Tag Archives: Lesbian

by

The Transgender Movement: A Comprehensive Review

See the source image

While I was in the process of writing a number of articles on the homosexual movement (click HERE), some of my friends kept asking me if/when I was going to write similarly about the transgender movement. At the time, I was not sufficiently motivated to read up on that topic and publish on it here. However, current events have forced my hand, so I spent a considerable amount of time doing the “library research” in anticipation of publishing a somewhat comprehensive article of my own on the topic. However, after I had begun writing, I ran across an excellent, fully comprehensive and scholarly article published recently by the Family Research Council. So, I decided that everyone would be best served if I simply reposted their article here in its entirety. I strongly recommend that you use the link at the end of this article to access the PDF version of the article, which includes all of the 144 references cited and other important information not included here.

Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement

By Dale O’Leary and Peter Sprigg

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY **

Introduction

In recent decades, there has been an assault on the sexes. That is, there has been an attack on the previously undisputed reality that human beings are created either male or female; that there are significant differences between the sexes; and that those differences result in at least some differences in the roles played by men and women in society.

The first wave of this attack came from the modern feminist movement and the second from the homosexual movement. The third wave of this assault on the sexes has been an attack on a basic reality–that all people have a biological sex, identifiable at birth and immutable through life, which makes them either male or female.

The third wave ideology is known as the “transgender” movement. This paper offers a description and critique of that movement and ideology. Part I addresses the psychological and medical issues involved; Part II will address the public policy issues.

Part I: Gender vs. Sex

According to the new gender ideology, the word “sex” is restricted to the biological, while “gender” describes the social and cultural manifestation of sex: how a person feels and experiences his or her sexual identity and how it is shaped by culture.

If individuals are unhappy because they want to be the sex they were not born, they are, according to the American Psychiatric Association, suffering from “gender dysphoria.” Some believe they were born with the body of one sex and the psyche of the other and want their bodies changed to match their internal “wiring.” They want to convince others to see them as the other sex.

Family Research Council (FRC) affirms what has been accepted as both normative and indisputable: that the truth about sexual differences is objectively knowable and that redefining it will be harmful.

Sidebar: Intersex Conditions

A misleading distraction frequently is raised in the context of this issue. A tiny percentage of people suffer from disorders of sexual development (DSD), sometimes referred to as an intersex condition (or as hermaphroditism). True hermaphrodites — those in whom sexual anatomy is ambiguous or clearly conflicts with their chromosomal make-up — are rare, estimated by one expert as “occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 live births.” The vast majority of “transgender” individuals are not “intersexed.”

No one can change his or her sex.

No one can change his or her sex. The DNA in every cell in the body is marked clearly male or female. Hormones circulating in an unborn child’s brain and body shape his or her development. Psychiatrists and surgeons who have served transsexual clients know surgery does not change sex. George Burou, a Moroccan physician, admitted: “I don’t change men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a female aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s mind.”

Transgender terminology

In this new era of deconstructing and redefining human sexuality, a new set of vocabulary emerges. One pro-transgender activist group has issued a glossary of terms and definitions, explaining the differences between terms such as transgender, transsexual, and transvestite [or cross-dresser].

“Gender Identity Disorder” Becomes “Gender Dysphoria”

Transgender activists, following the example of the homosexual activists in the 1970’s, have objected to having their condition labeled a “disorder.” They successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to have the diagnosis of “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) changed to “Gender Dysphoria.”

Consequentially, the revised language in the APA’s 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) says, “Gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender.” But, to avoid the stigma transgender activists say they wish to discourage, why not simply remove the diagnosis from the DSM altogether, as was done with homosexuality? The APA says, “To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis.”

Causes of “Gender Dysphoria”

Family Research Council believes that it is politics, not science, which has driven the conclusion that such a condition is not inherently “disordered” and is only problematic if it causes subjective distress.

Sander Breiner, a psychiatrist with clinical experience working with transsexuals at Michigan’s Wayne State University, declares, “[W]hen an adult who is normal in appearance and functioning believes there is something ugly or defective in their appearance that needs to be changed, it is clear that there is a psychological problem of some significance.” Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, has declared bluntly, “It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body.” Another psychiatrist, Rick Fitzgibbons, describes gender dysphoria as “a fixed false belief . . . [which is a manifestation] of a serious thinking disorder, specifically a delusion.”

What, then, causes a person to experience such “dysphoria?” While causality is difficult to determine, the transgendered are more likely to have been victims of child sexual abuse and to have a history of trauma, loss, and family disruption.

