Puppet Speaks With His Own Voice
One scuffle in the MoCo sex-ed debate has had to do with the inclusion of a "statement by the Surgeon General" about the danger of anal sex. I put it in quotes because the person who made the statements was not the Surgeon General at the time the statement in question was made, and it was certainly not a current or even recent Surgeon General. The statement that the CRC wanted to include in the curriculum was made nearly twenty years ago, by an at-the-time former Surgeon General, and the advice he offered was good in its day, but not now.
Anyway, the other side loves to say that we, or the school district, or whoever "refused to include advice by the Surgeon General" blah blah blah.
Of course, there is much humor to be discovered in the situation, for instance by mining famous quotes by a real Surgeon General, oh say, Joycelyn Elders. But we won't go there.
Instead, we'll listen to a recent Surgeon General, appointed by the Bush administration, Richard Carmona. He was appointed in 2002, and as the Wikipedia entry says, he "left his office quietly at the end of July 2006 upon the expiration of his term."
Mmm, not so quiet this week. Yesterday he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Here's the story:
Well, I'll be goll-danged. I ain't never heerd nothin lack that there before.
For some of us, an important point of this fight has been retaining the appropriate respect for science. The reason human technology and understanding has been able to advance as it has in recent centuries -- and it has been a mind-boggling leap, unbelievable really if you look back just a hundred years, or five hundred years, amazing -- is that science is a directed, apolitical movement toward the improvement of knowledge.
There is debate within science about methods, about theory, about the appropriateness of various hypotheses, about data analysis techniques and how to interpret results, argued among scholars with the interest of the advancement of knowledge in mind. But when science is seized by ideologues, the grand pursuit shrivels down until it is nothing but a propaganda tool. It is important to us as a society to nurture the quest for knowledge and drive it forward, and it is important not to cripple it by deflecting, distorting, and denying results we don't like. The recent attack on the Montgomery County school district was a direct attack on education itself, and on the fruit of real education, the knowledge of scholars.
If you ask me.
Woops.
Censored his speeches. You appoint a medical expert, and then use him as a puppet. And why? Because the people trust him, because he's an expert. How low can you go?
Yes, and coming on Carmona's revelations, we have an idea what "well qualified" means.
Anyway, the other side loves to say that we, or the school district, or whoever "refused to include advice by the Surgeon General" blah blah blah.
Of course, there is much humor to be discovered in the situation, for instance by mining famous quotes by a real Surgeon General, oh say, Joycelyn Elders. But we won't go there.
Instead, we'll listen to a recent Surgeon General, appointed by the Bush administration, Richard Carmona. He was appointed in 2002, and as the Wikipedia entry says, he "left his office quietly at the end of July 2006 upon the expiration of his term."
Mmm, not so quiet this week. Yesterday he testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Here's the story:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.
"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.
"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party," Carmona added. Former Bush surgeon general says he was muzzled
Well, I'll be goll-danged. I ain't never heerd nothin lack that there before.
For some of us, an important point of this fight has been retaining the appropriate respect for science. The reason human technology and understanding has been able to advance as it has in recent centuries -- and it has been a mind-boggling leap, unbelievable really if you look back just a hundred years, or five hundred years, amazing -- is that science is a directed, apolitical movement toward the improvement of knowledge.
There is debate within science about methods, about theory, about the appropriateness of various hypotheses, about data analysis techniques and how to interpret results, argued among scholars with the interest of the advancement of knowledge in mind. But when science is seized by ideologues, the grand pursuit shrivels down until it is nothing but a propaganda tool. It is important to us as a society to nurture the quest for knowledge and drive it forward, and it is important not to cripple it by deflecting, distorting, and denying results we don't like. The recent attack on the Montgomery County school district was a direct attack on education itself, and on the fruit of real education, the knowledge of scholars.
If you ask me.
Carmona said Bush administration political appointees censored his speeches and kept him from talking out publicly about certain issues, including the science on embryonic stem cell research, contraceptives and his misgivings about the administration's embrace of "abstinence-only" sex education.
Woops.
Censored his speeches. You appoint a medical expert, and then use him as a puppet. And why? Because the people trust him, because he's an expert. How low can you go?
Carmona's comments came two days before a Senate committee is due to hold a hearing on Bush's nomination of Dr. James Holsinger as his successor. The administration allowed Carmona to finish his term as surgeon general last year without a replacement in place.
