Straight "parents" can and have done the same thing so I don't see the connection. Nothing in the article indicates the cause of the child's disorder as the parents. In fact the article shows that they have other sons that do not have the disorder. Maybe you can explain how you come to the conclusion that homosexual parents are to blame.
Don't be gullible. The "parents" are lesbian. It's not coincidental that lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl. It's part of their LGBT socially constructed gender ideology.
Straight "parents" can and have done the same thing so I don't see the connection.
Which goes to show that heterosexual (not just homosexual) "parents" can make rationally and morally evil choices. It's not like the child was born a hermaphrodite. The child was born male and the lesbian "parents" are physically abusing the child chemically. Whichever doctor(s) wrote the prescription allowing the child to take the hormone blocking treatment should get his/her medical license revoked.
It is debatable on whether or not the hormone suppression is the right choice. I do not know enough about the issue to take a side. It apparently not permanent so that may be a factor to consider. There is a study that shows only about 12% of boys that had gender identity disorder as a child continued to want to change gender in their 20s.
The point I was making though is that there is no link between homosexual marriage and hormone blocking treatment in children with gender identity disorder. Steve is only making a blind assertion with no facts to back up his claim.
I don't see how it's gullible to point out the fact that it's not only homosexual parents that go through the same procedure with their children. You haven't made the case that the cause is that the parents are lesbians. You are only asserting that the parents are trying to "remake a boy into a girl" because they are lesbians. The assertion is hollow unless you can back it up with facts.
"Nothing in the article indicates the cause of the child's disorder as the parents...Where are your facts to back that up?"
1. For starters, I don't read Steve claiming "the cause of the child's disorder as the parents" (emphasis mine). I read him saying there's correlation or association or influence.
2. He's also not saying all or even most individuals with homosexual parents develop gender identity disorder (GID).
3. Nor is he saying gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) can't occur with heterosexual parenting.
4. You could try to figure out (assuming it's even possible) the risk of a child developing GIDC in heterosexual vs. homosexual parents or something similar.
a. But for one thing this assumes GIDC is a legitimate disorder. There's considerable debate among physicians including psychiatrists and other scholars over the very point as well as many other related points.
b. The forthcoming DSM-V contains significant changes in its definition and classifiation of GID including its renaming to gender dysphoria which is already accepted in clinical use.
Besides, the DSM-V isn't without problems. There's been plenty of criticism of the DSM-V. You'll have to read the criticisms yourself to see whether you agree or disagree or whatever.
Anyway, I think one thing all this demonstrates is our understanding of GID is hardly set in stone.
c. This is an obviously highly controversial area. For every "study" claiming x, it's likely you'll find another "study" claiming to refute x. It may have nothing or little to do with the study itself.
d. Of course, some studies are better than other studies (e.g. better designed, less biased, more objective, higher external validity). But are you in a position to appropriately evaluate such a study if one were shown you? If so, then you would know how to do a search for the relevant literature since that's one of the first steps in evaluating such a study (e.g. PubMed).
e. Actually, taking a step or two back, how would you even define gender in order to kickoff such a study? Indeed, that's part of the problem. People have different definitions for gender including gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. A psychiatrist who is a LGBT advocate isn't necessarily going to agree with a psychiatrist who is a conservative Christian on these terms and concepts, for example. They could each question one another's fundamental terminology.
f. A big reason a lot of this is in dispute is because of the political and sociocultural environment in which we live. We have to walk on eggshells to point out what past (and perhaps future) generations and other current cultures would've had no qualms pointing out. That's another potential problem in undertaking such a study.
5. Speaking a bit more broadly about children, gender, and sexuality, it's been established there can often be a (weak, moderate, strong) correlation between someone's beliefs and values and how their children turn out. This much is obvious. In fact, it doesn't necessarily need a special series of studies like randomized clinical trials to back up.
More specifically, many if not most researchers agree a person's impression of gender, sexual orientation, or sexual behavior is influenced to some degree by his or her parents during early childhood. That parents or other immediate family members can help children define to some degree what is male/female and how to express their masculinity/femininity. And there have been studies done on this including some good older studies. Just read the literature on early and adolescent sexuality (e.g. R.T. Brown, R.E. Moore).
My underestanding is the debate is over what degree of influence parents have over their children and at what age. I think it's very generally accepted the younger the child is the more influence the parent has over their development in terms of gender identity and sexuality and so forth.
Sure, there are some who argue stuff like prenatal hormones have primary influence on gender identity and sexuality. But even so many if not most don't entirely ignore other factors including the influence of parents. As well as the influence of peers. Or community norms of gender and sexuality. Or the influence of media.
Stuff like role modeling, family connectedness, community support, direct educational instruction, and so forth can further impact youth to develop in various directions.