Patterns of Transgender Desires

There are three major patterns of transgender desire.

1) Males with childhood GID, who are usually sexually attracted to men.

2) Secret transvestites (also known by some researchers as “autogynephiles”)

3) Females with childhood GID, who are usually sexually attracted to women.

Gender Dysphoria in Children

Susan Bradley, M.D., of the University of Toronto, has worked extensively with children with gender identity disorder (GID). She regards GID as one of a number of attachment disorders. Bradley and Kenneth J. Zucker, two of the world’s leading experts in GID in children, have declared that “clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.”

Even without treatment, the cross-gender behavior generally resolves itself in either self-identification as homosexual or heterosexual. Roughly 75 percent will later self-identify as gay or lesbian. Only a tiny percent will become transsexual. However, today trans-positive therapists encourage parents to accept GID as normal and allow the child to live as the other sex. As the child matures the therapists prescribe puberty blocking drugs, preparing the child for a total sex change.

Social acceptance is seen as a panacea, but there is no evidence these children will avoid the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification, including higher rates of suicide attempts, completed suicides, overall mortality, and need for psychiatric inpatient care. Zucker and Bradley view failure to treat children in an effort to prevent a transsexual outcome as “irresponsible.” Referring to medical interventions to block puberty in gender-variant children, Dr. McHugh of Johns Hopkins says bluntly, “This is child abuse.”

Who Gets Approved for “Gender Reassignment”?

An association of doctors who perform gender reassignment surgery, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), has developed Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders. Transgender persons seeking hormone therapy or surgery are supposed to be examined for undiagnosed disorders of sexual development or co-morbid psychological disorders. While the former (DSD) are rare, the latter are common yet necessary and appropriate psychotherapy may not always be offered, and may be resisted by clients determined to obtain surgery. In addition, only a handful of doctors in the U.S. actually perform gender reassignment surgery, leading some transgender people to seek it in other countries, such as Thailand, where conditions are more lenient.

Gender Reassignment Surgery

Full transition involves hormone treatments, breast surgery (removal or implants), other cosmetic surgery, genital reconstruction, and a change of personal identification. However, not every person seeking to live as the other sex will decide to have full reconstructive surgery.

Problems after Surgery

Gender reassignment surgery often does not achieve what patients hope for. Transgender individuals want to “pass” as the other sex. According to a large study of transgendered persons, only 21 percent are able to “pass” all the time.

The surgical procedures are not always successful and can be extremely painful. A lifetime of hormone treatments can also have profound physical and psychological consequences. Jon Meyer, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavior Science at Johns Hopkins University, concluded, “My personal feeling is that surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder and it is clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that do not go away following surgery.”

However, not all those who demand that society recognize them as the other sex have or even intend to have surgical alterations to their bodies. The position of transgender activists is that people should be recognized as belonging to whatever gender they choose, regardless of the physical condition of their bodies.

High-Risk Behavior

Transgender people are more likely than the general public to engage in high-risk behaviors, which may result from or contribute to psychological disorders (or both). Some of the high-risk behavior is directly related to their desire to change sex. For example, some transsexuals self-mutilate or undergo procedures in non-medical settings. Others engage in high-risk sexual behavior such as prostitution, which places them at risk.

High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology. Ironically, however, some applicants threaten suicide or self-mutilation as an argument for the approval of surgery.

“GenderQueer” vs. “the Gender Binary”

To most Americans, it may seem radical to assert that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. However, the transgender movement has moved into even more radical territory–attacking what they call “the gender binary,” that is, the idea that everyone should identify as either male or female. Those who adopt this approach sometimes refer to themselves as “genderqueer.”

One of the reasons for the rise of “genderqueer” is that the state of being transgendered is extremely unstable. One source listed over 70 different gender identities.

Rebellion against Reality

Transgender activists blame their problems on “transphobia.” Feminist author Janice Raymond says, “I accept the fact that transsexuals have suffered an enormous amount of psychical and emotional pain. But I don’t accept the fact that someone’s desire to be a woman, or a man, makes one a woman or man.” She refers to “transsexualism” as “the falsification of reality.” Terri Webb was a transgender activist who came to the conclusion that her activism was little more than “an unsuccessful attempt to get others to legitimize my fantasy.”

Mental Health Treatment Options for Gender Identity Issues

A psychologically healthy person accepts the reality of his or her sexual identity. Grief, discomfort, and anger over one’s genetic makeup signal problems that can and should be addressed through counseling. The academic literature includes some clinical accounts of successful efforts to overcome gender identity problems.

