As Predicted, Gay Activists Attack the Messengers, Ignore the Evidence

Immediately following the release of a scientific study debunking several LGBT talking points, gay activists launched a full assault on the study's authors.

By Michael Brown Published on September 1, 2016

After a major new report was released a little over one week ago challenging the standard LGBT talking points, I predicted that rather than interact with the findings of that report (specifically, a 143-page analysis of 200 previous, peer-reviewed studies), most gay activists and their allies would attack the authors of that study.

Before the day was out, the prediction began to come true, and it has been confirmed numerous times since then.

The report, authored by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, was titled, “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” and was published by The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society.

On Right Wing Watch, the headline to Peter Montgomery’s article stated, “A New Regnerus? Anti-Equality Groups Promote New Study on Sexual Orientation and Gender.”

He was referring, of course, to Prof. Mark Regnerus, whose studies claiming that children of gay parents do not fare as well as children of straight parents came under such attack that he almost lost his job. So much for academic tolerance and diversity.

“So-Called Findings,” Frightening Funding

Worse still, Montgomery writes, the new report is being hailed by notorious conservatives like Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage and Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation. Surely the research must be faulty if conservatives are citing it.

Robbie Medwed, writing for TheNewCivilRights.com, dismisses the report as that of a “Right-Wing Think Tank,” referring to The New Atlantis as “a so-called Journal of Technology and Society,” and then making reference to the report’s “findings” (It’s in quotes, as if to say so-called findings. And note this is “a so-called Journal of Technology and Society.” Perhaps it’s actually a phone book or novel masquerading as a journal?).

Medwed continues, “To fully understand where this study came from and what’s really going on, let’s take a look at its authors and who’s funding it,” pointing to the journal’s conservative affiliations, in particular the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC).

How evil is the EPPC? Medwed cites the organization’s own description: It is an “institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy” — how utterly wicked!

But there’s more: “EPPC and its scholars have consistently sought to defend and promote our nation’s founding principles — respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, individual freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government.”

Surely there is no possible way that an organization like this, which helps publish The New Atlantis, could produce an unbiased, academically rigorous piece of research. Obviously not. It believes in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition!

Boos for McHugh

As for McHugh, “His work has been debunked time and time again. McHugh has a distinguished track record of anti-LGBT bigotry and harm … Simply, there is no possible way anyone can argue that his ‘scholarship’ is unbiased and objective.”

Medwed apparently fails to realize the circular reasoning of his argument, namely, that because McHugh’s research leads him to differ with LGBT talking points, and because LGBT researchers differ with his findings, “there is no possible way anyone can argue that his ‘scholarship’ is unbiased and objective.”

As for Mayer, he “reinterpreted” the data “to fit the outcomes they desired.”

At The Daily Beast, the headline to Samantha Allen’s article said it all: “The Right’s Favorite Anti-LGBT Doctor Strikes Again. Dr. Paul McHugh has a long history of anti-science, anti-LGBT stances. That doesn’t stop conservative media from lauding his work.”

How dare conservatives cite a bigot like him!

Over at The Advocate, the headline to Dean Hamer’s study read, “New ‘Scientific’ Study on Sexuality, Gender is Neither New nor Scientific.”

Scorning the call by Drs. Mayer and McHugh for “more research,” Dr. Hamer wrote, “Mayer has never published a single article on human sexuality or gender (his name doesn’t even appear in the paper’s bibliography), and McHugh actually has a long history of blocking such efforts, beginning with his closure of the pioneering gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979. McHugh claimed that his decision was based in science, but his real motivation became clear through his repeated reference to gender-confirmation surgery as a ‘mutilation’ and his decision to explain his actions not in a scientific journal but in a conservative Catholic publication.”

So, Dr. McHugh only “claimed that his decision was based in science.” It obviously was not, since he ended up opposing sex-change surgery and transgender activism.

To The Advocate’s credit, they did ask a respected gay scientist to pen the article, and Dr. Hamer does interact critically with the report. (Again, I said that most would attack the messengers rather than interact with the substance of the report, not that all would.)

