Gays and Trannies BTFO by John Hopkins Scientists

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
>According to a new report, scientific evidence fails to support the “born that way” theory of sexual orientation. In addition, there is “no evidence” that “all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender,” the findings state.

>The authors reviewed several possible explanations for the “born that way” hypothesis, including genetics, exposure to prenatal hormones and neurobiological differences. In addition, by presuming that sexual orientation is rooted in genetics, researchers or clinicians may miss other relevant factors — including, for example, childhood physical or sexual abuse, which is experienced in disproportionately high numbers by nonheterosexuals. Moreover, if nonheterosexual desires, preferences and behavior were indeed biological, one might expect them to remain fixed throughout a person’s life. Instead, “there is now considerable scientific evidence that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors and even identities can, and sometimes do, change over time.”
>The new report strongly counters this transgender myth. “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” A variation of this myth argues that a transgender person has, for example, a “male brain,’’ but a woman’s body. After reviewing studies of neurobiological differences in the brains of transgender persons, the report’s authors state that “all interpretations, usually in popular outlets,” suggesting that brain differences between transgender people and others are “the cause” of being transgendered are “unwarranted.”

>eppc.org/publications/new-study-refutes-lgbt-born-that-way-theory-transgender-labels-for-children/

Checkmate.

Other urls found in this thread:

lifesitenews.com/opinion/pediatrician-transgender-ideology-has-created-widespread-child-abuse
jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293319
thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016)
thenewatlantis.com/publications/frequently-asked-questions-sexuality-and-gender)
thenewatlantis.com/about/our-publisher)
eppc.org/about/)
tecsoc.org/)
projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521162185/201622729349300637/IRS990
projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/510399261/201612649349300036/IRS990
thenewatlantis.com/contact/letters-to-the-editor)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Disregarded as hate speech

brave

Anti-science libs.

If gays aren't real why do penguins fuck male penguins?
Stick that in your science and smoke it.

>implying leftists give a shit about science

Masturbation.

John Hopkins raycis now?

To establish dominance. It's like when people rape their cellmate in prison to show them who's boss.

Stops too short of saying starting your child on transgender activities is child abuse.

Same as dogs in a pack. If you want to be a faggot, be a faggot, but why deny your own agency? I never understood that.

There are already prominent peer-reviewed medical articles that say precisely that:

>Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, has denounced “institutions that promote transition affirmation” as engaging in “nothing less than institutionalized child abuse” that can inflict “untold psychological damage.”

She has a similar article lambasting tranny support in schools here:
>lifesitenews.com/opinion/pediatrician-transgender-ideology-has-created-widespread-child-abuse

That article links to an interesting study she published (and was peer reviewed) here:
>jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf

The study concludes:
>There is no rigorous scientific evidence that GD (gender dysphoria) is an innate trait. Moreover, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD accept the reality of their biological sex and achieve emotional health by late adolescence.
>The treatment of GD in childhood with hormones effectively amounts to mass experimentation on, and sterilization of, youth who are cognitively incapable of providing informed consent. There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves.

> Journal not peer reviewed
> Published by "Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy"

Great work OP. Definitely not propaganda.

Founded in 1976 by Dr. Ernest W. Lefever, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.

Really makes me think

You have evidence to back up your claim or you just crying because your little liberal bubble got burst by actual scientists? The article was peer-reviewed, but I'd still love to see any evidence of your conspiracy theory bullshit.

>Bailey still calls herself a boy

It's just a sexual thing sweetie

The EPPC and John Hopkins University (the university who published the findings and evidence) are not at all the same. Nice false claim though. So if a peer-reviewed science article is written at a university then featured in an islamic newsletter, it would be invalidated because islam sucks or something? That's how stupid you sound right now.

Check m8 :D

Are you claiming that EPPC somehow lied about John Hopkins University's own study, changed what they said, or otherwise lied? Where's your proof? The EPPC only re-published the peer-reviewed scientific study from John Hopkins. You can't attack the study itself so now you're lashing out at whatever you think you can, grasping at straws. It's hilarious and pathetic.

