IGI has a myspace page. Please add us if you're a myspace fiend!
Started by Augusto, July 05, 2022, 10:21:37 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteThe American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder.
QuoteThis article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.
QuoteThe American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the world's largest psychiatric organization. It is a medical specialty society representing growing membership of more than 35,000 psychiatrists (...) The American Psychiatric Association publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is the handbook used by health care professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders (...) It provides a common language for clinicians to communicate about their patients and establishes consistent and reliable diagnoses that can be used in the research of mental disorders.
QuoteIt should be noted that the "task force" that produced the second document was chaired by Judith M. Glassgold, Psy.D., who is a lesbian psychologist. She sits on the board of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and is past president of the APA's Gay and Lesbian Division 44. Other members of the task force were Lee Beckstead, Ph.D.; Jack Drescher, M.D.; Beverly Greene, Ph.D.; Robin Lin Miller, Ph.D.; Roger L. Worthington, Ph.D.; and Clinton W. Anderson, Ph.D. According to Joseph Nicolosi, Beckstead, Drescher, and Anderson are all "gay," while Miller is "bisexual" and Greene is lesbian.
QuoteIt is noteworthy that Freud also suggested that homosexuality is a "variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development" [Herek 2012]. The omission of that line from Freud's work is misleading.
Quote from: Augusto on July 09, 2022, 07:51:29 PM••••Now, we're talking about a manual [DSM] produced by the best of the best. We're talking about an organization with mover 35.000 experts. This is where most people stop and say "this is good enough for me to trust".••••
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why...
Quote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 10, 2022, 04:33:56 AMQuote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why... He is a firm believer in government establishmentarianism. Whatever the government establishes, he follows. The government can do no wrong. His logic fails because every govenrnment system is established by the people. The people are often mislead by those who wish to decieve the people. It's a vicious circle.
Quote from: kevin on July 10, 2022, 12:12:11 PMthey dont show up for me either, although one did a few days ago
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMBy and large, yes, that is the appropriate response. Those 35,000 experts are qualified experts, degreed, published, employed to study these things.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMOTOH, Kinney is a pharmacist, untrained, uncertified in medical science (except pharmacology), psychology, cultural anthropology, etc. He raises issues not from knowledge of the field, but from his own psyche, questions that science is unable to resolve for him. He has no credentials to establish credibility and is no more authoritative on the topic than you or I are.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMThe man is unpublished in serious medical journals, is not used as a resource by scholars, and apparently published only in the Catholic journal.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMAll Kinney's objections are old and have been addressed by people who understand the field. even if wrong it may be edifying to examine him if he had something new to say, but he does not.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMIn the paragraph following the above quote Kinney questions the DSM's credibility because of alleged sexual orientation of some of the board members, an ad hominem argument if ever one was argued.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMKinney thereby establishes the righteousness of an ad hominem attack on himself: If conclusions of professional boards are questionable because they include LGBTQ+ professionals, then his conclusions, as a Catholic non-professional, must also be considered unreliable. Why even bring him up?
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMAugusto, it may be more productive to stop talking about Kinney and discuss specifically your questions and concerns.
Quote from: Shnozzola on July 10, 2022, 05:45:52 PMI'm missing this whole point. 8 said something about mooby commenting on this article:https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764But I never see a word here from mooby or a link to his comments on the above article. In fact, the links you just posted, Kiahanie, are only to the beginning of this thread.Where is the original thread with mooby's comments? I looked back through in several topics concerning lgbt and couldn't find it.
Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on July 08, 2022, 02:29:57 AMHi, Augusto! Welcome back!I'm actually going to reply to the article and the OP in separate posts, because I have slightly different thoughts on both.First, the article:It's bad, and it reflects very poorly on the journal that published it.To start, the author complains that an LGBTQ task force that gave recommendations to the APA was made up of LGBTQ psychologists, and suggests that these recommendations may be suspect because they could represent a conflict of interest. However, he is a Catholic non-psychologist, non-psychiatrist publishing in a Catholic journal. So if we accept his premise that we should take recommendations from a panel of experts made to a parent organization without an ideological stake in the position with a grain of salt because they may themselves have a personal stake, then we most certainly must take the recommendations from a non-expert to a parent organization that has a very clear ideological stake in the position and who himself likely shares their ideological position with an even more massive grain of salt. So if we fully accept his premise, we should likely stop reading the rest of his article. Not off to a good start.He then goes on to cite heavily from the APA Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responsesto Sexual Orientation. He cites exclusively from the introduction section and the history sections, which are journalistic summaries of what led to the current study of sexual orientation. He then ignores the following 60 pages of the actual review of evidence. His argument is essentially, "Hey, they promised to give a scientific review, but this line in the fluff section is clearly fluff!" Yeah, because he cited only the fluff section.At two different points in his article he makes a bald assertion and uses "common sense" as his only supporting evidence to back it up, and at 7 points he just says the APA's arguments are absurd without actually providing a counterargument. So a large portion of his arguments boil down to, "You say reality is x, but I feel like it should be y, so you should agree with me."Then we get to the part where he tries to tear down the concept of adjustment as a criterion for a large swath of psychiatric disorders, which is pretty self-defeating because he's simultaneously trying to say that the criteria themselves are bad while arguing that homosexuality should meet the criteria. If it's true that the APA's methods of classifying disorders is bad, then it's self-defeating to try to get them to reclassify a disorder, since if we accept his argument we can't trust the result.After that, he tries to equivocate psychiatric diagnostic criteria to physical organ dysfunction, and prop up a pretty weak premise about the proper function of organs, only to try and spin it into some sideways argument about the proper function of sperm. I'm going to ignore the medical aspect because, as a doctor, I'm content to say that it's stupid and he clearly has no idea how my job actually works. I get to say that because I went to work today and did my job, and it was nothing like he described. We don't sit around trying to construct logical gotchas to put on the patient's chart: we do real, actual medicine, not the pretend medicine in his head.Instead, I'll address the logical content of the argument: if we accept his argument as true, we must also consider that fingers clearly did not evolve to type, since the existence of fingers appeared far before the existence of typewriters, and indeed before any known writing. From this, we must then conclude that if he fully accepted his own premise, then he would not have used his fingers unnaturally to write his article in the first place, and it would therefore not be available for us to read. Thus, the existence of his article proves that he agrees that at least one valid exception exists to his argument, and if one valid exception exists then other valid exceptions may exist. Thus, he now has the additional onus of proving that the use of semen for purposes other than his claimed intended purpose is not a valid second exception before we can even consider the argument. Throughout, he tries to compare homosexuality to psychiatric and non-psychiatric disorders, as if there is some sort of gotcha here. But that's not how disease works. We don't say, "Oh, we've had too many SARS viruses, that's not fair to polioviruses, so COVID-19 is a poliovirus now." Things are what they are, regardless of what other things may exist alongside them. At no point does he offer any real evidence at all that homosexuality itself is a disease. Even if we somehow disregarded all his other very poor logic and accept his basic premise that the APA hasn't in any way proven homosexuality is not a disease, at no point does that ever prove it is. The default is not, "Everything is a disease," the default is that you don't call something a disease until you know it is.Lastly, this whole article smacks of someone complaining about a tool he doesn't use, is not trained to use, and isn't qualified to use to a group that defines the tools they use to do their jobs. Imagine if someone who has never picked up a tool in their life wrote an impassioned article on why screws should actually be called nails and implored contractors to hit them with hammers. Would they say, "Wow, you've really given me something to think about, I should really reevaluate what tools I use on this object from now on," or would they say, "No, you're an idiot, this is a screw and the fact that you're suggesting I use anything other than a screwdriver shows you have no idea at all what you're talking about?" The article is bad and accomplishes nothing other than exposing the author's own ignorance.
Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on July 08, 2022, 03:15:18 AMNow my reply to the OP:500 years ago, it was generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the Earth (geocentric model.) Then, Copernicus and Galileo came along, and proposed an alternate model that the Earth actually revolves around the sun (heliocentric model.) This caused a huge fuss because the new science conflicted with established theological ideology, which caused a huge pushback from the Catholic Church. Who was right?Ultimately, both were. As it turns out, the sun and the Earth's positions are relative. You can set your reference point on the sun, and model out the solar system based on that. Or you can set your reference point on the Earth, and model everything out as it rotates around that point on the Earth. Or you can set your reference point on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, and work out all the equations that way. You may have to account for a few more things in your math, but they are all equally valid because they are all models. The universe doesn't have an ultimate "right" or "wrong" answer: the sun and the Earth just move according to the laws of motion and gravity. Models are our way of categorizing them.That being said, not all models are created equal. While you could set up that model for Earth's rotation on Titan or Pluto, why would you? Such a model would have loads of extra unnecessary math, be very hard to diagram, and have very little explanatory power. Whereas, a heliocentric model where objects in the solar system all rotate around a center of mass very close to the sun has simpler math, is very easy to diagram, and very good explanatory power.Which brings me to disease. Disease is not an objective thing. There isn't a measurable diseasiness in nature. Disease is a concept that humans defined to help them explain the world, just like our models of the solar system do.So in one sense, what we consider normal variation and disease is somewhat arbitrary. In nature, these things just exist. Nature doesn't make such classifications, nature is just nature. Disease is meaningful to us as humans because we can use disease models to change things we don't like about nature to achieve our goals for good health, which are also human-defined.However, as above, not all models are created equal. Even though they are human-defined, we can see the results of different models in the real world:For example, if we include "not dying" as part of our model for good health, then we can see that classifying heart attacks as a disease and working to prevent and treat them can decrease death, while classifying them as normal and doing nothing does not decrease death. Thus, we can say that a disease model for heart attacks is a better model than classifying heart attacks as normal, because doing so guides our actions to achieve desirable goals (less death.) We can even go a step further and say that any model that does not include heart attacks as a disease is a bad model, and reclassifying it as a disease will make any given model better.As a real world example, take drug use. Many countries around the world wish to reduce drug use among their citizens. Some have tried to use a criminal model to achieve this, which has led to criminalization of drug use. Others have tried to use a disease model to achieve this, which tends to lead to decriminalization of drug use. And as it turns out, the latter approach achieves the goal of reducing drug use better. Growing evidence shows that a disease model for addiction is simply better than a criminal model for addiction.In other words, models are tools. If doctors find that classifying something as a disease makes things better, then we model that thing as a disease and use our disease tools to address it. If doctors find that classifying something as a disease accomplishes nothing and makes things worse, then we find another model that suits it better. As I mentioned in my last post, if you hand a contractor a screw and tell them it's a nail, they're going to reach for their screwdriver because regardless of whether you call it a "screw," "nail," or "gumfilbafub," they know the screwdriver is the best tool for the job. And they're going to continue to call it a screw, because that's the best and clearest classification they can use to inform other contractors of what tools they should be using for the best result. The name itself doesn't change the physical object on the table, but some terms are better than others when giving tool users a sense of what tools they should be using. Calling a screw a nail doesn't magically morph the screw into a nail: it just demonstrates that you are using a bad classification model that is not helping anyone, and anyone who knows what they're talking about is going to disregard it and use the superior "screw" model.Which leads us to homosexuality. We've tried the criminal model for literally thousands of years. It didn't work. It's a bad model. We tried the disease model for over a century. It didn't work. It's a bad model. We tried the observational model that these sexual orientation is a spectrum that naturally exists in normal human sexuality, and it worked. It's a good model. You want to go back to an old model we know it's bad. We're not going to go back to that model, because it's old and we know it's bad. Saying, "We should try it, and maybe it'll work?" just demonstrates that you're not aware that we already tried it and it didn't work. The disease model of homosexuality a bad model, so we've rejected it. Thus, homosexuality is not a disease.
