We have been talking about it just about non-stop here and MSNBC’s Brian Alexander takes a look at the GID-DSM controversy in this piece – “What’s ‘normal’ sex? Shrinks seek definition.”
51 thoughts on “GID controversy gets some media attention”
Comments are closed.
Evan,
It should also be noted that mice behaviors are not NEARLY as complex or effected by as many variables as human behaviors are – that is why I left that long post saying that complex human behaviors are going to require complex explanations – Its a complex puzzle that we are FAR from solving completely.
Oh, Good Lord Evan – did you miss the discussion where we talked ad nauseam about how a gay gene or set of genes could be passed on? First of all, we STILL don’t know exactly what the distribution of orientations is – the numbers are still out on this – we don’t know!!! So it becomes really difficult to speculate whether the distribution among humans is actually different from the rest of the animal kingdom. However – Bisexuals can pass it on – Gay men who become married (and from a recent study I read that as many as 1/3 of gay men have)can pass it on, non-married gay men who are sperm donors could pass them on. It never fails to amaze me that some people who claim to be knowledgeable with science couldn’t come up with such easy answers. My speculation is that bias and prejudice may blind them to them, but I very well may be wrong in your case
Evan,
You can’t say scientists have CONFIRMED and then only quote one study. I’m not sure where the gay sheep comment came from or what you were trying to say by using it. So what if gay men ARE less aggressive than most straight men, is that a bad thing? Is aggression necessary for happiness or wholeness – or to be healthy? And what about those gay men that are aggressive, or those straight men that aren’t?
And you STILL haven’t answered my question about what you mean when you say things like sex-atypical behavior – what does that mean to YOU?
Is gender nonconforming actually the strongest predictor? I mean I’ve heard that most gender non-conforming kids do turn out to be gay but that’s not the same thing as saying that most gay people were gender non-conforming kids. And just how many studies in this area have been done? One study hardly confirms anything. But again – so what if this is true? This doesn’t impact the lives of gay and lesbian people – equal civil rights are what gay and lesbian people need – not the results of a few more studies –
You are absolutely right that we did not build new emotions – at least not ones that are already there in different forms in the animal kingdom – but its a pretty important point to note HOW we DO use them and how we channel them – and just how different – or similar – that makes us from other mammals.
Jayhuck,
I may be mistaken but I have seen either you or Timothy Kincaid quoting research on gay sheep to argue that gayness is naturally biological (not the result of some environmental fluke or human choice). Yes, there are differences, but scientists must settle what is significant in what differences or similarities are there. Is same-sex sexuality restricted to humans? No — many gays argued that, therefore it cannot be the result of social dynamics or individual choices. ‘It must be biological, that’s why it’s irreversible.’ This is the typical conclusion. Now when I use this argument going in another direction to pinpoint other similarities, it suddenly occurs to us that actually humans are uniquely homosexual. I support neither arguments 100%, but in the absence of solid genetic and biological correlates with human sexualities, I truly am guilty of the sin of speculation based on whatever research can shed some light on this disputed subject. I understood and learned lots of things in the process and I simply see many correlations. Of course, mice don’t play with tin soldiers or dolls so that we can conclude how gender-typical they are or not according to human standards, but each species has its own way of working the same instincts. Humans just modulate the same instincts in more complex and culturally developed ways. Rough-and-tumble play is widespread in the animal kingdom and it does correlate with aggressiveness, future surviving chances, being able to secure resources and finding many mates to reproduce with. Scientists in the field of human sexual orientation have already confirmed that gay men score less in aggressiveness than straight men (see the Gladue and Bailey piece of research from 1995). Coincidence or telling similarity? Catherine Dulac of Harvard University, by knocking out only one gene in male mice, both suppressed male aggressiveness when another male entered their territory and made them copulate with those trespassing males. (Just look for this piece of news: Sexual ID switch is found. She did that in 2006; last year she did the same with female mice. Run a search for: Sensory organ, not brain, differentiates sexual behavior in some mammals. Probably the most interesting finding is that although male and female mice can have some differently configured brain areas due to prenatal hormone exposure, it’s not the neural difference in these areas that promote gender-specific behaviour, but how they are activated or suppressed by input coming from sensory organs via some projecting neurons.)