So traps ARE gay

Scientists say yes.

I can already picture the Snopes "debunking"

>Claim: A scientific paper from Johns Hopkins "disproves" transgenderism
>Rating: False
>A single paper can't "prove" or "disprove" anything, and the majority of scientists agree that chopping your balls off is rad.

So does this mean bisexuals are simply indecisive?

>scientific study references Lady Gaga and "Sex and the City"

Wow, it reads like a sophomore's research paper.

Saged.

I've been telling you for 20 years now.

It's mostly conditioning.

It's not like I can't fuck women, I choose not to.

More like greedy.

big if true

Proof of any of what you say is true? Link us, faggot. Are you saying referencing legitimate attempts at cultural marxism are "out of bounds" for scientific publications because they're outting you faggots for what you really are?

Very.
>t. JHU grad

I worked on this study and verify his claims

Proof?

Proof?

The fact they released this study is proof enough.

I meant proof that you actually graduated from JHU and aren't just a larping faggot because I highly suspect you are a liar.

Unfortunately there's probably no way to unwire this shit that's in their (homo's and trannies) brain now. Only thing that will save them is the release of death, to the benefit of society as a whole as well.

>TFW Islam was right all along about how to deal with gays

...

That sounds depressingly plausible.

How are gays BTFO by this? Its obvious homosexuality is a combination of genetics and environment. It isn't homosexuality that's genetically determined, its preference for novel behavior that's genetically linked to a higher probability to homosexuality due to that.

be kid surround by fags
get molested by fags

become fag

mind blown

This is very much reversible, for society, maybe not for those brainwashed fags. The more scientific evidence that comes out refuting pop-culture "soft sciences" (aka cultural marxists), the easier it will be to limit their exposure and influence on the general public. The tides have turned and this is going to start affecting everything from adoption laws to individual rights. It's swinging in the right direction away from degeneracy and they can either accept it or be brought along kicking and screaming. I don't mind either way but it's happening.

nice try antifa. not providing anything that could dox me. Ask me anything though

they source the new atlantis journal, which is a social conservative advocacy journal.

check out the mental gymnastics on this faggot
liberals in full on damage-control mode right now
fuck outta here queer.

The study wasn't done by John Hopkins university. It was published by "The New Atlantis" and done by professors/residents at John Hopkins.

And the NA Journal directly sources the John Hopkins University study that I quoted in my OP. Get fucked, faggot. You losers lost and the scientific community is laughing at you. Stop trying to weasel around it.

>clearly anti-gay
>clearly anti-trans
>somehow I'm antifa
How fucking stupid are you precisely? I don't need your info, that comment alone was retard-tier enough for me to know you couldn't manage one semester in a medical school.

>The study was done by Professors and Residents at John Hopkins University
>The Study wasn't don't by John Hopkins
nigger, wut? Do you not understand how universities work or what?

>taking my comment literally
>thinking JHU is solely a med school
kek. I graduated from the kreiger school of engineering. That's as far as I'll go

I'm not a liberal you retard. The only thing the study says in relation to genetics vs. environment is that desire, attraction and identity change over time. How is that not a common sense observation? The reason for it is people genetically linked to preference for novelty are more associated with a likelihood towards homosexuality and other non-normal practices. Preference for novelty is also associated with intelligence, hence the phenomenon of gays being over-represented in intellectual and creative fields.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293319

>The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals are more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel preferences and values than less intelligent individuals, but general intelligence has no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar preferences and values.
>Analyses of three large, nationally representative samples (two of which are prospectively longitudinal) from two different nations confirm the prediction.

This is really easy.