Gay rights activists and several leading Democrats have criticized Holsinger for what they see as "anti-gay" writings, but the White House has defended him as well qualified.
Yes, and coming on Carmona's revelations, we have an idea what "well qualified" means.
posted by JimK at 3:15 AM
34 Comments:
Ever hear of David Satcher, Jim? He was Surgeon General under Bill Clinton. Yesterday, at the same hearing, he said Clinton wouldn't allow him to release a report on sexuality and public health when he was SG.
Carmona is simply trying to get attention. The issues he spoke about are not matters where he was trying to enlighten anybody about science. Stem cells? No one denies that some treatments might be derived from them. The issue is whether it is right to sacrifice our belief in the sanctity of life. Abstinence? Plan B? Same thing.
No one asked him to lie about anything. They made policy decisions on what moral positions our government would support. The SG reports to the President. Just as our military is under civilian authority, so too is our scientific establishment.
I listened to the interview with Carmona on NPR yesterday. He made it clear that when he talked with his predecessors (Satcher, Koop, Elders, and others), they all said that there were political pressures from time to time, but that what Carmona described about his experience with George II was far, far worse than anything they had experienced.
Andrea- not anon
So "moral" positions now influence the science agencies- I sure hope not.
"So "moral" positions now influence the science agencies- I sure hope not."
Yeah, the Nazis didn't let any moral considerations stop scientific progress either. Look up Mengele.
"I listened to the interview with Carmona on NPR yesterday. He made it clear that when he talked with his predecessors (Satcher, Koop, Elders, and others), they all said that there were political pressures from time to time, but that what Carmona described about his experience with George II was far, far worse than anything they had experienced."
Also, David, Koop said he was able to resist pressure because Reagan always defended his independence.
Where have you gone Ronald Reagan?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Woo-woo-woo.
Hey, keep in mind ab vs comp sex ed is not a science question. It is an educational one. It is the sole thing that the teaching establishment tries to say that they can't teach.
It's propaganda and George Bush has rightly resisted it.
Stem cell and Plan B aren't scientific questions either but ethical ones concerning how much we value the life of the weak. We all know that stem cell research might yield a treatment and that morning-after pills can destroy embryos.
"The recent attack on the Montgomery County school district was a direct attack on education itself, and on the fruit of real education, the knowledge of scholars."
By TTF and Patricia O'Neill who inserted an assertion about the innateness of homosexuality despite a lack of scholarly research to support it.
"Yeah, the Nazis didn't let any moral considerations stop scientific progress either. Look up Mengele."
So you're comparing people who support stem-cell research and emergency contraception to Nazis?
In fact, science in 4th decade Germany, as well as science under Stalin, was subordinated to political agendas. Science is only useful when it is independent.
Be careful when you get up on your high horse of "moral" and "ethical" considerations. The Spaniards in the Americas, the crudaders, the segregationists, and indeed the Nazis felt that they were following "moral" precepts. Their "morality" was just different (I hope) from yours. People who support lgbt equality and comprehensive sex education are driven largely by morality; they disagree with you on what is moral.
rrjr
Hey Jim, as your friend (loving the sinner and all that) I feel that I have a responsibility to tell you that if you keep using language like "goll-danged" you risk being sent to heck.
I rarely respond to anonymous comments, but occasionally I do get tired of the falsehoods. The curriculum does not say that homosexuality is innate. The curriculum states that, "sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality." This statement refers to any sexual orientation, heterosexual or otherwise.
This statement was in the script for the 10th grade curriculum when it was presented to the BOE prior to the January vote to move ahead with the piloting. At that January 9 meeting, Betsy Brown, MCPS Director of Curriculum and Instruction, presented the the curriculum. She said that her staff had added the sentence about sexual orientation which was already in the 10th grade curriculum to the 8th grade curriculum solely for the purpose of bringing the two into line with one another.
Let's review the facts:
The curriculum states that sexual orientation - all sexual orientation - is innate and complex.
This statement was placed in the curriculum by the MCPS professional staff who write curriculum.
The BOE, under the leadership of President Nancy Navarro, approved the curriculum as presented for piloting by Betsy Brown.
Neither TTF nor Patricia O'Neill "inserted an assertion" on homosexuality.
