• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If your child's teacher did this, would you pull them from class?

No one recognizes yours either. :lol: I will not recognize something you won't show evidence of actually existing.

Your recognition is irrelevant. Plenty do. YOUR lack of credibility on this topic is well documented, so I don't expect you to recognize knowledge on this issue when you see it.
 
That is the point though... the brain (feelings) of a male who feels he is female... that is the disorder. It fits every part of this:

Psychological disorders, also known as mental disorders, are patterns of behavioral or psychological symptoms that impact multiple areas of life. These disorders create distress for the person experiencing these symptoms. The following list of psychological disorders includes some of the major categories of psychological disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as well as several examples of each type of psychological disorder.

List of Psychological Disorders

According to DSM-IV, people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of gender identity disorder.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf

The distress isn't being transsexual. The distress is how being transsexual feels. It's a difference between a causative connection and a correlational one. Not all transsexual suffer from GDD... and btw... GID is not longer a diagnosis.
 
FYI, I'm a huge fan of eugenics, I regularly defend eugenics, I point to the same features of mate selection that you referred to, in fact I generously donate to the Project Prevention charity, meaning I put my own money on the line, so I'm not the least bit squeamish about eugenics, but where I draw the line is in State selection and coercion in regards to sterilization. That was a Progressive project, so let's not muddy the water between that kind of negative eugenics and the positive eugenics of selecting the best mate you can, trying to minimize the incidence of crack babies, etc.

I guess I just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "eugenics." Had never heard of Project Prevention, so I Googled. Project Prevention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
People who are homosexual who suffer from depression are not depressed because they are homosexual. They are depressed because of other factors, social stigma, bigotry, or lack of equality, amongst others.

You don't understand science. You wouldn't have stated what you've stated if you had had even a smidgeon of training in the methods of science. You've stated an extremist view, the 100% environmental determinist viewpoint. What's worse is that it's a boilerplate political response, not even masquerading as psychological science. I don't believe you even understand psychology. Depression can be situational or clinical. You have no freaking proof that depression in homosexuals arises entirely from situational factors.

Scans of heterosexual and homosexual brains. Notice any differences?

homosexuality-brain-scan-image.png
 
Scans of heterosexual and homosexual brains. Notice any differences?

homosexuality-brain-scan-image.png

From a purely layman's view it would seem that the heterosexual of one gender is pretty much the same as the homosexual opposite gender, particularly in the left amygdala. Looks to me like heterosexual men and homosexual women are very much alike, as are heterosexual women and homosexual men, lending more credence to the idea that homosexuals naturally think and feel as their heterosexual gender opposites. Of course this is only from a 90 person study and they also left out Bi-sexuals. They always leave out the bi-sexuals. Why is that?

Of course what I don't understand is why would someone who's been professing to be against such things as TS and SSM and the like offering up evidence that supports the opposite position he holds.
 
Of course what I don't understand is why would someone who's been professing to be against such things as TS and SSM and the like offering up evidence that supports the opposite position he holds.

I don't see how any of this evidence weakens my argument but even if it did the selective presentation of evidence should not be practiced. If we're going to make positive claims, empirical claims, statements about reality, then we should be able to actually, you know, back up those claims. Relying on extremist views, like environmental determinism, should be ridiculed, especially when a "professional" trots out garbage like that.
 
I don't see how any of this evidence weakens my argument but even if it did the selective presentation of evidence should not be practiced. If we're going to make positive claims, empirical claims, statements about reality, then we should be able to actually, you know, back up those claims. Relying on extremist views, like environmental determinism, should be ridiculed, especially when a "professional" trots out garbage like that.

If the brain is naturally "wired" to be that opposite of the gender born, then which is the less dangerous correction to make: Rewiring the brain to match the body, or altering the body to match the brain. Of course, the scans are of straight vs gay which doesn't necessarily hold a bearing on gender identity.

