- sexual orientation fixed by innate biology not supported by science
- While there are biological factors no compelling biological explanation
- longitudinal studies suggest that 80% of male adolescents who experience same sex attraction will no longer do so as adults
- non-heteros are about 2x to 3x more likely to have been sexually abused as children
- non-heteros are at elevated risks of adverse health and mental health outcomes
- non-heteros are at greater risk for anxiety, depression, suicide
- Gender identity not supported by scientific evidence
- 0.6% of adults experience gender and biological sex mismatch
I’ll have a more in-depth analysis of the New Atlantis piece once I’ve had time to read it thoroughly (it’s a very long document). So far I’m about a third of the way through and I’ve encountered very little that I’m not already familiar with. Actually most of the supposedly really controversial and damning evidence that this article brings up is well known within the academic queer community. Nobody in queer studies actually believes in the simplistic political formulation “Born that way” any more than any serious Christian theologian subscribes to the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” hypothesis.
As the authors of the Psychological Science in the Public Interest article point out, an individuals political attitudes about sexual orientation tend to correlate with their views of the causes of sexual orientation. Those who hold positive attitudes (i.e., that there is nothing inherently wrong with non-heterosexuality or its open expression) have tended to believe that sexual orientation is due to nonsocial causes such as genetics. Those who hold negative attitudes (i.e., that non-heterosexuality is undesirable or immoral and that society should restrict its free expression) have tended to believe that homosexuality has social causes, such as early sexual experiences and cultural acceptance of non-heterosexuality. We refer to these as the “nonsocial” and “social” hypotheses, respectively. Both hypotheses require direct scientific support; neither can claim confirmation solely because support for the other is weak.