"Hey Jim, as your friend (loving the sinner and all that) I feel that I have a responsibility to tell you that if you keep using language like "goll-danged" you risk being sent to heck."
Jim's abuse of the English language is beyond redemption. The Huck Finn routine is designed to make the gay agenda seem as American as Rocky Mountain oysters. I assumed you guys brought this up at TTF meetings.
"I rarely respond to anonymous comments, but occasionally I do get tired of the falsehoods."
Then quit TTF and start a group called Teach the Truth.
"The curriculum does not say that homosexuality is innate. The curriculum states that, "sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality." This statement refers to any sexual orientation, heterosexual or otherwise."
So then it says homosexuality is innate. After all, it also says that homosexuality is am orientation. The whole spiel is misleading though. It gives the impression that there are two orientations and you can't be fulfilled unless you can express this in-born orientation.
What science has found is that sexual preference, a more accurate term, exists on a continuum. Some people, because of various factors, tilt one way or the other. Some innate traits factor in but are not significant. If your identical twin has this tilt, you're more likely to have it than the general population but you're still likely to not be homosexual.
This continuum theory seems to mesh with poll data that shows most stated homosexuals have actually had heterosexual experiences. Historically, there have been societies where bisexuality was acceptable and ubiquitous.
Bottom line: Most people have a capacity, absent societal norms, for any type of sexual expression.
It's a choice.
"This statement was in the script for the 10th grade curriculum when it was presented to the BOE prior to the January vote to move ahead with the piloting. At that January 9 meeting, Betsy Brown, MCPS Director of Curriculum and Instruction, presented the the curriculum. She said that her staff had added the sentence about sexual orientation which was already in the 10th grade curriculum to the 8th grade curriculum solely for the purpose of bringing the two into line with one another.
Let's review the facts:
The curriculum states that sexual orientation - all sexual orientation - is innate and complex.
This statement was placed in the curriculum by the MCPS professional staff who write curriculum.
The BOE, under the leadership of President Nancy Navarro, approved the curriculum as presented for piloting by Betsy Brown.
Neither TTF nor Patricia O'Neill "inserted an assertion" on homosexuality."
The statement was removed by Jerry Weast. It was inserted back in at the last minute on a "oh, by the way" motion by O'Neill.
Anonymous said "No one asked him to lie about anything. They made policy decisions on what moral positions our government would support."
They lied by ommission. He presented facts and left it up to them to formulate the policy. Their suppression of the facts was a lie to promote a policy that they knew the public would be less likely to support if they knew the facts.
Anonymous said "Hey, keep in mind ab vs comp sex ed is not a science question. It is an educational one.".
Don't be absurd, of course its a scientific question. The question is which program best achieves the goals of protecting people and only science can answer that question. The religionists want to choose the answer first and then hide the evidence that contradicts them.
Anonymous said "Stem cell and Plan B aren't scientific questions either but ethical ones concerning how much we value the life of the weak.".
A small group of undifferentiated cells isn't a person by any stretch of the immagination. It can't think, act, feel pain, or do anything associate with being a person. These stem cells are being destroyed anyway as a normal part of invitro fertilization procedures, they may as well be put to a productive use that may benefit people. This most certainly is a scientific issue.
Anonymous said "The whole spiel is misleading though. It gives the impression that there are two orientations and you can't be fulfilled unless you can express this in-born orientation.".
Actually there are three orientations, gay, straight, and bisexual. And if one totally suppresses their in-born orientation one most certainly will not experience all the happiness and joy they are entitled to.
Anonymous said "Some innate traits factor in but are not significant. If your identical twin has this tilt, you're more likely to have it than the general population but you're still likely to not be homosexual.".
If the innate trates were not significant it would be a simple matter to change orientations and its clear that virtually no one can do this. Studies of identical twins show that if one is gay there is a 50% chance the other is gay as well. Given that there is a strong tendency to deny being gay odds are that this number is very low compared to the reality.
Anonymous said "Bottom line: Most people have a capacity, absent societal norms, for any type of sexual expression. It's a choice.".
No one chooses the attractions they feel. It is impossible to stop feeling same sex attracted if that's who you are. Only bisexuals can to any degree be considered to choose who they might want to be with and even if we choose an opposite sex mate we still have no choice but to feel same sex attactions.