Now if some people in a number of scientific labs flip the sexual behaviour of animals that are just as mammalian as gay sheep are, why should I fall in the trap of using identity labels to interpret the findings of scientists working on silent mice? If they changed sexual behaviour, it’s because scientists altered something that made them attracted to a particular gender, or made them indiscriminately attracted to both genders. Did nature scrap that mechanism altogether and started from scratch with humans? I don’t know, do we see similar studies on humans? We don’t and wonder: why? All we see are these correlations that are first touted as ground-breaking and then buried in criticism and lack of replication. Did anyone draw any conclusion from the Bailey study on gay and straight brains to make sense of why the amygdala in gay brains showed more fear reactions? Have we seen some brainscanning research on GID people? There’s not much to talk about on the subject of causation if the big news only come from research on animal models.
Yes, gender nonconformism is the strongest predicting factor for homosexuality, at least that’s what major researchers have found to correlate most strongly with a future developing same-sex orientation. There are a number of scales researchers use to assess their subjects’ preference of toys, games, preferred peers and so on. One of these scales even measures levels of aggressiveness. By comparison, most children are found to prefer some toys, games and peers — and these are considered gender-typical. I have read at least one scientific paper that linked toy preference with levels of aggressiveness. So we can expect that somewhere hormones played a part to later affect physical preferences, both in objects, playing partners and type of activities.
As I explained earlier, human aggressiveness can be culturally modulated in humans, but it’s the same animal instinct differently expressed. We did not create new instincts or emotions that differentiate us from other mammals, we just developed ways to channel those instincts in a lot more ways than all animals. We are masters of discriminating between states, of evaluating possible future consequences of our behaviour and so on, but we did not build any new emotion in our limbic system that was not already there in other mammalians. Can you argue that due to the specificity of human evolutionary selection we ended up with very different outcomes in sexual orientation distribution than other animals? How could non-reproductive sexual orientations survive against so many odds?
Evan,
Please read post 103619 when you get the chance
Jayhuck does seem to bring up a good point and that being scientists tend to exagerate just how much they know and how quickly advancements will be made. To take just one recent example – look at the HIV/AIDS predictions – they claimed a vacine would be available just two years after the virus was discoverd – and here we are twenty years later with no vacine and nothing promising coming up in that area. (And this is an area of research that gets lots of money thrown at it).
As to Ellie point about if there is a safe effective way to eliminate homosexuality – we should do it. The question of mine is why ?
(As an aside – I had to laugh at this quote
)
Reminds me of a coworker of my partner who told him that he can always spot gay people – to which my partner replied ‘oh really’ – she was totally oblivious to the fact that he is gay. In fact she didn’t even believe after he told her – some people and their silly beliefs I guess.
Evan – I don’t have the time to read the full article – I’m studying for my boards for the next two weeks – but a cursory glance tells me its interesting but nowhere near earth shattering – and really only seems to prove that we have a LONG way to go before we really solve the big picture puzzle
Evan,
This is a reprint of something I wrote to Drowssap on another thread:
What I’m trying to say is that, when it comes to orientation at least – how we become gay, straight or bi is going to be a complex interplay of genes, other biological factors and the environment. This is NOT something anyone is going to figure out soon. We may solve little pieces of the puzzle over time, but we’re not going to get a good idea of the big picture in the near future. Complex behaviors are going to require complex explanations for their origins.
I’m sure you’re aware of that, but it often seems at times, that in your writings, you aren’t. I know I’ve said these things before I just thought they were worth reiterating
In the meantime, while scientists are busy – or not busy – working to come up with answers, good gay, straight and bi men must live their lives. And while I know this is an old soapbox of mine, I’m hoping that one day we will all be able to live together in peace, enjoying the same rights the other does, respecting the other, even if we don’t necessarily agree. Social progress needs to be made now – science will progress at its own, invariably slow – and rightly so – speed
Jayhuck,
This is the article I was referring to.