Per the article, the report was published in "The New Atlantis." (Link: thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016) If you go to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the gray sidebar at the right, you'll see in the response to question #11: "The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal." (link here: thenewatlantis.com/publications/frequently-asked-questions-sexuality-and-gender)

Feel free to take the rest of the FAQ for a spin. It's still very misleading, but it also refutes a lot of the ways the "article" has been interpreted.

Next let's take a look at who is behind "The New Atlantis." If you go to the About page, and then Our Publisher on the right-hand sidebar, you'll see that the journal is published by two organizations: the Center for the Study of Technology and Society, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. (link: thenewatlantis.com/about/our-publisher)

The second of those may sound familiar -- they published the original article in OP's post! Doesn't look like they disclosed that they also published the journal containing the article, however.

As I noted before, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is self-described as "Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy." Furthermore, they describe the work they do in the following way: "We deal openly and explicitly with religious and moral issues in addressing contemporary issues. We work to clarify the ways in which moral principles shape the choices that political leaders must make in our democracy." (link here: eppc.org/about/)

One additional thing to note about EPPC is its address -- 1730 M Street NW Suite 910 Washington, DC 20036, according to the footer of the EPPC site.

Why is that important to note? Let's take a look at the second New Atlantis publisher: the Center for the Study of Technology and Society... (cont)

kek, fuck me I meant whiting. 0% chance you'll believe me now but oh well

Me too

The study was published at an independent journal, not a university publication. Are you mentally retarded?
>The journal is published in Washington, D.C. by the social conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center in partnership with the Center for the Study of Technology and Society.

I honestly don't give two shits about your personal info, you've yet to provide any bit of evidence that JHU is racist and I expect to see something more than your sorry ass imaginary anecdotes. Where's the evidence? If you have none, then shut the fuck up because you sound like a whiney faggot who can't deal with the truth.
Now this faggots just trying to derail the entire topic at hand by referencing something completely unrelated. You queers really are a sad, pathetic bunch.

If that dog rips that guy's sneakers, his mom is gonna kill him.

>How aregays BTFO by this?
Because the last 50 years of progress was made on the lie that they were "born this way". If homosexuality is merely a predisposition fostered by environment(the same way criminal behaviour is) then all attempts at minimizing these environmental factors should be taken. Even saying gay is fine(it's not) isn't a excuse to take action since even in "tolerant" cultures, gay people live shorter, unhappier then their hetro counterparts on average, hence promotion of said environmental factors is child abuse.

(cont)

The Center for the Study of Technology and Society site is sparse. (tecsoc.org/) The org's self-described mission is a tinge jingoistic but sounds more philosophical than anything:

"The Center for the Study of Technology and Society is a nonprofit research and educational organization in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to improve the nation’s understanding of the crucial moral and political questions raised by modern science and technology. It aims to promote American strength and competitiveness and to defend American values; to shape critical ethical and policy debates with information and analysis; to inform leaders in the fields of science, politics, industry, and culture with publications that probe the deeper meaning of advanced technologies; to explore the big questions of human purpose, existence, and the universe; and to articulate the human aspirations that drive the scientific enterprise."

So why couldn't this organization be credible? Because it's fake. It's a neutral front for EPPC. On the org's contact page, the address is listed as 1730 M St., NW Ste. 910 Washington, D.C. 20036 -- the same address, suite and all, as EPPC.

If that doesn't convince you, take a look at each organization's nonprofit tax return filing with the IRS:

EPPC: projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521162185/201622729349300637/IRS990

CSOC: projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/510399261/201612649349300036/IRS990

Again, you'll see that both organizations share the same address. In addition, both of CSOC's Directors (Yuval Levin & Eric Cohen) are also listed among the officers and directors of EPPC.

And what's the address of the New Atlantis journal? You guessed it: send your letters to the editor to 1730 M St., NW Ste. 910
Washington, D.C. 20036. (link: thenewatlantis.com/contact/letters-to-the-editor)

Letters to EPPC and CSOC can go there as well.

Does that settle it, then?

Well look at that. Color me surprised...

