To a 15 years old girl asked that being bisexual how she can find lesbian pertner without her parents knowing it:

You mustn’t destroy your own life with a false belief developed from a whim. Everyone is hetero/homo/bi/transsexual if he or she wants it. The longer she or he imagines so and the more sexual relationships she or he is engaged along with this belief the more he or she will feel so and identify herself or himself so. Being heterosexual is an adventure with long lasting benefits of having children and grandchildren. Being any other is the same without those benefits but with several times more of the painful experience of “oh I have lost my lover again” because these kind of relationships much more often end with (mostly unofficial) divorce than heterosexual ones.

To a 14 year old identifying as „pansexual” /like Miley Cyrus/ looking for company:

You don’t “have to” be any kind of “sexual” at this age. Or, more exactly, at any age. If you are unsure about whether you want children later or not – and that is absolutely normal at this young age (or often even much later) – then just say that instead of being “pansexual”.

To someone who wrote "my crush just told me he is pansexual … what should I do about that":

Homosexuality is NOT genetically determined, according to science, contrary to what many was (deceptively) made to believe. (A 2019 article in Science magazine has shown the scientific evidence about that). Thus being whatever kind of …sexual comes from the mind. Most often we do not listen to the ideas emerging within us or what we receive from others in this field and that is why we “don’t remember” how we got this or that kind of “feeling …sexual”. 

So “real self” has nothing to do with sexual orientation. You really are who or what you want to be.

Everyone is hetero/homo/bi/transsexual if he or she wants it. The longer she or he imagines so and the more sexual relationships she or he is engaged along with this belief the more he or she will feel so and identify herself or himself so. Being heterosexual is an adventure with long lasting benefits of having children and grandchildren. Being any other is the same without those benefits but with several times more of the painful experience of “oh I have lost my lover again” because these kind of relationships much more often end with (mostly unofficial) divorce than heterosexual ones.

You should warn and inform him about these facts.

About the "nobody chose this" and the "how could a heterosexual become homosexual" slogans:

Most often we do not listen to the ideas emerging within us or what we receive from others in this field and that is why we “don’t remember” how we got this or that kind of “feeling …sexual”.

About homosexual youngsters taking their own lives:

Some homosexuals tried their best to be heterosexuals and it worked. Some remained homosexuals and some of these latter took their own lives. But noone can tell if they did so because “they could not accept themselves” or because they could not accept being left by their last actual lover the 17th time. And this latter seems to be more likely to me.

The more one is involved into homosexual lifestyle – with sexual acts and relationships – the bigger chance of that mentioned psychological harm and the smaller chance that he or she would be able to change because experience and memories have an accumulating psychological momentum.

.

A Leftist Liberal Liar (LLL) politician began the Era of The Persecution of Christianity in Australia in February 2021. Harriet Shing Labour MP publicly lied in the Australian Parliament when she indirectly called homosexuality an unchangeable essence of being human and when she openly admixed sex with love. Her lies meant the official overture of the Australian Newspeak Era - an Era with the persecution not only of Christians and Jews but of anybody who has brain and backbone. The new law against family and children, against free speech and religious liberty will be enacted in order to make it unconditional to "love" without "denying who we are" Harriet Shing sobbed. She really meant that she wants sex with another woman - that is what she meant by "love" - and that "she was born that way" so she is "like that", homosexual - genetically, ab ovo, in her essence. 

But it is common scientific knowledge, not some secret (yet) that a recent analysis of half a million persons' genetic data showed that a person have only a 1% bigger chance of becoming homosexual (more exactly having at least one homosexual partner) based on his or her DNA, so the reason why someone is homosexual is explained in 99% by something else not the genes. Thus homosexuality is not genetically determined - it is not "who we are" as she "sobbed" to propagate her victim's role. Yes, "the State has to defend poor homosexuals whose human essence is this as they are born that way". Or, really, not. Will Science magazine also be banned in Leftist Liberal Australia? Or only this study in it? 

Ganna, Andrea et al.: Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. in: Science, Aug 30, 2019.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

"This bill is an attack on basic freedoms, it is an attack on freedom of choice, it is an attack on free speech and it is an attack of freedom of association," said Bernie Finn Liberal MP (someone who is rightly Liberal), criticizing the bill.

Yes, the new law is such, and it is not based on scientific facts - that would justify such serious harm of even basic freedoms - but on pseudo-scientific lies. 