Evan,
We are a GREAT deal away from solving this puzzle. Science lovers for decades have claimed otherwise, but no one has yet grasped the real complexity of this issue or just how much we really don’t know.
Evan,
You still haven’t answered my question – what do YOU mean when you talk about sex a-typical traits? Do you understand the limitations of animal models. What can they tell us and what can’t they tell us. What is the real problem of focusing solely on sexual orientation? Are we mammalians, of course – are we like most other mammalians, no!
How would YOU define gender a-typical behavior – in humans and other animals – will gender atypical behavior in some animals really mean anything for humans. Will it have anything to say about sexual orientation in general.
You throw the results of a great deal of disparate research into your writings but you don’t bring it home for us or help us understand how YOU are viewing this data? I have no idea how YOU are putting things together or interpreting such results. I would just prefer more clarification because I’m trying hard to understand your perspective.
Jayhuck,
If you mean the question you asked me in post 103273:
Then I thought I answered it in post 103361:
But maybe I should add that the body of knowlege about sex-dimorphic traits and behaviours has grown enormously. I don’t expect great outcomes from researchers who study specifically sexual orientation. They are too close to the subject and can’t see the forest for the trees. We have already seen the results coming from research on model animals: they already found what determines atypical gender behaviour (one example among many: mother mice neglecting their pups, becoming more aggressive, rejecting males and trying to mount other mice by pelvic thrust movements — isn’t that male-typical?). I understand that your question dealt with sexual orientation as a human notion, but if you check the results coming from animal model studies the changes in gender-typical behaviour are so strikingly familiar to us that they point to what is going on with humans too. After all isn’t sex-typicality the strongest predictor of alternative sexual orientation in humans and are we not mammalians too? We are talking about those emotional processes that are beyond our conscious control (attractions, arousal), which is exactly what these researchers have studied and found what causes them. It’s not much use to talk about free will in humans when that mainly checks behaviour, not attractions or arousal. But if those animals act in a certain way that means they must have the feelings too to act on them. That means whatever makes them do it is present in humans too to a certain extent.
Just to get an idea on the state of research in the field of neurobiology of human attraction and bonding, you can check an issue of the Royal Society on this subject: Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, Issue: Volume 361, Number 1476 / 29 December 2006. I can’t provide the link, or else my post gets rejected. Please read the introduction of that issue I referred to and you will find a scientist’s presentation of how relevant these studies are for the human case. I think we are not so far from solving this puzzle, but I bet it won’t be just about ‘gay genes’ and GID. It’s about finding out what causes all sexual orientations in humans and the variations in gender identity.
Patrick,
Afterall is there any benefit at all in ‘fixing’ us?
Only if that becomes technologically possible and you would choose to do it, maybe if you want to have kids, for instance. But that would be entirely up to each person.
Jayhuck,
If you mean the question you asked me in post 103273:
Then I thought I answered it in post 103361:
But maybe I should add that the body of knowlege about sex-dimorphic traits and behaviours has grown enormously. We have already seen the results coming from research on model animals: they already found what determines atypical gender behaviour (one example among many: mother mice neglecting their pups, becoming more aggressive, rejecting males and trying to mount other mice by pelvic thrust movements — isn’t that male-typical?). I understand that your question dealt with sexual orientation as a human notion, but if you check the results coming from animal model studies the changes in gender-typical behaviour are so strikingly familiar to us that they point to what is going on with humans too. After all isn’t sex-typicality the strongest predictor of alternative sexual orientation in humans and are we not mammalians too? Also, just to get an idea on the state of research in the field of neurobiology of human attraction and bonding, you can have a look at this more than 1-year old introduction to an issue of the Royal Society on the same subject. Very interesting stuff disscussing many genetic and biological factors that play or could play an active role in human attractions and bonding. I think we are not so far from solving this puzzle, but I bet it won’t be just about ‘gay genes’ and GID. It’s about finding out what causes all sexual orientations in humans and the variations in gender identity.
