Special Report on Sexuality and Gender by New Atlantis

[Neo-Scholastic]

Simply wanted to draw attention to an interesting Special Report in the New Atlantis. It deals specifically with Sexuality and Gender from a purely scientific perspective. I've just started into it myself and can say that some parts are very enlightening. It's nice to see the topic treated in a manner largely apart from the social and political discussions of the same.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicatio...-fall-2016

[The Grand Nudger]

The New Atlantis, founded in 2003, is a quarterly journal about the social, ethical, political, and policy dimensions of modern science and technology.[1] The journal is published in Washington, D.C. by the social conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center in partnership with the . It is edited by Adam Keiper, who took over in 2007 from founding editor Eric Cohen.

What was that, again?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The New Atlantis, founded in 2003, is a quarterly journal about the social, ethical, political, and policy dimensions of modern science and technology.[1] The journal is published in Washington, D.C. by the social conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center in partnership with the Center for the Study of Technology and Society. It is edited by Adam Keiper, who took over in 2007 from founding editor Eric Cohen.

What was that, again?

I was talking about the article itself not the authors or editors. Are you saying that it is impossible for any group to give fair-minded treatment of an issue? If you do happen to read it, I welcome any observations you have on the substance of the report.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm of the opinion that the substance and conclusion of the report serves the publishers agenda... like everything else they publish, and that you would have preferred that no one did a little basic research.  -Next.

[Kingpin]

I'm of the opinion that the substance and conclusion of the report serves the publishers agenda, like everything else they publish.  Next.

So on this basis we should ignore on all Op-ED pieces?  It's this type of close minded thinking that prohibits rational discussion between people of differing viewpoints.  How can we discuss differing viewpoints if we don't take the time to listen to what the other side has to say?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[GrandizerII]

Simply wanted to draw attention to an interesting Special Report in the New Atlantis. It deals specifically with Sexuality and Gender from a purely scientific perspective. I've just started into it myself and can say that some parts are very enlightening. It's nice to see the topic treated in a manner largely apart from the social and political discussions of the same.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicatio...-fall-2016

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.

[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.

[emjay]

Simply wanted to draw attention to an interesting Special Report in the New Atlantis. It deals specifically with Sexuality and Gender from a purely scientific perspective. I've just started into it myself and can say that some parts are very enlightening. It's nice to see the topic treated in a manner largely apart from the social and political discussions of the same.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicatio...-fall-2016

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 more 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.

[Kingpin]

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.