Sexuality and Gender – A Special Report

Sexuality and Gender – A Special Report

I think this report is essential reading here at the beginning of 2017. I don’t say that lightly. Given the pressing nature of these and related subjects, and given the ongoing politicization and social threatenings, being ignorant of reigning academic, psychological, and political claims, as well as their critics, is to do a disservice to ourselves and others. Here is the online blurb (borrowed from their website) by the editor of The New Atlantis:

Questions related to sexuality and gender bear on some of the most intimate and personal aspects of human life. In recent years they have also vexed American politics. We offer this report — written by Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century — in the hope of improving public understanding of these questions. Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence. The report has a special focus on the higher rates of mental health problems among LGBT populations, and it questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex. More effort is called for to provide these people with the understanding, care, and support they need to lead healthy, flourishing lives.


Science vs. Knowledge

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

It is hard to imagine a way to be more provocative when writing in a scientific journal. Regardless, on 11 April 2015, the British medical journal, The Lancet, published a single-page comment by Richard Horton that summarized the senses and feelings of many who were present at a recent, closed-door symposium in London. Among the conclusions was the above bombshell. Much more was said as well. 


The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate – My Quick Thoughts (v.3)

So, last night, while I was not sleeping very well (blasted cold and all), I decided to increase my discomfort and watch the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate. The debate was to regard this question: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? In reality, it was a debate about Ken Ham’s understanding of creation and his reading of Genesis 1-3. One only wonders whether viewers will be willing and able to keep in mind that this was the limited scope of the debate. In other words, it did not regard any other theistic view of creation or the existence of the Creator. And while Nye is an atheist/agnostic, he politely kept referring to Ham’s view.

Here is a link to the video, if you care to watch. I’m not really recommending it, mind you. It is long and you’ll never get that time back (at least not in this life, I assume).