But what, then, if not the DNA produces homosexual inclination? Scientific evidence of a research in New Zealand showed that the young homosexuals' families were more often disturbed (or "socially mutilated") than that of the average youth - having higher rates of divorced parents, stepparents or incarcerated parents. This way they more often lacked one of their parents (probably mostly their father) during their childhood.

Source

David M. Fergusson – L. John Horwood – Annette L. Beautrais: Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People? in: Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct 1999;56(10):876-880

Child abuse, especially pederasty is probably a substantial factor behind the development of homosexuality in children. Scientific evidence showed that the rate of those sexually abused in a young age was very high among homosexual men, 37%, and the perpetrator was a man in 94% of these cases.

Source

Doll, Lynda S. – Dan Joy – Brad N. Bartholow – Janet S. Harrison – Gail Bolan – Linda E. Saltzman – Patricia M. Moss – John M. Douglas – Wanda Delgado: Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men. in: Child Abuse and Neglect, 1992, 16: 855-864 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213492900878

But why is this all so important? A few individuals will be hindered in trying to help homosexuals heal psychologically by this new law. So what? Can they be healed at all?

Supporters of the new law hinted at "cruel and unscientific conversion efforts" as if this was some naturally born status (which is not as it is proven) or as if this was some "sexual religion" with devoted believers whom Christians want to violently "convert". The political phrases and slogans of the Leftist Liberals suggested that "science is on our side" and "we will defend you,  poor victims, from that outdated, baseless and irrational religion, Christianity". 

On the one hand it is clear that science is not on "their" side at all, as for the scientific evidence. (Some poorly informed, misled or intimidated scientists might be, sadly, but they are not real scientists in this particular field, then. Scientist is a person who knows the basic facts of his field of research well enough and does not afraid to speak about them.) Scientific evidence shows that homosexuality is not genetically determined and so it is developed by social, psychological and cultural factors then, logically. And if it was developed so, then similar factors might heal it. 

But why would "healing" be necessary? "Should it" be harmful - and then be seen as an illness - at all? Yes. Homosexual couples mean a biologically necessarily sterile model of relationship and that sterility often, understandably, leads to the lack of psychological restraints that would prevent the break-up of the couple. The even higher rate of the break up of the couples and the even higher rate of sexual permissiveness than in the heterosexual population necessarily leads to higher rates of deterioration of mental and somatic health (like the high rates of drug abuse, attempted suicide or sexually transmitted diseases). This is why homosexuality is, really, a mental illness: it means a biologically distorted relationship model - based on  and developed by psychological factors - that very often leads to bad mental and somatic consequences.

The American Psychiatric Association (and later WHO) based the decisions of homosexuality being "not an illness" (in the BNO list of mental diseases) basically on the agressive political pressure (bordering terrorism) exerted by homosexual political activists. 

Source

Lynne Lamberg: Gay Is Okay With APA—Forum Honors Landmark 1973 Events. JAMA. 1998;280(6):497-499. doi:10.1001/jama.280.6.497.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187846

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Liberation_Front

Human sexuality is as changeable as human mentality and character in general and some homosexuals spontaneously leave that lifestyle and orientation throughout their lives. Some others seek therapy and when they get it some of these latter experience substantial positive change. They do no lose their memories of homosexual lifestyle and desires, of course, but many are able to build a new, heterosexual identity and orientation and make it dominant in their minds. Many former homosexuals live in happy heterosexual marraiges in the USA, for example. 

Some homosexualist activists answer to these facts that "those were not real homosexuals", implicitly propagating the already debunked, false myth of the existence of "genetically determined real homosexuals". 

It is true that the rate of healing of homosexuals at the average is not higher than that of alcoholists or drug addicts: about one third is completely healed, about another third experiences some substantial amelioration in his or her state and the left cannot be healed. So the reparative (and not "conversion") therapy of homosexuals is not efficient enough, according to some. And? Should the similar therapies for alcoholists with similar efficiency be banned because of the "only moderate" success, too? Is this an absurd question? 

Source

Haldeman, D. C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 221—227.