That said, what CC is pointing out is that many TS's lose their symptoms of depression when they are able to live their lives as the gender they identify with, along with not receiving any or little negative stigma from doing so. That does not mean that there are not TS's out there who also have the general condition of Depression. Obviously, GRS will not alleviate that depression. But if the GRS does alleviate the depression then the cause was external and not internal. Same for homosexuality. Short of poor word choice on CC's part or poor interpretation on your part, CC is not trying to say that the only cause of depression in TS's is due to those around them being negative.
 
If the brain is naturally "wired" to be that opposite of the gender born.

You're taking that too far. You're seeing a difference, the difference has similarities to the brain of the opposite sex, with respect to homosexuals, but a similarity is not the same as identical. You can see that different areas of the brain are firing, not the exact same areas.

Rewiring the brain to match the body, or altering the body to match the brain. Of course, the scans are of straight vs gay which doesn't necessarily hold a bearing on gender identity.

With M/F TS the difference is even more noticeable - their brains aren't male and they're not female, they're halfway in between, so there's no basis in science to call these M/F transsexuals female or even female-brained. The only defensible nomenclature is "Not Male."

CC is not trying to say that the only cause of depression in TS's is due to those around them being negative.

He outright dismissed a genetic basis for depression in homosexuals - "People who are homosexual who suffer from depression are not depressed because they are homosexual. "
 
You're taking that too far. You're seeing a difference, the difference has similarities to the brain of the opposite sex, with respect to homosexuals, but a similarity is not the same as identical. You can see that different areas of the brain are firing, not the exact same areas.

No one is identical to anyone else so what's your point?

With M/F TS the difference is even more noticeable - their brains aren't male and they're not female, they're halfway in between, so there's no basis in science to call these M/F transsexuals female or even female-brained. The only defensible nomenclature is "Not Male."

When you use M/F here are you refering to a Male to Female transsexual or to Male and Females transexuals. It's a major difference. The most common for dealing with a specific type is MtF or FtM. M/F would seem to indicate you are including all transsexual as a whole.

He outright dismissed a genetic basis for depression in homosexuals - "People who are homosexual who suffer from depression are not depressed because they are homosexual. "

Which is quite true. Either they have the condition known as Depression, which they would have regardless of their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or what ever. Or they have it from external negativity that is directed at them for being homosexual. If that external negativity wasn't there then they would not be depressed. Thus homosexuality in and of it self is not a direct source of depression.
 
Of course it's not an exact science, but I've yet to see a non-professional's information trump that of a professional.

Really? Maybe the right setting hasn't occurred or maybe it is because the professional thinks they are right by the nature that they studied.

I am nobody special... I swear, but I have out lawyered lawyers a few times and come up with conclusions that my therapist considered spot on even though she missed it. I doubt I am unique in this either.

The distress isn't being transsexual. The distress is how being transsexual feels. It's a difference between a causative connection and a correlational one. Not all transsexual suffer from GDD... and btw... GID is not longer a diagnosis.

Yeah, I read that. Distress is in how they feel about how they will be or are treated. That would mean it is not a disorder, necessarily. They can also suffer from how they view themselves but all that is also how those with disorders feel. I actually am not concerned with what label the, or anybody, get. ADD isn't a disorder but it gets the label of one. A transsexual has serious mental, emotional and physical issues going on that are psychological in nature.
 
Which is quite true. Either they have the condition known as Depression, which they would have regardless of their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or what ever. Or they have it from external negativity that is directed at them for being homosexual. If that external negativity wasn't there then they would not be depressed. Thus homosexuality in and of it self is not a direct source of depression.

Think of it this way - your friend needs to get to Location A by 2 pm. He is currently at Location B. You are at Location A. He arrives at 2 pm. Do you now have enough information to determine which ROUTE he took to get from A to B? You don't. You know the route you always take, but there are multiple ways to get from A to B.

There is a phenomenon in genetics called pleiotropy:

Pleiotropy describes the genetic effect of a single gene on multiple phenotypic traits. The underlying mechanism is that the gene codes for a product that is, for example, used by various cells, or has a signaling function on various targets.​

Homosexuality rewires portions of the brain. The sexual orientation of homosexuality resides in the brain. It's entirely expected that MORE than just sexual orientation is affected by whatever change has occurred. The roots of clinical depression in homosexuals need not be entirely the same as seen in heterosexuals. For Pete's sake the brains of homosexuals are wired differently.