A study on genetics and homosexuality is completely unrelated? You are severely stupid.

This also confirms it's a mental illness as well.

That was just the lie needed to sell the people to vote with them on giving them extra powers and rights over normal people, it worked and the power is going to be permanent.

You're typing a whole essay just to say that you invalidate any scientific evidence that could possibly have people involved with a judeo-christian background. You sound just as stupid and narrow-minded as a nazi discounting anything a jew does simply because they're a jew. Do you not see what a giant fucking hypocrite you are or do you just not care that you're a shit-tier moron with no principles?

hate facts

The only indicators of mental illness come from the blatant bigotry featured in this thread.
It's already been established this study is from a racist institution, we don't need to keep discussing it.

>gays are actually just genetically predisposed to all degenerate behavior

This is what we've been saying for decades. It's why fags are so fucking promiscuous as well.

You argued earlier ITT that it wasn't about genetics at all. The only one who keeps flip-flopping here is you.

What are the actual "implications" of the mental illness stance?

Do you want all able-bodied gays to go on the disability pension? Like, what's your fucking angle?

This will be hushed down because "this kind of rhetoric caused the death of 600 gorillion people who were born that way, nazi".
Like clockwork.

see There are genetic factors in homosexuality, its simply that they aren't directly related to homosexuality itself, but preferences for uncommon activity which encompasses homosexuality. The OP study is fairly vague and noncommital, which means their conclusion is using language to push a bias.

>Moreover, if nonheterosexual desires, preferences and behavior were indeed biological, one might expect them to remain fixed throughout a person’s life. Instead, “there is now considerable scientific evidence that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors and even identities can, and sometimes do, change over time.”
>one might expect
Which is suggesting that homosexuality might not be genetic because it is related to changeability, which is disputed by the study I posted.

This isn't even the first study proving transgenderism isn't a thing. But whatever. Not sure I buy that fluid gender thing, I don't think it's fluid for most people. Seems maybe what this study is trying to do is imply that gender can change at any time, while appearing to be a study showing transgenders don't exist, thus getting conservative types to accept the study. Just to convince you that gender can change at any time, then when the chemicals and hormones in the plastic and the water that turns the frogs gay gets to you, hey, gender is fluid, that's all, the waters fine.

Also to make conservative types think of and accept gender as being seperate from biology and chromosomes.

Implications? Logical steps can be taken to bar them from adoption, from spreading their ideology, affecting and fucking up young, innocent minds with their gay filth. If you bothered to read the article they "reproduce" by molesting children because they can't biologically reproduce with two men fucking each other in the ass. If it weren't for child molestation and the general push to normalize this degeneracy and perversion, gays would already be extinct.

No animal have ever been observed to be exclusively homosexual except domesticated goats.They always mate with females given the chance. Checkmate.

Good job just being a completely dishonest retard.

Here's my original post: >Its obvious homosexuality is a combination of genetics and environment. It isn't homosexuality that's genetically determined, its preference for novel behavior that's genetically linked to a higher probability to homosexuality due to that.

Child molestation produces gays?

Nigger, there's nothing non-commital about their study and you're trying to impress upon it a bias that literally does not exist. This is what liberals try to do every single time Science tells them they're flat out wrong. It's just pathetic and obvious as fuck.

>It isn't homosexuality that's genetically determined, its preference for novel behavior that's genetically linked to a higher probability to homosexuality due to that.
Prove it.

Holy shit the shills in this thread aren't even trying to hide it

Happened with Milo.

So when the water starts turning more people gay when they dial up the chemicals. They can explain away all the once straight people becoming gay by saying "oh yeah gender is fluid, science says so"

Yes

Did you even read the fucking article dumbass? How can you even pretend to argue anything when it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the OP? The answer to your question is literally a click above your post.

It produces gays and women who are sexually promiscuous.