Decades ago, there were already findings pointing “to the possibility of psychosocial intervention as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of transsexualism.” One of the most unfortunate results of the transgender movement is that this possibility has not been more thoroughly explored and developed.

Part II: Public Policy Implications of the Transgender Movement

1) Should the government itself (local, state, and/or federal) accept and recognize so-called changes in someone’s sex or “gender identity?”

Sex is a biological reality, and is immutable. In reality, a “sex change” is impossible. Biological sex is a more fundamental, more important, and more accurate measure of a person’s intrinsic identity than the purely subjective and often shifting concept of “gender identity.” Ideally, the law would forbid government recognition in any way (whether on birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, or any other government-issued identification) of any change in an individual’s biological sex as identified at birth.

In states where such recognition is too deeply entrenched in the law or in judicial precedent for policy-makers to have a serious hope of undoing it, such recognition should be limited to cases where gender reassignment surgery already has been performed. Policy-makers should strenuously resist efforts to legally recognize changes of sex or “gender identity” that are based only on personal choice, psychological feelings, or social experience, rather than on a physical change.

2) Should the government force other, private entities to accept and recognize so-called “sex changes” through the use of non-discrimination laws that include “gender identity” as a protected category?

This question relates to the efforts to pass laws or ordinances at the local, state, and federal level which would outlaw “discrimination” on the basis of so-called “gender identity” in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and business transactions.

Some of the bills or laws that seek to protect “gender identity” acknowledge the importance of appearance, dress and grooming standards in the workplace. However, most ordinary Americans would consider dressing in ways that are culturally appropriate for one’s biological sex to be the most fundamental “appearance, grooming, and dress standard” that could be conceived of.

“Bathroom Bills”

The most extreme application of the principle of “non-discrimination” based on “gender identity” would be to the use of gender-separated restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Even former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the homosexual Congressman who sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), acknowledged that what transgender activists want “is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Here are some additional reasons to oppose laws purporting to outlaw “discrimination” based on “gender identity:”

  • Such laws increase government interference in the free market.
  • “Gender identity” is unlike other immutable characteristics protected in civil rights laws.
  • Such laws would lead to costly lawsuits against employers.
  • Such laws mandate the employment of “transgendered” individuals in inappropriate occupations, such as education.

3) Should the government pay for medical treatment designed to create the appearance one is other than the sex he or she was born?

One context in which taxpayers could be forced to pay for “gender reassignment” procedures is through the health insurance provided for public employees. Another avenue is government health insurance programs for the poor and the elderly (Medicaid and Medicare). On May 4, 2015, the federal courts decided a claim by a convicted murderer that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections should pay for his gender reassignment surgery–and that failure to do so was “cruel and unusual punishment.” Fortunately, the court rejected that claim.

Government should not pay for gender reassignment (hormone treatments and surgery). Such treatments–involving, as they do, the amputation of healthy body parts–are, arguably, a violation of medical ethics. These are elective procedures rather than necessary health care–just like any other form of cosmetic or plastic surgery.

4) Should the government force other entities to pay for changes in sexual appearance?

The Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) has greatly expanded the role of the federal government in dictating to insurance companies (and those who purchase insurance policies, whether employers or individuals) what must be included in those policies. There is no explicit “sex change” mandate in Obamacare. However, some aspects of the law have increased the chances that insurance companies will offer such coverage. Late in 2014, the state of New York imposed a mandate upon insurance companies throughout the state to fund sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

5) Should the federal government permit “transgender” individuals to serve in the military as their preferred sex?

Historically, transgendered persons have not been permitted to serve in the U.S. military. Transgender status has been considered a disqualifying psychiatric condition, and having had gender reassignment surgery has been a disqualifying physical condition. However, transgender activists are pushing for a change to the policy.

The story of America’s most famous transgender service member tends to reinforce concerns that such individuals are not fit for military service. Bradley Manning is the soldier convicted of espionage in 2013 for turning over confidential documents to the website Wikileaks. The day after Manning was sentenced to prison, he “came out” as transgendered.

Conclusions

A person’s sex (male or female) is an immutable biological reality. In the vast majority of people (including those who later identify as “transgender”), it is unambiguously identifiable at birth. There is no rational or compassionate reason to affirm a distorted psychological self-concept that one’s “gender identity” is different from one’s biological sex.