And, last but not least, charges of "cruelty" and "unscientific methods" were thrown on reparative therapies indiscriminately. Basically, some methods were mentioned in the political rhetoric that were used by some psychiatrists 50-100 years ago or some methods used in third world countries by self-styled "medical experts"; they were "put on the stage" in political slogans while the really effective, humane and scientific methods - many American therapeutes do use and with nice succes - were consciously withhold. And by this manipulative method even some of the opponents of the law were misled. For example, "Bishop Shane Mackinlay of Sandhurst said he supported the intent of the government to protect vulnerable individuals from coercion or harm" (yes, from coercion or harm, but they consciously ban everything) "...but that he shared the Church’s concern for freedom of speech and the freedom of religion." And "Catholic opponents of the bill fear that its broad language will allow government officials to go beyond protecting people from harmful practices and will be used to silence free speech in families and the free choices of individuals who want to follow the teachings of their religion."

Source

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/victorias-conversion-therapy-bill-a-dramatic-overreach-of-the-state-52990

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-05/victorias-gay-conversion-bill-passes-upper-house/13122058

So, frankly, they  want to oppress any public social or cultural obejction to any kind of perverted behavior and even parents will be forced to speak to their children about normal, and healthy sexuality only in secret. Or else... A "hush culture" will be created the oppressed Christians of Communist dictatorships suffered so long and learned so well. While even small children will be taught by textbooks, novels, films, pop songs or electronic games that "anything goes" in the field of sexuality (as long as there is a consensus between two persons - although who knows how long will this last taboo still remain). Practically, a totalitarian dictatorship of sexual lunacy, libertinism and perversions is the Brave New World the Left pushes in Australia and worldwide. And woe to anyone who dares to openly, publicly oppose this agenda. But... It can be foreseen that at least many Christians or Jews won't accept these things - and so the foundation for a systematic persecution of Christians and Jews was created by this new law. 

The question arises whether Hungary (or other pro-family countries like Poland or Russia) will give political asylum to the persecuted Christians and Jews of Australia.

A few years ago a Polish bishop claimed that the Homosexualist movement means an even greater threat and evil than the Nazis and the Communist added. He was right. 

I thought about what a proper symbol would be for them, instead of the rainbow they robbed. The flower of the Devil's apple? It looks as a hybrid of a swastika and a pentagram.

*

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-05/victorias-gay-conversion-bill-passes-upper-house/13122058

Victorian bill banning gay conversion therapy passes Upper House as amendments fail

A bill banning LGBTIQ+ conversion therapy has passed Victoria's Upper House, and will become law, despite tensions within the Coalition and concerns from some religious leaders that the law could have unintended consequences.

The bill passed without amendments at around 10:30pm on Thursday night, 27 votes to nine.

The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practises Prohibition Bill makes it illegal to try and change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity in Victoria.

It also gives power to Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to investigate and refer matters to police.

The law includes prison terms of up to 10 years or hefty fines for anyone caught trying to suppress or change someone's sexuality by conducting suppression practices.

The bill had the support of the Greens' Samantha Ratnam, Fiona Patton from the Reason Party and Andy Meddick from the Animal Justice Party.

The only openly gay MP in the Victorian Upper House, Harriet Shing, made an emotional speech in favour of the bill.

Ms Shing, the Member for Eastern Victoria, sobbed as she spoke about the "deeply personal" nature of the bill.

"Shame is at the heart of the need for this legislation, and it is a recognition of this shame that has brought about the importance of a bill like this," Ms Shing said.

"Shame comes in so many layers, and people who grow up in a family or in a faith that says that they are not good enough, that they are wrong — that we are wrong — that says in fact that love is conditional upon us either denying who we are or agreeing to change — or in certain tragic circumstances, are forced to change."

The Victorian Opposition said it would not oppose the legislation but unsuccessfully tried to put forward amendments after raising concerns about religious freedoms.

Outspoken Liberal MP and the Member for Western Metropolitan region, Bernie Finn, said he believed the bill went too far.

"This bill is an attack on basic freedoms, it is an attack on freedom of choice, it is an attack on free speech and it is an attack of freedom of association," Mr Finn said.

Equality Australia CEO Anna Brown welcomed the new law, which follows similar reforms around gay conversion therapy in Queensland and the ACT.

"This law sends a powerful message that LGBTQ+ people are whole and valid just as they are, and establishes powerful mechanisms to deal with incredibly harmful practices that LGBTQ+ people have, for too long, endured across Victoria," she said.

"From consent-based facilitation, investigation and enforcement action by the Equal Opportunity Commission, to criminal penalties for serious injury, this legislation provides a range of avenues to prevent harm and bring perpetrators to justice."

