Forgive me for being late to the game on this but I shared James’ uncertainty about what the study’s point. But taking another look at it, it seems to be a compiling of the data of several decades’ clinical experience that makes no “therefore” claims. I think the study is valuable since Johns Hopkins was, if I remember correctly, one of the very first institutions to enter the gender re-assignment market, and a number of providers there are now simply sharing results.

I am NOT a mental health professional, but I did work in a mental health facility for several years in an administrative role, and the DSM IV was fairly new. Some people had primary and other diagnoses from the era of the DSM III, and it seems that homosexuality was seen as a co-occurring disorder very often. I leave it to the mental health experts, but what comes out of Johns Hopkins of late regarding the sexual alphabet and progressivism’s relentless “normalization” suggests that the older approach might have been on to something. Yes, this means treating many or most of the LBGTQ’s predilections as disorders, but if they are disorders, and if the data compiled in this study is correct, then it would seem to be a good deal more humane to allow, at the very least, doctors and clinicians to approach them as such.

wholeheartedly agree with your stance Fr. Hans. This article made me think of a conversation I had with an individual a couple of years ago who hit the point home about liberal overreach.

Imagine if they can prove that an unborn child has a proclivity toward homosexuality. Similar to current testing like Downs Syndrome and Trisomy 18. Does the woman have the right to an abortion because she doesn’t want a child who is homosexual?
It’s compelling that they can’t find scientific evidence supporting the “born this way” argument. Because even if they did, would the community as a whole be made even worse off by their own ideologies?

It’s ironic isn’t it that the “in the closet” accommodation where homosexuality was tolerated in ways that did not allow for activism created a physically healthier environment for the homosexual than the full-throated acceptance that Gay INC demands of everyone today?

For that reason it was better to keep homosexual activists away from children, especially teens although today that cat is clearly out of the bag. Social stigma against same-sex behaviors has been successfully demolished but disease rates, suicide rates, etc. continue to increase. “Toleration” has moved to legal enforcement which means these rates will probably go even higher. The diseases are endemic to the life style and cannot be attributed to anything else but the behavior for much longer.

The summary.

But I tried to sift through the study itself, and it appears to be as inconclusive as the summary. It acknowledges that social stigma may be the cause of some of the dysfunctional behavior of some gay men and women but that it’s not the only reason. It then declines to say what those other reasons are (or did I miss them?). Its point is that “Gay folks are more likely to be messed up”.

Okay. That may be true, but now what?

Honestly, I’m wary of statistical studies because they’re often misused, and they often see cause where there is only correlation. I could point to the fact that blacks account for a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. But what do we make of it? It is possible that blacks are simply penalized more frequently and harshly for the same crimes committed by whites. It’s also possible that there are very specific cultural factors at play in the US that don’t exist in other countries (such as the prevalence of gangs within some communities).

I didn’t see the study as egregiously biased in any way. I’m just unclear on what it was trying to assert should be the approach in clinical or social terms.

Do we insist that reparative therapy be the only form of treatment acceptable by the psychiatric community, or do we instead seek to remove the social stigma surrounding homosexuality? Do we treat homosexuality or gender identity disorder as purely a reactive (and negative) response to some other life event (such as abuse or molestation) or is it more fundamental than that?

As a side note, I will say that I absolutely agree that there is an unfortunate willingness on the part of those in education (teachers, advisors, etc) to error on the side of permissiveness in regards to transgender identity issues. Part of it is the success of the far Left in labeling anyone who dissents as unthinking bigots. It’s a real problem, because the reality is that true gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Many (perhaps the majority) of individuals who experience this as youths grow out of it. Meanwhile, the various forms of medical intervention used in “treating” such people is invasive, risky and sometimes irreversible. Anyone medical or psychological professional who pushes this on minors should have their license revoked.

James, did you read the study? Or are you just commenting on the summary?

First of all, let’s not make the common error of lumping gender dysphoria and homosexuality together: from a psychological perspective, they’re not really related. One has to do with how one perceives oneself, the other more about one’s attractions. Some gay men are hyper-masculine, actually. There’s a bit of contention within the “LGBT” community regarding this.

In terms of substance abuse, I’m not sure what the writer is suggesting. Does choosing to act out on one’s gender or sexual impulses make one more likely to engage in dangerous behaviors, or does simply having these orientations mean that one will necessarily be more prone to engage in drug abuse and the like? If the latter, there’s really nothing one can do, is there? One can choose one’s behavior, but we can’t choose our involuntary and innate drives and desires. They are what they are.

“Quite simply, a girl wearing jeans and playing with trucks or a boy who enjoys playing dolls with his sister will not inevitably grow up gender-confused ”

Amen to that, but doesn’t this imply that parents should be less rigid about enforcing traditional gender roles? After all, a boy who prefers cooking and crafts to bikes and wrestling will still most likely grow up to be heterosexual. Yet, when I read the parenting advice of some conservative Christians (the books of James Dobson of Focus on the Family come to mind), it seems that many want boys to be coerced into football and “manly” endeavors and for girls to be encouraged to learn how to sew and iron. This is probably counter-productive and more likely to lead the child to wrongly conclude that they’re not the “right” gender.