https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/


The science is settled.

Johns Hopkins releases its report.

Libs need to stop denying science and accept that homosexuality and transsexualism are just human sexual kink...nothing more.

That's not going to make Lady Gaga very happy.

I used to blaze it up with Johnny Hopkins and Sloan Kettering

Article is dated 8/16

Is this something new?

John Hopkins is one of the very best research facilities in the world.

But their study will now be attacked regardless.

Interesting that science appears to be valid if you agree with the position of one scientist (or 2, in this case - psychiatrist Paul McHugh, formerly of Johns Hopkins, and Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State). McHugh did get Johns Hopkins to shut down its gender reassignment surgery program, which didn't reopen until last year.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-human-rights-hopkins-transgender-20170329-story.html

But Dr. McHugh doesn't work at Hopkins any more. Other faculty there disavow his research. Johns Hopkins recently reopened its transgender program. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/09/29/gender-sexuality-report-response/

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/ryan-andersons-book-calling-transgender-people-mentally-ill-is-creating-an-uproar/

Here's the thing: We don't know WHAT causes people to be gay or transgendered. If we did, we'd be treating it, and there would be controversies similar to those in the deaf community about allowing people to go through their lives completely deaf, as part of deaf culture, or get a Cochlear implant and participate in mainstream society. Some people would say everyone should be left the way God made them. Other people would say they should be treated for an obvious abnormality. And some would say each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

Here's a WSJ article that explains McHugh's position in the psychiatric profession from a supportive, conservative standpoint (while still acknowledging he's an outlier): https://www.wsj.com/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

I have a good deal of discomfort about surgery that amounts to genital mutilation even if it's presented as the only currently viable cure for a psychiatric condition. I have a lot of discomfort with any medical professional with a knife who thinks the best solution to anything is surgery.

But to post misinformation like you did about Johns Hopkins, as if one scientist there speaks for the entire school and faculty, and to post it from an obviously biased source, and to post it when this controversy and McHugh's research were a big item in 2016/17 like it's current, is just wrong.

ValhallaBear said:

---

Article is dated 8/16

Is this something new?

---

No, nothing new.

Just reminding our resident leftists that homosexuality/gender confusion are not an inborn biological traits, not a "gene", and not fixed.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Interesting that science appears to be valid if you agree with the position of one scientist (or 2, in this case - psychiatrist Paul McHugh, formerly of Johns Hopkins, and Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State). McHugh did get Johns Hopkins to shut down its gender reassignment surgery program, which didn't reopen until last year.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-human-rights-hopkins-transgender-20170329-story.html

But Dr. McHugh doesn't work at Hopkins any more. Other faculty there disavow his research. Johns Hopkins recently reopened its transgender program. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/09/29/gender-sexuality-report-response/

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/ryan-andersons-book-calling-transgender-people-mentally-ill-is-creating-an-uproar/

Here's the thing: We don't know WHAT causes people to be gay or transgendered. If we did, we'd be treating it, and there would be controversies similar to those in the deaf community about allowing people to go through their lives completely deaf, as part of deaf culture, or get a Cochlear implant and participate in mainstream society. Some people would say everyone should be left the way God made them. Other people would say they should be treated for an obvious abnormality. And some would say each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

Here's a WSJ article that explains McHugh's position in the psychiatric profession from a supportive, conservative standpoint (while still acknowledging he's an outlier): https://www.wsj.com/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

I have a good deal of discomfort about surgery that amounts to genital mutilation even if it's presented as the only currently viable cure for a psychiatric condition. I have a lot of discomfort with any medical professional with a knife who thinks the best solution to anything is surgery.

But to post misinformation like you did about Johns Hopkins, as if one scientist there speaks for the entire school and faculty, and to post it from an obviously biased source, and to post it when this controversy and McHugh's research were a big item in 2016/17 like it's current, is just wrong.

---

I'm more familiar with Bailey's summary, on which McHugh's critics rely heavily, than I am with McHugh's. But from what I've read, it's hard to see McHugh's work as anything but a valuable contribution. It is more complete in some ways than Bailey's. Both agree that the origin of sexual orientation is more environmental than genetic. The main question is whether the environmental factors are more biological or social. McHugh includes a lot of information on this point that Bailey omits.

The faculty editorial is more a critique of McHugh's values and ideology than anything else. They're distancing themselves from threatening ideas, but not in a forum that's appropriate for any real, scientific response.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Interesting that science appears to be valid if you agree with the position of one scientist (or 2, in this case - psychiatrist Paul McHugh, formerly of Johns Hopkins, and Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State). McHugh did get Johns Hopkins to shut down its gender reassignment surgery program, which didn't reopen until last year.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-human-rights-hopkins-transgender-20170329-story.html

But Dr. McHugh doesn't work at Hopkins any more. Other faculty there disavow his research. Johns Hopkins recently reopened its transgender program. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/09/29/gender-sexuality-report-response/

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/ryan-andersons-book-calling-transgender-people-mentally-ill-is-creating-an-uproar/

Here's the thing: We don't know WHAT causes people to be gay or transgendered. If we did, we'd be treating it, and there would be controversies similar to those in the deaf community about allowing people to go through their lives completely deaf, as part of deaf culture, or get a Cochlear implant and participate in mainstream society. Some people would say everyone should be left the way God made them. Other people would say they should be treated for an obvious abnormality. And some would say each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

Here's a WSJ article that explains McHugh's position in the psychiatric profession from a supportive, conservative standpoint (while still acknowledging he's an outlier): https://www.wsj.com/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

I have a good deal of discomfort about surgery that amounts to genital mutilation even if it's presented as the only currently viable cure for a psychiatric condition. I have a lot of discomfort with any medical professional with a knife who thinks the best solution to anything is surgery.