1 Homosexuality is not genetically determined.

Analysis of half a million persons' genetic data showed that the common poligenic score determining and foretelling homosexual trait meant that homosexual behaviour was determined in less than 1% by human DNA. (Single nucleotid polymorphisms /SNP/ showing some weak connection to genes in less than 25% of the cases did not mean determining power.)

Thus a person have a 1% bigger chance of becoming homosexual based on the DNA, so the reason why someone is homosexual is explained in 99% by something else not the genes.

Source

Ganna, Andrea et al.: Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. in: Science, Aug 30, 2019.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

2 Becoming homosexual is substantially influenced by social and psychological factors.

Scientific evidence of a research showed that the young homosexuals' families were more often disturbed (or "socially mutilated") than that of the average youth - having higher rates of divorced parents, stepparents or incarcerated parents. This way they more often lacked one of their parents (probably mostly their father) during their childhood.

Source

David M. Fergusson – L. John Horwood – Annette L. Beautrais: Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People? in: Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct 1999;56(10):876-880

Child abuse, especially pederasty is probably a substantial factor behind the development of homosexuality in children. 

Scientific evidence showed that the rate of those sexually abused in a young age was very high among homosexual men, 37%, and the perpetrator was a man in 94% of these cases.

Source

Doll, Lynda S. – Dan Joy – Brad N. Bartholow – Janet S. Harrison – Gail Bolan – Linda E. Saltzman – Patricia M. Moss – John M. Douglas – Wanda Delgado: Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men. in: Child Abuse and Neglect, 1992, 16: 855-864 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213492900878

It is important to note regarding pederasty or pedophilia that the rate of pedophiles among Catholic priests proved to be low and lower than in the average population in the USA according to a serious scientific study, the John Jay Report. This is important to note because such cases are so much emphasised in the media that a false picture about "pedophillia is Catholic priests' typical sin" is formed in the public opinion. No, it is rare and not typical at all. 

On the other hand there is a strong connection between pedophilia (pederasty) and homosexuals. During a research 150 homosexual men were asked and since the age of 21 69% of them had at least one underage partner, and 45% of them at least 4 such partners.

Source 

Erich Goode – Richard R. Troiden: Correlates and Accompaniments of Promiscuous Sex Among Male Homosexuals.  in: Psychiatry Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 43(1):51-9· March 1980

Some probably become homosexual because they were grown up in families of bisexual or homosexual parents. 

A research result showed that the rate of homosexually inclined children was higher among the homosexual clients of child custody cases than among the heterosexual clients' children.

Source

Cameron, Paul – Cameron, Kirk: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children. 1998 Psychological Reports, p1155-1191 

Another scientific evidence showed that the rate of children with uncertain gender identity was higher among the children of lesbian mothers than among children of the same age in the general population.

Source

Stacey, Judith – Biblarz, Timothy: (How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review 2001/2

It is important to note that on the one hand, there is no direct evidence of children becoming homosexual because of homosexual parents, as yet - but on the other hand the scientific evidence referred to in the latter cases shows that there is such a connection.

3 There is no evidence about other biological factors than the genes determining homosexuality - this possibility is not even likely or realistic.

Some claim without a scientific basis that homosexuals are "born that way" not because of their genes but because of some harmful hormonal effect they were exposed to in the womb. This concept - with no scientific evidence this far - supposes some biological mechanism in the human brain that would determine an individual's homosexuality.

There are a few biological factors in the human body that might influence our sexuality to a certain extent but none of them is known to have such a determining power.

Pheromones influence animal sexual behaviour but the role of natural body odour became tiny in human relationships - if this is a factor at all for us, only one of many. And should it work a disturbed way in someone's body even then it could not determine a conscious match seeking behaviour.

A low level of the hormone dopamine might make it harder for men to form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex but again this might be only one factor of many. The sum of them is what counts and a mutually conscious, patient, gentle and loving behaviour in a couple's relationship can make the two persons accomodate to each other's personal psychological particularities and character.

A low level of the hormone testosterone does not object sexual relationship but perhaps it might hinder acceptance in the peer group of a boy or young man. This might lead to one being marginalised and bullied and ostracized (as "not real boy") and then through this to the disturbance or loss of the sound sense of one's own male gender. 

All of these three later are only theoretical possiblities not justified this far by science. And even if they would be they could not mean a factor determining one to become homosexual.

