Special Report on Sexuality and Gender by New Atlantis

[Neo-Scholastic]

[The Grand Nudger]

Awesome, a text bomb.  That settles it. I;ve never understood why people throw a tizzy when they get called out for who they are and what they;re doing. You'd think they'd appreciate the recognition.

/ shrugs

[GrandizerII]

I just had a little bit of read of the article to see if it would interest me enough to read it all later. So I read the part about sexual orientation being fluid and not entirely genetic. Ok, so what? It's never been about that anyway. It's about accepting and respecting each person's identity "choice" and acknowledging their rights as individuals to live their lives the way they see fit, so long as what they do does not infringe upon the rights of others. To me, who you are is who and what you identify with, and not how other people feel they have to define you.

I've never held the view that it was biologically fixed anyway... as in literally born this way. Just essentially born this way through environmental learning that happens as you're growing up and largely under the radar... and probably with some genetic contribution directly or indirectly to certain aspects of it. That's my view. So if this report is plugging that with an agenda, it makes no difference to me; environmentally learned vs biologically fixed is presumably to the Christian the difference between changeable and not changeable, accountable and not accountable. But to me, subconscious learning in childhood is no less changeable or accountable than something that was fixed biologically by genetics. So this distinction they seem to be  trying to highlight is a moot point to me.

Exactly, and like with anything to do with being human, it's always going to be an interaction between genetics and environment.

[Jesster]

I did try giving it a read. Specifically, I started in the area I am most involved in: gender identity. As someone who is living that, I can tell you that this grossly misinterprets what is going on. It may start an argument with fact, but then it devastates it with opinion about what the facts may mean. It then offers a few solutions that are just insulting.

No, I won't be reading further. That was enough for me today.

[Jesster]

This thing reads like massive opinion article. How is this scientific? I can certainly see how someone would love the anti-LGBT edge to it, though.

Below is the list of references cited in Part One

Yes, it has credible sources. It also makes its own shitty assertions about what it thinks of those sources.

[emjay]

I'm reading it too, little by little. Just out of curiosity, but I'm expecting there to be a catch and it looks like you've already found it. But I'll read it nonetheless.

[Catholic_Lady]

More predictability, lol.

I've already -heard- what chad has to say on this subject, and that he finds this article to be useful is no surprise to me or to anyone familiar with the publishers.  Just as it's no surprise that he presented it as some unbiased and purely scientific this that or the other....but lets talk about something else, right?  Like close-mindedness, or not listening to another's viewpoint or ignoring all op-ed pieces.

It's conservative, religious, luddite... socio-political propaganda masquerading as a scientific "journal".  You wanna go to bat for that Kingpin?  Be my guest.

I didn't say I wanted to go to bat for it, but I expect people to take time to read differing viewpoint and discuss it on its substance rather than bypass it altogether on the pre-conceived viewpoint of the author(s).  Just saying, either give it an objective look over and discuss it, or if you prefer to ignore than do everyone a favor and ignore posting about it.  

The discussion is not about your opinion of the author and your presumptions.  You've already labeled and stereotyped both the author and the content of the article without reading a single sentence.  That is close-mindedness and bigotry at its finest.

Well said.

[The Grand Nudger]

The usual suspects chime in.  Would you, CL, like to go to bat for New Atlantis or the article in question? No one thought to ask whether I opened the link and took a look, huh. It couldn't possibly -be- that the opinion I expressed -was- my objective viewpoint of the article -and- it's source?

I called the article, and it's source..-precisely what they were and self identify as-. That, apparently, is bigotry and close-mindedness.



When reviewing a "scientific" article;

Step 1, check the source.
Step 2, read the conclusions.
Step 3, profit from misplaced christer indignation.

[Aroura]

I actually read a good portion of this paper, and the full conclusion.  Here you go:

Yet despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are prescribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender. This is especially troubling when the patients receiving these interventions are children. We read popular reports about plans for medical and surgical interventions for many prepubescent children, some as young as six, and other therapeutic approaches undertaken for children as young as two. We suggest that no one can determine the gender identity of a two-year-old. We have reservations about how well scientists understand what it even means for a child to have a developed sense of his or her gender, but notwithstanding that issue, we are deeply alarmed that these therapies, treatments, and surgeries seem disproportionate to the severity of the distress being experienced by these young people, and are at any rate premature since the majority of children who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex will not continue to do so as adults. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable studies on the long-term effects of these interventions. We strongly urge caution in this regard.

Reducto absurdum.   No one is doing sex change operations on 2 year olds.  Therapy for kids undergoing distress is not the same thing at all.


And yet, I would presume this person determines the gender of all 2 year olds based on physical sex, and treats them as such. 


This second bolded part is true, HOWEVER, he fails to give complete information.  Most of them go on to identify as gay or lesbian.  

Although there have been a handful of cases where prepubescent children began gender changes, it is NOT recommended by ANY pediatric, health, or medical group or association.  No "science" is backing that up, quite the opposite already.  They suggest waiting until after puberty.  Anyone beginning before puberty is already going against scientific and medical research and suggestion.  Very few people, even among the public, advocate that.  
That being said, if your 2 year old boy likes to wear dresses, this paper seems to discourage letting that child gender identify even without medical intervention.  

This paper is full of politically driven hyperbole and rhetoric disguised as scientific curiosity.  It makes great points, then undermines itself repeatedly.

[FatAndFaithless]

I mean..there's plenty of critiques of this study online, so both sides are easily findable.

I do have to say though..a journal that prides itself on not being peer-reviewed might not be the best starting spot.