The Messengers’ Vehicle Also Attacked

Still, it is noteworthy that Dr. Hamer can hardly be called unbiased himself, since he is famous for his search for a gay gene. And even as a seasoned professional, he cannot hide his disdain, closing with these words: “But when the data we have struggled so long and hard to collect is twisted and misinterpreted by people who call themselves scientists, and who receive the benefits and protection of a mainstream institution such as John Hopkins Medical School, it disgusts me.”

Shoot the messengers indeed.

Similarly, Zach Ford who is the LGBT editor for ThinkProgress.org and who describes himself as “Gay, Atheist, Pianist, Unapologetic ‘Social Justice Warrior,” interacted at length with the content of the study, but not without launching some broadsides against the authors and publishers of the report.

While citing the critique of the Mayer-McHugh report by Dr. Warren Throckmorton (who, as would be expected, challenged their findings), Ford also wrote that Dr. McHugh is “generally the only scientist whom opponents of transgender equality ever cite and who has his own history of overt anti-LGBT bias.” As for The New Atlantis, he described it as “a journal that is affiliated with the anti-LGBT Ethics and Public Policy Center and prides itself on not being peer-reviewed.”

Pediatricians Smeared for Good Measure

And while Ford seeks to be even-handed in his critique, taking time to delve into the subject matter, he still refers to the American College of Pediatricians, which opposes transgender activism, as “the fake anti-LGBT American College of Pediatricians.”

A previous article by Ford even carried this headline, “Fake Medical Organization Publishes Lie-Ridden Manifesto Attacking Transgender Kids. Do not trust your children with the American College of Pediatricians.”

So, because these pediatricians felt that the need to break away from the left-leaning American Academy of Pediatricians, based on their own research and medical experience and values, they are a “fake medical organization,” despite the fact that membership is limited to “pediatricians and other healthcare professionals who provide care primarily for infants, children, or adolescents.”

If they are not pro-LGBT activism, they cannot be a legitimate medical organization!

And on and on it goes.

I do hope that in the days to come, researchers and scientists from all camps will take the time to interact fairly and honestly with the Mayer-McHugh report, but for the moment, I guess this is where I say, “I hate to say it, but I told you so.”

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    Sodomites have perverted, reprobate minds. They will reject anything that contradicts what they want just like they reject the Bible. Trying to reason with them is a waste of time. They are not going to change.

  • Jordan Lewis

    Please link to the study.

    • HayleeHannity

      the study is false and ignored the fact that transitioning significantly reduces suicide rates/metal health for LGBTQ individuals. It also champions reparative therapy which has been proven dangerous and torturous to its victims, especially gay teenagers, not to mention the practice being universally frowned upon scientifically. Oh, and my rights and agency as a gay person will always matter more than your subjective religious beliefs =)

      • Jordan Lewis

        Objection: nonresponsive, calls for legal conclusions and speculation; the study speaks for itself.

  • davspa

    Here is an idea: I know it is not your responsibility only, but suppose centers of conservative thought such as this website would educate people on the types of attacks that the LGBT people do. I am not expert in these at all, but I think it is called ad hominem where the arguer simply attacks the other person rather than analyzing their argument. I mean if people realized these attacks for what they are they would lose their force.

    • Sonnys_Mom

      It would be hard to do; the variations are endless…

    • pand ne mo nium

      The attacks usually fall into one of two methodologies. Because the author is telling the truth which they cannot refute, they degenerate into attacking the integrity of the author.

      That or either they will bring up some spurious claim that is supposed to refute what has been said. An article may produce 200 peer reviewed studies but that does not stop them bringing up ONE spurious study invented by homosexuals to try and legitimise their lies which homosexuality is built on and that one study is supposed to be more authoritative than the 200.

      One example that is old as the hills and stupidity exemplified is the one about 1,500 animal species that are homosexual so that is good enough reason to believe that it is normal.

      In using the animal kingdom to legitimise their perversion, they forget that some animals eat their own young and there is one that eats their partner after sex. I ask them if that is what they do or intend to do. Funnily they are silent on that one. I admit that the desire to draw on the animal kingdom to legitimise human homosexuality is not surprising as I said some of the things homosexuals do in the bedroom is quite animalistic.