These latter marginal and uncertain possibilities and the evidenced peripheric influence of the genes on human sexual behaviour mean too weak basis to declare the population of homosexuals a natural minority "born that way" and homosexual identity or behaviour being "part of the essence of their humanity". Although several laws and legal decisions have ascribed and delegated such a legal status to the homosexual population as a "natural minority group" recently, this view is scientifically baseless.

4 The APA's and WHO's decisions about removing homosexuality from the list of illnesses (BNO) was not based on proper scientific evidence - but on political pressure - and so the claim that "homosexuality is not illness" is not the "position of science" or "scienific".

"As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the American Psychiatric Association began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny  /on the photo illustrating this article/ worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." Anti-psychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".

Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_DSM

The 1973 decision was supported by a false research result, too (which was used as a pretext to the "not an illness" decision). "A mental illnes is only an illness if it is coupled with other mental problems, too" was the basic assumption which researcher Evelyn Hooker used in her cherry picking research: she made tests with homosexuals without any other mental problem and could not find significant differences between their test results and those of a control group of heterosexuals also without mental problems. 

Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker

Why this was a false assumption, a cherry picking fallacy and a false method from her part is that mental health problems are extremely frequent among homosexuals - so she chose those few healthy among the many sick as "typical examples". The question arises here, of course, if homosexuality is a reason of those typical problems or not. 

We know from sociological research results that homosexual relationships are extremely fragile and promiscuity is much more widespread among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. 

Source

Wilfried Rault – Camille Lambert: Homosexuality and Bisexuality: Contributions of the EPIC survey. in: Population, Vol. 74, 2019/1-2., p167-186

This leads to the frequent experiences of the breakdown of relationships, of being left alone, of loneliness and to the general lack of the sense of security. Such a lifestyle can explain the high rate of drug abuse and attempted suicide among the homosexual population - although the latter might also be explained by the high rate of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS.

But why are homosexual relationships so fragile? Well, the fragility of heterosexual relationships also became rather high in the developed countries in the last decades - basically because of increasing individualism and the spreading culture of sexual permissiveness. The rate of children (total fertility rate) became too low because children are already not seen as centrally important by many couples. Couples have their first child later and later at the average - and still, having children and having a family with children remained a major basic value for the majority of youth. Having children means responsibility and restraints for the individual behaviour, especially in the field of sexuality. These latter restraints are not present in the life of homosexual couples: they cannot and don't have common biological children and they cannot beget or conceive any child in an outer homosexual relationship, either. The lack of these natural restraints explain well the even higher fragility of homosexual couples' relationships.

Thus homosexual couples mean a biologically necessarily sterile model of relationship and that sterility often, understandably, leads to the lack of psychological restraints that would prevent the break-up of the couple. The even higher rate of the break up of the couples and the even higher rate of sexual permissiveness than in the heterosexual population necessarily leads to higher rates of deterioration of mental and somatic health (like the high rates of drug abuse, attempted suicide or sexually transmitted diseases). This is why homosexuality is, really, a mental illness: it means a biologically distorted relationship model - based on  and developed by psychological factors - that very often leads to bad mental and somatic consequences. Cherry-picking those who are not yet stricken by such consequences from a population where they are widespread and pretending this is the "typical" in that population like Evelyn Hooker did is a fraud. 

And the APA and the WHO based the decisions of homosexuality being "not an illness" (in the BNO list of mental diseases) on this fraud and on the agressive political pressure (bordering terrorism) exerted by homosexual political activists. 

Brown University and PLoS ONE: Defend academic freedom and scientific inquiry.

We, the undersigned, are writing in support of Dr. Lisa Littman /on the picture/ of Brown University and her study on the topic of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD).

Many of us are parents of teens and young adults who, having never expressed discomfort with their sex during childhood, experienced a sudden onset of gender dysphoria after exposure to the concept through peers and/or websites promoting transition. Some of the signatories to this petition are parents who completed Dr. Littman’s survey. The results of the study support the possibility that social contagion, rather than an innate, immutable sense of incongruence between body and mind, may be at work in some of these cases.

We are grateful that Dr. Littman’s research has been published and that this issue is finally beginning to get the attention it deserves. Although an abrupt adolescent onset of dysphoria has been mentioned previously in the scientific literature[1] , Dr. Littman’s study is the first to explore and document the phenomenon in detail. It describes what appears to be happening to many young people today.