Most bisexuals due to societal pressure choose to live heterosexually. Those that we see as gays are the people who are at the extreme gay end of the scale and cannot choose opposite sex partners. The number of people we see with same sex partners is at the absolute minimum it can be and this number cannot be reduced further. Societal attempts to do this are violence against that group and totally immoral.
As for bisexuals, we are happiest when we are free to accept whomever we happen to fall in love with as our partners. No one chooses who they fall in love with and to tell bisexuals that they must for the sake of the whimsical desires of others forgoe any same sex love is a hateful interference in our lives. If I had listened to this nonsense I'd have spent have my life with out love. I don't owe it to any bigot to do that.
Let's make it simple for you, Randi. You guys worship scientific organizations. Here's what two of your favorites say:
-The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."
The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people." However, it states that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.
Note that neither say it is inborn, which is the definition of innate. By saying "early age", APA is saying it is determined by something after birth. Some gentic traits may factor in but, in the words of esteemed scientist Francis Collins, they constitute a "predisposition not a predetermination".
The MSPS curriculum is false.
Anonymous, in his posts at 1:22 and the one after that outdoes himself in his ongoing attempt to be rude and annoying.
You do your arguments little good, dearest anon, by being impolite and obnoxious. My assumption is that the arguments themselves are not your major interest, but rather you blog mostly to employ the rudeness you so frequently exhibit.
andrea-not anon
GA makes his usual illogical connections and inserts CRC like lies. That is why it is useless to answer him directly.
I see another champion of conservative family values was buying sex but now he says it is all okay with his wife and God. I don't know about his wife but I am so glad that he, like Ted Haggard, have made it alright with the Lord. I really admire these lowlifes their ability to make claims about God
"You do your arguments little good"
They aren't arguments, Robert. They're facts. Sexual preference is not innate, according to scientific associations, scientific studies, scientific researchers and scientific common sense.
See above posts.
Give it up, Anonymous! You are so tiresome and boring...constant reiteration of the same old thing. Get your own Blog and chatter away as much as you like, but I - for one - am growing extremely weary of your rants and pathetic moanings on TTF's site. And where, pray tell, did you get the facts to substantiate this latest stupidity: "Hey, keep in mind ab vs comp sex ed is not a science question. It is an educational one. It is the sole thing that the teaching establishment tries to say that they can't teach." the teaching "establishment" tries to say they can't teach what? Abstinence? Comprehensive sex ed? what a ludicrous statement!! You do not engage in dialogue; you demean the process. Perhaps the CRC web site would be a better "choice" for you as a place to spout your inanities.
Rob
Anonymous said "Hey, keep in mind ab vs comp sex ed is not a science question. It is an educational one.".
It is absolutely a science question: does the information one teach have a direct effect on a person's likelihood to engage in pre-maritial sex (initiation of sexual activity), and in their likelihood to engage in unsafe sexual practices when they decide to become sexually active. Each of these questions are evaluated (science), and the research is now overwhelmingly conclusive. Ab plus education protects people much more than ab only education. In fact, ab only has been shown to be more harmful given that folks in these classes are much more likely to engage in unsafe behavior (no condom use), than those who are taught abstinence plus.
Anonymous, genetic, and hormonal factors are innate and so can be environmental influences. Environment doesn't refer exclsively to upbringing, it refers to the biological environment as well. If being gay weren't innate mothers who have same chromosone deactivation wouldn't be more likely to have gay sons. Study after study points to biological causes to being gay, any one of them might not prove it by itself, but taken as a whole the the evidence is overwhemlming. The more older brothers a man has the more likely he is to be gay whether he lives with them or not, this wouldn't be the case if being gay wasn't innate. Brain structures in gay men resemble those in heterosexual women, not gay men. Gay men have similar eyeblink rates, startle response, and hearing acuity to heterosexual women, not men and lesbians are similar to heterosexual men and not women. Gay men are better at verbal skills, like heterosexual women, lesbians have stronger spatial skills, like heteroesexual men, gays have different finger lengths and fingerprint patterns than heterosexuals, gay men react like heterosexual women to pheremones and produce a smell that is different then heterosexual men. If being gay weren't innate this wouldn't be true. Videos of young children show that they can be identified as gay or straight consistently by adults who don't know what their orientation as adults turned out to be. Gay men are more likely to be left handed, once again this points to being gay as biological.