But to post misinformation like you did about Johns Hopkins, as if one scientist there speaks for the entire school and faculty, and to post it from an obviously biased source, and to post it when this controversy and McHugh's research were a big item in 2016/17 like it's current, is just wrong.

---

I'm more familiar with Bailey's summary, on which McHugh's critics rely heavily, than I am with McHugh's. But from what I've read, it's hard to see McHugh's work as anything but a valuable contribution. It is more complete in some ways than Bailey's. Both agree that the origin of sexual orientation is more environmental than genetic. The main question is whether the environmental factors are more biological or social. McHugh includes a lot of information on this point that Bailey omits.

The faculty editorial is more a critique of McHugh's values and ideology than anything else. They're distancing themselves from threatening ideas, but not in a forum that's appropriate for any real, scientific response.

---

The critique indeed seems much more aimed at the implications of McHugh's research than his conclusions.

But conservatives are doing the same thing as scientists who don't like the implications of McHugh's research (because they want to look supportive of the LGBT community rather than because they have valid questions about his research) when they use his conclusions to assert that being transgendered or gay is somehow a "choice."

Where McHugh is absolutely right, I think, is to question an approach that involves surgery or megadoses of hormones.

Where people on all sides of this issue are wrong is to assume there's one cause and one right solution, or that any solutions are totally wrong under any circumstances. We now know there's not one "cure for cancer"; there are millions.And some treatments can still be worse than the disease and kill you sooner than if you chose palliative or hospice care.

I've mentioned before that a Baylor acquaintance and his wife dealt with this issue with their older child, who demanded hormone therapy. Both parents were extremely uncomfortable with ALL of the treatment options available to them and getting a competent psychiatrist involved was hard, as they lived in a small Texas town. The dad told me bluntly that they made the decision they did becuase they were concerned any other choice might result in their child's suicide. They were all too aware that people with this issue have a much higher rate of suicide. Parents and children in that sitaution need love and support. These parents and their kid were ostracized by their church and community at a time when they needed help the most.

Science is never settled.

I have a very non-conservative opinion on this issue. I think most gay people are born gay but some become gay later in life due to life experiences and circumstances. Guess I don't understand the need to pick one.

I think this question is fundamentally unanswerable by science. Are all choices based on our innate personality to some extent? That's a philosophical question IMO.

codyorr said:

---

I think this question is fundamentally unanswerable by science. Are all choices based on our innate personality to some extent? That's a philosophical question IMO.

---

Good point. Bailey alludes to that problem as well. But without getting to the ultimate question of free will, science can study the extent to which behavior is or is not influenced by external factors.

We aren't God. We don't know.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Interesting that science appears to be valid if you agree with the position of one scientist (or 2, in this case - psychiatrist Paul McHugh, formerly of Johns Hopkins, and Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State). McHugh did get Johns Hopkins to shut down its gender reassignment surgery program, which didn't reopen until last year.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-human-rights-hopkins-transgender-20170329-story.html

But Dr. McHugh doesn't work at Hopkins any more. Other faculty there disavow his research. Johns Hopkins recently reopened its transgender program. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/09/29/gender-sexuality-report-response/

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/ryan-andersons-book-calling-transgender-people-mentally-ill-is-creating-an-uproar/

Here's the thing: We don't know WHAT causes people to be gay or transgendered. If we did, we'd be treating it, and there would be controversies similar to those in the deaf community about allowing people to go through their lives completely deaf, as part of deaf culture, or get a Cochlear implant and participate in mainstream society. Some people would say everyone should be left the way God made them. Other people would say they should be treated for an obvious abnormality. And some would say each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

Here's a WSJ article that explains McHugh's position in the psychiatric profession from a supportive, conservative standpoint (while still acknowledging he's an outlier): https://www.wsj.com/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

I have a good deal of discomfort about surgery that amounts to genital mutilation even if it's presented as the only currently viable cure for a psychiatric condition. I have a lot of discomfort with any medical professional with a knife who thinks the best solution to anything is surgery.

But to post misinformation like you did about Johns Hopkins, as if one scientist there speaks for the entire school and faculty, and to post it from an obviously biased source, and to post it when this controversy and McHugh's research were a big item in 2016/17 like it's current, is just wrong.

---

I'm more familiar with Bailey's summary, on which McHugh's critics rely heavily, than I am with McHugh's. But from what I've read, it's hard to see McHugh's work as anything but a valuable contribution. It is more complete in some ways than Bailey's. Both agree that the origin of sexual orientation is more environmental than genetic. The main question is whether the environmental factors are more biological or social. McHugh includes a lot of information on this point that Bailey omits.

