 2015.
  • McKitrick, ref. 21, pp. 11–12..
  • Muller, R., Global Warming Bombshell, MIT Technology Review, technologyreview.com, 15 October 2004.

Failed predictions

Failure of past predictions is a good reason to view current ‘doomsday’ predictions with skepticism.

Have those claiming dire consequences of global warming made previous predictions that have not come to pass? Failure of past predictions is a good reason to view current ‘doomsday’ predictions with skepticism.27

Underlying assumptions

Are there implicit unbiblical assumptions behind a particular conclusion? For instance, Vardiman has long noted a subtle connection between climate change alarmism and a denial of biblical history. Most secular scientists accept the Milankovitch (astronomical) hypothesis of Pleistocene ice ages, but they also realize that the changes in seasonal and latitudinal sunlight distribution resulting from variations in earth’s orbital and rotational motions are too small to, themselves, be the sole cause of an ice age. Hence, they believe that a small ‘push’ from other factors, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, amount of sea ice, etc., can amplify these small changes, resulting in catastrophic climate change.28 They fail to recognize that the Ice Age was caused by a large ‘push’ from a never-to-be-repeated event, the Genesis Flood. Likewise, because of their ‘deep time’ interpretation of ice core data, uniformitarians believe that oxygen isotope ratios in deep ice cores are indicative of rapid climate fluctuations during a supposed previous warm period called an interglacial. Because uniformitarians believe that ‘the present is the key to the past’, and because they believe that we are now in another interglacial, they think that these dramatic climate changes could also occur today.29 However, they fail to recognize that the climate after the Flood was a unique, transitional, climate. Hence it is invalid to extrapolate such presumed past climate changes into the present.

Testing the ‘fruit’

The Lord Jesus told us that we could test the fruits of a person or teacher: “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush” (Luke 6:43–44, NKJV). This obviously can be applied to intellectual movements or ideologies, as well.30 There are many indications that climate change alarmism is bearing bad fruit. An article in Nature actually suggested that tens of millions of acres of fallow farmland should remain uncultivated in order to fight climate change.31 Given the number of hungry people in the world, it is shocking that some would seriously contemplate such action. So secular academics are now entertaining restrictions, not just on automobile fuel efficiency, energy consumption, etc., but on the amount of food that we produce! Likewise, one secular ‘intellectual’ has proposed modifying the human body in order to fight climate change.32 These examples of bad fruit are indicative of something fundamentally wrong with the ‘warmist’ movement. Obviously, we should be willing to modify our positions as new information comes to light. I personally have tried to keep an open mind on this issue, but factors such as those above cause me to be extremely skeptical of alarmism over this issue and to be concerned that some Christians (not to mention policy makers) are accepting claims that may not be scientifically justified.

 

 

Screen Time, Sleep Loss & Speech Scramble – Dr Lalith Mendis

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put out guidelines, Scientists are just scratching the surface of how screen time might influence growing bodies and minds. Two recent studies point out how hard these answers are to get. But the studies also hint that the answers might be important.

In the first study, Julia Ma at the University of Toronto and colleagues found that, in children younger than 2, the more time spent with a handheld screen, such as a smartphone or tablet, the more likely the child was to show signs of a speech delay. Ma presented the work May 6 at the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco.

The team used information gleaned from nearly 900 children’s 18-month checkups. Parents answered a questionnaire about their child’s mobile media use and then filled out a checklist designed to identify heightened risk of speech problems. This checklist is a screening tool that picks up potential signs of trouble; it doesn’t offer a diagnosis of a language delay, points out study coauthor Catherine Birken, a pediatrician at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Going into the study, the researchers didn’t have expectations about how many of these toddlers were using handheld screens. “We had very little clues, because there is almost no literature on the topic,” Birken says. “There’s just really not a lot there.”

It turns out that about 1 in 5 of the toddlers used handheld screens, and those kids had an average daily usage of about a half hour. Handheld screen time was associated with potential delays in expressive language, the team found. For every half hour of mobile media use, a child’s risk of language delay increased by about 50 percent.

“The relationship is not that strong,” Birken says, and those numbers come with big variations. Still, a link exists. And finding that association means there’s a lot more work to do, Birken says. In this study, researchers looked only at time spent with handheld screens. Future studies could investigate whether parents watching along with a child, the type of content or even time of day might change the calculation.

A different study, published April 13 in Scientific Reports, looked at handheld digital device use among young children and its relationship to sleep. As a group, kids from ages 6 months to 3 years who spent more time using mobile touch screen devices got less sleep at night.