Anonymous said "Sexual preference is not innate, according to scientific associations, scientific studies, scientific researchers and scientific common sense.".
None of those organizations said that and more and more scientists are accepting that its inescapable that being gay is innate. There are no scientific studies showing it isn't. Scientific common sense is that if being gay were the result of upbringing and a choice there would be no gay people in disapproving societies. This is obviously not the case.
Randi, you can talk about all these biological traits with correlation to gayness but the one that completely sinks the idea that gayness is an innate predetermination is the identical twin study. For one thing, it is the only replicated study. Also, the identical twins have the same genes and same prenatal environment. If gayness were an innate predetermination, there would be a 100% correlation. As it is, Francis Collins is correct that it is a predisposition not a predetermination. The remaining factors must be post-birth and not innate.
Sorry if that bursts a propaganda bubble for you but you've always got the whole "it's immoral to discourage me from doing whatever I feel like" line.
Back to the fallacy that Patricia O'Neill and TTF "inserted" statements into the curriculum at the January 9th meeting.
le sigh.
Patricia O'Neill proposed that the teacher resources be amended to include a statement that Psychologists and Psychiatrists agree that homosexuality is not an illness. The proposal was defeated by majority vote.
Steve Abrams proposed that the curriculum be amended to say that recent research suggests that sexual orientation in animals can be changed. That proposal was defeated by majority vote.
Sarah Horvitz proposed that the curriculum be amended to add a statement noting that a fleeting attraction to a person of the same sex does not mean that a person is gay. That proposal was defeated by majority vote.
After lengthy discussion the BOE voted to approve the curriculum as presented by Betsy Brown, including the statement on orientation which was inserted by her staff prior to the meeting.
The final curriculum contains an amendment to the teacher resources directing teachers to say that the American Psychological Association does not consider homosexuality to be a disease or a disorder, only if a student asks if homosexuality is an illness. that amendment was proposed in June by Jerry Weast and approved by the BOE by majority vote.
Beginning next week, a task force set up by the American Psychological Association (APA) will begin reviewing the organization's 10-year-old policy on homosexuality, which opposes counseling that treats same-sex attraction as a mental illness, but does not forbid various therapies that address unwanted same-sex attraction.
Focus on the Family has joined more than 250 pro-family organizations and individuals in urging the APA to recognize the religious beliefs of clients and to allow those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction to receive therapy. The letter is signed by the Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, the American Association of Christian Counselors, the National Board of Christian Clinical Therapists and more than 22 higher-education institutions.
"We believe that psychologists should assist clients to develop lives that they value, even if that means they decline to identify as homosexual," said the letter, which represents about 20 million Americans. It requests a meeting with APA leaders.
Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College near Pittsburgh, was denied a seat on the task force.
"We work with clients to pursue their chosen values," he told The Associated Press. "If they are core, unwavering commitments to their religious belief, therapists should not try to persuade them differently under the guise of science."
Rhea Farberman, spokeswoman for the APA, told Family News in Focus, "There's a growing recognition amongst our membership and our governance that religion is important to many people and an important part of mental health for many people."
But Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family Action, said she believes the APA "is on a path to religious discrimination."
"Based on the charge to the task force," she said, "one possible outcome is that the APA will declare any therapy that does not affirm homosexuality as unethical — regardless of the client's goal. This would be a slap in the face to millions of Americans who hold religious and moral views on homosexuality.
"This resolution challenges the APA to be tolerant and open-minded in its views. The APA's track record on this is not good, but this is an opportunity for the APA to put the clinical goals of clients ahead of the political demands of homosexual activists."
Tish writes:
"[In January 2007], Patricia O'Neill proposed that the teacher resources be amended to include a statement that Psychologists and Psychiatrists agree that homosexuality is not an illness. The proposal was defeated by majority vote."
Actually, the vote was 4-4 -- but without a majority, the motion failed. During the discussion, however, three of the four Board members who did not vote for the amendment (Navarro, Cox, and Barclay) indicated that they might reconsider following the field-testing. True to their word, they did: All members but Steve Abrams voted for the final proposal which included the addition. (Student Member Horvitz, who voted for it in January, did not attend the June meeting.)
Anon, you are truly a dolt. How many times have people on this blog had to educate you in the analysis of twin studies? You just never listen.