The faculty editorial is more a critique of McHugh's values and ideology than anything else. They're distancing themselves from threatening ideas, but not in a forum that's appropriate for any real, scientific response.

---

But conservatives are doing the same thing as scientists who don't like the implications of McHugh's research (because they want to look supportive of the LGBT community rather than because they have valid questions about his research) when they use his conclusions to assert that being transgendered or gay is somehow a "choice."

---

If you choose aspects of your environment, and those aspects help determine your orientation, then your orientation is in some sense a choice.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Article is dated 8/16

Is this something new?

---

No, nothing new.

Just reminding our resident leftists that homosexuality/gender confusion are not an inborn biological traits, not a "gene", and not fixed.

---

I find that the people that care about this issue most are usually the socially/sexually repressed ones and possibly closet gays themselves.

I guess the questions is, who cares? It's none of my business what people want to do to each other consensually (or to themselves ie trans).

Buddha Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Article is dated 8/16

Is this something new?

---

No, nothing new.

Just reminding our resident leftists that homosexuality/gender confusion are not an inborn biological traits, not a "gene", and not fixed.

---

I find that the people that care about this issue most are usually the socially/sexually repressed ones and possibly closet gays themselves.

I guess the questions is, who cares? It's none of my business what people want to do to each other consensually (or to themselves ie trans).

---

Having a good relationship with reality does not make one repressed. The alternative and demands to accept falsehoods as facts, is, however, extraordinarily oppressive.

Let's see what Saint Jesse has to say on the matter:

Buddha Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Article is dated 8/16

Is this something new?

---

No, nothing new.

Just reminding our resident leftists that homosexuality/gender confusion are not an inborn biological traits, not a "gene", and not fixed.

---

I find that the people that care about this issue most are usually the socially/sexually repressed ones and possibly closet gays themselves.

I guess the questions is, who cares? It's none of my business what people want to do to each other consensually (or to themselves ie trans).

---

Are you really a Buddhist? What is your faith exactly? I ask because I wonder if this may explain your disinterest compared to others here.

Also, while googling I came across this random site: ([url=https://backpackbuddha.com/]https://backpackbuddha.com/collections/buddha-bear-kids-collection[/url]) which you might find mildly interesting given your username.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Interesting that science appears to be valid if you agree with the position of one scientist (or 2, in this case - psychiatrist Paul McHugh, formerly of Johns Hopkins, and Lawrence Mayer of Arizona State). McHugh did get Johns Hopkins to shut down its gender reassignment surgery program, which didn't reopen until last year.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-human-rights-hopkins-transgender-20170329-story.html

But Dr. McHugh doesn't work at Hopkins any more. Other faculty there disavow his research. Johns Hopkins recently reopened its transgender program. https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/09/29/gender-sexuality-report-response/

https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/02/ryan-andersons-book-calling-transgender-people-mentally-ill-is-creating-an-uproar/

Here's the thing: We don't know WHAT causes people to be gay or transgendered. If we did, we'd be treating it, and there would be controversies similar to those in the deaf community about allowing people to go through their lives completely deaf, as part of deaf culture, or get a Cochlear implant and participate in mainstream society. Some people would say everyone should be left the way God made them. Other people would say they should be treated for an obvious abnormality. And some would say each person should have the right to decide for themselves.

Here's a WSJ article that explains McHugh's position in the psychiatric profession from a supportive, conservative standpoint (while still acknowledging he's an outlier): https://www.wsj.com/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

I have a good deal of discomfort about surgery that amounts to genital mutilation even if it's presented as the only currently viable cure for a psychiatric condition. I have a lot of discomfort with any medical professional with a knife who thinks the best solution to anything is surgery.

But to post misinformation like you did about Johns Hopkins, as if one scientist there speaks for the entire school and faculty, and to post it from an obviously biased source, and to post it when this controversy and McHugh's research were a big item in 2016/17 like it's current, is just wrong.

---

Climate disasters believers say hello

Born gay or chose gay...not my business...but I will not ignore science and biology and call you something you are not...I don't care what you think. There's too many people in this world who can't handle it when they don't get their way or can't deal with responsibility/consequences so now we have abortion on demand, preferred pronouns and transphobia. I will continue to be politically incorrect.

fadskier said:

---

Born gay or chose gay...not my business...but I will not ignore science and biology and call you something you are not...I don't care what you think. There's too many people in this world who can't handle it when they don't get their way or can't deal with responsibility/consequences so now we have abortion on demand, preferred pronouns and transphobia. I will continue to be politically incorrect.

---

Well done. Embrace truth. Your life will remain immeasurably better as you do.

Bearitto said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Born gay or chose gay...not my business...but I will not ignore science and biology and call you something you are not...I don't care what you think. There's too many people in this world who can't handle it when they don't get their way or can't deal with responsibility/consequences so now we have abortion on demand, preferred pronouns and transphobia. I will continue to be politically incorrect.

---

Well done. Embrace truth. Your life will remain immeasurably better as you do.

---