      The bottom line is that if you want to know what the truth is all you have to do is take the opposite view to what homosexuals say and there you have the truth as homosexuality is built on a lie so they keep lying to legitimise their original lie. So if they say an author has been discredited the truth is that he hasn’t been discredited.

      • Kim Hudlet

        Oh you have your pandes in a twist again? Such homophobia! Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

        • pand ne mo nium

          Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

  • Disappointing, Dr. Brown. You cited all the nasty things LGBT critics said about the authors, but wrote not a single word actually defending the authors’ qualifications. Nor did you even once mention that the entire issue constitutes a genetic fallacy–that the quality or biases of the authors matter not even a little when evaluating the correctness of their claims.

    Doggone it, man, if you’re going to defend the study, defend it! Don’t just snipe at the nasty critics.

    • “You cited all the nasty things LGBT critics said about the authors, but wrote not a single word actually defending the authors’ qualifications.”

      Dr. Brown did precisely that in his original article that he references (under “I predicted”). No need for him to repeat himself.

      • Yes, there is a need. Not everybody has read all of his articles. If his goal is to defend the study, he at least needs to refer to his prior work establishing its credibility. It takes all of two sentences and a link, and it makes the article here far stronger.

        I simply don’t understand the eagerness of you all to defend lousy argumentation. Do you want to win the culture wars, or do you want to defend your hero from legitimate criticism? We can and must do better.

        • pand ne mo nium

          And I don’t simply understand what you hope to gain by introducing a red herring to avoid the truth of 200 peer reviewed studies. Maybe because the truth has a habit of hurting.

          • Kim Hudlet

            If only you had an education that qualified you to talk about any of this, or evaluate the complete lack of vracity of the propaganda you sadly cling to. We prayed for you this evening at church. Anyone who has this much hate needs the prayer. I’m sorry you are in so much pain you feel the need to lash out.

          • pand ne mo nium

            Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

    • Denise

      The study upsets liberals.
      That’s pretty much the equivalent of a seal of approval.

      • frobn

        Perhaps opinions passed off as scientific studies, such as the one in question, upset honest researchers

        • smct1

          The authors simply compiled and analyzed the results of 200 leading peer reviewed scientific studies done by leaders in the field. You can check their credentials.

          • blankman

            And cherry picked results from those studies (which they’d already cherry picked)

          • smct1

            Peer reviewed means that the studies, methodology and empirical evidence are reviewed and accepted by other leaders in the field.

          • I did check McHugh’s credentials, especially the court cases where he was found to be a thoroughly unreliable witness.

          • smct1

            Who discredited him? It isn’t his research, it is 200 peer reviewed research studies from 200 other leaders in the field of psychiatry. Good luck in trying to discredit them all. Also, there are two authors who compiled the studies together. I guess Johns Hopkins should just fire McHugh huh? Sometimes truth is hard to swallow.

          • “It isn’t his research, it is 200 peer reviewed research studies from 200 other leaders in the field of psychiatry.”

            Here’s one that was quoted in the article:

            Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

            The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the
            BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the
            paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and
            genitals may go into opposite directions…

            Except the authors omitted that conclusion because… well, just because. They omitted all the stuff that didn’t support the lede.

            As for Johns Hopkins firing McHugh? He retired years ago, he’s just using the name to add credibility.

          • pand ne mo nium

            But they did include 200 studies that had been peer reviewed. Oh, I forgot, three that have a different viewpoint override the 200 that do not.

          • Most of the 200 supported biological causation. Virtually all. Just not to the degree of certainty needed. Some were ambiguous, neither supporting nor refuting.

            For example, if the hypothesis is that certain specific parts of the brain have to be cross-sexed, and that other specific parts need not be, an experiment showing that the specific parts that need not be are not always cross-sexed provides no evidence about the others.

            Here’ I’ll show you wnat I mean:

            White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal
            treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. – Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.

            CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the white matter
            microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the
            pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those
            who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence
            for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals.

            Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism. by Luders et al Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):904-7.

            We analyzed MRI data of 24 male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals not yet
            treated with cross-sex hormones in order to determine whether gray
            matter volumes in MTF transsexuals more closely resemble people who
            share their biological sex (30 control men), or people who share their
            gender identity (30 control women). Results revealed that regional gray
            matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern
            found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a
            significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen
            compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that
            transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which
            supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender
            identity.