Parent surveys filled out online indicated that each hour of touch screen use was linked to 26.4 fewer minutes of night sleep and 10.8 minutes more sleep during the day. Extra napping time “may go some way to offset the disturbed nighttime sleep, but the total sleep time of high users is still less than low users,” says study coauthor Tim Smith, a cognitive psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. Each additional hour of touch screen use is linked to about 15 minutes less sleep over 24 hours.

By analyzing 20 independent studies, an earlier study found a similar link between portable screen use and less sleep among older children. The new results offer “a consistent message that the findings from older children translate into those younger,” says Ben Carter of King’s College London, who was a coauthor on the study of older children.

So the numbers are in. Daily doses of Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood on a mobile device equals 7.5 minutes less sleep and a 50 percent greater risk of expressive language delay for your toddler, right? Well, no. It’s tempting to grab onto these numbers, but the science is too preliminary. In both cases, the results show that the two things go together, not that one caused the other.

It may be a long time before scientists have answers about how digital technology affects children. In the meantime, you can follow the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recently updated guidelines, which discourage screens (except for video chatting) before 18 months of age and for all children during meals or in bedrooms.

We now live in a world where smartphones are ever-present companions, a saturation that normalizes the sight of small screens in tiny hands. But I think we should give that new norm some extra scrutiny. The role of mobile devices in our kids’ lives — and our own — is something worth thinking about, hard.

One of the most pressing and perplexing questions parents have to answer is what to do about screen time for little ones. Even scientists and doctors are stumped. That’s because no one knows how digital media such as smartphones, iPads and other screens affect children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put out guidelines, but that advice was based on a frustratingly slim body of scientific evidence, as I’ve covered. Scientists are just scratching the surface of how screen time might influence growing bodies and minds. Two recent studies point out how hard these answers are to get. But the studies also hint that the answers might be important.

In the first study, Julia Ma at the University of Toronto and colleagues found that, in children younger than 2, the more time spent with a handheld screen, such as a smartphone or tablet, the more likely the child was to show signs of a speech delay. Ma presented the work May 6 at the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in San Francisco.

The team used information gleaned from nearly 900 children’s 18-month checkups. Parents answered a questionnaire about their child’s mobile media use and then filled out a checklist designed to identify heightened risk of speech problems. This checklist is a screening tool that picks up potential signs of trouble; it doesn’t offer a diagnosis of a language delay, points out study coauthor Catherine Birken, a pediatrician at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Going into the study, the researchers didn’t have expectations about how many of these toddlers were using handheld screens. “We had very little clues, because there is almost no literature on the topic,” Birken says. “There’s just really not a lot there.”

It turns out that about 1 in 5 of the toddlers used handheld screens, and those kids had an average daily usage of about a half hour. Handheld screen time was associated with potential delays in expressive language, the team found. For every half hour of mobile media use, a child’s risk of language delay increased by about 50 percent.

“The relationship is not that strong,” Birken says, and those numbers come with big variations. Still, a link exists. And finding that association means there’s a lot more work to do, Birken says. In this study, researchers looked only at time spent with handheld screens. Future studies could investigate whether parents watching along with a child, the type of content or even time of day might change the calculation.

A different study, published April 13 in Scientific Reports, looked at handheld digital device use among young children and its relationship to sleep. As a group, kids from ages 6 months to 3 years who spent more time using mobile touch screen devices got less sleep at night.

Parent surveys filled out online indicated that each hour of touch screen use was linked to 26.4 fewer minutes of night sleep and 10.8 minutes more sleep during the day. Extra napping time “may go some way to offset the disturbed nighttime sleep, but the total sleep time of high users is still less than low users,” says study coauthor Tim Smith, a cognitive psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. Each additional hour of touch screen use is linked to about 15 minutes less sleep over 24 hours.

By analyzing 20 independent studies, an earlier study found a similar link between portable screen use and less sleep among older children. The new results offer “a consistent message that the findings from older children translate into those younger,” says Ben Carter of King’s College London, who was a coauthor on the study of older children.

So the numbers are in. Daily doses of Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood on a mobile device equals 7.5 minutes less sleep and a 50 percent greater risk of expressive language delay for your toddler, right? Well, no. It’s tempting to grab onto these numbers, but the science is too preliminary. In both cases, the results show that the two things go together, not that one caused the other.

It may be a long time before scientists have answers about how digital technology affects children. In the meantime, you can follow the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recently updated guidelines, which discourage screens (except for video chatting) before 18 months of age and for all children during meals or in bedrooms.

We now live in a world where smartphones are ever-present companions, a saturation that normalizes the sight of small screens in tiny hands. But I think we should give that new norm some extra scrutiny. The role of mobile devices in our kids’ lives — and our own — is something worth thinking about, hard.