We must be very clear: the parental reports in this study offer important and much-needed preliminary information about a cohort of adolescents, mostly girls, who with no prior history of dysphoria, are requesting irreversible medical interventions, including the potential to impair fertility and future sexual function. In any other group of children, these grave consequences would be seen as human rights violations unless there was significant and overwhelming evidence these procedures would be beneficial long-term.

Across the world in the last few years, researchers and clinicians have noted a sharp uptick in the number of young people, primarily females, who are requesting medical transition services. For example, in the United Kingdom gender clinic referrals have quadruped in the last five years. This constitutes an epidemic. As a leader in public health research, it is incumbent upon Brown University to investigate the causes and conditions leading to this sharp increase, as well as the long term outcomes.

We are disheartened to see that Brown University has already removed a news release announcing the study from its website and replaced it with a letter to their community that states: “There is an added obligation for vigilance in research design and analysis any time there are implications for the health of the communities at the center of research and study."

We, the undersigned, many of whom are parents who participated in Littman’s survey, agree wholeheartedly that the “scientific community holds an obligation for vigilance in research design and methodology.” There has yet to be a study that includes a cohort of youth offered mental health care in place of affirmation therapy. The glaring absence of a control group of youth who are supported by their families in their gender exploration but who are not affirmed in “wrong body” beliefs is a failure of the scientific community. As the number of girls and young women who desist from their trans identification grows, we must demand recognition for this cohort as members of the “communities at the center of research and study.”

The university has effectively caved to pressure from activists who claim that Dr. Littman recruited participants from "anti-trans” or “far right” hate sites. Similarly, the moderator of the PLOS One Twitter site promised to “investigate” the published study after trans activists mobbed their account. Trans activists claim the parents who completed the survey were too transphobic to accept that their children were trans and too disconnected to have noticed that they had been suffering from dysphoria since childhood.

These claims are false in every respect. The three websites referenced are available for all to view, but the vast majority of contributors are secular, engaged, open-minded, mostly liberal-leaning parents.

These sites point to the probability that many kids who are today identifying as trans are in fact experiencing internalized homophobia. In other words, the contributors to these sites are concerned about the wellbeing of gay and lesbian kids, and they want to ensure that their children are not transitioning simply because they are ashamed of their sexual orientation.

Consider the study results:

• 85.9% support same-sex marriage.
• 88.2% believe trans people deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else.

Clearly, those who claim the respondents are from the far right are either misinformed or disingenuous.

And what of the claim that the parents were “unsupportive” or too disconnected from their children to recognize they had felt dysphoric during childhood? Dr. Littman acknowledges this possibility in her paper. However, she also notes that “the 200 plus responses appear to have been prepared carefully and were rich in detail, suggesting they were written in good faith and that parents were attentive observers of their children’s lives.”

Littman’s study offers, for the first time, a glimpse into families who hold space for their dysphoric children while also seeking out mental health care that focuses on underlying conditions. Consider some of her findings:

• 204 out of 256 youth reported on in the study claimed alternative sexualities to their parents prior to coming out as transgender
• Over 200 youth were supported in changing their presentation in terms of hairstyle and dress
• 188 had changed their names
• 175 had changed their pronouns
• 111 youth told their parents they wanted to see a gender therapist; 92 were taken to see one

Moreover, of Dr. Littman’s respondents, there were only eight cases of estrangement: six by the youths themselves and two “where the estrangement was initiated by the parent because the AYA’s outbursts were affecting younger siblings or there was a threat of violence made by the AYA to the parent.” [AYA = “adolescent or young adult.”]

These are clearly parents who supported their children in their distress and through exploration of identity. Littman’s study also found that 119 youth requested medical interventions at the same time they announced their new gender identity or within the first month of their announcement. Remember, 100% of the youth discussed in her survey did not qualify for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria at any point in their childhood or prior to coming out. Yet, 17 youth were offered an Rx on their first visit with a clinician. Perhaps even more concerning, “For parents who knew the content of their child’s evaluation, 71.6% reported that the clinician did not explore issues of mental health, previous trauma, or any alternative causes of gender dysphoria before proceeding and 70.0% report that the clinician did not request any medical records before proceeding.” This is in a cohort of young people of whom 62.5% had been diagnosed with at least one mental health or neurodevelopmental disability prior to the onset of gender dysphoria, which mirrors data from other affirmation-focused clinics.[2]

Another notable criticism of the study is that Dr. Littman sought input only from parents, not from their children. Here again she acknowledges the limitation: “Although this research adds the necessary component of parent observation to our understanding of gender dysphoric adolescents and young adults, future study in this area should include both parent and child input.” We understand that Dr. Littman plans future surveys specifically for dysphoric youth and we cannot emphasize enough how important this research will be for this particular group of young people and their families.