            White matter in Trans men is closer to the distribution found in other men. Grey matter on the other hand is closer to the distribution found in women, but is not really like the pattern found in either men or women.

            It’s not nice and simple, 100% male brains vs 100% female brains, there’s overlap and fuzziness because this is biology, not ideology or theology. And because it’s science, you don’t omit facts that don’t fit your preconceived notions either. You’ll find quotes from both of those articles on my blog.

            There’s this one too, showing that MtoF and FtoM are not exact mirror-images, as was originally thought. Pity, it would have made things so much simpler, but the facts don’t support that.

            Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality Govier et al International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

            This study investigated the functional brain organization of 68
            male-to-female (MtF) transwomen and 26 female-to-male (FtM) transmen by
            comparing their performance with 36 typical male and 28 typical female
            controls on two indicators of cerebral lateralization: dichotic
            listening and handedness. A sex-differentiating dichotic test and a
            handedness questionnaire were administered. It was hypothesized that the
            MtF participants’ dichotic performance would be significantly different
            from the control males and resemble the control female pattern. This
            hypothesis was supported. It was also hypothesized that the FtM dichotic
            pattern would be significantly different from the control females and
            would resemble the control male pattern. This hypothesis was not
            supported. Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be
            significantly more nonexclusive right-handers in both trans-groups. This
            hypothesis was supported. Taken together, the dichotic and handedness
            data reported here indicate that the MtF and FtM conditions are not
            mirror images in terms of the verbal-auditory aspects of their brain
            organization and neurobiology plays an important role, particularly in
            the development of the male-to-female trans-condition.

            To say as McHugh does that these papers provide evidence *against* biological causation, omitting what the papers actually say, is dishonest.

          • pand ne mo nium

            If you say that most of the 200 supported biological causation then that means most them did not as the truth is ALWAYS the opposite of what is claimed by those supporting homosexuality.

          • pand ne mo nium

            Sorry Zoe but your were not asked to check the credentials of McHugh. You were asked to check the credentials of the 200 authors of the studies presented in the article.

            Now go and do that and come back when you have the facts.

          • Given that McHugh has lied about what some of these authors actually said, checking their impeccable credentials – I’m in contact with many of them as a researcher in the area – isn’t really needed. Some are Giants in their fields. They don’t like their work being misrepresented.

            For example, Cecelia Dhejne:

            “Williams: Before I contacted you for this interview, were you aware of the way your work was being misrepresented?

            Dhejne:
            Yes! It’s very frustrating! I’ve even seen professors use my work to support ridiculous claims. I’ve often had to respond myself by commenting on articles, speaking with journalists, and talking about this problem at conferences. The Huffington Post wrote an article about the way my research is misrepresented. At the same time, I know of instances where ethical researchers and clinicians have used this study to expand and improve access to trans health care and impact systems of anti-trans oppression.

            Of course trans medical and psychological care is efficacious. A 2010 meta-analysis confirmed by studies thereafter show that medical gender confirming interventions reduces gender dysphoria.”

            When Dr Dhejne authors a study that states, clearly and without ambiguity:

            “It is therefore important to note that the current study is only
            informative with respect to transsexual persons health after sex
            reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex
            reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism”

            And McHugh then says in an Op Ed on WaPo that the article shows the ineffectiveness of treatment, without quoting from it and deliberately eliding the statement above – what does it matter that Dr Dhejne’s article was peer-reviewed, and that her qualifications are excellent?

          • pand ne mo nium

            Who are you in contact with? In what capacity are you in contact with them? Where are you in contact with them? How many times were you in contact with them? What was the outcome of your contact with them?

          • I can’t give an itemised list, any more than any researcher could. Too many. I can give an example:

            Hi Zoe,

            Yes, we gave our presentation to 60 plus psychiatrists from the US, AU, FR, IT, EU, UK, Holland etc.

            We
            spoke for 2 1/2 hours on why cross gender identity was a normal
            inherited variation of humans. We showed how Transgender Brains think,
            smell, and hear like the opposite sex. We presented internationally
            accepted guidelines for hormonal treatment of transsexuals to be
            published Summer 2009.

