Behold the batshit:
Those who are setting our so-called “values”, such as the small but powerful group of academics, mainstream media, and homosexual activists, do so by attempting to impose strange myths and ideas that have no scientific basis.So right off the bat(shit) we have a Catholic group complaining about myths and the imposition of, well… something. Seriously? Psychologists call that “projection.”
These myths include the one that homosexuals are “born that way”, can’t change, and must be accepted for “who they are”. Further, those claiming they are a different gender than that with which they were born, i.e. the transgendered, who “feel” they belong to other than their gender at birth, must be accepted as such.Now I know that the pope has his opinions, particularly about transgender people, but he is not a scientist. He is a theologian. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. Theologians are about setting the rules that will determine one's life after death; something that probably does not exist. Scientists study existing real conditions in the real world.
Reputable scientists publish their research in peer reviewed scholarly journals. Matters of health are published to scholarly medical journals. According to a mountain of peer reviewed research published to such outlets, homosexuality is innate and unalterable. Moreover, a condition known as gender dysphoria really does exist and is best treated with gender affirming therapies. But what do scientists know?
Eventually we end up with:
We know instinctively that they are not authentic, or worthy of our belief. However, the myth-makers attempt to force their nonsense on us by the heavy hand of the law, claiming that it’s “discrimination” to refuse to accept the myths as truth. …It is comforting to know that the instincts of virgin prelates are authoritative.
Bombshells Explode The MythsThe New Atlantis is more of a blog than a journal. It is edited by conservative Christians for conservative Christian consumption. It does not subject articles to peer review. The piece in question is a literature review inherently subject to interpretation and selective observation. A literature review can pretty much come to any conclusion that the authors want.
However, two bombshells have exploded that have shattered these myths, and the opinion-makers haven’t yet controlled its fall-out.
The first bombshell was a landmark study published in The Journal – The New Atlantis, (August 23, 2016). The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. …
The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory. …First of all there is no one “APA Handbook.” There are 21 authoritative titles bearing the name APA Handbook. Once again some idiot is wed to the idea that fluidity means that sexual orientation can be altered. It might help if they actually read what Diamond has written. According to Dr. Diamond (emphasis added):
… people are born with a sexual orientation and also with a degree of sexual flexibility, and they appear to work together. So there are gay people who are very fixedly gay and there are gay people who are more fluid, meaning they can experience attractions that run outside of their orientation. Likewise for heterosexuals. Fluidity is the capacity to experience attractions that run counter to your overall orientation.Dr. Diamond also wrote:
… there’s a core part of the population that is about as gay as the day is long, and they don’t appear to be affected at all by social acceptance … But the most common form of same-sex attraction is not exclusive attraction but a bisexual form. You can imagine that these people are likely to be influenced by social acceptance of same-sex sexuality.I like to explain it this way based upon my own experience: Some gay people experience fluidity in their sexual orientation some of the time. It is like outdoor temperature. It may change during the day but there is not much we can do to influence those changes.
Aside from the fact that sexual orientation cannot be changed there is the underlying theme that we should change. Why? To satisfy some Bronze Age chronicle written by unknown authors who knew nothing about human sexuality? Those same folks got just about everything associated with the natural environment wrong. They believed that a flat earth was the center of the universe. Why should they be trusted when it comes to human sexuality?
Her [Diamond's] announcement flies in the face of legislation in several US states and Ontario, Canada, which ban “reparative therapy”, which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction.Diamond made no announcement. She simply wrote something that these people are incapable of understanding. It does not resurrect the pseudo-science of reparative therapy and it certainly does not undermine LGBT equality. Moreover, none of this addresses the issue of what makes people gay. There is no peer reviewed research supporting the idea that relationships, culture and experience have anything to do with sexual orientation.
It also destroys the argument by homosexual activists that sexual orientation is the “civil rights movement of our times”. This is poppycock. Sexual desire is based on something other than genetics, including primarily, a person’s relationships, culture and other experiences, not genetics or prenatal hormones.
The mainstream media ignored these bombshells. The homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC), however, was not about to allow them to affect its continued existence, and the estimated nearly $49 million it hauls in annually from contributions, which maintain its luxurious headquarters in Washington D.C. More importantly, it was not about to relinquish the tremendous power and influence it holds over society – especially the law makers and the media.Just because they don't understand something doesn't make it a bombshell and the media tend to ignore blog posts and ignorant rants. And shall we compare the take of the Catholic Church to keep its bishops in luxury compared to HRC? The Church is in a league of its own.
The editors of the New Atlantis Journal, however, were not about to put up with HRC’s nonsense. The latter was only lies and distortions. In a special publication entitled “Lies and Bullying from the Human Rights Campaign” it delineated how HRC had distorted the journal’s recent publication on homosexuality stating in the introduction “Most of the HRC document is an exercise in distortion”. It then tackled in detail these distortions.Actually I have read the aforementioned piece. On the whole it adds more distortion to the distortion by misstating HRC's conclusions and then rebutting something other than what was misstated.
The bottom line is that New Atlantis is not a scholarly journal. It is not a medical journal. It does not peer review articles. As I said, it is essentially a conservative Christian (mostly Catholic) blog of pieces that conform to religious doctrine. No serious scientist would publish a piece to New Atlantis.
HRC on the facts:
Neither McHugh nor Mayer has conducted original research on LGBTQ people. Neither has ever written about sexual orientation or gender identity in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Other than a Wall Street Journal op-ed, McHugh’s writings on trans people are limited to religious and political media: First Things, a journal of “religion and public life,” and Public Discourse, a social-conservative outlet. McHugh sometimes says “we” when describing a colleague’s research on trans women. But, in reality, he shut that program down soon after taking control of the department—nearly four decades ago.It is worth noting that Johns Hopkins has just resumed gender affirming surgery as a direct rebuke of McHugh and all that he stands for.