Kek. First of all, its social science, which is barely even classed as a science. You realize peer-reviewed studies also claim the direct opposite of what you believe? Its is Science too when it disputes your beliefs? Would you like me to link you to 76 studies showing kids raised by gays aren't worse off at all? The bias is very evident, their claims against homosexuality are wishy-washy non-committal horseshit that stinks of bias, and the study is literally in a journal that says it is conservative. Do you think "Science" has a political basis?

yeah to show them who's boss, haha totally. am i right? haha guys?

...guys?

...

>How can you even pretend to argue anything when it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the OP?

You're telling me 100% of gays were molested as children?

>buh buh the left is anti science

I'm gay, deal with it.

You guys its only to show each other who is boss. I'm not gay, I'm just alpha as fuck and need to show other men who is boss okay?

guys? I'm not gay

GUYs?!

>There are genetic factors in homosexuality
There's a genetic factor to everything. OPs study simply states that genetic predisposition isn't enough to explain homosexuality. I don't know why pointing out genetics is a refutation.

And for the record, I don't take lefty University study's on biology nor sociology seriously since they started silencing and firing those who say the controversial opinions that there's biological differences between men and women.

Progressives should have planted their flag and stayed when they had the chance.

because the establishment wants you to accept that a persons sexual orientation can change at any time. they want you to accept that gender can change at any time. you want to believe it because the study also shows trangenders don't exist and that homos can go straight. but they want you to accept this study because when they poison the water, as they have been doing, and the food, it turns people gay and trans.

rather then have people suspect poisoning, they'd rather convince you gender is fluid. how to convince conservatives gender is fluid? by also proving transgenders and gays can go staright in the same study, tricking them into accepting it.

ILL SHOW YOU WHO'S BOSS!!!!

How do I read the full text of this study? Abstracts prove nothing.

Nah. When something professing to be science claims to discredit prevailing wisdom that something better be empirically rigorous. If it's not, take a peek under the hood and you'll almost certainly find bias and ideology.

So if homosexuality can be attributed to poor impulse control and a desire for new experiences, why aren't all niggers gay?
Check mates

Nice, this goy gets it

Here is a You

It's really strange how anytime a scientific publication comes out that supports Conservative views under psychology/psychiatry/soft science you faggots claim "it's barely even a science", but as soon as one off-the-reservation marxist psychiatrist says "trannies are normal guys" you take that as concrete irrefutable proof it's true. Your double-standards and hypocrisy are obvious as fuck, just shut your shill ass up already. You sound stupid as all fuck.

In quite a many cases, yes.

>Moreover, if nonheterosexual desires, preferences and behavior were indeed biological, one might expect them to remain fixed throughout a person’s life. Instead, “there is now considerable scientific evidence that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors and even identities can, and sometimes do, change over time.”
And their argument as to why it isn't enough is due to those desires and identities being changeable, and I showed how the genetic link is actually to novelty, i.e. preference for novel behavior, which is linked to a higher likelihood of homosexuality. Its changeable because preference for novelty is obviously changeable. Their conclusion was directly disputed. Do you have a counterargument?

You sound very stupid making ridiculous strawman posts.

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. At no time did I say or imply that 100% of molested kids turn gay but it's been proven that a large number of young boys molested and raped by grown men do, in fact, turn gay. I hope someone's paying you for shilling this fucking hard, it's pathetic and all you have is strawman after strawman. Pathetic.

A lot of gayness and trans shit stems from environmental poisoning. Sea birds are going gay and trans, frogs are going gay and trans. And now more people then ever before going gay and trans. It's not just more people coming out of the closet. This is an attack through the environment.

And as more and more chemicals build up once straight people go gay. How to explain this to suspicious conservatives? By getting them to believe in a study that proves gays can go straight any time. Sure it's true, but why do they want you to know this? To also convince you, as it implies in the same study, that straights can go gay or trans. They basically can't and the only reason it's happening in increasing numbers is because of environmental poisoning. IT'S A COVER UP PEOPLE FUUUUUUUCK ITS IN THE WATER