            Here are my slides and with my
            participants’ permission I shall send you theirs. We are now in print in
            the APA Syllabus and soon in the APA Journal this summer. I am checking
            if we were recorded.

            My greatest personal compliment came from
            Frank Kruijver, from Holland, whose research of the human brain in TSs
            started it all. He thought we have taken his work very far in our
            understanding of the human brain. Hope you can do something with this.

            Sid Ecker, M.D.
            (Professor of Urology)

          • pand ne mo nium

            Two things. He is a Professor of urology. Urology (from Greek οὖρον ouron “urine” and -λογία -logia “study of”), also known as genitourinary surgery, is the branch of medicine that focuses on surgical and medical diseases of the male and female urinary tract system and the male reproductive organs.

            it has nothing to do with transgenderism.

            And secondly, The APA has become captive to homosexual ideology so it is like asking the KKK to preside over a black mass.

          • She not He. A specialist on the reproductive system, and whose patients included many people who are non-standard in that area. More aware than most other medics of exactly how nonbinary biological sex is, and how the brain, rather than merely the genitalia, is crucial.

          • pand ne mo nium

            I can be aware of a lot of things but that does not make me a specialist in it.

          • Kim Hudlet

            I have the facts. I have read many of the studies McHugh misquotes. His lack of credibility says everything. So do your hateful words and hostility. I only need to read the first few he misrepresents and know what the literature actually says to disregard anything with his name on it. You haven’t done anything to prove the nonsense, only misdirected and attacked. The more I read of your attacking posts, the more obvious it becomes you have no interest in truth or evidence, just in attacking anyone who challenges your precarious sense of identity. Here’s a challenge: go into a few days of prayer with an open mind and heart, and let the holy Spirit heal and guide you from this hatred. I can refer you to counselors to help you deal with what appears to be some raginger internalized homophobia.

          • pand ne mo nium

            Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

        • Alright, provide your evidence that the study in question consists of “opinions passed off as scientific studies.” That’s an alleged fact not in evidence.

          I just read the Executive Summary of the study in question. It acknowledges things that I would not expect from a mere polemicist. The study itself consists of a review of 200 peer-reviewed articles representing the current state of knowledge in psychology, biology, and social sciences. It takes a lot more than simply noting that the authors represent points of view to which you disagree to prove that the authors were substituting opinion for scientific rigor.

          • There are thousands of articles in the literature. To cherry pick only 200, without giving the criteria for selection, isn’t science.

            As one researcher stated,:

            The authors’ review of the role of genes in sexual orientation, the area of my own research, is revealing of their methodology. Of the six studies using proper probability sampling methods that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature in the past 16 years, they include only one — and it just so happens to be the one with the lowest estimate of genetic influence of the entire set.

            The authors haven’t published a single article in a scientific journal on the subject. Neither have they clinically treated any patients with these issues.

            So to call them “experts” on the subject is just plain incorrect. As lay people, they have every right to express their opinions in religious journals, as they have done. Just don’t pretend this is science.

          • Alpha Beta

            Zoe Brain, who made you the authority on what science or is not? There are indeed “thousands of articles in the literature”, and discussing them all would be neither possible nor even worthwhile. What are your grounds for thinking that different articles should have been chosen?

          • What grounds?

            “Of the six studies using proper probability sampling methods that have
            been published in the peer-reviewed literature in the past 16 years,
            they include only one — and it just so happens to be the one with the
            lowest estimate of genetic influence of the entire set.”

            This isn’t a coincidence.

            Note that the study that was included did provide evidence of biological causation – just not strong enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion. The others did. That was apparently why they were deliberately excluded.

            That’s cherry-picking. That may be acceptable in eisegetic Theology when writing an opinion piece in a non-peer-reviewed journal, but a peer-review would pick this up instantly and require a rewrite before publication.

            As regards who made me an authority – my scientific qualifications, the fact that I get called on by professors of medicine and psychology to lecture on this very subject, my correspondence with professional researchers, some of whom are very upset at the way McHugh has deliberately misquoted and misrepresented their studies in the past for political reasons, and my work as a member of Sex and Gender Education Australia.