We, the signatories to this letter, overwhelmingly support the rights of transgender people, but we want better diagnostic and mental health care for youth who suddenly demand serious medical interventions, particularly in the absence of a history of dysphoria. We believe that medical interventions that may benefit some individuals may not help, and may even harm, others, as already evidenced by the growing number of desisters and detransitioners, many of whom have already suffered from irreversible side effects of their earlier medical transition . We support more research to help distinguish between the two groups, and Dr. Littman's study is an important first step.

We strongly urge Brown University and PLOS ONE to resist ideologically-based attempts to squelch controversial research evidence. Please stand firm for academic freedom and scientific inquiry. We urge you to support Dr. Littman in this important line of research.

Contacts for personal letters and phone calls:

Bess Marcus, Dean of School of Public Health, bess_marcus@brown.edu, 401-863-9858

Christopher Kahler, Chair of Behavioral and Social Sciences, christopher_kahler@brown.edu, 401-863-6651

Brian Clark, Director of News and Editorial Development, brian_clark@brown.edu, 401-863-1638

Joerg Heber, PLOS ONE Editor-in-Chief, jheber@plos.org, 415-624-1200

[1] See, for example, Bonfatto, M. & Crasnow, E. (2018) Gender/ed identities: an overview of our current work as child psychotherapists in the Gender Identity Development Service, Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 44:1, 29-46, DOI: 10.1080/0075417X.2018.1443150. Also see Byne, W., Bradley, S. J., Coleman, E., Eyler, A. E., Green, R., Menvielle, E. J., . . . Tompkins, D. A. (2012). Report of the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(4), 759-796. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9975-x.

[2] “In all diagnostic [mental health] categories, prevalence was severalfold higher among TGNC youth than in matched reference groups.” http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/earl...

5032signers

1535 comments

*

Source:

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/brown-university-and-plos-one-defend-academic

*

Brown criticized for removing article on transgender study

by Brooke Sopelsa

Sept 5, 2018

Brown University is being criticized over its decision to remove news about a study on transgender youth from its website.

The paper by assistant professor Lisa Littman suggests that gender dysphoria, or a conflict between one's gender identity and sex assigned at birth, occurring around the time of puberty — as opposed to early childhood — could be due to peer pressure or online influences.

Brown representatives say they removed the article because of concerns over the study’s research methodology.

Bess H. Marcus, dean of Brown's School of Public Health, also said in a statement that “independent of” concerns regarding research methodology, the school had heard from "Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.”

Littman says she stands by the study’s conclusion that more research is needed to better understand “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in adolescents and young adults and its “implications and scope.”

An online petition, which garnered more than 4,000 signatures as of Wednesday afternoon, was created by supporters of Littman’s research to encourage the university to resist “ideologically based attempts to squelch controversial research evidence.”

“The parental reports in this study offer important and much-needed preliminary information about a cohort of adolescents, mostly girls, who with no prior history of dysphoria, are requesting irreversible medical interventions,” the petition states.

The petition’s authors, many of whom claim to be “parents who participated in Littman’s survey,” also refuted claims that the study’s participants were anti-transgender.

“We, the signatories to this letter, overwhelmingly support the rights of transgender people, but we want better diagnostic and mental health care for youth who suddenly demand serious medical interventions," the petition continues.

Source: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/brown-university-criticized-over-removal-transgender-study-n906741 

Victoria's conversion therapy bill 'a dramatic overreach of the state'

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/victorias-conversion-therapy-bill-a-dramatic-overreach-of-the-state-52990

CNA Staff, Dec 10, 2020 / 08:11 pm MT (CNA).- A bill seeking to ban so-called conversion therapy for sexual orientation or gender identity in the Australian state of Victoria dangerously oversteps the bounds of protecting people from coercive practices, the Archbishop of Melbourne said.

“I encourage every action to protect people from harm. A bill that protected people would have my full support,” Archbishop Peter Comensoli said in a statement.