Here's a real life example of pleiotropy:

Belyaev chose the silver fox for his experiment; this species is related to the dog, but it is not domesticated. The initial foxes in Belyaev's experiment were not trained in any way, but simply tested for tameness at an early age. Starting at age one month, a human researcher would try to feed and pet the foxes, either alone or in the company of other foxes. The animals' responses varied from aggressive behaviors (such as biting), to indifference, to seeking interaction with the person more than with the other foxes. The tamest foxes were then selected for breeding the next generation, although fresh genes were supplied through continual outbreeding.

Belyaev and his colleagues did indeed create a population of foxes that differed in temperament and behavior from their wild cousins. The foxes changed physically as well, with alterations in coat color appearing as early as the eighth generation—typically a loss of pigment resulting in white patches. The foxes also developed floppy ears and curved tails, mirroring traits seen in dogs as well as other domesticated species (Figure 2).

One of Belyaev's hypotheses was therefore satisfied: Selecting for one trait (behavior) also changed other traits (here, aspects of the foxes' physical form).​

Whatever is causing homosexuality results in behavior which is noticeably expressed with regards to sexual orientation and so we classify homosexuals by their most salient characteristic. We should be expecting other behavioral or physical changes to ride alongside the change in sexual orientation. Depression is a likely candidate due to its high incidence in the community and the fact that even drastic changes in the socially constructed environment of adult homosexuals which either remove or attenuate the situational stressors doesn't result in a drastic lowering of depression. Now what happens if we examine the extremist 100% environmental determinist position across time? Society has gone from actively condemning homosexual and publicly shaming homosexuals to teens now actively seeking out young homosexuals so that they can use them as props to signal their own heightened tolerance. Homosexuality is celebrated on TV, enlightened liberals love to make a show of attending Gay Pride parades, etc - it doesn't matter how much the stigma and the environment has changed over the years, what's important is that there has been a change. If the environment has changed then we should expect to see some movement in the rate of situational depression in the homosexual community. Something. What do we see? Nothing. Between 1970 and 2002 the suicide rate amongst homosexuals remained constant despite the changing cultural conditions. Situational depression is a reaction to conditions found in the patient's environment. If the environment improves, then depression is alleviated. Is anyone prepared to argue that the cultural conditions that homosexuals in 2002 face are identical to those experienced by homosexuals in 1970?
 
You don't understand science. You wouldn't have stated what you've stated if you had had even a smidgeon of training in the methods of science. You've stated an extremist view, the 100% environmental determinist viewpoint. What's worse is that it's a boilerplate political response, not even masquerading as psychological science. I don't believe you even understand psychology. Depression can be situational or clinical. You have no freaking proof that depression in homosexuals arises entirely from situational factors.

Scans of heterosexual and homosexual brains. Notice any differences?

homosexuality-brain-scan-image.png

This demonstrates exactly what I've been saying. You have no education on this issue, don't understand psychology, research, nor the logical fallacy of correlation does not equal causation. I understand that you have no desire to be educated on this issue (it would cause far too much cognitive dissonance) but for the sake of others, I will massacre your post. Firstly, of course depression and can be clinical or situational. I make those kinds of determinations during diagnostic evaluations every day. I never said any difference... arguing something I didn't say. Such a weak conservative debate tactic, but quite typical of you folks. Secondly, there is plenty of evidence that depression in homosexuality does not arise from situational factors alone. Every study regarding homosexuality and mental illness starting with the Hooker study demonstrates that there is no mental illness caused by just being homosexual. Since we know this, we know that depression, a mental illness, cannot be caused by homosexuality in and of itself. Simple logic... at least to those who understand logic, a group which you do not seem to be a part of. And lastly. The scans. What do they show? They show that the brains of the gender of one sexual orientation are more like the opposite gender of the other sexual orientation. They show NOTHING in regards to depression which is what we are discussing. In fact, they assist my overall position and hurt yours. This is yet another standard conservative debate tactic; present evidence that actually HURTS their position. It's funny to watch you guys do that.
 