            All of which is really irrelevant. What matters is not who says something, but whether it’s true or not. McHugh is infamous for using his past connection with Johns Hopkins to gull people.

            No scientist would call this a scientific article. There are certain objective criteria to be followed if writing a meta-study, rather than an opinion piece. Starting with a description of what sources were looked at, which ones were discarded and why.

          • Alpha Beta

            Having seen Dean Hamer’s vicious attack on Mayer and McHugh in The Advocate, where he falsely claims that they believe that sexual orientation is a choice even though they actually state the exact opposite (“We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property”), I’ll take your claim that McHugh is the one guilty of misrepresenting things with a grain of salt.

          • HazumuOsaragi

            To cherry pick only 200 [articles], without giving the criteria for selection, isn’t science.

            We can infer what the criteria for selection is, though… Paul McHugh stated it obliquely in his autobiographic “Psychiatric Misadventures”:

            This interrelationship of cultural antinomianism and a psychiatric misplaced emphasis is seen at its grimmest in the practice known as sex-reassignment surgery. I happen to know about this because Johns Hopkins was one of the places in the United States where this practice was given its start. It was part of my intention, when I arrived in Baltimore in 1975, to help end it.

            Verdict first, cherry-pick (or manufacture) the facts to support the verdict after.

        • pand ne mo nium

          Perhaps scientific studies presented as scientific studies upsets those who can’t handle the truth.

      • I’m not a liberal. I had an award-nominated conservative blog about 5 years ago, and it’s still online if you want to read it.

        I’m not criticizing the study. I’m criticizing Dr. Brown’s defense of it. If he’s argued for the veracity of it elsewhere, he should say so and supply a link.

        Yes, it’s important.

      • pand ne mo nium

        That is right Denise. If you want to know the truth all you have to do is read what the liberals claim and take the opposite viewpoint and there is the truth.

    • KarenJewel

      He defended the study in a previous post.

      • Wayne Cook

        Yep… I read that too. Karen, the left also pretends not to be aware, so they push people like Dr Brown to repeat stuff…same as kids who slept through class.

        • Wow. I’m no leftist, and I have no obligation to read every essay Dr. Brown publishes. This is not 5th grade, it’s real life. People live and die over issues like this.

          If Dr. Brown defended the study in another article, he should have at least mentioned the fact in this one, along with the observation that character assassination constitutes nothing but a logical fallacy. He does not have to repeat the article, just refer to where he does.

          Yes, it really is important.

          • Wayne Cook

            Then click on his name…it shows everything he’s posted. As you said, this is real life, and in real life, we are to search.

          • That’s the thing…he did exactly that in the very first sentence. Read again and click on the highlighted link. Now if your argument is that he should have made the link more obvious by stating “as I stated in my previous article which you can go to by clicking right HERE” then you have a valid point and perhaps Dr. Brown can take that as advice for clarity.

            But your argument is that he “wrote not a single word actually defending the authors’ qualifications” which is simply not the case.

    • smct1

      His “I told you so” comes from his previous article that told us to wait for the attack on the authors. He predicted it. You must have missed that article.

      • Irrelevant. I have no objection to “I told you so.” I simply want him to make it clear that the study is valid, and that attacking the character of the authors is not a valid critique of the research.

        • smct1

          As I said, he talked about the studies and evidence in his previous article where he said the studies would be ignored and the authors attacked. The lgbt community did not disappoint. Read the studies yourself if you want to draw your own conclusion. You really need to read his other article to be able to understand the context of this one.

  • frobn

    “Immediately following the release of a scientific study debunking several LGBT talking points, gay activists launched a full assault on the study’s authors.”

    Adam Keiper, the Editor of The New Atlantis in responding to Warren Throckmorton’ critique of the Mayer and McHugh Article said:

    “You begin by pointing out that “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences” is not a study. You are correct.”

    The article does not meet the criteria of a meta-analysis either.

    Not a study, not a meta analysis then what? A simple review of peer reviewed scientific articles followed by an opinion that has no statistical power. By the way a review of peer reviewed articles does not inherit the credibility of being peer reviewed itself.

  • Carl I

    The familiar pattern: say anything that the Whine Club doesn’t agree with, and they start screaming “Bigots!”