Patrick,
Afterall is there any benefit at all in ‘fixing’ us?
Only if that becomes technologically possible and you would choose to do it, maybe if you want to have kids, for instance. But that would be entirely up to each person.
Evan,
You didn’t answer my question.
Patrick
I don’t think that anybody, except people on the fringe who should be ignored, would advocate forcing adult gays to transition to straights should a medical (or psychological) ‘cure’ be discovered. Even if all biologically based attraction could be eliminated, most gay men have lived a very different lifestyle than the straight population (I realize that’s cliched, or whatever you want to call it, but I think it gets the point across), and would be incapable of fully transitioning into any sort of traditional, straight, butch, male existence. I think what we’re looking at as far as the ‘cure’ to homosexuality will (if it ever develops) be along the lines of some kind of pre- or neo-natal therapy to adjust whatever genetic or brain issues are going on, not some kind of painful treatment. And I doubt that anyone will be authorizing researchers to harm babies or pregnant mothers. The question then arisbecomes, if it’s possible to completely end homosexuality in future generations by a safe treatment like a vaccine or a genetic therapy, or something, should we pursue it? It seems to me that the answer would be yes.
Patrick,
It appears what you are really arguing against isn’t research into what causes a person to have a particular orientation, but research into whether a person’s orientation can be changed.
If a safe, effective method of changing a person’s orientation could be found (which I doubt will happen), I think anyone who wishes to pursue such treatment should be allowed to do so. And I don’t think you have any right to try to stop them from doing so.
I concede your point about human cloning.
Perhaps I am myself guilty of a ‘slipper slope’ type of thinking on this issue.
I still feel however, it is naive to think that in a homophobic/transphobic culture that studies into the etiology of glbt will just end happily ever after for glbt persons. I sincerely do not agree that there is much inherently good about this research. For one arguing for the morality of issues like gay marriage does not supervene upon scientific discovers about homosexuality. For another much harm has been done in the past to GLBT persons to ‘fix’ us that – under the guise of scientific treatment.
And you will excuse me if I am skeptical that no medical ethical board would not allow something unethical to be performed to eliminate GLBT persons. Afterall these boards only a few decades ago were all too happy to employ all sorts of hideous techniques to attempt to fix us.
It would be interesting to see a risk/benefit type analysis to justify the kind of techniques that drowssap would see employed on GLBT persons. Afterall is there any benefit at all in ‘fixing’ us (other than a homo/transphobic culture that prefer we not exist).
I’ll admit that I wished I could have retyped that first sentence after I posted, but no actually, there isn’t a problem. What I should have written was “that is still a future consequence of research that could stem from this research, not an aspect of this research itself.” To give you an idea of what I mean:
If we take a woman’s cells, make a clone with one of her eggs, and implant it in her uterus we have at least two potential ethical problems. The first is that we now have a mother who is also her own identical twin. They may be forty years apart and have shared different mothers, but they still have identical sets of DNA which were produced via the reproductive actions of two completely different people who are their genetic parents (the mother of the original woman). There is no telling what kind of implications that will have psychologically, legally, and morally. The other is that we could be creating a new human being who is under any number of unintended and extremely severe physical consequences of having been cloned. The one that some scientists consider most troubling is the Dolly the Sheep problem where Dolly died of a disease associated with old age. How would you like to die at twenty because your mother/sister decided to clone herself? We don’t know for sure what (if any) physical consequences there will be, and it’s possible that we will never be able to iron out the philosophical/legal/emotional issues. Those extreme risks are inherent to any cloning research carried out on humans. These are not future, possible risks that may arise if the techniques develop in one way or another, but current, unavoidable risks that anyone performing the research will be taking.
