Bruce Jenner's Début as "Caitlyn"

[billcu1]

The criticism made on Hooker’s study is that the researcher eliminated subjects who manifested considerable psychopathologal disturbance, therefore no real random sample was studied. The subjects were instigators of the study with a vested interest in the ultimate finding. It is not a surprise that such a non-random sample showed predictable Rorschach testing results. Hooker was only interested, to use her words, “in whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology”, not testing if homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally likely to be normal and well adjusted.

You ask where else could Ms. Hooker have recruited gay participants. Really, was Hooker left only with the choice of approaching members of the Mattachine Society? Could she not have used, was there no method that can be used, to get a cross section and collection of admitted/out and closeted homosexuals?

Although Thomas Landess did not have a Psychology degree, that does not preclude him from being an excellent investigator and analyst. As an expert on language and communication, he was more than qualified to understand what published researches assert. He had an illustrious career, albeit behind the scenes and out of the national limelight. He was professor and dean at the University of Dallas, held a respected role in the U.S. Department of Education, was an analyst during the Reagan years, and a Heritage Foundation contributor. He analyzed every scientific claim that served the homosexual activist movement, which gulled many, a reasonable concern, into believing an agenda that that would be a threat to religious freedom. That is indeed where we are now.

It may be that homosexuality is best out of the DSM, but because it was removed as a result of strong arm tactics by gay APA insiders, research efforts in getting to the bottom of the science on homosexuality have all but been abandoned or rendered not serious. The desired finding has been “established”, with mental health professionals who did not and do not agree (to the delisting of homosexuality as a disorder) being booted out. The outcome is sad for those adults with unwanted same sex attraction who seek management, and parents with same sex attracted minor children who wish counseling for their children, a chance for their growing child to curb development of same sex desire. Homosexuals who are happy with living out their sexual orientation should be left alone. Nobody should be forced to change. But why disallow self directed treatment to those who wish to get rid of their SSA? The APA now maintains that SOCEs are generally ineffective, but it also claims that said efforts are harmful without having shown proof of harm on those who chose to neutralize their homosexual orientation.

I offered the competing opinion or counter arguments to the delisting of homosexuality, largely turning on the Hooker study, which somebody else brought up in this thread.

---

Now it appears that activists are trying to have transsexuality / transgenderism in the DSM delisted in the same vein. With high emotion and questionable science. I don’t care if BJ gets his fix in posing for VF in a satin teddy. I personally believe that he is doing a disservice to transwomen and transmen who are now more than ever bent on transitioning, most likely on the SRS track whether they can afford it (most can not) or not. If SRS is not financially feasible, BJ’s debut as Caitlyn will likely fuel the suicide contagion all the more, in my view. The lives of family members, spouses and children of a transitioning adult / parent are deemed not important.

As for the phenomenon of transgender kids, an observer can not help but note: advocates and parents are allowed to subject their children to puberty blocking treatment via hormones, and yet, parents and mental health professionals are not allowed to pursue / provide therapy for the same sex condition of gay kids.

Where are we going as a society?

Politics is deep in the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc. and the A Psychological Assoc. I am sure.

 

[billcu1]

Excuse me but what does it matter that she had no ability to find a more random sample? This is a caution to drawing sweeping conclusions from the research, not an attack on Hooker. Considering Hooker’s person or motives are not the subject of the criticism, I think it thoroughly illogical to claim “She had no other choice” as a response to a criticism about how true/false the results of her research are. That she may have had no other choice or more random available participants has nothing to do with the criticism that this fact may have eschewed her findings. What I’m interested in is how true or false her findings are, and how representative of objective reality and that this be accurately reflected in the claims of those psychologists basing their positions on her. Not in the struggles researchers face in their work. We all have those.

Are you saying that if research on a truly random sample showed significantly greater numbers of pathologically affected individuals among homosexuals than the general population or heterosexuals, that this is insignificant in discussing correlations between homosexuality and pathology? I am genuinely confused here.

In order for the mathematics to be truly right. You need a random sample.

 

[OraLabora]

No I am not married. But Mary was. Did she and Joseph then have relations?

Completely irrelevant to my comment.

 

[billcu1]

Completely irrelevant to my comment.

What do you mean? I know the church allows sex between married persons in certain circumstances and NFP is to be used. But one can totally abstain if they wanted to I would guess. There are certainly good spiritual reasons for it. Monks live a celibate life for a good reason. They are not lay people either. They are trying harder to advance.

What was your point I must’ve missed it.