In short, gender and sexuality occur in the context of many factors. Which (if any) is primary? That's part of the debate.
I looked up the author of the study you cite and this is the first thing I saw on their web site: "The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality".
I would not put too much stock in a study where the author indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal.
I't wouldn't surprise me though if the percentages were slightly higher as I don't think it is all genetics anyway. Of course, there is one glaring fact that is overlooked, and that is that the percentage of homosexuals that come from heterosexual parents is much much higher than those that come from homosexual parents.
"I looked up the author of the study you cite and this is the first thing I saw on their web site: 'The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality'. I would not put too much stock in a study where the author indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal."
1. For one thing, this commits the guilt by association fallacy. Even if the author is associated with the organization, it doesn't necessarily mean his study is invalid (e.g. due to bias). The study needs to be examined on its own terms. Sure, the study may turn out to be biased, but that's not something we can prejudge merely by association.
2. However I did specify it was a controversial study. I also made a number of other relevant points in a previous comment above.
3. Speaking of outcomes. It appears you have little or no experience in medical scientific research. There's nothing necessarily askew about a study in which its author "indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal." Indeed, that's desirable. A clearly defined, focused study starts by asking a well-framed question, which includes specifying the types of participants, the types of interventions and comparisons, and the types of outcomes. Just Google for the PICO model. This is evidence-based medicine 101.
Not to mention this doesn't begin to consider other types of studies like retrospective cohort studies which compare outcomes (among other things).
1. It does commit the fallacy of association. The study could be accurate. I'm just saying I would be suspicious of it based on the authors stated agenda.
3. You are correct, I have no experience in medical scientific research. I don't think that invalidates my opinion that one should be cautious about studies such as the one cited due to the authors obvious bias.
There are lots of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other researchers who have a very strong bias in favor of normalizing homosexuality and LGBT ideology. You should be cautious of their studies too. In fact, it's extremely difficult to find someone who doesn't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or another.
This is why the North American Journal of Psychology published in an article in 2010 and, after reviewing all the research, concluded that a lot of bias and opinion has "colored the presentation of scientific findings and their potential implications" and that no clear conclusions on sexual orientation could be reached.
You have some very good points and I think I agree with most of them but any debate about GID is not what I was taking issue with. The title of the post seems to be insinuating that homosexual marriage is the reason for the child's disorder and/or the hormone therapy. Steve so much as admitted that in one of his comments ("lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl"). The point I was making is that neither the disorder or the therapy are specific to homosexual parents. In fact, I expect there are probably more cases where the parents are heterosexual.
"The title of the post seems to be insinuating that homosexual marriage is the reason for the child's disorder and/or the hormone therapy. Steve so much as admitted that in one of his comments ('lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl')."
1. Same-sex marriage proponents often claim same-sex marriage is solely about consenting adults. As I read him that's fundamentally what Steve is taking issue with.
2. At the same time, and as I've already pointed out above, it's commonly accepted that parents often play an influential role in their children's formation of gender identity, sexuality, and the like. This is true with heterosexual as well as homosexual parents. So it'd be no surprise if homosexual parenting influenced to some degree a boy to think he is a girl. GID may or may not have been latent in the child, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to consider parenting had some degree of influence in its expression.
3. At least as far as I can tell, it seems the article assumes the boy's self-assessment of his gender status should prevail. But that's quite debatable in many respects.
4. There are some studies on gender nonconformity in prepubertal children which indicate that homosexuality may be the outcome (e.g. see here).
"The point I was making is that neither the disorder or the therapy are specific to homosexual parents. In fact, I expect there are probably more cases where the parents are heterosexual."
1. I'm afraid I don't see how this is responsive to Steve's point at all. As I've said above, Steve didn't claim it was specific to homosexuals.
2. Our prevailing sociocultural climate influences assessments of prevalence data. Also, the definition of the condition often doesn't clearly distinguish between, say, transsexuals and transgenderists, which affects prevalence studies. And some studies rely on individuals who undergo hormonal or surgical treatment, while others rely on self-identification, which further complicates the figures.
3. By the way, I suspect many LGBT advocates would take issue with you for continuing to label it a "disorder." For example, they might say "disorder" stigmatizes transgenderism. They might say if you agree it's a "disorder," then you agree it's abnormal. This in turn could potentially raise other questions including whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal.
What does the article have to do with homosexual marriage?
ReplyDeleteIt has to do with what homosexual "parents" can do to children in their custody.
DeleteStraight "parents" can and have done the same thing so I don't see the connection. Nothing in the article indicates the cause of the child's disorder as the parents. In fact the article shows that they have other sons that do not have the disorder. Maybe you can explain how you come to the conclusion that homosexual parents are to blame.