If we do research on the origins of homosexuality we will not be creating some kind of strange new type of human being, we won’t be killing people, and we won’t be taking unknown risks with research subjects’ emotional and physical health and well being. At worst we will kill a few fruitflies and mice, and make a few bruises when we ask people for blood samples. A future consequence of this research could be different research that is unethical. But the possible unethicality of future, currently unplanned, research, which wouldn’t be approved by a university or other research organization anyway, is no reason to stop current, ethical research that has nothing inherently wrong with it and much inherently good with it.
Ellie said this:
And Earlier this:
I see a problem, do you see a problem.
Patrick
If you meant your last paragraph seriously then you are the person who needs to pick up a scientific ethics text book. No research that hasn’t been approved by a university’s (or other research organization’s) review board, which follows the demands of various laws, rules, and regulations, will be carried out. If it is, then the scientists involved will be prosecuted, lose their ability to do research, etc. Plenty of research into what causes certain conditions, what prevents them, and how to treat them, has been carried out on human subjects safely and ethically. If it hadn’t we would still be practicing medicine based on Galen and Hippocrates. You’re raising the specter of something that isn’t on the table in order to hinder legitimate scientific inquiry. Furthermore, that is still a future consequence of this research, not an aspect of this research itself. We don’t stop scientific inquiry because of the possibility of future ethics violations that may arise from different illegal research.
Neither actually, I don’t really have a firm idea about the etiology of homosexuality – and none of the possible scenarios affect my opinion. Because, I understand that science cannot answer our moral questions here. Nor can discovering the etiology of homosexuality help to direct public policy. This is because how GLBT persons should be treated is independent of what caused them to be LGBT.
And as for raising no ethical concerns – lets say they develop something to switch on a neurotransmitter as drowssap says to make someone straight. Just how would they go about testing the safety and efficacy of such a treatment. In short they would have to use pregnant women as guinea pigs – potentially putting their and the babies health at risk to treat something which isn’t a disease to begin with. It would be putting people’s health at risk for social engineering purposes (not to treat legitimate health problems). If you don’t think that is a serious ethical problem – then perhaps you should put down your science books for a moment and pick one up on ethical theory.
Patrick
In the case of stem cell research many people feel that it actually involves some form of killing people. In the case of cloning there are so many ethical and safety issues that can be raised (even without doing the research, who knows what happens after somebody starts it) that it would be insane to go ahead with human cloning research right now. There are very clear human rights/decency violations intrinsic to the research itself (or at least some people believe there are, in the case of embryonic stem-cells), and the international scientific community is proceeding cautiously through that minefield.
In the case of the research you’re talking about there are no inherent, intrinsic ethical concerns (unless somebody starts willy-nilly injecting two-year-olds with untested, unapproved vaccines in the hope of preventing homosexuality, but that is never going to happen). The only concern you’ve raised is that people besides scientists will misuse the results to make ideological claims. That’s not a big enough concern when compared to the fact that scientists will be able to correctly use their own results to both help gays and to set a good course for public policy. But they cannot affect public policy unless they actually do their research. And public policy should be based on the clearest picture of the truth we can find, not on what you want the truth to be.
And you, by the way, are either afraid that the scientists will find evidence against your position, or else you are so convinced that they will find for you that you don’t care about the actual research findings. Either way, that’s a terrible way to go about science.
Patrick,
I am pro non-embryonic stem cell research because they can help medical science a lot. I am against human cloning. And I don’t see anything unethical about wanting to find out what are the genetic and biological causes of gender identity and sexual orientation. You might actually want to ban all weapons first, based on this argument, because weapons kill people.
Evan, please stop repeating ad nauseum about being afraid of the truth.
We don’t allow science to continue unrestrained by questions of ethics. (See stem cell research or Cloning for two modern examples). And yes in both of these cases the concern is about what will happen if these two research areas become prevalent..
Or in these two cases is it censorship as well. Do you just want scientists to have absolutely no regulations on what they do?
Patrick,
In post 103361 I was replying to Jayhuck’s post 103273.
Patrick said:
Scientific research might very well be value neutral – but what is done with the research often isn’t.
