According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006
Started by Hazumu, May 27, 2008, 12:31:05 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteAt any rate, the idea that there is solid research showing the link between transsexualism and genetic or hormonal preconditions is shaky and preliminary at best. I am willing to be corrected by any conclusive research out there. I have noted many "theories" being put forward by researchers but not one of them has been confirmed by independent experiments under controlled laboratory conditions. The bottom line is that the burden of proof lies with those who formulate the theories. Prove it under scientific conditions or else your theory remains just a theory.
QuoteMickey said... Your position that there is no compelling evidence that there isn't a genetic component to homosexuality and transgender is just plain wrong. The question is your acceptance or denial of the existing evidence or as you refer to them "theories".Every position in science is "theoretical". You say that you are willing to be corrected by conclusive scientific evidence, but in essence you are unwilling to be corrected by science because everything in medical research is circumstantial to a certain degree. The Crestor and Plavix you or your neighbor takes isn't "conclusively supported", nor is the possibility that a normal dosage of ibuprofen everyday won't cause irreversible liver damage. The larger question in any medical research is how well supported is a theory, can this research be repeated with the same results, and how well were the studies conducted in terms of research type/data collection method/ p values, etc, etc. What noone really says from your clearly Christian conservative Rightwing position is that the question of whether or not homosexuality/->-bleeped-<- has genetic components really has nothing to do with science at all. It's a matter of justifying bigotry. I am a MD/PhD (a medical scientist .... and a genetitist to be more exact) and it has always struck me as odd how only in the case of sexuality do populations of non-science people who for the most part have no idea how to conduct or interpret research try to get involved in determining what is and isn't valid research findings. You don't hear breast cancer communities making a fuss over whether or not BRCA1&2 are actually related to a higher frequency of breast cancer. So why now does the public suddenly fell capable of questioning science? I don't know but I can't help but wonder if it's because people can't even bear to entertain the thought that MAYBE, possibly a lifestyle that makes so many people uncomfortable and hateful may not be some sort of evil misguided choice but maybe, and quite possibly might be as "natural" and inevitable as heterosexuality is so for some people? If you find transgender and homosexuals scary, uncomfortable, sinful, and just plain icky .... then have some integrity and say so. Don't base it on supposed inconclusive research that you know nothing about. To not believe the science for moral or religious regions is one thing, but don't insult us all by acting as if it doesn't exist.So maybe before you go discounting valid science that I'm sure you haven't really sifted through and analyzed for yourself ..... maybe you should get a PubMed subscription instead of relying on bias organizations for credible reporting of medical studies. Expecting an organization with a agenda to give an accurate report on research findings regardless of the issue is worse than people who get their science from Good Morning America, Yahoo health, or pharmaceutical advertisements.