I don't see how any of this evidence weakens my argument but even if it did the selective presentation of evidence should not be practiced. If we're going to make positive claims, empirical claims, statements about reality, then we should be able to actually, you know, back up those claims. Relying on extremist views, like environmental determinism, should be ridiculed, especially when a "professional" trots out garbage like that.

Here's the problem. You don't understand research, psychology, or logic. You post lots of hubris and information; the hubris has no backing and the information either has nothing to do with your position or is easily dismissed. Learn the information about this subject and then perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion.
 
Whatever is causing homosexuality results in behavior which is noticeably expressed with regards to sexual orientation and so we classify homosexuals by their most salient characteristic. We should be expecting other behavioral or physical changes to ride alongside the change in sexual orientation. Depression is a likely candidate due to its high incidence in the community and the fact that even drastic changes in the socially constructed environment of adult homosexuals which either remove or attenuate the situational stressors doesn't result in a drastic lowering of depression. Now what happens if we examine the extremist 100% environmental determinist position across time? Society has gone from actively condemning homosexual and publicly shaming homosexuals to teens now actively seeking out young homosexuals so that they can use them as props to signal their own heightened tolerance. Homosexuality is celebrated on TV, enlightened liberals love to make a show of attending Gay Pride parades, etc - it doesn't matter how much the stigma and the environment has changed over the years, what's important is that there has been a change. If the environment has changed then we should expect to see some movement in the rate of situational depression in the homosexual community. Something. What do we see? Nothing. Between 1970 and 2002 the suicide rate amongst homosexuals remained constant despite the changing cultural conditions. Situational depression is a reaction to conditions found in the patient's environment. If the environment improves, then depression is alleviated. Is anyone prepared to argue that the cultural conditions that homosexuals in 2002 face are identical to those experienced by homosexuals in 1970?

There is nothing here that does not fall into the correlation not causation logical fallacy. Seems to be your favorite way to debate, though it isn't very effective. You claim that homosexuality is formed in the brain. This is inaccurate. Currently, we do not know, conclusively what causes sexual orientation... homosexuality OR heterosexuality. Most researchers in the area believe that sexual orientation is formed by the combination of the following: genetics, biochemistry, and socialization. The answer may reside in the brain, it may reside genetically, or it may reside in both. But, since it is not conclusive, your entire point above falls flat. Yet another standard conservative debate tactic. Make a false premise and then claim that everything from that point is true. Since the premise is false, nothing that comes from it can be true because of the premise. Now, since we know that there is no proof that sexual orientation is formed in the brain, we know that what you said about it affecting other issues in the brain is false. Further, since we also know that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and therefore has no more impact on the formation of mental illnesses than heterosexuality, we know that what you say is false.

As far as your study goes, you are being completely dishonest in your presentation. Firstly, the study was ONLY conducted with male homosexuals. Secondly, the study indicated that most suicide attempts occurred before the age of 25... which is, of course, the most common age group to have suicide attempts. Finally, the study CONSISTENTLY stated that the causes of the suicide rate was due to two issues: social stigma and (considering the age group of those most likely to attempt suicide) developmental issues. NO WHERE did it claim that inherent homosexuality was a cause. Here are some excerpts from the study:

Conclusions. MSM are at elevated risk for suicide attempts, with such risk clustered earlier in life. Some risk factors were specific to being gay or bisexual in a hostile environment.

The stresses related to antigay victimization and the “coming out” process (e.g., loss of friends, antigay victimization) can be seen as having both a proximal and a distal relation to suicidality, similar to the immediate and long-term consequences of other traumatic events. First, they may provoke emotional distress sufficient to cause youths to contemplate suicide, and second, they may be linked to low self-esteem, substance abuse, and subsequent mood disorders that increase lifetime vulnerability to suicide.