Neither lawmakers nor counselors, pastors, teachers, nor medical professionals should participate in or reinforce the transgender movement’s lies about sexuality–nor should they be required by the government to support such distortion.

** The Executive Summary does not contain citations as these are embedded in the text of this paper.

Dale O’Leary is a freelance writer and lecturer and the author of The Gender Agenda and One Man, One Woman. Her blog can be found at daleoleary.wordpress.com.

Peter Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and the co-author of Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality and author of Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage.

Click here to download the entire article as a PDF, with 144 references and further details.

June 2015 Issue Analysis IS15F01

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

801 G STREET NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

http://www.frc.org

202-393-2100/fax 202-393-2134/(800)225-4008 order line

 

 

by

Homosexuality: Religiously Mediated Change

See the source image

Homosexuality: Religiously Mediated Change

James R. Aist

Contrary to the fallacious claims of gay activists, homosexual people can change their sexual orientation if sufficiently motivated, as evidenced by numerous personal testimonies (click HERE). I have briefly reviewed such change resulting from secular counseling and therapy (click HERE). In the present article, I focus on religiously mediated change, which has been around for a very long time and has been scientifically documented, as you will see. (Note: numbers in parentheses refer to numbered references at the end of the article.)

It’s important to realize, at the outset, that the God of the Bible wants to change homosexual people Himself, through the “name” (i.e., the power and authority) of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Bible (I Corinthians 6:9-11)! Interestingly, this is probably the first-ever published report of homosexual transformations. Now, Paul was well aware that the condition of homosexuality has two aspects: 1) same-sex attractions (SSA), which he described as “shameful lusts” and “inflamed with lust for one another” (Romans 1:26-27); and 2) the practice of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9). Thus, when Paul states “…that is what some of you were”. But you were washed…” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), he is not just speaking about the abandoning of homosexual practice (celibacy), but also the cessation of SSA. On the other hand, Paul did not say whether or not these particular transformed homosexual people became heterosexual. Moreover, Jesus himself wants homosexual people to be changed, else why would these Corinthian homosexual people have been changed through His power and authority? Jesus did not come to save us and our sins, but to save us from our sins.

More recent examples exist of religiously mediated change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation (1, 2). Here are some specifics of one of these studies. Pattison and Pattison (3) conducted a scientific study of 11 men who changed from exclusive and active homosexuality to exclusive or almost exclusive heterosexuality after converting to Christianity in a Pentecostal church fellowship. On the Kinsey 7-point sexual orientation scale, all subjects manifested major before-after changes. Eight of the 11 subjects became exclusively heterosexual. Although the men participated in prayer groups with heterosexual men and women, no effort was made to effect the change of sexual orientation. NARTH (4) has listed 24 autobiographies and 14 case histories of homosexual people who have undergone religiously mediated change from homosexual to heterosexual. Jones and Yarhouse (5) conducted a scientific study that was designed to meet high standards of empirical vigor and is perhaps the best scientific publication to date in this regard. They studied 61 subjects who completed the study, which included six independent assessments over a total time span of 6-7 years. Standardized, respected measures of sexual orientation were used. Of the 61 subjects, 23% reported successful conversion to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while another 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation. Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase of heterosexual attraction. The authors concluded that their results demonstrate meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes for some of the subjects. For comparison, a success rate of around 25%-30% is generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism (6, 7, 8).

Restored Hope Network is a membership-governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. They proclaim that Jesus Christ has life changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; they also seek to equip the church to impart that transformation. Their website (click HERE) is able to connect many with a nearby ministry that will offer help in overcoming homosexuality. Also, P.A.T.H. (click HERE) has a list of religious and secular organizations and ministries offering help for dissatisfied homosexuals seeking change. I can also recommend two online resources that will enable almost anyone, anywhere, to obtain Christ-centered help in overcoming unwanted homosexuality: Taking Back Ground (click HERE)  and  Reach Truth (click HERE).

References Cited:

  1. NARTH, 2012. 6) Religiously Mediated Change. (click HERE)
  2. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 9-39. (click HERE)
  3. Pattison, E.M. and M.L. Pattison. 1980. “Ex-Gays”: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry 137:1553-1562.
  4. NARTH. 2012. Autobiographies of Religiously Mediated Change. (click HERE)
  5. Jones, S. L. and M.A. Yarhouse. 2011. A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 37:404-427.
  6. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)
  7. Socarides, C.W. 1995. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix AZ.
  8. Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Hamewith Books/Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.