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 06:40:00 PM••••Here is a quick note I would like you guys to think about: Kiahanie says we shouldn't bother with the author, because the author is this and that. Mr. Blackwell says we shouldn't bother with Kiahanie, because Kiahanie is this and that. How could be choose who are we going to listen, if not by examining what they are actually saying? The answer is pretty simple: The only way to find out is by listening to all sides from an objective standpoint. Then it will be easier to tell what the truth may actually be.
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 07:38:28 PM••••Kiahanie: I asked you to share those documents you mentioned, where the topic was being addressed, and you haven't. Not doing so and instead, keep offering suggestions like those are a sabotage to this whole threat. If you are not capable, if you don't have access to the documents you claim to have read, at least you should stop interferring.••••
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 07:38:28 PM••••I wonder if some of these points can be accepted:1. It does not matter who wrote the article, but the article itself.EXPLANATION: Ad hominem is a falacy and it doesn't address the argument.2. It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition.EXPLANATION: It describes a potential conflict of interests on the part who dictated the sentence.3. Just because there is a flaw in an argument, it doesn't mean everything is wrong.EXPLANATION: Galileo made some errors, but his main premise was accurate.4. The author successfully proved bias and bad faith.EXPLANATION: The task force ommited Freud's actual opinion, making him look like he was on their side.5. The article does break appart every argument it quoted in favor of the normalization of homosexuality.EXPLANATION: You need to read it if you haven't and say what you think of this.If any of these four points is still being questioned, we will have to stop developing the subject until some consensus is being achieved. The last point hasn't been discussed by anyone here other than Mooby. But it is my impression that he does acknowledges they are logically faulty.••••
Quote1. It does not matter who wrote the article, but the article itself.EXPLANATION: Ad hominem is a falacy and it doesn't address the argument.
Quote2. It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition.EXPLANATION: It describes a potential conflict of interests on the part who dictated the sentence.
Quote3. Just because there is a flaw in an argument, it doesn't mean everything is wrong.EXPLANATION: Galileo made some errors, but his main premise was accurate.
Quote 4. The author successfully proved bias and bad faith.EXPLANATION: The task force ommited Freud's actual opinion, making him look like he was on their side.
Quote 5. The article does break appart every argument it quoted in favor of the normalization of homosexuality.EXPLANATION: You need to read it if you haven't and say what you think of this.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 05:14:55 PMQuote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 10, 2022, 04:33:56 AMQuote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why... He is a firm believer in government establishmentarianism. Whatever the government establishes, he follows. The government can do no wrong. His logic fails because every govenrnment system is established by the people. The people are often mislead by those who wish to decieve the people. It's a vicious circle. Bulls**t. Your first three sentences are untruths unsupported by anything I have ever said. You read too much of your own mind in between the lines, MrB.
Quote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 11, 2022, 01:22:22 AMQuote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 05:14:55 PM•••€Happens that way sometimes. You tried your level best to explain your views but that's what I got out of it.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 05:14:55 PM•••€
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 05, 2022, 10:22:16 PMThe major mental condition affecting the LGBTQ+ community is the mental condition that causes so many people to think "normal" means exclusionary.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 06, 2022, 04:44:03 AMYup.+1
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMKinney thereby establishes the righteousness of an ad hominem attack on himself
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 07:22:29 PMI understand you are seeking clarity on these issues. My suggestion is to use Wikipedia (and especially the references provided) as a foundation for understanding. That should provide a basis for evaluating fringe opinions.
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 10:29:14 PMActually, I rather think I am contributing to the conversation, not interfering.
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMIdeally. However, it was Kinney himself who wrongly attacked the writer of the article he was critiquing.