ReplyDeleteDon't be gullible. The "parents" are lesbian. It's not coincidental that lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl. It's part of their LGBT socially constructed gender ideology.
DeleteStraight "parents" can and have done the same thing so I don't see the connection.
DeleteWhich goes to show that heterosexual (not just homosexual) "parents" can make rationally and morally evil choices. It's not like the child was born a hermaphrodite. The child was born male and the lesbian "parents" are physically abusing the child chemically. Whichever doctor(s) wrote the prescription allowing the child to take the hormone blocking treatment should get his/her medical license revoked.
It is debatable on whether or not the hormone suppression is the right choice. I do not know enough about the issue to take a side. It apparently not permanent so that may be a factor to consider. There is a study that shows only about 12% of boys that had gender identity disorder as a child continued to want to change gender in their 20s.
DeleteThe point I was making though is that there is no link between homosexual marriage and hormone blocking treatment in children with gender identity disorder. Steve is only making a blind assertion with no facts to back up his claim.
I don't see how it's gullible to point out the fact that it's not only homosexual parents that go through the same procedure with their children. You haven't made the case that the cause is that the parents are lesbians. You are only asserting that the parents are trying to "remake a boy into a girl" because they are lesbians. The assertion is hollow unless you can back it up with facts.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to be a dupe, that's your prerogative.
DeleteStraight parents who do similar things are operating with the same radical chic LGBT ideology.
Where are your facts to back that up? Just asserting things doesn't make it so.
DeleteJC said:
ReplyDelete"Nothing in the article indicates the cause of the child's disorder as the parents...Where are your facts to back that up?"
1. For starters, I don't read Steve claiming "the cause of the child's disorder as the parents" (emphasis mine). I read him saying there's correlation or association or influence.
2. He's also not saying all or even most individuals with homosexual parents develop gender identity disorder (GID).
3. Nor is he saying gender identity disorder in children (GIDC) can't occur with heterosexual parenting.
4. You could try to figure out (assuming it's even possible) the risk of a child developing GIDC in heterosexual vs. homosexual parents or something similar.
a. But for one thing this assumes GIDC is a legitimate disorder. There's considerable debate among physicians including psychiatrists and other scholars over the very point as well as many other related points.
b. The forthcoming DSM-V contains significant changes in its definition and classifiation of GID including its renaming to gender dysphoria which is already accepted in clinical use.
Besides, the DSM-V isn't without problems. There's been plenty of criticism of the DSM-V. You'll have to read the criticisms yourself to see whether you agree or disagree or whatever.
Anyway, I think one thing all this demonstrates is our understanding of GID is hardly set in stone.
c. This is an obviously highly controversial area. For every "study" claiming x, it's likely you'll find another "study" claiming to refute x. It may have nothing or little to do with the study itself.
d. Of course, some studies are better than other studies (e.g. better designed, less biased, more objective, higher external validity). But are you in a position to appropriately evaluate such a study if one were shown you? If so, then you would know how to do a search for the relevant literature since that's one of the first steps in evaluating such a study (e.g. PubMed).
e. Actually, taking a step or two back, how would you even define gender in order to kickoff such a study? Indeed, that's part of the problem. People have different definitions for gender including gender identity, gender roles, and gender expression. A psychiatrist who is a LGBT advocate isn't necessarily going to agree with a psychiatrist who is a conservative Christian on these terms and concepts, for example. They could each question one another's fundamental terminology.
f. A big reason a lot of this is in dispute is because of the political and sociocultural environment in which we live. We have to walk on eggshells to point out what past (and perhaps future) generations and other current cultures would've had no qualms pointing out. That's another potential problem in undertaking such a study.
5. Speaking a bit more broadly about children, gender, and sexuality, it's been established there can often be a (weak, moderate, strong) correlation between someone's beliefs and values and how their children turn out. This much is obvious. In fact, it doesn't necessarily need a special series of studies like randomized clinical trials to back up.
ReplyDeleteMore specifically, many if not most researchers agree a person's impression of gender, sexual orientation, or sexual behavior is influenced to some degree by his or her parents during early childhood. That parents or other immediate family members can help children define to some degree what is male/female and how to express their masculinity/femininity. And there have been studies done on this including some good older studies. Just read the literature on early and adolescent sexuality (e.g. R.T. Brown, R.E. Moore).
My underestanding is the debate is over what degree of influence parents have over their children and at what age. I think it's very generally accepted the younger the child is the more influence the parent has over their development in terms of gender identity and sexuality and so forth.
Sure, there are some who argue stuff like prenatal hormones have primary influence on gender identity and sexuality. But even so many if not most don't entirely ignore other factors including the influence of parents. As well as the influence of peers. Or community norms of gender and sexuality. Or the influence of media.