Go online and discover for yourself the statistical analysis of twin studies, and you may finally stop boring us with your rants.
"Anon, you are truly a dolt. How many times have people on this blog had to educate you in the analysis of twin studies? You just never listen."
If you got some point make it. I heard Collins say this same thing. Does he understand science well enough?
You heard Collins discuss the statistical analysis of twin studies? Really? Please enlighten us.
Well, I read an interview where he discussed the twin studies. He spoke about the fact that there isn't a 100% correlation. Here's a quote from TTF's very own blog:
"Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, has written that "whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.""
You claim to have educated me before. Please don't make me laugh. You haven't given any explanation at all why there isn't 100% correlation. You simply hide behind the veil of your medical credentials and claim it is simply too arcane for the layman to understand. Malarkey.
If two people have the same genes and have had the same prenatal environment and yet half of them don't have the same sexual preference, it indicates that the final determination of sexual preference, while influenced by either genes or the environment, is based on something that happens after birth.
If this is wrong, please explain why. I know the rest of us don't have your special insight into the mystical world of science but give it a shot.
"Just as our military is under civilian authority, so too is our scientific establishment."
Interesting proposition, and thankfully, inaccurate. "Our scientific establishment", meaning, I suppose, that those scientists on the federal payroll (or dependent upon federal grants, must look to this President for approval of their research). That is only the case for certain scientists, and the result of this administrations' regressive policies is that those researchers are being marginalized in their ability to innovate, or even to keep pace with the rest of the scientific world.
By the way, the representation that "morning after" pills are abortifacients depends on acceptance of the proposition that conception happens in a moment. Many believe that conception is a process that includes implantation; accordingly, if no implantation is completed, no conception has occured, and no abortion is possible. The converse, which is disturbing to many of us, is that ANY form of contraception that interferes with implantation or the "natural" process of conception is effectively and morally the equivalent of (deliberate/medical)"abortion". I think that perspective is very much outside of the mainstream in this courtry, and most certainly in this county.
"They aren't arguments, Robert. They're facts. Sexual preference is not innate, according to scientific associations, scientific studies, scientific researchers and scientific common sense."
'They're facts, they're facts, they're facts: mommy, mommy, the mean queer boy keeps saying my facts aren't facts.'
I remember the woman in my church who insisted that Euclid's 5th postulate was a fact, and absolutely refused to believe in non-Euclidean Geometry, because it's a fact that parallel lines never cross.
Dearest anonymous, I keep reading your statements on genetics, and I conclude that you got A's in 7th grade science, but haven't studied genetics since then. You seem like a bright guy; I suggest you go on Amazon, search for a text on genetics, and read it. Otherwise, you simply make yourself look ill-informed and uneducated (or, perhaps, you say these things just to irritate people who know better).
Anyway, my point in the earlier post was that if you wanted to persuade people, or have a fruitful discussion, you would be polite. Instead, I think, you come on this blog because it gives you the opportunity to anonymously say unpleasant things about queer people, and unpleasant things to their friends. It's kind of fun to speculate about whether you're Matt Barber, Peter Labarbera, Robert Knight, or Peter Sprigg. I find it interesting in myself that I automatically assume you are male. All that chest-beating, I suppose.
rrjr
A bit of Biology 101: For every human trait they study, clinicians and biologists assemble what's called a "trait profile," the sum total of all the data they have gathered clinically (clinical research basically means research done through 1. questions and 2. empirical observation to answer the questions) about a trait. Researchers gather groups of subjects from different areas of the world, question them about their trait, observe the trait in them, and record the data. The various aspects of the trait are precisely described: gradations and variations in eye color are assessed, eye color's correlation or lack thereof with gender, geography, race, or age is noted, scientists observe the way eye color is passed down through generations—all of which are clues as to whether or not eye color is a biological trait. The data are summarized in papers and charts and published in the scientific literature. That, in sum, makes up the trait profile.
Here is the profile of a trait on which clinical research has been done for decades. It is taken from the published scientific literature. The trait should be rather obvious:
1) This human trait is referred to by biologists as a "stable bimorphism"— it shows up in all human populations as two orientations— expressed behaviorally.
2) The data clinicians have gathered says that around 92% of the population has the majority orientation, 8% has the minority orientation.
3) Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millennia.