“The problem is this bill doesn’t merely do what it claims. It targets prayer, and appears to impose silence on people of faith from sharing their beliefs in an open, honest and faithful way. The bill imposes on the right of parents and children to speak plainly and honestly with one another. It robs adults from seeking whatever guidance and pastoral support they seek concerning deeply personal matters,” he said.

Comensoli has been a strong opponent of Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, which was introduced in late November. The bill would outlaw practices that encourage individuals to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity and thereby cause undue harm. It would also outlaw sending someone out of state to partake in such practices. Those in violation of the law would face $10,000 in fines or 10 years in prison.

The bill would empower the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to launch investigations into reports of people or institutions engaging in conversion practices.

“We’re sending a clear message: no one is ‘broken’ because of their sexuality or gender identity,” Victoria’s attorney general, Jill Hennessy, of the Labor Party, told The Guardian. “These views won’t be tolerated in Victoria and neither will these abhorrent practices.”

The bill defines such practices as those “directed towards a person that is based on the person's sexual orientation or gender identity which seeks to change or suppress or induce the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. It includes a practice that occurs with or without the person's consent.”

Catholic opponents of the bill fear that its broad language will allow government officials to go beyond protecting people from harmful practices and will be used to silence free speech in families and the free choices of individuals who want to follow the teachings of their religion.

This could impact Catholic ministries like Courage, which exists to support Catholics with same-sex attraction who desire to live chaste and celibate lives in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Courage does not aim to change participant’s sexual orientation, but rather encourages them to live in accordance with Church teaching.

“Courage members are men and women who experience same-sex attractions and who have made a commitment to strive for chastity. They are inspired by the Gospel call to holiness and the Catholic Church’s beautiful teachings about the goodness and inherent purpose of human sexuality,” the ministry’s website states. “Through our apostolate, people who experience same-sex attraction receive pastoral support in the form of spiritual guidance, community prayer support, and fellowship.”

The bill states that possible conversion or suppression practices could include “religious practices such as prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or exorcisms.”

Comensoli said the government has no business regulating the free choice of how individuals practice their religion.  “No government has an interest in what a person prays for, who they pray to, who they pray with, or what conversations happen between members of a family,” he said in his statement.
 
“It is not clear that parents in Victoria have been told clearly that this bill affects what they can say and how they say it with their own children,” the archbishop added.

“This looks like a dramatic over-reach of the state into family life, private matters, pastoral contexts of conversion, prayer and spiritual accompaniment,” he said.

Bishop Shane Mackinlay of Sandhurst said he supported the intent of the government to protect vulnerable individuals from coercion or harm, but that he shared the Church’s concern for freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

"I support the intent of preventing coercive and intrusive attempts to interfere with people's free choice about themselves, their identity, their place in life, their place in society and their relationships," Mackinlay told the Bellingen Shire Courier-Sun, an Australian news publication.

But he said that “assurances” should be included in the bill that it will not be used to silence religious teachings.

John Steenhoff, managing director of the Human Rights Law Alliance, told The Catholic Weekly in Australia that the bill is “a direct attack on religious beliefs, in particular Christianity, and will target those who hold to traditional convictions on sexual orientation and gender identity issues.”

“It is far too broad and will legislate extreme ideology, particularly around gender ideology,” Steenhoff said. “On first review, the bill is the worst of the recent State legislative efforts that deal with so-called conversion therapy bans and will be dangerous for religious freedom.”

“The bill imposes draconian limits and criminal sanctions on what Australians can think and speak about contentious issues of sexuality and gender,” he added.

Amid mounting pressure to affirm medically the gender identities of transgendered persons, the Australian Catholic Medical Association this past spring defended its Christian approaches to sex, gender, and the human person.

In an online conference in May, the association focused on proposals in several Australian states that have considered mandating the medical affirmation of transgender identity and sexual orientation which could in effect outlaw the Christian vision of human health and psychology in medical care, the association told CNA at the time.

The Victoria conversion therapy bill’s proposal also comes roughly one year after Victoria passed a law that would require priests to violate the seal of confession if anything in the confession gave them reason to suspect occurrences of child abuse. That law carries a sentence of up to three years in prison if a mandatory reporter does not report abuse to the authorities.

A priest is forbidden by both divine and canon law both from violating the seal of confession, as well as from making absolution conditional on future actions in the external forum.