But censoring free research is more dangerous to a society which made so much progress thanks to that. Don’t stifle science because you suspect some might misuse it, it’s like we shouldn’t have invented cars because they can cause accidents. You deal with haters using the usual human means of education, negociation and so on.
In a society that treats GLBT persons as second class citizens at best – what would be done with research into what causes human sexuality could be used (and probably would most likely be used) to further harm and denigrate GLBT persons.
I don’t see how knowing more about the human brain could be used to ‘further harm and denigrate GLBT persons’. Actually, it should help the gay cause by providing new genetic and biological arguments. But wanting to stifle research on what causes each sexual orientation, not just GLBT, it’s arguing for obscurantism. That sounds like the 17th century Catholic Church trying to silence Galileo Galilei for supporting heliocentrism, because it ran against their dogma. Do we have a dogma in gender identity and sexual orientation? Is anyone afraid of the truth?
I think you meant Patrick not Jayhuck.
But no I am not afraid of them finding anything out with respect to sexual orientation.
I am afraid of how such infromation will be *used* in an environment that is quite often openly hostile to GLBT persons.
Indeed many people do see arguments for a biological origin of homosexuality as a reason to support gay marriage or gay adoption. Unfortunately for them they are wrong since showing the biological origins of homosexuality does not support (nor does it not support) gay marriage/adoption.
The discussion has come up here already about the limitations of science into the question of morality (is/ought gap)
Lets take gay marriage – how does the etiology of homosexuality factor into the moral question of whether gay marriage should be allowed. The argument cannot proceed from a purely scientific premise without committing the naturalistic fallacy (that which is natural (ie in this case biological) is good).
The natural sciences will not service any of these moral questions.
Now the gay adoption question – only focuses on the how children do raised in such an arrangement. No where here does the etiology of homosexuality enter into the question about whether these are or are not good arrangements.
So I am not
because the etiology research doesn’t provide any insight into these questions as social issues or moral.
Jayhuck,
All issues connected to gender identity and sexual orientation are interesting to study. I, for one, would like to know what causes heterosexuality too. If we have the means to find out, why not? Is anyone afraid of something? 🙂
Patrick,
Many people would consider proof of a biological origin of homosexuality to be a reason to start supporting (or at least stop opposing) gay marriage, adoption, etc. Regardless of which laws/research you’re talking about, making decisions that the research would affect before actually doing the research is insane. Furthermore, asking a scientist to stop doing research on something they’ve spent their entire lives studying is a much bigger deal then you seem to think.
Patrick,
Gays as well as conservatives misuse the research. I cannot even tell you how many times I have read about the same research from opposites sides of the spectrum and it seems both sides missed the point.
Ellie, I wasn’t talking about social science studies about the impact of gay marriage or gay adoption etc.
What I was talking about was studies into the etiology of homosexuality – which should have no baring on social science questions about gay marriage or gay adoption.
Patrick,
So basically what you want is to pass a bunch of laws on which the outcome of various research initiatives would have an impact (such as gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.), and then after these laws are in place so that the outcome of the research cannot affect them, then let the scientists have their go. It sounds to me as though you’re putting the cart before the horse.
What it has to do with rights Evan is quite simply this. Scientific research might very well be value neutral – but what is done with the research often isn’t.
In a society that treats GLBT persons as second class citizens at best – what would be done with research into what causes human sexuality could be used (and probably would most likely be used) to further harm and denigrate GLBT persons.
You aren’t seriously saying that scientific research should continue without any regard for ethics. Such a position is utterly absurd.
If we lived in a society that treated GLBT persons as equal – then the chance for misuse of this research would be greatly reduced (and perhaps then it could be justified on the basis of scientific curiosity). But we do not live in such a society – so yes I stand by my assertion that such research into causes of human sexuality should not be allowed.
Patrick,
LOL! What does research have to do with having rights? Should not all people of different “races” be equal in their rights regardless of what genetic or cultural differences there may be found between them? An earned right cannot be taken back. Rights are not based on differences in brain areas or IQ levels. Both in rights and in knowledge we should be taking steps to move forwards, not backwards.
