len wrote:
Evidence that something is present across a long stretch of history is hardly proof something is hardwired. Animals also do lots of things humans do not or should not so that doesn't tell me much either.It comes down to the type of evidence. The scientific community has been publishing on the biological factors that shape orientation for 30+ years now. Research on other species supports the role hormones play in how species members are wired.
len wrote:
I will readily accept that both sides of the debate have a vested interest in presenting their version of history.There's no debate. And it's not history. There's science and then there's the people with uniformed opinions making normative statements stemming from religious dogma.
len wrote:
I would also debate that we have a solid grasp of human sexuality. The long term effects of novel new family structures that were not the norm 30 years ago are yet to be seen. In the 70s we were told if you are unhappy get divorced the kids will be better off. They are quite adaptable they will be okay. Subsequent studies showed maybe not so.Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.
len wrote:
We really don't have any idea what the long term effects of allowing people to change their anatomy will be if they feel they are transgender. Will it make them feel better 20 or 40 years from now, will they be less likely to commit suicide? We don't know.Well luckily, there's a ton of research on what happens when you don't allow people to express the sexuality. A ton. None of it good. I agree that there's a need for gender reassignment to be tracked. But your point is an arguement that supports further research.
len wrote:
People still accept that 10 percent of the population is gay if you ask millennials they think its higher than that. The reality is it is more like 2-4 percent and the 10 percent number came from Kinsey's surveys of populations that were not at all representative of the general population. But the 10 percent rightly or wrongly was used because a higher number presented a more convincing argument that being gay is normal.Not sure I follow here. Are you highlighting the effort to repress any evidence supporting the legitimacy of homosexuality?
Anyways, great discussion!