 

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY by Dr. Aist, click HERE.)

by

Homosexuality: Secularly Mediated Change

See the source image

Homosexuality: Secularly Mediated Change

James R. Aist

“Truth is not arrived at by wishful thinking or vacuous argument. It comes, instead, by careful examination of factual evidence.”

A comprehensive history of this topic was published by Phelan, et al. (1), and numerous personal testimonies of change are available online (click HERE). Many professional therapists have reported the clinical results of their own efforts to help dissatisfied homosexuals to change. The results presented by Socarides (7) seem to be representative of successful treatment therapy. Out of around 1,000 dissatisfied male homosexuals, about 35% became heterosexual (able to have complete, satisfactory sex with a woman and develop the capacity to really love her). Another 31% were able to control previously uncontrollable impulses toward same-sex sex (abstinence). The remaining 34% discontinued treatment for various reasons.

Satinover (2) compiled the results of nine outcome studies of clinical results reported in the 1950s through the 1980s. Out of a total of 341 dissatisfied homosexuals treated, success rates varied from 27% to 100%, where success was defined “as considerable to complete change.” In these reports, the average success rate was 52%. A range of reported success rates often reflects varying degrees of success with different therapy approaches; some approaches and some therapists are more effective than others.

Individual therapists have also reported long-term success in homosexual to heterosexual changes. Masters and Johnson (3) reported that 71.6% of their transformed homosexual subjects were still heterosexual after five years (when the study was terminated), indicating that these sexual orientation transformations represented long-term changes. Mayerson and Lief (4) found that 47% of their patients were functioning heterosexually after a mean follow-up period of four and a half years. And some transformed homosexuals were reported to have remained exclusively heterosexual for as long as 20 years (5)!

Surveys and meta-analyses also show the reality of secularly mediated change. Bieber et al. (6) is a good example. Out of 106 homosexual men in the studies they reviewed, 35 (33%) changed to exclusively heterosexual. And in a follow-up study conducted three years later on 15 of these formerly exclusively homosexual men (all those for whom data could be reclaimed), Socarides (7) found that 12 (80%) had remained exclusively heterosexual. Clippinger (8) reported similar results from 12 independent studies. Of 785 patients, 307 (38%) were “cured” (i.e., changed from homosexual to heterosexual). Goetze (9) conducted a carefully designed meta-analysis of the results of 17 studies. He determined Kinsey ratings before and after therapy and obtained follow-up information. Of 396 subjects who were exclusively or predominately homosexual, 283 (71.5%) experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation, 69 (17.4%) acquired heterosexual behavior and 44 (11.1%) experienced a full shift to heterosexual orientation. Thus, 28.5% (17.4% + 11.1%) became exclusively or predominately heterosexual.

Again, a success rate of around 25%-30% is generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism (2, 7, 10).

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (click HERE) is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. They have extensive published resources available and can provide referrals to treatment programs and professional, experienced therapists who also can provide compassionate guidance and support to help dissatisfied homosexual people in their journey out of homosexuality.

Conclusion: Despite the vacuous denials of gay activists and their heterosexual supporters, there is more than enough clinical evidence to establish the fact that professional, secular treatment of unwanted homosexuality can be successful at a rate comparable to that for psychological disorders and for behavioral problems, such as alcoholism.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY by Professor Aist, click HERE)

References Cited:

  1. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 9-39. (click HERE)
  2. Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Hamewith Books/Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.
  3. Masters, W. H. and V. E. Johnson. 1979. Homosexuality in Perspective. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.
  4. Mayerson, P., and Lief, H. 1965. Psychotherapy of homosexuals: a follow-up study. In, Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality, ed. J. Marmor. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Bieber, I. and T.B. Bieber. 1979. Male Homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 24: 409-421.
  6. Bieber, I., et al. 1962. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. Basic Books, New York.
  7. Socarides, C.W. 1995. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix AZ.
  8. Clippinger, J. 1974. Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy. 21:15-28.
  9. Goetze, R. 1997. Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: A Review of 17 Published Studies. Toronto Canada: New Directions for Life.
  10. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)
by

What Biological Theories of Homosexuality Cannot Explain

See the source image

What Biological Theories of Homosexuality Cannot Explain

James R. Aist

(Note: References are cited by number in parentheses and appear at the end of the article)

“Truth is not arrived at by wishful thinking or vacuous argument. It comes, instead, by careful examination of factual evidence.”