Younger gay men, bisexual individuals, and lesbians appear more likely to both anticipate and experience stigmatization and victimization, which are linked to greater psychological distress.

Thus, we would anticipate that gay-related stressors (e.g., experiences of antigay victimization, the sense of deviance and stigmatization prompted by an awareness of one’s nonheterosexual orientation) and the paucity of psychological resources (characteristic of relative youth) are associated with greater vulnerability to suicidal behavior.

Despite the accumulated evidence that “coming out” and association with affirmative gay/lesbian/bisexual social networks have positive effects in terms of psychological adjustment (particularly with respect to selfesteem), this process can also be associated with some negative experiences. Psychological benefits derive from openness and a more integrated sense of self, but disclosure of a gay or bisexual identity to others can potentially lead to ostracism, harassment, violence, and consequent distress. Furthermore, data suggest that antigay violence has dramatically increased since the 1980s. The consequences of such victimization and harassment can be severe, potentially including depression, a heightened sense of vulnerability and powerlessness, anger, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms

Read the comment in bold. This is one point that obliterates what Riverdad placed in bold in post #438.

Some of the specific correlates of suicide attempts before age 25 include early repeated antigay harassment, recency of first sexual experience with another man, and recent disclosure of one’s gay or bisexual identity to others. This fact lends strength to the suggested link between antigay harassment in childhood and suicide risk.

And finally, the point that completely nukes Riverdad's assumptions from the study:

Safren and Heimberg recently reported that if one controls for stress, social support, and coping resources, no differences are found between gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths and heterosexual youths in terms of current suicidality. The increased suicidal risk in this age range appears to be not simply a mental health concern but rather a broader issue of the effect of societal discrimination and harassment. If we cannot change some of the environment in which lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths come to maturity, the alienation, isolation, and victimization they frequently encounter will continue to take their toll.

So, what can we conclude? Riverdad's assessment of the results of the study are completely inaccurate and flawed. The study demonstrates that increased suicidality in homosexuals is most likely caused by SOCIAL STIGMA compounded by developmental factors, that anti-gay violence has INCREASED since the 1980's, and that when social factors are controlled, there is no difference between the suicide rates of homosexuals and heterosexuals. This means that Riverdad either didn't actually read the study or didn't understand it. I'll guess the former, as this seems typical of his debate style. He'll cherry pick one point from research and present it, ignoring the fact that every OTHER point in his research contradicts him and that his one point is taken out of context or is a minor point that is not relevant to the conclusions.

Btw... thanks for the link, Riverdad. Since the study supports MY position, I have bookmarked it. Amateur.
 
This is the internet. The only credentials are the quality of one's arguments.

I know that's not true. For instance, we could deal with a fan of popular history, with absolutely no background in the training process, will spout off all sorts of nonsense about history. It could be popular nonsense, nonsense that the populace believes is grounded in rationale argument. It hardly changes the fact that they are laypersons discussing a craft they know little about.

The democratization of knowledge and experience is a lie, but it's a popular fiction.
 
Which has nothing to do with eugenics, so I have no idea where RD is making the connection.

Actually, this would have to deal with eugenics, as it deals with mechanisms to address reproduction of the human species by way of removing factors which one considers a negative influence on the human gene pool, and promoting that which is better for the output of human birthing. Eugenics is, kind of as you said, sufficiently broad enough, to cover an assortment of selective breeding habits. It has also covered educational objectives (gifted & talented education, to some extent), welfare reform policies, and so forth. If one can point to WEB DuBois for his "talented tenth" rhetoric as eugenic (and one should), then this is hardly beyond the realm.
 
In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.
 
Actually, this would have to deal with eugenics, as it deals with mechanisms to address reproduction of the human species by way of removing factors which one considers a negative influence on the human gene pool, and promoting that which is better for the output of human birthing. Eugenics is, kind of as you said, sufficiently broad enough, to cover an assortment of selective breeding habits. It has also covered educational objectives (gifted & talented education, to some extent), welfare reform policies, and so forth. If one can point to WEB DuBois for his "talented tenth" rhetoric as eugenic (and one should), then this is hardly beyond the realm.