  • Patmos

    The LGBT Movement is so entrenched in their own selfishness, that it’s mostly sad at this point. The only thing worse are politicians like Obama and Hillary who exploit them for political gain.

  • Wayne Cook

    Not surprising that leftists call into question things they are all clearly unqualified on which to speak. Nothing new.

  • Jimmyhud

    let just be honest they are a bunch of over sext idiots that give absolutely nothing to the world or the next generation they are selfish self absorbed morons who only know how to have animal sex with their own species, moral queers

    • Sonnys_Mom

      Many believe that sex is a “civil right”…

      • Wayne Cook

        including a few “Christian” pastors. sick.

  • Bob E Wills

    That same sex thing has been going since God create man and woman. It evolved big time and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah raining fire and stones on them. As people become more wicked, it affects their minds and they don’t have a true course in life to follow. We see the same things in major cities w/huge populations blatantly robbing and killing people and it goes on and on. The further populations grow apart from God….the worse it will get.

  • Resbo

    Lesbians, Gays , Bisexuals, and Transexuals all suffer from the same illness which is being dissatisfied with their birth gender, a MENTAL CONDITION! Rather than giving in to their idiosyncrasies they should be given psychological help!

    • John

      The root of the problem as with the majority of if not all mental issues is that it is spiritual warfare. 2 Timothy 1:7 KJV

  • James Chilton

    Homosexuals and their camp followers will never make an honest and objective study of a scientific report that criticises their “life style”. That’s because, at some level, they know that sodomy is not only morally wrong, but also disgusting sexual activity.

  • Michael Gilroy

    The LBBT community’s self-serving bias reminds me of the bleeding and desanguination argument. You had all these people knowing that loss of blood is bad, convinced that bleeding people is good with some deaths resulting, arguing against people that say it’s bad.

    They made the same circular argument. If you do not think bleeding is good, you’re not a medical professional;if you’re not a medical professional you cannot present facts.
    Sad yet predictable.

  • Howard Johnson

    I hear Trumps gonna build a wall…

  • Faith of Our Fathers

    Michael I read this report on T H this reminds me of the analogy of the Jaywalker Story in the A A book. The guy tries to jump the cars is hit and breaks a leg . Next time it’s 2 legs . Then both legs and both arms . Of course our man is constantly reminded he is in the wrong and that his lifestyle will kill him . He of course maintains he’s in the right and nothing will convince him he’s in the wrong. Of course the day comes when his luck runs out and the CONDOM bursts still he says to himself its only AIDS and they say ( whoever they are ) that I can still live a ” normal life ” if I take a barrow load of drugs every day for the rest of my short life. Talk about the blind leading the blind. –God Bless.

  • RoundRocker

    When the messenger is clearly biased and has no academic integrity, the message is highly suspect.

    • pand ne mo nium

      Did you know that your response is standard fair by all those that have an investment in the homosexual way of life. They rubbish and knock but never produce any evidence to back up what they say. it is only hyperbole and spin to avoid having to handle the truth.

      And….when I want to know the truth all I have to do is state the opposite to what fundamentalist homosexual apologists claim. So that means in your case, the messenger is not biased; he has academic integrity and the message is not highly suspect.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      When the Commenter is clearly biased and has no spiritual integrity, the message is highly suspect.

  • phillipcsmith

    Valid scientific studies indicate that the “born that way” claim is not grounded in fact. Look carefully at the article. It is important as well that any with same sex attraction, transgender feelings, etc. have the right to choose therapy if they wish.

  • Jordan Lewis

    So, there’s bias to consider, and then there’s the natural sciences. How about we make the decision on the genetic markers and means of reproduction inherent to the individual? If that information supports a clear sexual and gender dichotomy (which everyone knows it does), we can change our minds again one day (since we have already done it once) as to whether gender and sexual confusion has something to do with environmental stimuli, and is thus a matter of psychology.

    If anyone responds, let me just go ahead and presume it will not be thoughtful and objective as to my premise but rather histrionic and subjective. (I would love to be proven wrong on this presumption. It’s up to you, dear reader!)

Inspiration
How Do I Handle My Regrets?
Joe Dallas
More from The Stream
Connect with Us