…

Did you read mine? Did you not see that I also think that nature/nurture is a false dilemna?

And yet, no one has been able to demonstrate that environment — even social environment — plays no role for nobody. This appears to be what you assert without evidence. Am I mistaking you?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to define “environment” in purely post-natal terms. Yet would not hormone levels in the womb during certain periods of fetal develpment be considered an environmental factor in terms of sexual orientation?

Since the fetus’s environment is the womb, how is what happens in utero not environmental?

You listed M. Ridley as one of your sources, which I am hypothesizing is Matt Ridley, author of the books Nature via Nurture and The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. If I recall correctly, he placed pre-natal hormone exposure as an environmental factor, something that falls on the “nurture” axis rather than the “nature” one.

Just looking for some clarification on this…

I’m afraid you’re confusing psychoanalysis with with psychology, as those seem to be the preponderance of historical examples you provide to support your disdain. As you wish to dismiss this as “occult” science, that is your prerogative. I’m not a fan of psychoanalysis myself. And I am perfectly familiar with the limitation of psychology.

But the sources I’ve been reading and some of which I posted are not all “psychologists.” They come from all sorts of professions — except for the Darwinian psychologists and anthropologists and insect researchers you cited. I’m beginning to think you’re not actually looking at what I’m presenting, but instead reacting to my challenge of our absolutist assertion as though I were attacking you personally. I’m not. But I notice that you’ve not giving it a second though about attacking me.

I’d also point out that these sources that I mentioned actually sought — and are seeking — the very congenital connection you seem to believe was already proven. I really wish you would take the time to read rather than be so defensive that you cannot admit that maybe you don’t quite know anything.

So, for one last time, I’d ask you to adhere to our Comments Policy and provide the conclusive evidence that homosexuality is congenital. Until you do that, I’ll have to ask that you refrain from the personal insults — and the self-aggrandizing — and explain to us mere mortals where we can find the evidence you are so confident exists.

As Karl Popper demonstrated decades past, occult psychology has no scientific basis whatsoever; it is at best idle speculation, grand metaphysics, and horribly injurious. E. O. Wilson is not too fond of the quacks either. In his 1978 Pulitzer Prize work, “On Human Nature,” he likens the quacks to some unpleasant historical figures circa mid-1900s. Thankfully, these great heads and scientific minds help persuade the “psychologists” of the absurd claims of homosexual “pathology and cures” at their holy convocation in Hawaii, 1973. Like any good quack-science, they VOTED to change their diagnoses and stance. Science by popular vote of the trade? You must have some pretty low threshold for evidence.

I should like to refer readers to Michael McGuire and Alfonso Troisi, M.D. and psychiatrists, whose 1998 Darwinian Psychiatry indicted the psychiatric profession for its speculative metaphysics, irrelevance of psychological self-reports as datum, and conceptual incoherence and contradictions.

These are not crackpot researchers, as they hail from UCLA and the University of Rome, and have extensive curricula vitae, are are Ph.D. scientists as well as M.D.s. Of course, their profession and the “psychologists” until 1973 until its holy convocation in Hawaii was quite certain homophilia was a pathological disorder and proferred reparative and aversive treat for the cure of homosexuality. They claimed to have cured Richard Rothstein, one of those who barely survived their diagnosis and treatment. Most “patients” committed suicide like Rothstein intended. Great reliable resource you proffer!

What changed the quacks’ minds back in that holy convocation in 1973? Scientists, gay activists, and philosophers illustrating the “biological naturalness” of homosexuality, and demanding evidence from the quack for their speculative and dangerous — indeed lethal — claims, diagnoses, and “cures.” These challengers held up the pioneering work of Karl Popper, biologists, and philosophers as evidentiary against the Psyche’s claims. As recently as 1964, Albert Ellis professed to cure homosexuals, and even wrote its manual. NARTH still makes claims of cures. And you put your stock of evidence in this occult trade?

You give these quacks more credit than they give themselves. But don’t cite them as “scientists.” They’re not even close. So saith them:

“we fail to explain the majority of the features of disorders, ” “our different metaphysical systems are built on different assumption and uses different explanatory logic,” “different theories of truth are associated with each metaphysical system . . . with different rules for deciding if an explanation is valid,” “which model, psychoanalytic, sociocultural, behavioral, biomedical, chaos theory should we use?” “as a result, psychiatry lacks an integrated set of concepts that can facilitate the development of testable hypotheses, address issues of causal sequence and feedback, and foster studies that will purge low-utility data. Thus much of the time and effort devoted to diagnosing, studying, and explaining disorders turns out to be unproductive,” (authors).

And YOUR EVIDENCE comes from these quacks? If you’ll note, I asked for “scientific” evidence, not occult divinations, descriptive metaphysics, speculative theories without a scintilla of empirical evidence. That you even cite these quacks as your evidence reinforces my initial assessment of your promoting homophobia by promoting unsubstantiated claims by quacks. If you want a philosophical dressing-down of these quacks, I can refer you to any number of resources, including John Searle’s Rediscovery of Mind. At least Searle knows the difference between occult quackery and science. But please do not use quacks to justify mere assertions without scientific foundation. The fact that NARTH and other therapists continue in their trade is because these quacks have no frame of reference by which to arbitrate any claim, including some of their own members’ participation in the U.S.’s torture (psychologists, not psychiatrists barred by the Hippocratic Oath).

Readers desiring SCIENTIFIC understanding vis-a-vis the cult of therapeutic’s arbitrary claims may consult my essay:

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d43dchp_4cjqq4s

When presented to a local psychological service, not one of the quacks could refute a single claim. Withing the SCIENTIFIC community, homophilia is indisputably congenital. What the quacks claim today few of us care.

While the studies may not have discussed androgens, the results consistently tie in to androgen activity, whether it is finger length, handedness, brain studies, fraternal birth order effect, etc. Androgen activity is directly or indirectly involved, or suspected of being involved in some cases. The results have been fairly consistent with the neurohormonal theory, at least from my interpretations and understandings. Androgens impact many biological traits. It seems that many of the traits they impact are the ones where differences are being found between homosexual and heterosexual samples.

Patrick

I’m confused. Assessment of what?

And with due respect, I’ve not seen many studies that discussed androgens at all.

But I do agree that no one says it “proves” anything – because scientifically you can’t “prove” it. It’s also evident there are many paths up that mountain – but the paths always seem to have those same three variables involved.

I agree with the Wilson/Rahman conclusion that the weight of evidence is now beyond all reasonable doubt. But, that does not mean that everyone who engages in same-sex behavior was born with such an orientation.

Bogaert’s study about extreme-right-handedness and older brothers skipped my attention.

I wonder how that plays into Witelson’s observations about the isthmus area of the corpus callosum. She didn’t seem to make a distinction between right-handed and extreme-right-handed.

The more we find out about orientation, the more it seems to be a science of exceptions. Too much of this and too little of that on a tuesday when the moon is in the right spot and this gene is activated and that one not can interact with this hormone if the mother hickups and there are four older brothers but none are blonde (except the second) and if the baby’s first solid food is Gerber’s strained peas then he’ll be gay. Maybe.