But you can't breed out this kind of behavior. It can be taught from one person to another regardless of breeding. Even if you do look as addictive personality as being inheritable (for which there is some indication), addictions can develop in those without such tendencies, especially with drugs. I'm not trying to say that there isn't behavior that cannot be bred for, either keeping, developing or excluding. I am only saying that drug use and addiction isn't one of those behaviors, especially if a given individual does not have the addiction tendency trait.
 
You claim that homosexuality is formed in the brain. This is inaccurate. Currently, we do not know, conclusively what causes sexual orientation... homosexuality OR heterosexuality.

You're right. It's just as likely that homosexuality finds its roots in a homosexual's shoulder. Shoulders are hypothesized to be the secondary seat of consciousness in humans.

Most researchers in the area believe that sexual orientation is formed by the combination of the following: genetics, biochemistry, and socialization. The answer may reside in the brain, it may reside genetically, or it may reside in both.

Genetics has nothing to do with the brain? You say it may reside in genetics or in the brain. Yeah, well, I'm left speechless that a "professional" can be so ignorant. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't judge your ignorance too soon, maybe you are onto a remarkable discovery here. How exactly does the brain form apart from genetics. Where does it come from? Where does it get instructions on how to grow during fetal development. Please explain how brain development occurs apart from genetics.

Finally, the study CONSISTENTLY stated that the causes of the suicide rate was due to two issues: social stigma and (considering the age group of those most likely to attempt suicide) developmental issues. NO WHERE did it claim that inherent homosexuality was a cause.

You really do suffer from a hard limit on your intelligence, don't you. No where did I claim that the study supported my hypothesis. The one point I focused on, and which you have completely ignored with your strawman critique, is that the suicide rate has remained unchanged amongst homosexuals from 1970 to 2002. That is a remarkable fact considering the drastic change in the culture over that time. If we posit a link between culture and situational depression, then a change in the independent variable should result in some change in the dependent variable. That hasn't happened. That's the point.

The study demonstrates that increased suicidality in homosexuals is most likely caused by SOCIAL STIGMA.

Back when I was a pup one of my instructors had me, and others under his instruction, read studies and note the flaws and limitations in the studies. This study never even bothered to look for genetic causes, say the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), and so when a study doesn't even look at alternative mechanisms then it's on pretty weak ground to claim that the cause is due entirely to social stigma. When a researcher does so, it's likely that this is due to his own bias - he favors that hypothesis and oversteps with his conclusion.
 
I know that's not true. For instance, we could deal with a fan of popular history, with absolutely no background in the training process, will spout off all sorts of nonsense about history. It could be popular nonsense, nonsense that the populace believes is grounded in rationale argument. It hardly changes the fact that they are laypersons discussing a craft they know little about.

The democratization of knowledge and experience is a lie, but it's a popular fiction.

I run into this a lot and though I'm tempted to invoke the "I'm a professional" card to shut people up, I don't believe it works. The only way to show that you have a better position is to plow through and dismantle the nonsense. In other words, have the better argument. People on the internet can claim to be anyone and claim to have any credential, so simply stating that one is such and such doesn't mean anything. As always, it's the content of the message that counts, not the spokesman.
 
Genetics has nothing to do with the brain? You say it may reside in genetics or in the brain. Yeah, well, I'm left speechless that a "professional" can be so ignorant. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't judge your ignorance too soon, maybe you are onto a remarkable discovery here. How exactly does the brain form apart from genetics. Where does it come from? Where does it get instructions on how to grow during fetal development. Please explain how brain development occurs apart from genetics.

Where did he say that genetics have nothing to do with the brain? There are things that genes control that the brain has no relation or contribution to.
 
Where did he say that genetics have nothing to do with the brain? There are things that genes control that the brain has no relation or contribution to.

