Category: sexual orientation

NARTH pulls the Melonakos article

Recently, I took some exception to the outdated article, “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?” by Kathleen Melonakos. It was posted on the NARTH website and reprinted at Lifesite News but has now been pulled from the site. You can still read it at the Lifesite News page. I commend Dave Pruden and the NARTH leaders who are taking seriously these concerns for accuracy.

UPDATE: 1/5/06 – A commenter pointed out that the Melonakos article has now been pulled from the Lifesite News site. So this link does not work. For future reference, one can find it on other sites around the web.

The controversy over Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial

Old news by now, there is a dust up over Dr. Dobson’s column regarding Mary Cheney and subsequent complaints by writers Dobson quotes. While not much is happening on this story in the mainstream press, blogs are all over it.

I have not looked into the matter much and am undecided how much time I am going to spend on it. It seems to me as I read the column that Dr. Dobson cites aspects of the work of these researchers but does not say they agree with his position. This happens all the time in academia. You quote people to make points with which they themselves might disagree. Data are, but how one interprets the data is another matter and certainly influenced by one’s presuppositions. First blush reaction; if I get into it more perhaps I would see it differently.

One article and discussion that I found interesting (and perhaps worth getting into) is at the website Inside Higher Ed. Many of the discussants there seem to echo my current point of view. The dialogue is spirited but on point most of the time.

One provocative comment from the Inside Higher Ed page that caught my eye was made by Stanislaus Dundon who wrote:

Using research data independently of conclusions

If Carol Gilligan has a complex argument in which the data of important distinct advantageous contributions of father and mother is somehow over-ridden by the unique advantages of same-sex or single parent homes, or at least equaled by them, let her prove that via additional data or highlighting the contrary data she has already presented. The idea of refusing to let Dobson use her data sounds a bit like the Catholic Cardinals who did not want people to look through Galileo’s telescope.

Dr. Dundon is Professor Emeritus in Philosophy at California State University – Sacramento.

UPDATE: Here are two reactions from Focus on the Family that I do not think are widely circulated. The first rebuts an article from Jennifer Chrisler who was given space by Time to respond to Dr. Dobson’s earlier op-ed. The second provides supporting documentation for Dr. Dobson’s initial op-ed.

The Soy Agenda

A bit more on the soy agenda.

Jim Rutz provided blogosphere with a rich diet of comic material with his articles here and here.

In his articles there is a pattern of selectively quoting material and using questionable sources next to authoritative ones.

Just a couple of examples.

In the most recent article, he quotes an FDA report saying that there was immediate controversy regarding the FDA guidelines regarding the beneficial health consequences of soy. While it is true that there was controversy, this is true of all such regulations. He failed to provide the context and history of dietary guidelines which came in the next sentence in the FDA report:

This [controversy] came as no surprise to Elizabeth A. Yetley, Ph.D., lead scientist for nutrition at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition . “Every dietary health claim that has ever been published has had controversy,” she says, “even the relationship of saturated fat to a healthy diet.”

Rutz later makes this statement: “…the FDA has encouraged Americans to eat 25 grams of soy protein a day as a way to prevent heart disease. This FDA health claim has doubled the consumption of soy protein in the U.S., yet was recently discredited when the American Heart Association changed its position on soy, now saying that soy does not lower cholesterol and does not prevent heart disease!”

It is true that the AHA did change its view on soy as prevention of heart disease. However, the organization did not advise people to avoid eating soy and even said “While the analysis of recent studies didn’t show any specific action of soy protein on heart risk factors, the authors said using soy protein products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts or some soy burgers could be beneficial. The reason is the high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, minerals and a low content of saturated fat that could replace other high-fat proteins in the diet, the researchers noted. “Soy products may have benefits when replacing other foods such as hamburgers,” Sacks said. “Soy burgers have no cholesterol or saturated fat and have high amounts of fiber.”

So if the choice is a McDonald’s hamburger or a soy patty, go with the soy.

Soy boys = Gay?

Can soy formula make kids gay? A minister named Jim Rutz thinks so. In a WorldNet Daily article called, “Soy is making kids ‘gay'”, Rutz claims: “Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality.” Soy formula is the blame, says Rutz, for the “rise in homosexuality.” And here I thought it was a shortage of tennis rackets and pillows needing a beating.

I researched this a bit and found some concern about mice but no adverse effects in humans. So if preventing nelly mice is your thing, go easy on the Soy Chow. For further information about the subject, read this and this and this. The summary of the latter article from the Journal of the American Medical Association says:

Long-term Effects of Soy-Based Formula on Health

Dietary phytoestrogens, including soy isoflavones, have been shown to influence hormone-dependent states. To determine whether exposure to soy-based infant formula is associated with long-term effects on health, especially reproductive health, Strom and colleagues evaluated adults aged 20 to 34 years who had participated in controlled feeding studies during infancy. Women who had been fed soy formula as infants reported slightly longer duration of menstrual bleeding and greater discomfort with menstruation. For more than 30 other general and reproductive health outcomes, however, no statistically significant differences were observed between the group of adults who had been fed soy-based formula as infants and those who had been fed cow milk formula.

You know though, I have been eating a bunch of soy protein in my Kashi cereal lately. Colors do look a little brighter, and I don’t say “dude” as much as I used to and I even think Cher sounds better (not looks better, that would require another type of substance). Perhaps, I should have a more open mind…