(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:17 am)ronedee Wrote: Here is an unbiased piece on "why" the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Its NOT because of any further medical studies! It was
because of political pressure put on the committee, who passed the resolution with only a 55% vote. What this proves is that the lobby effects did their job
without the need for any medical data. And there hasn't been a study, or research since. At least in this country....obviously!

You fucking idiot......

---

---

That's the best concise summary of the state of the research I've seen. Kudos to D-News for getting it down to that level. I wouldn't have wanted to be the person who had to try to write a script for a piece explaining epigenetics for a TV crowd!

(October 13, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:26 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Um, I don't think you read that entire article. Here's his conclusion:


(Bold emphasis my own.)

His article was not saying that Homosexuals are ill, he is saying that the APA's process of classifying mental issues in general is bogus. There's nothing in that article that suggests the author feels that homosexuals were ever properly classified as mentally ill. He is saying that none  of the categories described by the APA are valid.

Where did I say the author said they were ill?

You didn't you misread.

(October 13, 2015 at 12:29 am)ronedee Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:26 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Um, I don't think you read that entire article. Here's his conclusion:


(Bold emphasis my own.)

His article was not saying that Homosexuals are ill, he is saying that the APA's process of classifying mental issues in general is bogus. There's nothing in that article that suggests the author feels that homosexuals were ever properly classified as mentally ill. He is saying that none  of the categories described by the APA are valid.

Where did I say the author said they were ill?

You deliberately manipulated the title, which contained the phrase "mental illness", to try to support your original claim that homosexuality was scientifically shown to be a mental illness, which was the question that had been put to you.

Except he is using the term ironically, because he doesn't think mental illnesses described in the DSM are a real thing. I'm not arguing the pros or cons of that position, only that the article does not say what you seem to hope it says. You quote a bit out of the middle to talk about how a vote cancelled the classification, as if to show it was just a political decision but that gays are really mentally ill despite the politics (I can think of no other implication or intent you may have had in using that quote in your post), but the reason the author mentioned it is to show that it was never a mental illness in the first place.

The article basically says the opposite of what you contended.

(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote: You fucking idiot......

---

---

Great find, and thank you for sharing.

(October 13, 2015 at 12:32 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote: You fucking idiot......

---

---

That's the best concise summary of the state of the research I've seen. Kudos to D-News for getting it down to that level. I wouldn't have wanted to be the person who had to try to write a script for a piece explaining epigenetics for a TV crowd!

I seen somewhere but the  gist of it is if you get too much of the y chromosome you would  be born gay.
I was really trying hard to find that paper and study but this is best as i could find. But yeah people  you know
should really think before writing stupid stuff on the internet.

(October 13, 2015 at 12:36 am)Kitan Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote: You fucking idiot......

---

---

Great find, and thank you for sharing.

No problem 

(October 13, 2015 at 12:36 am)dyresand Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:32 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: That's the best concise summary of the state of the research I've seen. Kudos to D-News for getting it down to that level. I wouldn't have wanted to be the person who had to try to write a script for a piece explaining epigenetics for a TV crowd!

I seen somewhere but the  gist of it is if you get too much of the y chromosome you would  be born gay.
I was really trying hard to find that paper and study but this is best as i could find. But yeah people  you know
should really think before writing stupid stuff on the internet.

It's not the chromosome itself; it's the switching sequence of the genes that regulate hormone production timing and quantity. Other genes (called homeotic, or "hox", genes) which switch on the sequences of genes it takes to cause a fetus to develop will function differently depending on the hormone environment in which they find themselves, so the change in testosterone expression leads to changes in sexual centers of the brain and endocrine system, which seem to lead to a bisexual or homosexual orientation.

As pointed out in the video, it is not a sequence of actual DNA on the chromosome that does this, but a myriad of factors, which is why it has proven so hard to pin down. Unfortunately, people keep expecting there to be "a gay gene" in order for them to call it a natural phenomenon. That's just not the only way things work.

When we finished the Human Genome Project in 1999, we expected to find 100,000 genes for all the proteins and sequences we had already observed in the human body. Yet we only found 30,000 genes. It blew the researchers away because they had no explanation for how 30K genes could produce over 100K results. It turned out that the way in which those genes interacted with one another produced new protein-folding outcomes, depending on a number of factors. We thought we would "solve" genetics once we finished sequencing our genome; instead, we just opened a window into Level 2.

But the point is, it is clearly a natural phenomenon, found in almost every social animal species on the planet. And we're starting to get a pretty good image of how it occurs. Unfortunately, because there's no easy way to point to Gene #28,317 and say "that's it! That's the Gay Gene!", people are having a harder time seeing it as a natural phenomenon.

(October 13, 2015 at 12:44 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:36 am)dyresand Wrote: I seen somewhere but the  gist of it is if you get too much of the y chromosome you would  be born gay.
I was really trying hard to find that paper and study but this is best as i could find. But yeah people  you know
should really think before writing stupid stuff on the internet.

It's not the chromosome itself; it's the switching sequence of the genes that regulate hormone production timing and quantity. Other genes (called homeotic, or "hox", genes) which switch on the sequences of genes it takes to cause a fetus to develop will function differently depending on the hormone environment in which they find themselves, so the change in testosterone expression leads to changes in sexual centers of the brain and endocrine system, which seem to lead to a bisexual or homosexual orientation.

As pointed out in the video, it is not a sequence of actual DNA on the chromosome that does this, but a myriad of factors, which is why it has proven so hard to pin down. Unfortunately, people keep expecting there to be "a gay gene" in order for them to call it a natural phenomenon. That's just not the only way things work.

When we finished the Human Genome Project in 1999, we expected to find 100,000 genes for all the proteins and sequences we had already observed in the human body. Yet we only found 30,000 genes. It blew the researchers away because they had no explanation for how 30K genes could produce over 100K results. It turned out that the way in which those genes interacted with one another produced new protein-folding outcomes, depending on a number of factors. We thought we would "solve" genetics once we finished sequencing our genome; instead, we just opened a window into Level 2.

But the point is, it is clearly a natural phenomenon, found in almost every social animal species on the planet. And we're starting to get a pretty good image of how it occurs. Unfortunately, because there's no easy way to point to Gene #28,317 and say "that's it! That's the Gay Gene!", people are having a harder time seeing it as a natural phenomenon.

Oh right thank you

(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote: You fucking idiot......

epigenetics  was coined by C. H. Waddington in 1942 and the study was and is, "inconclusive" according to your own fucking video!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

(October 13, 2015 at 12:48 am)ronedee Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 12:27 am)dyresand Wrote: You fucking idiot......

epigenetics  was coined by C. H. Waddington in 1942 and the study was and is, "inconclusive" according to your own fucking video!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Meanwhile, from the National Institutes of Health in this  century:

https://commonfund.nih.gov/epigenomics/figure