I think we all just want to know the truth, whatever that might be, because it’s important to know, gender and sex are very important dimensions of human experience and people are hungry to understand what makes them have a particular human experience. I live in Europe right now and I have to say I cannot believe my ears to hear someone from the US suggesting that research on a basic human dimension should be censored (or as you said it, it “should NOT be researched”). Many people look up to the state of research in the US, I know I do, but when I hear calls to censorship in science I’m thinking something is going wrong in mentality. Who is afraid of knowing the truth? Is there anything shameful that might come up? If no one has anything to hide, I see no reasons to even think about not doing research. I lived 10 years in a Communist country and I can recognise this mentality of censorship when it comes up in other countries. It would be a pity to see this happening in a country like yours.
IMO research on the causes of sexual orientation or sexual identity in humans should NOT be researched – that is until GLBT persons are given the same rights and freedoms that are afforded to straight persons.
It isn’t as though these scientists working in this field have to do studies on humans – they can simply do their rat/mice/whatever studies until such time as there is legal parity how glbt persons are treated as compared to straights. Or they can jump to another field of interest – it isn’t as though this is a very important area of research anyway – not when there are so many other legitimate noncontroversial issues they could be addressing.
The GLBT community as well as ethicists are rightly concerned with how this research is going to be used – particularly in light of how stigmatized GLBT persons are. This is not some irrational fear or paranoia on the part of GLBT persons – it is a very real ethical concern – one which is rarely talked about.
Evan,
That may be true but that doesn’t make Ken’s words false. His point still stands.
I’m also curious what you mean when you talk about “an impressive body of knowledge on what underpins sex-typical traits and behavior”? I’m assuming you’re not talking about orientation – gay, straight OR bi, right?
Ken,
The problem is there isn’t much conclusive research on GID and, in general, on gender identity and sexual orientation. How much predictive power is there, beside gender-nonconforming behaviour?
The frustrating part is that scientists working in other fields achieved an impressive body of knowledge on what underpins sex-typical traits and behaviour. They also have results. When the subject is approched directly, there isn’t enough money, researchers have abominable intentions, politics get in the way of volunteering, etc. It’s as if people don’t want to know and prefer ignorance. I don’t see how we can have any progress in the field if research is underfunded or stifled.
Drowssap said in post 102856:
Molesters probably aren’t too far off that template. Many are probably brain damaged and also molested or otherwise abused as children.
Maybe, but that doesn’t mean that brain damage is the cause of pedophilia or that pedophiles are in fact all brain damaged. However, I’m not looking to spin off onto a tangent about pedophilia.
The point I was making was that you have a propensity to latch on to some research article that matches your opinions and biases about a subject and misinterpret theories as proven facts. Regardless of whether the topic is pedophilia, GID, orientation or even handedness.
When parents see their son behave more feminine than girls of his peer group or even claim to be a girl they instinctively know that something is wrong.
Is that like when people see a black guy chatting up a white girl and instinctively know something is wrong?
Drowssap –
Every good parent wants their child to fit in.
yes they do, but too often this “need” of the parent to have their child fit in butts up against what is best for the child. One example includes giving kids growth hormones, or even pressuring the kid into being a way the parent sees as best when that act is causing damage to the child. And FAR too often, parents see their children as extensions of themselves and tend to live their lives through their children.
ken
Wait a minute… and this is what I should have written the first time.
Serial Killers tend to be nutz. But just because someone’s brain is scrambled doesn’t mean they are going to start hurting people. Most mentally challenged people are harmless.
What tends to happen (watch Most Evil on I.D.) is somebody who is nutz is also abused while they are growing up. That combination is where many dangerous, sadistic people come from.
Molesters probably aren’t too far off that template. Many are probably brain damaged and also molested or otherwise abused as children.
ken
Even if the studies did prove that brain damage can result in pedophilia, it wouldn’t mean that it was the only cause of pedophilia.