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMIt should also matter who's still declaring that it is a psychological condition. And in this case, if we're comparing a traditional church group vs actual experts in the field, I think it should be very clear who has the upper hand in these discussions.
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMKinney made some critiques on some specific points which had already been addressed as well. As Mooby said, it's possible Kinney didn't read the articles all the way through.
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMI don't think Freud's opinion matters anymore in this case as I doubt he had any inkling of the biological or evolutionary arguments being made today.
Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMPossibly, but again, some of the points being discussed don't really matter - such as the writer's gender preference or Freud's opinion - which is the weakest argument in this case. The strongest argument is the biological/evolutionary basis in my opinion.
QuoteI recommend you to examine each premise individually. The second one says: "It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition". By what you're saying, I think you agree with this. Surely, if the board was composed mostly by religious fundamentalists, and they had found it to be a "perversion", you would be right to, at the very least, suspect its legitimacy.Clearly, you are concerned by the position and motivations behind those who wrote the article. But the thing is, you shouldn't be, because we are NOT choosing a political candidate. We are just meant to listen to both of them, from an esceptic position, and build OUR OWN conclusions. In the end, neither the ruling board, nor the writer will win this. We are going to pass them and see beyond all these things, but NOT BEFORE carefully considering what have been said by both sides.
QuoteWe need to address these first. Do you think the author showed their logic to be flawed on those points?
QuoteCorrect, Freud does not matter at all. To the board, however, it did. Freud was important enough for them to quote him. So, while it is not important what Freud thinks, the fact that this mostly LGBT+ board quoted him in such a way that they made him sound as if he was supporting their conclusions, by cutting out the very line that showed he thought the exact opposite should be seen as a definitive proof of bias and bad faith.
QuoteI don't know. I think it is possible or even likely that anal sex has always been universal. I thought about it, I think most women don't enjoy it. I considered the biological facts pointed out, the harm done and so forth, but I still think this is too ambiguous, too hard to swallow, and, perhaps more importantly, it may not even be directly related to homosexuality. It is possible that one thing is being attracted to anal sex, and a very different thing, is being attracted to the same sex. I mean, I know some gay people who claim zero interest in playing an active role during sex. So, from the article, I am only interested in the legitimazy of the reasons presented by the board.
Quote1. At this point, we all should agree with the notion that this manual is pretty much "man-made", subjective and even foolish. Separating what is healthy from what is a disease is tricky, we are using words and nature does not work like that. This much can be said, without rising any eyebrowns.
Quote2. It seems sufficient to me the fact that homosexuality can be linked to autism and suicidal thoughts and behaviors to consider it "something mental", "something else", "something out of the ordinary". Such link with autism may also explain why we see so many homosexuals on creative areas of all sorts.
Quote3. So, what is autism? Is it considered a mental illness? Well, actually it is considered a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how you see the world and how you interact with it but it's NOT a mental health problem. This possibly means the manual is not so useless after all. Certain traits often associated with autism are harmful/problematic tho, and there is some progression, some hard to define line that goes from almost unexistent autism to very severe autism. I'm simplifying here, but the thing is, you could argue something similar also happens with homosexuality. There are, in the case of men, masculine homosexuals, feminine homosexuals, travesties and finally transexuals. One may even argue that bisexuals also fit somewhere in this model, in a similar way to autism. So, in short, I believe it to be more logical to consider homosexuality a neurological and developmental disorder, but not a mental problem.
Quote4. Why considering homosexuality a disorder helps? It's fairly simple: Something most of you may have overlooked is that several other conditions, such as PEDOPHILY, were labeled "normal" for consistency reasons. And right now we are getting pedophiles organizing and trying to prove children also want to have sex. They are pushing for their rights, and they want to be called "intergenerational lovers" or something like that. At the same time, the normalization of homosexuality is taking a tool on people's lives. Homosexuals keep suffering and thinking about killing themselves, and doing it. Transexuals are on a even worst situation, and no ammount of power or social acknowledgement is changing this.