4) The trait has no external physical, bodily signs. That means you can't tell a person's orientation by looking at them. And the minority orientation appears in all races and ethnic groups.
5) Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify an orientation is by observing the behavior or the reflex that expresses it. However—and this is crucial—
6) –because the trait itself is not a "behavior" but an internal, invisible orientation, those with the minority orientation can hide, usually due to coercion or social pressure, by behaving as if they had the majority orientation. Several decades ago, those with the minority orientation were frequently forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation— but internally the orientation remained the same and as social pressures have lifted, people with the minority orientation have been able to openly express it.
7) Clinical observation makes it clear that neither orientation of this trait is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological in any observable way.
8) Neither orientation is chosen.
9) Signs of one's orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three. And one's orientation probably has been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth.
These data indicated that the trait was biological, not social, in origin, so the clinicians systematically asked more questions. And these started revealing the genetic plans that lay underneath the trait:
10) Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their parents, demonstrating that the trait is not created by upbringing or society.
11) Twin studies show that pairs of identical twins, with their identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance of sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average rate of this trait in any given population— it's called the "background rate"—is just under 8%, while the twin rate is just above 12%, more than 50% higher.
12) This trait's incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population— about 27% higher—than it is in the female population. Many genetic diseases, for reasons we now understand pretty well, are higher in men than women.
13) Like the trait called eye color, the familial studies conducted by scientists show that the minority orientation clearly "runs in families," handed down from parent to child.
14) This pattern shows a "maternal effect," a classic telltale of a genetic trait. The minority orientation, when it is expressed in men, appears to be passed down through the mother.
Put all this data together, and you've created the trait profile. The trait just described is, of course, handedness.
Right-handedness is the majority orientation, left-handedness, the minority. It's handedness for which lefties are 27% more numerous in men than women, the background rate of left-handedness is 12% as opposed to 8%, and left-handedness is an un-chosen, immutable, internal, instinctive orientation; you can force left-handed people to write with their right hands as was regularly done up through the 1950s in Catholic schools where left-handedness was believed to be evil and a moral failing, but that's just behavior masking the true orientation.
It turns out that the trait profile for human handedness is astonishingly similar to a profile clinicians and geneticists have assembled of another human trait—sexual orientation. Heterosexuality, the majority orientation, accounts for roughly 95 percent of us, while homosexuality, the minority orientation, accounts for roughly 5 percent. (The "10 percent gay" figure has always been merely a statistical concoction of some overly-aggressive gay activists.) Clinical research clearly shows that homosexuality is heritable, like left-handedness. Neither trait correlates with any environmental factors. All the twin studies indicate biology. (Just to make it clear: Everyone agrees that being right- or left-handed is a biological trait, but probably there are some genes creating handedness and some non-genetic biological factors like hormones and neural structure. Which is why with many identical twins, one twin is right-handed and the other left-handed. The same for sexual orientation in identical twins. But—surprise—with sexual orientation, both twins share the trait homosexuality more often than they do left-handedness—yet no one would claim this is evidence that left-handedness is a "chosen alternative lifestyle" because left-handedness isn't seen as a moral issue—any more. It used to be. Then society changed.) The sexual orientation, like the handedness, of adopted children bears no relationship to that of adoptive parents (a powerful control demonstrating that environment is not a factor in creating sexual orientation). And both show a "maternal effect" pointing towards the X chromosome.
Read the full report here:
http://online.logcabin.org/assets/pdf/1-20-06-LEF-White-Paper-Booklet-2nd-Printing-FINAL.pdf
And read the TTF blog about it here:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/03/only-question-that-matters-read-it.html
PTA
Anon, start with this in Wikipedia and go from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study
The point is that there is rarely 100% concordance between identical twins on any complex trait (we're not talking about something as simple as eye color). Less than 100% does not mean that you have a choice -- it means there are epigenetic, transcriptional, translational, cytoplasmic, tissue, organ and general environmental factors that interact with the actual genetic exons that are responsible for traits.
Francis Collins knows this quite well. You still don't.
Anonymous said "identical twins have the same genes and same prenatal environment. If gayness were an innate predetermination, there would be a 100% correlation.".