Pedophiles are significantly more likely to be left handed, have lower IQs and are shorter. If that’s not indication of brain damage or misdeveloment I don’t know what is.
What else could create these monsters?
A pedophile gene? Not in any significant numbers.
Socialization? Maybe a few. Many child molesters were probably molested as children and maybe this accounts for some.
Boo
As just a regular guy I don’t know if Zucker’s treatment (or any other treatment) is effective for children with GID. But I think this is where the average person is coming from.
When parents see their son behave more feminine than girls of his peer group or even claim to be a girl they instinctively know that something is wrong. They don’t know anything about neurotransmitters, estrogen receptors, or natural selection. What they do know is that their son’s behavior doesn’t add up and he is going to be mercilessly taunted by other kids. Every good parent wants their child to fit in. These parents are looking for help, just like parents of Autistic children, or deaf children or ADHD children.
Drowssap said in post 102491
In the specific case of Pedophiles it doesn’t matter what the APA thinks, that orientation is the result of brain damage.
Once again Drowssap, you are presenting possibilities as facts From your own source (emphasis added):
All of these (findings) suggest the brains (of pedophiles) are not organized the same way,
Even if the studies did prove that brain damage can result in pedophilia, it wouldn’t mean that it was the only cause of pedophilia.
Adult transexuals want to reduce or eliminate treatment options for children to increase the number of transexuals in the next generation.
Yes, because feeding off the pain of a new generation of transsexuals is how we, um… get our strength. Or something.
I can’t speak for every transsexual alive, but there’s just some questions I’d like answered:
Why is forcing a particular gender on anyone desirable?
Does Zucker’s behavior modification therapy actually change any outcomes?
Does Zucker’s behavior modification therapy do more harm than good even in his “successes?”
Is it possible to treat children in a way that doesn’t involve lying to them and/or making them miserable?
Is a miserable and isolated boy an inherently better outcome than a happy and social girl? Or vice versa?
If society didn’t devalue femininity so much, would fewer parents seek out this treatment?
I think this controversy can be boiled down to one factor.
Adult transexuals want to reduce or eliminate treatment options for children to increase the number of transexuals in the next generation.
My 2 cents
Evan
Another good pedophile link (if there is such a thing)
Google: Pedophiles have less brain white matter: Toronto study
These people have busted brains.
Evan
In the specific case of Pedophiles it doesn’t matter what the APA thinks, that orientation is the result of brain damage.
Google:
Pedophilia linked to brain development
A 300% greater likelihood of left handedness is roughly the same levels found after young children are exposed to meningitis. These people have serious brain damage. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to give them the electric chair but realistically speaking it would be better to fix their brain wiring if we could.
Please include GID as a gender condition and other disputed sexualities in the problem I raised above.
‘…the DSM “really needs to be seen as a set of scientific hypotheses.” It is, he believes, “a living document” changeable with new research.‘
Does that mean that if one day we discover that a certain sexual preference, say pedophilia, is caused by a biological or genetic dysfunction that makes some people unable to mature sexually and be attracted to mature individuals, then pedophilia could be pathologised again in the light of new discoveries, instead of just social rules against it? (Supposing the proposed depathologisation for legal reasons would pass the board of the APA.) This is an even more interesting possiblity that one type of sexuality might not be dysfunctional by itself at a macroscopic level, may not cause distress to the individual, but could still be caused by dysfunctions at microscopic levels that distort one’s emotional perception. Would that be considered simple variation in human sexuality or a socially non-dysfunctional type of sexuality that is caused by biological and genetic dysfunctions? Who gets to decide what is a disease if some might experience it like a blessing and others like a plight? Distress caused by that condition could make the difference, but if distress is caused by how one subjectively reacts to that condition, then where is the disease?
It’s also interesting how the people working on the DSM-V have become increasingly aware of the political and social implications of their classifications, although the vice-chair of the APA’s DSM-V Task Force argues for the permanent changeability of the document. It looks like neither doctors nor politics are able to fully handle some problems of human nature.