Right here: "the answer may reside in the brain, it may reside genetically, or it may reside in both." He sets up two separate factors, genetics and brain. How does one develop brain without genetics? After that let's look at this: this allows for 3 outcomes: 1.) Genetics + brain, 2.) Brain and 3.) Genetics. If 2.) Brain but not genetics, then we're likely looking at a development error or a pathogenic cause. If 3.) Genetics but not brain, then where else in the body do we find the seats of consciousness and sexuality?
 
Think of it this way - your friend needs to get to Location A by 2 pm. He is currently at Location B. You are at Location A. He arrives at 2 pm. Do you now have enough information to determine which ROUTE he took to get from A to B? You don't. You know the route you always take, but there are multiple ways to get from A to B.

There is a phenomenon in genetics called pleiotropy:

Pleiotropy describes the genetic effect of a single gene on multiple phenotypic traits. The underlying mechanism is that the gene codes for a product that is, for example, used by various cells, or has a signaling function on various targets.​

Homosexuality rewires portions of the brain. The sexual orientation of homosexuality resides in the brain. It's entirely expected that MORE than just sexual orientation is affected by whatever change has occurred. The roots of clinical depression in homosexuals need not be entirely the same as seen in heterosexuals. For Pete's sake the brains of homosexuals are wired differently.

Here's a real life example of pleiotropy:

Belyaev chose the silver fox for his experiment; this species is related to the dog, but it is not domesticated. The initial foxes in Belyaev's experiment were not trained in any way, but simply tested for tameness at an early age. Starting at age one month, a human researcher would try to feed and pet the foxes, either alone or in the company of other foxes. The animals' responses varied from aggressive behaviors (such as biting), to indifference, to seeking interaction with the person more than with the other foxes. The tamest foxes were then selected for breeding the next generation, although fresh genes were supplied through continual outbreeding.

Belyaev and his colleagues did indeed create a population of foxes that differed in temperament and behavior from their wild cousins. The foxes changed physically as well, with alterations in coat color appearing as early as the eighth generation—typically a loss of pigment resulting in white patches. The foxes also developed floppy ears and curved tails, mirroring traits seen in dogs as well as other domesticated species (Figure 2).

One of Belyaev's hypotheses was therefore satisfied: Selecting for one trait (behavior) also changed other traits (here, aspects of the foxes' physical form).​

Whatever is causing homosexuality results in behavior which is noticeably expressed with regards to sexual orientation and so we classify homosexuals by their most salient characteristic. We should be expecting other behavioral or physical changes to ride alongside the change in sexual orientation. Depression is a likely candidate due to its high incidence in the community and the fact that even drastic changes in the socially constructed environment of adult homosexuals which either remove or attenuate the situational stressors doesn't result in a drastic lowering of depression. Now what happens if we examine the extremist 100% environmental determinist position across time? Society has gone from actively condemning homosexual and publicly shaming homosexuals to teens now actively seeking out young homosexuals so that they can use them as props to signal their own heightened tolerance. Homosexuality is celebrated on TV, enlightened liberals love to make a show of attending Gay Pride parades, etc - it doesn't matter how much the stigma and the environment has changed over the years, what's important is that there has been a change. If the environment has changed then we should expect to see some movement in the rate of situational depression in the homosexual community. Something. What do we see? Nothing. Between 1970 and 2002 the suicide rate amongst homosexuals remained constant despite the changing cultural conditions. Situational depression is a reaction to conditions found in the patient's environment. If the environment improves, then depression is alleviated. Is anyone prepared to argue that the cultural conditions that homosexuals in 2002 face are identical to those experienced by homosexuals in 1970?
just curious, you said homosexuality rewired the brain. When does this occur? Who does it? And how do we stop them?

What incident happens that rewires the brain? And when does it occur?

I am curious, I never remember being "rewired" did that occur in my infancy? Did whoever does this "rewiring" blank my memory of it?

Or (most likely) is this just hot air so you can continue feeling justified in your prejudice while telling yourself that your attitude isn't contributing to the problem?

Why do queers sick in your craw so much? They aren't trying to **** you, you haven't really given a reason for your obsession.

Are you one of those people that thinks of we recognize that homosexuals and other things like that have rights that the world will end?
 
Back
Top Bottom