Obviously you're wrong. Twins have different fingerprints and if what you said was correct than that'd have to be due to upbringing, which it obviously isn't. A certain security device uses facial heat patterns to recognize people and once again identical twins have distinct patterns. Often one identical twin is smaller than the other and there are frequently differences in appearance that many people can detect. I recently heard of a pair of twins in which one was born smaller than the other and this difference suddenly accelerated at puberty. The parents thought there was something wrong with the smaller twin but it turned out the larger one had giantism and its a life threatening condition for him.
Obviously even with identical twins there are innate differences. No one would suggest that any of these differences are caused by upbringing. While the genes may be identical the ultimate expression of them isn't necessarily so, and the natal environment isn't necessarily identical for both twins either, hence the frequent differences in birth weights.
There are animal studies where location in the litter in utero determines the sexual behavior of the pups after birth. There are subtle yet significant differences due to placement within the uterus. A female pup developing between two males will be exposed to higher than usual levels of testosterone and behave in a more masculine fashion, and vice versa.
To the Editor of The New York Times:
I am a scientist who traveled to and lived in Romania between 1980 and 1990 while the brutal Stalinist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, ruled the country during most of that period. Every scientist was required to cite both Ceausescus liberally in any papers they published or speeches they delivered. The Romanian secret police listened to every speech and scoured every scientific paper to make sure the rule was followed. Violations of the rule led to catastrophic occupational consequences for the scientist.
Your July 11 article recounting the requirement that President Bush’s name be mentioned three times on every page of speeches by Dr. Richard H. Carmona, the former surgeon general, was reminiscent of the Ceausescu government. But at least Dr. Carmona was not required to mention Laura Bush as well, so I guess that is some progress.
Frank Landy
New York, July 11, 2007
+++++++++++
Reading about the outrageous constraints and pressures placed on former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona to become a pamphleteer for the Bush administration, I find myself recalling our government’s callous response to Hurricane Katrina, its consistent stonewalling of investigations, its disinformation on Iraq — and wondering what country I live in: the pre-glasnost Soviet Union or the democracy painfully birthed by our forefathers more than two centuries ago. Geri Modell
North Plainfield, N.J., July 12, 2007
Dearest anonymous,
You seem to object, as do CRC, specifically to the term "innate."
I myself would prefer a word such as "intrinsic", "basic" or "fundamental." It's health class, not a study session for the SATs.
rrjr
Mikulski Questions Surgeon General Nominee’s Capability to Serve The Public
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, questioned President Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., on his ability to serve as the nation’s spokesman on medical and public health issues. As the Chief Medical Director at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 1990-1993, Dr. Holsinger had a hostile relationship with Senator Mikulski, then the Chairwoman of the Veterans Affairs-Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD) Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Mikulski focused her questions on the areas where they historically clashed – health care for women veterans and sexual harassment at VA medical facilities.
“Dr. Holsinger, we meet again. In our past experience with each other, we clashed on a number of issues. You resisted change and quality control, you were indifferent and dismissive,” said Senator Mikulski. “Yet, I believe we all change and that was 15 years ago. So I want to ask you – have you changed? What can I count on has changed with you since that unfortunate time?”
At an April 17, 1991, VA-HUD hearing, as the system was being criticized for widespread negligence in veteran health care, Dr. Holsinger refused to adopt national laboratory standards at the VA. At the time, there was a 40 percent error rate for pap smears across the country. When pressed by Chairwoman Mikulski, Holsinger stated that “we do not read pap smears that often.”
“When you were at the VA, you were an apologist for the second class treatment that women were receiving and put aside efforts to better care for women veterans in VA medical facilities,” said Senator Mikulski today. “How would you act differently as Surgeon General? How will you be the nation’s advocate for improving women’s health?”
In early 1993, news reports uncovered that sexual harassment complaints were not being addressed at a VA hospital in Atlanta, and had been ignored for nearly a decade. Dr. Holsinger remained silent following the news, although the Washington Post reported in a February 26, 1993, article that his solution was to “transfer the accused men.”
“Instead of rigorously investigating numerous sexual harassment complaints within the VA, you were dismissive and adopted a culture of silence,” said Senator Mikulski. “You have now been nominated for a position that must provide leadership in promoting health initiatives and serve as a highly recognized symbol of national commitment to protecting and improving the public’s health. You did not demonstrate this leadership previously, how will you do it now?”
A date has not yet been set for the HELP Committee’s confirmation vote on Dr. Holsinger.
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=278813
Post a Comment
<< Home