Since the early 1970s, gay activists have increasingly claimed that they were “born gay” and that, therefore, they could not change even if they wanted to. By repeating this claim over and over again for decades now, gay activists have managed to win over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their cause, without any substantial basis in fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.” “Born gay” is, in fact, a hoax of mammoth proportions. Therefore, it is necessary to examine carefully the facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim. Most of the relevant information can be grouped into two main categories: biological theories and social and environmental influences. The critical question is whether homosexuality is already determined at birth by biological factors and is immutable (unchangeable), or develops later as a result of post-natal experiences and influences during childhood.

There are several social and experiential factors that have been shown to play an important role in the development of homosexuality. Let’s take a quick look at a few of these post-natal factors, which cannot be explained by biological theories:

Childhood sexual abuse has been shown to be associated with the subsequent development of homosexuality in adulthood. Whitehead (8) lists eight relatively recent studies demonstrating this association. For example, in the article by Zeitsch, et al. (10), childhood sexual abuse was associated with an approximately two to three-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood.

Divorce during childhood has also been shown to be associated with the development of homosexuality in adulthood, as evidenced by homosexual “marriage.” For example, men whose parents divorced before their sixth birthday were 39% more likely to “marry” homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages, and the figure for men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years was in the range of 55%-76% (4). In a related study, Wells, et al., (7) found that cohabiting with two heterosexual, non-biological parents until the age of 16 was associated with a two-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood, compared to cohabiting with both biological parents.

Urban versus rural environment. Whitehead and Whitehead (9) pointed out that the percentage of homosexuality in males reared in urban environments is 3.3 times that of males reared in rural environments, while the corresponding factor for homosexuality in females reared in urban environments is 2.3 times, indicating a very strong influence of the urban environment, as opposed to the rural environment, on the development of homosexuality.

Homosexual parents. Schumm (5) found that adults with a homosexual parent are 12 to 15 times as likely to self-identify as homosexual or bisexual as are adults without a homosexual parent, which indicates that post-natal environmental factors associated with having a homosexual parent (such as having a homosexual adult role model and unequivocal acceptance of homosexuality in the home) can play a major role in the development of a homosexual orientation. These results confirmed those of an earlier, much aligned (by gay activists), meta-analysis conducted by Cameron (3), and they suggest a very powerful post-natal influence on the development of homosexuality.

Therapy and Counseling Influences. Aist (1) reviewed and summarized some of the published information on religiously mediated and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Numerous studies have shown that both religiously and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation occurs in highly motivated, dissatisfied homosexuals at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. And many studies have found that, for the most part, these are long-term, stable shifts in sexual orientation. In fact, many ex-gays have been happily married with children for several-to-many years. What is the significance of these results relative to the claim that homosexual people are born gay? First, they confirm that pre-natal influences, including genes, do not dictate sexual orientation, because very significant change in sexual orientation has been achieved through therapy and counseling. Such change would not be possible if sexual orientation were fixed at birth. And second, the fact that therapy and counseling are successful at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism, confirms that any predisposition to homosexuality that may be present at birth is so weak that it can be nullified by subsequent intervention. Socarides (6) put it this way: “As psychoanalysts and psychotherapists, we are treating obligatory homosexuality successfully, changing sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Such a change would be unthinkable if there were any truth at all to the organic or biological or hereditary causation of homosexuality.”

It is virtually impossible to envision how prenatal mechanisms could explain these post-natal associations of increased or decreased homosexuality that correlates with social and experiential factors. But it is easy to envision how these factors could account for the two-thirds or more of post-natal influence on homosexuality that is revealed by the results of twin studies (2).

References Cited:

  1. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!(click HERE)
  2. Aist, J. 2014. What Twin Studies Tell Us About Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture (click HERE)
  3. Cameron, P. 2006. Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual. Journal of Biosocial Science 38:413-418.
  4. Frisch, M. and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35:533-547.
  5. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.
  6. Socarides, C.W. 1995b. Exploding the myth of constitutional homosexuality. Narth Bulletin, Vol. III, Number 2, pages 17-18.
  7. Wells, J.E., et al. 2011. Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40:155-168.
  8. Whitehead, N. 2012. Book Review of Simon LeVay’s Gay, Straight and the Reason Why. (click HERE)
  9. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 2. The genetic implications of SSA population percentage. (click HERE)
  10. Zietsch, B., et al. 2012. Do Shared Etiological Factors Contribute to the Relationship between Sexual Orientation and Depression? Psychological Medicine 42:521-532.

(For more articles by Dr. Aist on homosexuality, click HERE.)