Stuff like role modeling, family connectedness, community support, direct educational instruction, and so forth can further impact youth to develop in various directions.
In short, gender and sexuality occur in the context of many factors. Which (if any) is primary? That's part of the debate.
By the way, here is a controversial study.
ReplyDeleteI looked up the author of the study you cite and this is the first thing I saw on their web site: "The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality".
DeleteI would not put too much stock in a study where the author indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal.
I't wouldn't surprise me though if the percentages were slightly higher as I don't think it is all genetics anyway. Of course, there is one glaring fact that is overlooked, and that is that the percentage of homosexuals that come from heterosexual parents is much much higher than those that come from homosexual parents.
JC said:
Delete"I looked up the author of the study you cite and this is the first thing I saw on their web site: 'The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality'. I would not put too much stock in a study where the author indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal."
1. For one thing, this commits the guilt by association fallacy. Even if the author is associated with the organization, it doesn't necessarily mean his study is invalid (e.g. due to bias). The study needs to be examined on its own terms. Sure, the study may turn out to be biased, but that's not something we can prejudge merely by association.
2. However I did specify it was a controversial study. I also made a number of other relevant points in a previous comment above.
3. Speaking of outcomes. It appears you have little or no experience in medical scientific research. There's nothing necessarily askew about a study in which its author "indicates that they have specific outcome as their goal." Indeed, that's desirable. A clearly defined, focused study starts by asking a well-framed question, which includes specifying the types of participants, the types of interventions and comparisons, and the types of outcomes. Just Google for the PICO model. This is evidence-based medicine 101.
Not to mention this doesn't begin to consider other types of studies like retrospective cohort studies which compare outcomes (among other things).
1. It does commit the fallacy of association. The study could be accurate. I'm just saying I would be suspicious of it based on the authors stated agenda.
Delete3. You are correct, I have no experience in medical scientific research. I don't think that invalidates my opinion that one should be cautious about studies such as the one cited due to the authors obvious bias.
There are lots of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other researchers who have a very strong bias in favor of normalizing homosexuality and LGBT ideology. You should be cautious of their studies too. In fact, it's extremely difficult to find someone who doesn't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or another.
DeleteThis is why the North American Journal of Psychology published in an article in 2010 and, after reviewing all the research, concluded that a lot of bias and opinion has "colored the presentation of scientific findings and their potential implications" and that no clear conclusions on sexual orientation could be reached.
@rockingwithhawking
ReplyDeleteYou have some very good points and I think I agree with most of them but any debate about GID is not what I was taking issue with. The title of the post seems to be insinuating that homosexual marriage is the reason for the child's disorder and/or the hormone therapy. Steve so much as admitted that in one of his comments ("lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl"). The point I was making is that neither the disorder or the therapy are specific to homosexual parents. In fact, I expect there are probably more cases where the parents are heterosexual.
JC said:
Delete"The title of the post seems to be insinuating that homosexual marriage is the reason for the child's disorder and/or the hormone therapy. Steve so much as admitted that in one of his comments ('lesbian "parents" are trying to remake a boy into a girl')."
1. Same-sex marriage proponents often claim same-sex marriage is solely about consenting adults. As I read him that's fundamentally what Steve is taking issue with.
2. At the same time, and as I've already pointed out above, it's commonly accepted that parents often play an influential role in their children's formation of gender identity, sexuality, and the like. This is true with heterosexual as well as homosexual parents. So it'd be no surprise if homosexual parenting influenced to some degree a boy to think he is a girl. GID may or may not have been latent in the child, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to consider parenting had some degree of influence in its expression.
3. At least as far as I can tell, it seems the article assumes the boy's self-assessment of his gender status should prevail. But that's quite debatable in many respects.
4. There are some studies on gender nonconformity in prepubertal children which indicate that homosexuality may be the outcome (e.g. see here).
"The point I was making is that neither the disorder or the therapy are specific to homosexual parents. In fact, I expect there are probably more cases where the parents are heterosexual."
1. I'm afraid I don't see how this is responsive to Steve's point at all. As I've said above, Steve didn't claim it was specific to homosexuals.
2. Our prevailing sociocultural climate influences assessments of prevalence data. Also, the definition of the condition often doesn't clearly distinguish between, say, transsexuals and transgenderists, which affects prevalence studies. And some studies rely on individuals who undergo hormonal or surgical treatment, while others rely on self-identification, which further complicates the figures.
3. By the way, I suspect many LGBT advocates would take issue with you for continuing to label it a "disorder." For example, they might say "disorder" stigmatizes transgenderism. They might say if you agree it's a "disorder," then you agree it's abnormal. This in turn could potentially raise other questions including whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal.