Updates Contents

Section 10.0 (Testosterone Revisited) Here are the details of a study addressing the relationship between overall fluctuating asymmetry (FA), testosterone (T) levels, and aggressiveness of response following provocation, carried out on 51 male and 49 female college students.(1) Here is how aggression was assessed:

In the second phase, participants were invited to join a study that purported to measure persuasive ability. In this phase, they were asked to raise money for a fictitious charity organization. The participants were informed that there is a relationship between the pitch of the voice and persuasive ability. They were led to believe that they scored high in T, which lowers the pitch of the voice, hence they should be able to convey messages more assertively. Also, they were promised two free tickets to a local movie theater if they were able to obtain any donations. In order to increase the credibility of our experimental manipulation, we prepared a telephone directory with fictitious names and phone numbers, except those of our two confederates. The entries showed ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ and corresponding dollar values for donations. The last entry before the participants’ call list began was listed as $20. We believed that the high expectations to succeed (i.e., false high T scores), incentives, and success of previous callers would increase the level of frustration and anger arousal when rejected. Participants called two male confederates who both refused to donate.
Conversations between the participants and confederates were tape-recorded. The confederates were uninformed about the conditions of the experiment. The first calls were always placed under low provocation. The confederate in the low provocation condition appeared to be amenable to charity donations. He did not challenge the caller and declared persuaded by the worthiness of the donation. However, he cited lack of money as a reason not to contribute. The second calls were always made under high provocation. The confederate in this condition was confrontational. He directly challenged the caller and worthiness of the donation. The force applied when hanging up the telephone was an indicator of reactive aggression. Force was measured by a balance plate (Bertec, Columbus, OH) built into the desk where the participants made the calls. Participants were alone when they placed and terminated the calls. Therefore, the force measured served as a reliable indicator of emotional arousal because of ‘‘minimal sanctions against slamming it’’ (Kulik and Brown, 1979).
After these two unsuccessful calls the participants were asked to send prepared follow-up letters to be attached to programs and brochures of the fictitious charity organization. They were told that no identification, such as name and signature, should be included. They made the choice of cover letters in a discreet manner. The tone of the letters carried three main themes. The first had a self-effacing tone; e.g. apologizing for ‘‘the imposition on your time.’’ The second was assertive, but neither self-effacing nor outwardly aggressive ‘‘ . . . at a time when assistance is critical, rejection is often received.’’ The third was outwardly aggressive ‘‘you are performing a disservice to the community’’ (Kulik and Brown, 1979). The letters were coded as 0, 1, and 2 to reflect aggression scores. Previous analyses indicated that letters significantly differed in their tones and were found ‘‘self-effacing,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ and ‘‘aggressive’’ by an independent panel of judges (Kulik and Brown, 1979).
The experimental conditions involving the charity organization, follow-up letters, and balance plate were adapted from a previous study (Kulik and Brown, 1979). After choosing the letters, a second saliva sample was collected from the participants. Following saliva collection, participants were debriefed and told the real purpose of the study. Debriefings indicated that none of the subjects was aware of the real conditions of the study and none had suspected the authenticity of the charity organization. An independent judge, who was uninformed about the experimental conditions, evaluated taped conversations between the participants and confederates. In her evaluation, 51% of the participants appeared ‘‘neutral,’’ 47% ‘‘frustrated/upset’’ during solicitation (2% ‘‘undecided’’). Most participants were rated as ‘‘frustrated/upset’’ or ‘‘angry’’ after the calls in an overall assessment. This assessment was based on such cues as ‘‘slamming down the phone,’’ use of profanity, and other emotionally charged words and sentences.

Fluctuating asymmetry, testosterone and reactive aggression.

FA or T by themselves were not related to aggressiveness of response, but were related to aggressiveness of response in the low provocation case in males and in the high provocation case in females, as shown in Figures 1-4 (left thumbnail).

Removal of T outliers made the interaction between T and type of provocation as shown in the figures above non-significant, but since T values vary considerably, the outliers should not be removed, and reanalysis of the data after replacing the outlier T values by the next highest adjacent T values (a process known as winsorization, and recommended for biometrical data) returned significant interaction between T and type of provocation as shown in the figures above.

See Fig 5 for the relation between type of aggression and type of provocation (left thumbnail).

The sex differences in regard to the significant finds resulting from one type of provocation but not the other likely result from the following: men tend to be more aware than women of changes in body states such heartbeat and respiration rates, and men are more likely than women to suppress emotions, i.e., the men may have restrained their response in the more provocative situation; and men are more likely than women to respond aggressively in situations of low provocation but this sex difference is either eliminated or reversed in situations of high provocation (see paper for the citations). (1)

This study is another piece of evidence that in a mentally reasonably well-functioning population, the relation between T and aggression, measured under laboratory conditions, can be subtle, and inadequate investigations will falsely find no relation between these two variables. Similarly, the relation between FA and aggression can be difficult to detect in a non-criminal population compared to a mixed criminal/non-criminal population since FA is a poor indicator of developmental stability, but a positive relationship can be expected in the general population, notwithstanding the two studies cited in chapter 4 that self-reported aggression is higher in college males with low FA, a possibility that is not excluded in special populations because physiological control tries to compensate for developmental disruption/interference and will—in some cases—be able to return functioning to near normal or possibly supercompensate following mild-to-moderate disturbances.


  1. Z. Benderlioglu, P. W. Sciulli, R. J. Nelson, Am J Hum Biol 16, 458 (Jul-Aug, 2004).

Section 10.1 (Postmodernist and Sociological Criticism of this Book)

Here is an interesting example of the kind of criticism that comes from leftists. I could not post my response at the originating site because only friends of the author are allowed to post. The body of the critique is by voz_de_soledad, a feminist, who cites passages from my site in italics; my response is in green (updated March 25, 2005):

Amazing Info on Homosexuals! And Mental Disorders! HIV! AIDS! Christians! Feminists! (posted March 22, 2005)
i found this lovely little site through an lj-friend, who posted the link along with questioning his lj-friends if they'd ever blamed homophobia for "heightened psychiatric disorders." he, like me, was baffled. (warning: site contains gross generalizations about the LGBTQ community, people with mental disorders, christians, feminists, and lots of other people.)

but this is, possibly, my FAVOURITE part!!!

In fact, it is worth noting that a number of gluttons that insist on the acceptance of obesity are feminists, who are typically both obese and practicing homosexuals.
WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES??? the author of the site is the one who says, The debate on the merits of the demands of homosexual activists has been hijacked by ideology. Such debate should be informed by empirical evidence. so where are your sources for this?!?!?

My site offers plenty of citations. Nevertheless, any author assumes that some items are well-known and need not be referenced. Is voz_de_soledad unaware that feminists often rail against dieting and want women to eat in accordance with desire? Eating in accordance with desire corresponds to gluttony in a substantial number of people. Is voz_de_soledad unaware that homosexual and bisexual women are notably overrepresented among feminists, especially man-hating feminists, compared to their proportion in the general population? Is voz_de_soledad unaware that homosexual and bisexual women are disproportionately obese? Heck, hanging around women’s studies departments or feminist conventions will surely dispel any doubts as to the disproportionate obesity among feminists.

this website is insulting to me on many levels - as someone who identifies as bisexual, as someone who has a mental disorder, and as someone who has worked with hemophiliacs, some of whom have HIV. so as an individual, i guess i would be proving the author's case. but there are all sorts of holes in his/her argument.

also, i think that overall, the "nature vs. nurture" discussion of homosexuality and mental disorders is important to consider when looking at stuff like this website.

the way the part on psychiatry is written gives me (at least) the feeling that all people with a mental disorder are crazy people, people to be looked down upon, people who are really quite sick and "diseased."

Nowhere have I implied that the mentally ill need be looked down upon. “Crazy” as used by the author can mean different things, but if the author is referring to a deranged lunatic, then I am surely not implying that all mentally ill people are crazy. For instance, would someone necessarily call a depressed individual crazy? Mental disorders are forms of sickness and disease, but the severity of mental illnesses varies, i.e., I do not argue that all mental disorders are serious forms of sickness.

i mean, even if there is an association between mental illness and homosexuality, why the hell does it even matter???

Why? It matters because it pertains to what causes homosexuality. It matters because some homosexual activists blame so-called homophobia for the increased prevalence of mental illnesses among homosexuals so as to get various types of legislation passed in their favor. It also matters because some people are interested in the nature of homosexuality.

i think the website's overall point is to show that people with mental illness are somehow diseased or warped.

The mentally ill are surely diseased since the relevant psychological symptoms correspond to abnormal physiology, as any mental health professional worth his education would be well-aware of, but why would I come up with a website to make this point and especially focus on homosexuality?

does the author suggest that homosexuality can be treated in the same way a mental illness can be treated?

No. I do not view homosexuality as a mental illness. Besides, not all mental illnesses can be treated.

i read this summer that suicide rates among LGBTQ teens are dropping, which was linked to increasing visibility and acceptance. i wish i could find the source.

I would love to hear about the source, too. One should beware of short-term trends, if any, since reduced drug use among MSM was observed in the late 1980s, and was attributed to decreased “homophobia,” but was a temporary decline; see more here.

i love how under the suicide link, he has 35 sources, but only about four of them are from 2000 or beyond. many are over 10 years old.

Well, eight of the citations are from 2000 or beyond. Besides, are older citations not relevant? Homosexual activist Paul Gibson’s 1989 report sets the context of the discussion; even if this report were 25 years old, it would still be relevant. Furthermore, some of the citations talk about data that would hold across different generations, i.e., 12-year-old citations are not necessarily irrelevant.

If a recreational drug is out there, male homosexuals use it.

WTF? and so do heterosexual people, and probably people of all sexual orientations!

My statement does not argue that those that are not male homosexuals do not use all the recreational drugs out there.

Little prejudice is directed toward homosexuality among women compared to men

i'd say that homosexual behavior between women is more societally acceptable than homosexual behavior between men (in the U.S., which is all i know), but where does the website's author get the word "little?"

voz_de_soledad should have come across the study results of 1,925 American lesbians in the National Lesbian Health Care Survey that I mention here. In this study, “Only 12 percent of respondents indicated that they were concerned about people knowing that they were lesbian.” Besides, it is common knowledge that few people find lesbian sex offensive.

To link HIV or AIDS with homosexuality is to make homosexuals livid. This is very curious given the facts that we consider in this paper. For starters, during the early days of the AIDS epidemic, one of the names given to AIDS was Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome (GRIDS).

Yeah, that name was totally accurate, seeing as how no people (like heterosexual hemophiliacs) EVER EVER got "GRIDS" (or passed it on to their heterosexual partners!)

The statement concerns itself with the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the outbreak occurred among MSM, and the term GRIDS was not inappropriate then.

For instance, how can one rim another while avoiding the risk of parasitic intestinal infections? A condom for the tongue and oral cavity is not feasible.

uh? a dental dam?
"If you do not have a "dental dam", it is also possible to use plastic wrap, or a cut-open condom to cover the vulva or anus." [source]

voz_de_soledad apparently has no idea that individuals who relish licking the anus do so – in part – for the tactile sensation, which couldn’t be obtained if one covers one’s tongue/lips, and several rimmers also like the taste of the anorectal region. Therefore, covering up the tongue/lips/anus is not feasible in the sense that it would sharply or completely diminish the pleasure of the rimmers.

there are cultures where homosexuality (sometimes for a certain stage of life) is entirely the norm. i'd be interested to see these sorts of studies take place there.

There are indeed examples of ritual homosexual practices in some societies, which may be the only sanctioned sexual practices for a certain period of time, but such practices are of a ritual nature, not practices of a primarily pleasurable nature; they may involve the imposition of force to make the participants comply; and are often accompanied by strict taboos. For instance, among the Sambia of Papua New Guinea, whereas ritual fellatio of teenage males by pre-pubescent males within a certain age range is acceptable, anal sex is considered an abomination, and the reverse is true for some other New Guinean tribes.

i think this page is the one that makes me the most angry.

If a homosexual experiences assault or discrimination resulting from his homosexuality and comes to believe that he deserves to be assaulted or discriminated against because of his homosexuality, then one could say that this homosexual has internalized negative attitudes toward homosexuality, but how many such homosexuals do we come across? Homosexuals who are victimized because of their homosexuality do not come to believe that they deserve to be victimized because they are homosexual but experience anger over their victimization instead.

where is the source for this?

Well, an example is mentioned right below the passage cited above:

Throughout history, several homosexuals have feared being “outed,” or arrested, or prosecuted, or publicly humiliated, but should this necessarily lead to self-hate? “Fear of being punished is not the same thing as a conviction that one deserves punishment.” ( 13)

13. R. Norton. (2002 [http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/extracts.htm]).

Besides, does one really need to cite sources for something so obvious? If you are a homosexual who is beaten because of your homosexuality, will you end up believing that you deserved to be beaten because you are a homosexual?

Given the large number of homosexuals participating in gay pride parades, often delighting in offending heterosexuals, many homosexuals appear proud of what they do, i.e., other than being happy with their behavior and desires, many have disdain for heterosexuality.

YES! almost ALL the homosexuals i know have a HUGE disdain for those $#&*ing heteros! ::rolls eyes:: oh yes, and the only point of a gay pride parade is to offend. and almost all heterosexual people who attend a gay pride parade are offended.

Nowhere do I say that almost all homosexuals disdain heterosexuals; nowhere do I say that the only point of a gay pride parade is to offend heterosexuals; and nowhere do I say that almost all heterosexuals who attend a gay pride parade are offended.

Are discrimination and prejudice making homosexuals promiscuous?

are homosexuals more promiscuous than heterosexuals? can you find me the source for this? seriously.

Elevated promiscuity among homosexuals is common knowledge. voz_de_soledad has either not read enough of my website before firing off this response or is pretending that I haven't provided the relevant citations. Many studies and the venereal diseases literature clearly reveal elevated promiscuity among homosexuals and bisexuals; see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and plenty of additional studies that I will be adding eventually.

and the part where he talks about the relative weights of homosexual men and women? what about bisexual men and women? or are they just included in the blanket term homosexual? apparently i have to buy the book to find more info on this and why the author claims it...

Since this statement is mentioned right after the quote from the victimization page, the reader should note that the victimization page refers to bisexual/bisexuality and nonheterosexual/nonheterosexuality several times; nonheterosexuals include both homosexuals and bisexuals.

from another page:

Transgenderism: Varying levels of identification with the opposite sex.

actually, some people who identify as transgender don't really identify with either GENDER (not sex) and might describe themselves as having a sort of third gender or not really wanting to be associated with gender at all.

The reason that some transgendered individuals do not like gender labels or call themselves a third gender is because they recognize too much of the gender associated with the opposite sex -- within themselves -- to clearly identify with the male or female gender. I am not talking about how one labels oneself but about the extent to which one identifies opposite-sex gender elements within oneself.

The answer is simple: a substantial number of transgendered individuals are homosexual or bisexual.

i learned in one of my anthropology classes that about 70% of transgendered people are "heterosexual," i.e., if they change genders, they will then be homosexual, because they are still attracted to the gender opposite the gender associated with their birth sex (that's a little confusing wording). i can't find the source for that, but i found a few different ones. am reading them after i post this and will post another comment later. here's a good and short source on transgenderism, which mentions its relationship to heterosexuality.

Even if this 70% figure is true, homosexuals and bisexuals would still be relatively overrepresented among transgendered individuals. The short source that voz_de_soledad refers to talks about the self-identified sexual orientation of transgendered individuals, e.g., a male-to-female transgendered individual attracted to men would classify “herself” as heterosexual, even though a man who believes that he is a woman and is attracted to men remains a man who is attracted to men, i.e., a male homosexual. voz_de_soledad does not cite the footnote that I link to right after this statement; the reader should read it here.

the author talks about proving everything with facts and statistics, but this page is just full of gross generalizations and assumptions.

The typical reason behind the unfortunate incidents of violent acts against homosexuals for being homosexual is overpowering disgust at their behavior, not a homophobic environment created by Christianity.

and i'm sure that disgust also has nothing to do with societal or cultural factors or attitudes. also, societal and cultural factors were never influenced by christianity.

voz_de_soledad completely ignores the data in Table 1 on this page, which clearly shows that age, ethnicity, geographical residence, quality of residential neighborhood, parental education, religiosity, religious affiliation, school grades, worry about AIDS, and attitudes toward sex-roles could collectively explain less than 8% of the variance in intolerance of befriending a male homosexual, and almost no variation in disgust at homosexual activity.

voz_de_soledad also does not consider the possibility that attitudes could be shaped by disgust rather than the other way around. As far as Christianity is concerned, nowhere have I implied that “ societal and cultural factors were never influenced by Christianity,” and if Christianity is to be largely blamed for so-called homophobia, then how does one explain the widespread occurrence of sins such as gluttony and usury in the U.S. and elsewhere without Christians railing against these sins?

For instance, even though the number of obese individuals considerably exceeds the number of homosexuals, only a miniscule number of obese individuals celebrate gluttony and insist that others accept it.

because ALL obese individuals are so because of GLUTTONY!!!1111

This statement is hardly relevant. However, the relationship between obesity and gluttony is very clear: to maintain a given body weight, one has to eat a minimum amount of food, which would be notably in excess of a normal person’s requirements if one happened to weigh a lot more than a normal person; i.e., in spite of the fact that there are several causes of obesity, one cannot become obese without being a glutton.

In fact, it is worth noting that a number of gluttons that insist on the acceptance of obesity are feminists, who are typically both obese and practicing homosexuals.

!??!?!??!?#??$?# so men who consider themselves feminist are also "fatty homos?"

Note the term “typically.” Since few self-identified feminists are men, even if all these men are heterosexual and non-overweight, my statement would still hold since I do not imply that “all are both obese and practicing homosexuals.”

the feeling that i truly get from this site is that homosexuality is, in fact, a mental illness, and that homosexuals cannot be functional members of society unless they are "treated." which is totally refuted by the fact that there are many people who are members of the LGBT community and do not have a mental illness and are still functioning members of society.

voz_de_soledad has either done a poor job of reading my site or is lying. I explicitly state that homosexuality is not a mental illness on numerous occasions; see the introductory note here, the back cover book description here, and the relevant statement here. I do not argue that homosexuals need to be “treated.” I provide some links to sites that try to help homosexuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, along with a customary warning note on this page. Besides, voz_de_soledad will find examples of mentally ill people being functional members of society in my book, which hardly needs referencing since many people will have come across socially productive mentally ill individuals.

NOW! HERE is the "press release for feminists!" Given the "notable overrepresentation of homosexual women and feminism, apparently feminists get their OWN press release. Golly! I feel special!! HAY! Did you know that "haute couture" has nothing to do with "pernicious" patriarchy? It's because homosexual men are fashion designers! LOL! Silly feminists!

I mention that the typical high fashion designer is a male homosexual, not that “homosexual men are fashion designers.”

basically, the site contains a bunch of scientific info which is sort of thrown together and put in between statements/assumptions with no proof at all. and there are a bunch of times where he says something, and he cites as his source the book that he wrote. so if you want to know if he's citing an actual study or something, if you want to refute these arguments, you have to buy the book.
i am of the opinion that its author is entirely full of crap. i'd almost be willing to listen to/read an actual scientific discussion, if that were what this is. that's what he wants his site to look like, but it's really not. if he wanted me to actually consider his arguments, perhaps he shouldn't say nasty things about basically everyone except himself. you know what they say about making assumptions. asshole.

The truth may be unpalatable. If voz_de_soledad will only consider arguments that are non-offensive, then voz_de_soledad will limit her understanding of nature. The last word penned by voz_de_soledad is a classic response of leftists who have no substantive critique to offer: name-calling.

Comments to the above post and my replies; my replies are in green:


*rages along with you*

That web site makes me want to scream, pull my hair out and run around in little circles proclaiming my hate for the human race.

What kind of person would end up hating the human race due to the writings of a single person? Surely, not a mentally normal person.



Along with the glaring lack of any evidence for this person's claims, gaping holes in logic, and obvious generalizations, it's full of errors as unrelated as claiming "... xia zhuan, i.e., “intimacy with a brick” is slang for homosexuality in Japanese..." --- I'm not sure if the rest of the information is accurate, but the phrase is most certainly not Japanese (it looks like Chinese to me, but I don't speak Chinese).

This person can't even bother (or isn't intelligent enough to figure out how to) to get such basic facts right, and we're supposed to trust the rest of what he presents?

Here is the original source of xia zhuan, taken from a gay historian. Besides, if one statement is wrong, does it mean that nothing else can be trusted?

On a side note, don't you just love it that these sort of sites and publications always refer to all queers as "homosexuals"?

My site uses a variety of terms, including bisexuals and nonheterosexuals.



yeah. he uses the term bisexual in a few places, but that's about it.

And, did you not notice nonheterosexual? See my response to brainmuffin below for more.

and it doesn't really look like japanese to me either. i've read a bit about homosexuality in japan, and i've never seen that term used (many others, but never that one.) in fact, i'm taking a class on "homosexualities in japanese literature" right now - i think i'm going to e-mail the prof. right now the best i can do is a google search (ha, so academic) for "xia zhuan" and brick, which gave me about six things, one of them a reference to this site posted somewhere else in october. guess i'm a little behind the times...

I suggest that you take it up with Rictor Norton, the gay historian from whom I have taken the reference.



I speak Japanese, actually, so I can guaruntee that it isn't. :)

Take it up with Rictor Norton, the gay historian from whom I have taken the reference. You will do us both a favor if you correct his mistake.



From the site:

Here is the original source of xia zhuan, taken from a gay historian. Besides, if one statement is wrong, does it mean that nothing else can be trusted?

It certainly calls into question the validity of your other sources, as well as your skills in determining what is or is not a trustworthy source, or, alternatively, whether or not you care about the accuracy of your sources.

How is somebody who has no idea of Japanese or Chinese, like me, supposed to know whether Rictor Norton, a historian, who is undoubtedly far better informed than me about the cross-cultural history of gay slang, is right? Assuming that the phrase is Chinese, is my mistake major? To cast doubt as to the validity of my other sources, about my level of concern for the accuracy of my sources, and my skills in determining what is or is not a trustworthy source, you have to come up with several examples of glaring mistakes that even a sloppy researcher would not easily make. Come up with several such glaring mistakes.

My site uses a variety of terms, including bisexuals and nonheterosexuals.

Do you need me to cite some of the places in which you use the word "homosexual" to refer to all LGBT persons?

As you likely know, heterosexual behaviors are not unusual among self-identified homosexuals, especially self-identified lesbians, and very few self-identified homosexuals are lifetime-exclusive homosexuals; see plenty of relevant examples here. Also note the really small prevalence of those with exclusively homosexual behaviors or exclusive same-sex attraction in Table 1 here, a prevalence that is notably lower than the proportion that self-identifies as homosexual. Additionally, it turns out that homosexuals, bisexuals, and self-identified heterosexuals who experience same-sex attraction/homosexual behavior belong to the same taxon, i.e., several –- though not all –- things that apply to homosexuals also apply to other nonheterosexuals.

Therefore, sometimes it is convenient to use ‘homosexual’ or ‘nonheterosexual’ instead of nuanced phrases such as ‘lifetime-exclusive homosexual,’ ‘exclusive homosexual,’ ‘self-identified homosexual’ (not necessarily an exclusive homosexual), ‘bisexually behaving person’ (who may or may not self-identify as bisexual), ‘self-identified bisexual,’ and so on, especially since detailed information as to which of these nuanced terms apply is often not available, and it is not unusual for self-reported attraction to be inconsistent with self-reported sexual behavior (with a man or woman or both) among those that are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals (see Fig 1 on this page and the comment on Table 1 here).



you know what they say about making assumptions.

"People who make assumptions like that are bigoted, stupid assholes?" :D

More name-calling and no substantive critiques.



From the site:

More name-calling and no substantive critiques.

As you would know if you took any time to look at the community information, this community was created to provide support for females in regard to sexism, not to refute the claims of those whose opinions we consider ridiculous. I am not interested in writing a long piece on why I disagree with you because, thankfully, your writing will continue to be about as effective and your ideas as likely to be implemented as those of the Ku Klux Klan.

How does name-calling help you “provide support for females in regard to sexism”? Besides, my response is primarily directed toward the author of the article, voz_de_soledad, and only secondarily toward the comments. Finally, since it is unlikely that you have read my book, how have you figured out what I want to be implemented? I have only taken a single stance at my website presently, namely that bathhouses and their surrogates should be shut down for good.

If you'd like some counter-arguements, I'm sure you only have to keep Googling your own name.

I will be addressing counter-arguments.



On another note, I would prefer that my personal journal not be linked to on your site

I would normally not bother with the link, but if you smear my character by comparing me to a Klansman, nitpick on trivialities and ignore the cited data from peer-reviewed journals, portray me as a hateful bigot, or resort to a straw man characterization or ridiculous caricature as voz_de_soledad and some other commentators do, then I believe that I have the right to defend myself, and this requires identifying the source of the smear.






This man is scary and I find his attitude deeply offensive!

And as for his assertion that gays are more likely to develop mental illnesses, that isn't supported by any scientific or sociological evidence that I've ever seen.

Really? Well, time for you to see plenty of evidence of elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals and bisexuals, published in peer-reviewed journals; start here.

Although how people are supposed to be happy and well adjusted with idiots like him out there stirring the pot is beyond me!

You need to consider proof that elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals is largely unaccounted for in terms of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination; see here and here, and this book.

I also wonder if he realises how many 'homosexual' practices are used by heterosexual couples as well. That might be an interesting project for someone!

The sexuality section of my site clearly lists evidence that heterosexuals also engage in various unusual sexual practices that homosexuals and bisexuals engage in; the key point is that relatively fewer heterosexuals engage in the unusual sexual practices described.



The source I have generally seen for the statement that homosexuals are more likely to develop mental problems is . . . psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Because all the homosexuals they see have a problem they need help with, and presumably they occasionally meet heterosexuals who do not outside the office. It's one of my favourite examples of how not to do statistics.

This happened decades ago. Since the late 1990s, plenty of random, population-based surveys have clearly revealed elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals; see here.



i mean, even if there is an association between mental illness and homosexuality, why the hell does it even matter???

I'm in Oz and I saw an university study result for the OZ LGBT community once which did find a higher rate of mental health problems for queers, their conclusion was that queers have higher rates of depression due to *ta da* the stress of all that homophobia!

And what is the proof behind this? You need to consider proof that elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals is largely unaccounted for in terms of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination; see here and here, and this book.

Also, there's a (manufactured) association between queer, trans & mental illness, as in many nations these identities are categorised AS mental illnesses ..which is used as justifictaion for further stigma and erosion of rights i.e forced hospitalisation, drugging, family removal. But yeah, this guy is a raving bigot.

I am not using any data from countries that classify homosexuality as a mental illness.



their conclusion was that queers have higher rates of depression due to *ta da* the stress of all that homophobia!

yeah, the guy tries to refute all those "arguments." and sorta fails. rrrr.

voz_de_soledad does not refute a single study cited on this page and this page that together show that elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals is largely unaccounted for in terms of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination.

i guess the association does matter in that we should start treating the source of those problems so that we can move forward... i.e. if we can eliminate some of the homophobia, perhaps we can lower the rate of depression.

Good luck…compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals are clearly more mentally ill in the Netherlands and New Zealand (see the NEMESIS and Christchurch studies here), like their American counterparts, in spite of these countries being far more tolerant of homosexuality than the U.S.



It must be so blissful to go through life in that profound a state of ignorance.

Ignorance? Don’t you see the empirical evidence, especially that from peer-reviewed journals?

Unfortunately, for those of us who actually have a clue, that site is just painful.

If I do not have a clue, then you would do me and others a big favor by clearing my misconceptions.



That site is the single most appalling, disgusting, bigoted thing I've seen in a long time.

I think I'm speechless.

If my opinions are based on an informed decision, thanks to empirical evidence, which I cite, rather than prejudice (an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge), and I am able to refute alternative explanations of the same data -- as in my book -- then will I still be a bigot?



I googled the site's creator (Erik Holland), and it looks like most people recognize that he's a nut.

Most people? People like you, not most people out there; many have expressed their appreciation for my work.

His particular cause seems to be eugenics-- he wants to prove that homsexuality is genetic, so that fetuses should be tested for it (and aborted).

What makes you think that I want to prove that homosexuality is genetic? If you bother to read my book, you will encounter plenty of evidence that genetic factors explain only a minority of the variance in homosexual outcomes. My explanation of homosexuality is hardly a genetic explanation; it is a developmental explanation. Besides, how do you know that my particular cause is eugenics? Since genetic factors explain a minority of the variance in homosexual outcomes, some have pointed out that aborting fetuses that carry the relevant genetics would hardly be effective for parents who don’t want homosexual offspring, but such individuals ignore somatic markers that could possibly be used to determine which fetuses are most likely going to grow up to be homosexual, and hence underestimate the ethical problems associated with such knowledge. I have pointed out that aborting fetuses that are most likely going to grow up to be homosexual cannot be more unethical than aborting normal and healthy fetuses –- conceived in a consenting and non-incestuous relationship –- at the whim of a mother who is not threatened by the pregnancy; this statement surely does not imply that fetuses should be aborted if they are highly likely to grow up to be homosexual.

He also really really really wants to sell his self-published book, which he's promoting all over the internet.

It is semi-self-published; besides, all authors want to sell their books.



Gosh, I wonder why he had to publish it himself?

I had to go through a semi-self-publishing route because leftists dominate the book publishing industry and reject anything that undermines their worldview, irrespective of the merits of the arguments. If my arguments were conservative, I could find a right-leaning publisher, but my arguments are not political and do not appeal to either a liberal humanistic viewpoint, a social constructionist viewpoint, or the viewpoint of the religious right. Hence, I did not bother finding a regular publisher, and went with an Author Services Company to publish my book.


my personal "favorite" part

homosexual Norwegian adolescents manifest elevated suicidality compared to their heterosexual counterparts, which can hardly be blamed upon a homophobic environment

of course it can. because, well, OF COURSE IT CAN. and is "suicidality" a word?

…and you have conveniently ignored the following term at the end of the sentence: “(see here).” This link will take you to the page where a Norwegian study is mentioned, where elevated suicide attempts were demonstrated among homosexually behaving youth in a national-probability sample of 2,924 individuals from grades 7-12 (ages 12-20 years), and controlling for a wide variety of factors related to so-called homophobia in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses did not diminish the elevated odds of increased suicide attempts among the homosexually behaving youth. Hence my statement: “… which can hardly be blamed upon a homophobic environment (see here).” Furthermore, homosexuality is far better tolerated in Norway than in the U.S., yet homosexual/bisexual Norwegian youth are not any better off with respect to suicide attempts than their American counterparts.

Suicidality is a non-standard word that refers to suicidal ideation/suicidal attempts. Non-standard words are sometimes necessary for brevity and if used often enough, become standard words eventually.



By the way, he has cut and pasted the text of this post on his site here. If you didn't send him a link, perhaps he googles himself regularly (seeking attention?).

What makes you think that I google myself regularly or that I found out about voz_de_soledad’s post via google? From my site traffic panel, I can easily tell where my site traffic is coming from; google takes a while to archive recent posts, and it is not useful to rely on it for fresh posts.



And since Erik is reading this and will have a fit that I've misinterpreted his position, I've found that when it comes to directly addressing eugenics, he's not really for it, though he doesn't think it would be unethical, but he doesn't think it would be effective.

This is a better characterization than a previous post of yours, but you are still mistaken about your note that I don’t think that aborting fetuses who are highly likely to grow up to be homosexual is unethical; what I specifically wrote was aborting such fetuses could not be more unethical than aborting normal and healthy fetuses –- conceived in a consenting and non-incestuous relationship –- at the whim of a mother who is not threatened by the pregnancy.

And Erik, if you use this post to characterize leftist criticism of your site in general, be aware that you are really reaching.

I am not using this post to characterize leftist criticism of my site in general; I have noted, “Here is an interesting example of the kind of criticism that comes from leftists.” My intent is to merely provide an example, not “the example.” I will surely be providing additional examples, as they appear out there.

This forum is for rage. It looks like there are quite a few responses to your work out in the internet that examine your circular logic in more detail and cite studies in support, criticisms that are designed to engage you in dialogue and not simply to vent, but you aren't copying and pasting those. That's weak.

I plan on addressing all critiques at length, pending free time. If you know of any major critiques out there that I haven’t addressed, then please let me know about it. You should have noted that I have posted several comments at various places. If I am allowed to post a comment where I am critiqued, and my comment is not deleted, I will usually not bother to also post my response at my site, but since I do not have the option of responding to the caricature posted by voz_de_soledad et al. at livejournal, I have decided to respond to it at my site.

This is not the first time that I have responded to someone's critique at my site. For instance, I talk about sexual selection in my book in the context of better Northern European tolerance of homosexuality and other unusual sexual behaviors compared to other European and several non-European populations, and a blogger got angry at me for my comments on sexual selection; so, I posted my final response at my site rather than at his blog since he would surely delete it; see here for the transcript of the discussion.

When I have time, I'm going to take a closer look at your site.

I will appreciate it if you email me a detailed critique after you have done so.




youre famous



yeah, i know... night101owl pointed that out a bit earlier.



feminists, who are typically both obese and practicing homosexuals




check out his response. it's "well-known!" he doesn't need any scientific sources. :)

that is a very scientific argument.

i mean,
Heck, hanging around women’s studies departments or feminist conventions will surely dispel any doubts as to the disproportionate obesity among feminists.

This is merely nitpicking on trivialities. My major online assertions that homosexuals and bisexuals are relatively overrepresented among individuals with paraphilias, non-paraphilic sexual compulsion disorders, disinhibited sexual interests, and mental illnesses, and that such associations are largely unaccounted for in terms of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, are well-accounted for by empirical evidence from the peer-reviewed journals that I cite, which is something you don’t bother addressing.

One does not normally need to cite trivial observations. For instance, the assertion that cats normally walk on four legs need not be cited. Furthermore, decent scientific journals normally do not publish trivial observations such as on the prevalence of obesity among feminists. I doubt that you dispute that homosexual and bisexual women are notably relatively overrepresented among feminists. Plenty of peer-reviewed journals have published research on a higher prevalence of obesity among lesbians and bisexual women compared to heterosexual women; look this up yourself or see section 5.3 in my book in order to indirectly obtain more formal evidence of elevated obesity among feminists. Alternatively, if you want to verify whether feminists are disproportionately obese, do what I have asked you to do: hang around women’s studies departments or feminist conventions.



You are continuing to republish comments from here in a different forum (your site), which is expressly against the rules of this forum. You are not a member or LJ user, so perhaps you don't feel that the rules apply to you, but if it matters at all, please recognize that it is extraordinarily rude and inappropriate.

I'm going to respond to your comments in my own journal, in a public post, and I invite you to continue the discussion there. I'll enable anonymous comments.

I am not bound by the rules that apply to your forum and need to cite the smear by voz_de_soledad et al. in order to address it. Besides, the smear by voz_de_soledad et al. is hardly courteous or appropriate in the first place.

Thank you for allowing me to post at your journal. I have already left some comments (see here) and as long as they are not deleted, I will merely link to them, not reproduce them at my site.

Section 10.1 (Postmodernist and Sociological Criticism of this Book): Here is my response to a smear by some transgendered individuals, who cite passages from my site in italics; my comments are in green. Their comments generally focus on my transgenderism page.

Nezumi - Hankerin' for a spankerin' ( nezchan) wrote in transgender,
@ 2005-03-24 14:00:00

"Of course, a man who believes that he is a woman is still a man"

I'm not generally a violent person, although I'm more of a hothead than I was pre-transition. But this guy actually makes me want to hurt him. Hiding an anti-trans and anti-homosexual agenda behind this pseudoscience relaly pisses me off that much.

Pseudoscience? Did you notice the citations from peer-reviewed journals?

Of course, the defensive tone, the fact that he uses "transgender" as if it were a medical term (and gets it wrong) and uses the BS term "autogynephelia" as if it were an actual scientific theory invalidate him right off the bat, so i guess i should know better than to get pissy about it.

I have described transgenderism as varying levels of identification with the opposite sex. Does this make transgenderism sound like a medical term? Besides, what is wrong with this definition? The reason several transgendered individuals eschew gender labels or describe themselves as a third gender is because they recognize too much of the gender associated with the opposite sex (opposite to their own biological sex) among themselves to neatly fit into a male or female gender; transgendered individuals with complete identification with the gender associated with the opposite sex (opposite to their own biological sex) usually describe themselves as having a male or female gender.

Why is autogynephilia a BS term? Autogynephilia is a mental illness, the existence of which has been proven using penile plethysmography, subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (see the citations), and is well-accepted by the psychiatric community (see DSM-IV-TR, published in 2000).

The fact that his section on "help for homosexuals" immediately links to several religious organizations doesn't help.

The page that you are referring to is for homosexuals struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, and lists some non-religious sites, too. Besides, my prominent links page links to several gay-positive sites, which you seem to have glossed over.

But I'm just steamed by this guy to the extent where I want him to suffer at least as much as he's suggesting we do.

What suggestions have I made with respect to what should be done to transgendered individuals? None at my site and none in my book! My featured work is about homosexuality and bisexuality, and the only reason I address transgenderism is because it is strongly associated with homosexuality/bisexuality.

I dunno. Can you really blame me?

Corpus friggin' Chirstie! The idiot even cites FRED PHELPS in the second footnote here. Can we be a little less blatant about our bias here?

Here is the context of the alleged Fred Phelps citation:

Furthermore, the origin of some gay slang words is unknown to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, i.e., the social constructionist argument that the ruling class uses labels to control minority cultures is not supported by the existence of gay slang words of unknown origin. ( 8, 9) For instance, xia zhuan, i.e., “intimacy with a brick” is slang for homosexuality in Japanese, and has an unknown origin. Similarly, the origin of “faggot” is obscure; it first appears in 1914 America, when “fagots,” i.e., “sissies” are described as going to a “drag ball.” [2] Similarly, it is not clear how “queer” came to be associated with homosexuals. ( 8, 9)

[2] Rev. Fred Phelps has noted a twist to the meaning of faggot. He notes that just as a fagot is a bundle of sticks that fuels fire, homosexuals fuel the wrath of God, and are appropriately addressed as faggots or fags in short.

Am I really citing the work of Fred Phelps? I have simply described a twist to the meaning of faggot, as pointed out by Rev. Fred Phelps. And who is really biased here? You ignore the 79 citations on the transgenderism page, and that almost all of them are from peer-reviewed journals.



For instance, delusions about one’s physical appearance and a desire to drastically alter one’s looks are not unusual among schizophrenics; (14, 15) about 25% of schizophrenics experience cross-sex identification at some point in their life. (16-19)

That is fucked up.

What is deeply disturbing about his information is that no one ever looks at Who is exaclty saying this shit? What is his experience? Where is he really looking at this perspective from?

The citations that anger you simply mention clinical observations, described as observed.

I've always believed that psychology and creating diagnosis for mental illness which are nothing more than nonheteronormative, especially asinine diagnosis like nymphomania (which is now debunked) and autogynephilia are tools of the patriarchy ... it's a way of the patriarchy controling the marginalized, letting the marginalized believe they are different and ill ...

Spending some time in a lunatic asylum will quickly convince you that there are some mentally deranged individuals out there that would be deranged irrespective of patriarchy. Besides, women with sexual compulsion disorders exist, irrespective of whether you call them nymphomaniacs or not. See my comment on autogynephilia above.

I don't by that shit. It's nothing more than pathology.

I don't blame you.

Get Angry! I do!



I dunno, far as I can tell he spends a good deal of his time writing bad reviews of feminist and trans-positive books over at Amazon.

At the time of nezchan’s post, I had only written 4 short reviews at amazon.com, one of them a 5-star review of a book that argues for a transhistorical and transcultural essence to homosexuality. Besides, none of the books that I had reviewed focused on transgenderism.

Personally, I'm learning more about this guy than homosexuals. He's got some deeeeeeeeeeep issues here. Note, for example, the crossdressing porn he includes in his "Supplementary Materials".

What might the deep issues be? The porn, a zipped pdf file, features screen shots of a transvestite male homosexual accommodating three fists in his rectum simultaneously, and the context of this file can be seen here.



From glancing over the site it looks like some sort of reliougs cult like place that pretty much mocks and says anything besides being straight and "christian" is wrong. Don't let yourself get too hot over something like this, its a sad close minded invidual that only knows how to express what they have been taught [brainwashed] into believing.

My site is not a religious site, as should be obvious from a quick perusal of the contents. Besides, nobody taught me about transgenderism; I looked up the literature myself.



Pure and simple ignorance! He is an idiot!!

Ignorance? Do you not see the dozens of citations from peer-reviewed journals?


The tales of Gullible's Travels

Studies taken on a demographic scale have shown that there's a tendency for 65%-85% of overzealously religious people (15,18) who get all their information about the world from online sources to be remarkably poor performers in bed.

So, no loss there.


This is a curious comment. If you are referring to me, then a glance at my citations will tell you that most of them are from science and medical journals and some are from books; there are very few online-only sources cited. Furthermore, I am only mildly religious, and my arguments are not of a religious nature. Besides, you did not cite the studies that you mention.


Re: The tales of Gullible's Travels


I dunno, I'd like to perform some non-consentual sadism on the dude. I'm sure I'd be very satisfied!



I couldn't handle looking at all the bullshit on that site... bleck!



aparently if your left handed, er non righthandedness than your destined to homosexualatiy and being a feminin male. or other mental problems.

whoa , i mean both my strait religous parents were left handed and im right handed , what happend there.

Your comprehension is abysmal. Homosexuals and transsexuals are more likely to be non-right-handed, according to the citations. Nowhere does it say that non-right-handedness destines someone to homosexuality, transgenderism or mental problems.



I'm not left handed and neither are my folks. But I do hold my pen in a very unusual fashion that I've only seen lefties use. Intriguingly, it's also a perfect grip for calligraphy.



Remarkably, people behind The American Guardian even had the stomach to scan gay erotica and put up pictures of homosexual “perversions” for others to see.

Of course, none of them enjoyed doing it. They aren't closeted at all. They just took one for the team.



"They just took one for the team."

Is that a euphamism?



Well, thank you for exposing us to the evils of homosexuals, transsexuals, schizophrenics, and... left-handers?

Geesh, we know what era this guy's living in.

Ridiculous! What evils have I spoken of? To cite a journal article that the incidence of physical defects arising from first trimester developmental disturbances is higher among left-handers compared to right-handers is certainly not to associate left-handedness with evil. Similarly, mentioning a higher incidence of psychiatric anomalies among homosexual, transsexuals, and schizophrenics compared to normal individuals is not to equate these conditions with evil.



Perhaps if he reads the bumps on your head...



Unfortunately there seems to be far too many self-appointed experts writing stuff for publishing. No wonder transfolk get a bad press when stuff like that article is getting published. Like other people have asked, just what are his qualifications for talking as if he was an authority on the subject?

There are no arguments by authority in science. Besides, one does not need any qualifications to cite literature as it is.

And on the subject of handedness; I'm ambidextrous - so where does that put me :)

..in the same group as those with atypical brain lateralization, non-right-handed individuals to be precise.



Bisexual, I guess.



And a lot of fun at those sorts of parties.



I'm ambidextrous too..oh dear lol



There's so much crap on the internet, I mean you don't go to Stormfront for unbiased opinions on affirmative action either...

A prime example of “crap” is this thread started by nezchan that doesn’t cite a single peer-reviewed journal to counter anything that I have written.



Hmn... l ooked like a typical site from the Reynolds Wrap-based haberdashery crowd. Frankly, whenever I see people going so far overboard in trying to prove their phobias, I really have to wonder why.

Gwen Smith

Now, what phobias do I have, and why would I set up a website to prove my phobias?



The loving reproduction in a PDF file of fisting porn may give you a hint...

Well, the “loving” act depicted is something that several homosexuals and transgendered individuals engage in.


My response

Dearest Eric,

The use of nonrandom and anecdotal evidence invalidates any conclusions drawn from the data. The entire argument becomes baseless and suspect. There is no learned journal or academic body that would accept that type of data, and attempt to fashion a conclusion upon it.

Moreover, from your biography, it would appear that you haven't the credentials to make any assertion relative to the psychological status of anyone. Unless you are a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, your opinion matters about as much as mine. To represent it as factual and true, and yourself as a person qualified to render an opinion on it, is a misrepresentation (lie).

To bring you up to speed, I'm neither gay nor lesbian. I'm a transgendered individual, and a Christian. I am exactly the way God made me, he loves me, and I love him deeply. It is a cross I bear willingly, and a cross that you too would bear were it not for the Grace of the Lord Almighty. Those who are gay and lesbian stand beside me in solidarity and dignity, bearing their cross the best they can. I do and will continue to support them in love and compassion as Jesus would command me to.

I will not suggest to any GLBT person that God will cure them if they only "pray hard enough." To suggest that, would leave them disillusioned, when at the end of it, they're still GLBT. More than one GLBT person became despondent. They abandoned their religion because they felt that God had abandoned them, leaving them unchanged after their most fervent and sincere petition.

Your suggestion that it can and will happen will lose more souls to God than it will ever gain. The only "changing" that goes on in these "clinics" is a redirection of a couple of bisexuals. God made GLBT people just the way they are. Why? I haven't a clue. I'm not so arrogant to decide that what I or you might think supersedes the thinking of God. He made GLBT people the way He did for a reason, and I for one will accept it. Jesus never had a thing to say about homosexuality or transgenderism. If it were that big a deal, I'm sure he would have brought it up.

If you're a minister, then your job is simply to bring people to the Spirit, gay, straight or otherwise. If there is any changing to be done, the Spirit will do it, and it doesn't need your help. Keep your trap shut and learn to love unconditionally. Quit with the condescension and arrogance. It denigrates you. If you claim yourself a Christian, it denigrates the faith.

In Christ,


This post by Julie is her response to an email exchange that Julie had with me. Here is the original context:

Julie wrote:

Well now, aren't we selective in our material sources?  You're a hateful person, either ill-informed, or just plain un-christian.   Remember through your biased rants, that it is a sin to bear false witness AGAINST your neighbor.


I replied:


Your assertion that I am making my case by selectively citing evidence is baseless unless you cite a comparable number of studies of similar or better quality that argue to the contrary. You will find this to be a very difficult task for the psychiatry section of my site since I cite several studies using random, population-based samples. Additionally, make sure that you read the note linked to below concerning the use of non-random samples and anecdotal evidence:


It is surely a sin to falsely accuse someone of bearing false witness, i.e., please substantiate your claim of selective citations on my part.


Erik Holland

Julie then emailed the response that she posted at this thread above. I replied:


Respectable journals publish studies based on non-random samples all the time, and anecdotal evidence is sometimes published, too. Random samples are simply not feasible in several cases. Anyway, I have cited several random, population-based studies, along with studies based on non-random samples and some anecdotal evidence, mostly taken from peer-reviewed journals.

As the link in my previous email mentions, to make a reasonable inference with respect to the nature of the associations obtained from non-random samples, one can test for convergence across several studies, test for consistency with other information, examine whether the finds lend themselves to a coherent explanation of the phenomena investigated, and see if the finds lend themselves to a parsimonious explanation. This is how one can make some inferences -- if any -- from the data from non-random samples.

You should note that recent random, population-based surveys have revealed homosexuals and bisexuals to be more mentally ill than the 1970s and 1980s studies based on non-random samples; see: I. H. Meyer, Psychol Bull 129, 674 (Sep, 2003).

I don’t need any credentials to cite psychiatric literature as it is, and citing psychiatric literature as it is does not constitute my mere opinion. The psychiatric literature clearly reveals elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals and bisexuals, something that is largely unaccounted for by stigma, prejudice, and discrimination. If you do not like this conclusion, then you need to either show that the conclusion does not follow from the data cited or cite plenty of data that I have not used, which negates this conclusion. The APAs long-maintained that GLB individuals were as mentally healthy as heterosexuals, but have been recently forced to acknowledge that GLB individuals have higher rates of mental illnesses after plenty of data from random, population-based samples have accumulated. Eventually, you will see the APAs acknowledge (they will be forced to, given the huge amount of evidence) that elevated psychiatric morbidity among GLB individuals is not fully accounted for by stigma, prejudice, and discrimination.

As far as reorientation is concerned, the extreme stances -- namely that all GLB individuals can change or that no change is possible -- are incorrect; same-sex attraction does remit in some individuals, and there are iron-clad examples of change, including among exclusive homosexuals, published in the literature. See the example of the exclusive male homosexual seeking treatment for social phobia:


Your assertion that God makes some people GLBT individuals is unproven. No scientific or medical organization has proven that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism are within normal human variation, and there is plenty of proof that these conditions result from abnormal developmental processes. You will not like this, but I have plenty of proof in this regard that I summarize in my book. My intention in providing this information is not to denigrate or disparage GLBT individuals but is in the spirit of John 8:32, and is aimed toward the general public.


Erik Holland 

Julie then wrote (my reply is interspersed with hers, in brown):

Lets cut to the chase.

Where in your site do you talk about accepting GLBT persons unconditionally?  Where in your site do you suggest that they should be welcomed with open arms? 

My site is not concerned with recommending that GLBT people be accepted unconditionally or be rejected; it is also not concerned with welcoming or shunning GLBT individuals. My site is concerned with informing the public.

You shall know a tree by it's fruit.  What is the fruit of your tree Erik?  What do people do with the ideas you give them?  How do they treat others once they read your perspective?  Is there more love in the world from your work, or more hate?

John 8:32 says that the truth shall make you free. I expect overall good to come out of my work, but it is too early to tell right now what will happen…wait for a few years.

Yes, I do think credentials are important, particularly when you start drawing conclusions.  You suggest that homosexuality begets mental illness, or that it is itself a mental illness because of a correlation with mental dysfunction. 

I suggest no such thing. The evidence that I list is that homosexuality is accompanied by a higher incidence of mental illnesses, which is largely unaccounted for in terms of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination.

Someone with a proper background would understand that correlation does NOT imply causation.

I do not explain the correlations online; the explanation is in my book. Besides, in the very beginning of my book, I mention that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

The APA's stance is that homosexuality itself is not a mental illness.  That won't change.  It may in fact be correlated with illness, but it in itself is not an illness. 

If you read my site carefully, it will be clear that I fully agree with the APA that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

You tell me that there is no scientific study suggesting that there is an organic basis for homosexuality or transgenderism, yet there is. 

I told you no such thing. What I wrote was:

Your assertion that God makes some people GLBT individuals is unproven. No scientific or medical organization has proven that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism are within normal human variation, and there is plenty of proof that these conditions result from abnormal developmental processes. You will not like this, but I have plenty of proof in this regard that I summarize in my book.

In other words, I am disputing your contention that GLBT orientations are within normal human variation, not the contention that GLBT individuals are born that way. I specifically argue in my book that GLBT individuals are born that way.

Do a lit review on the post-mortem brain research on gay and transgendered persons.  Also, review animal behavior studies, particularly pair bonding in penguins. 

I am familiar with this research and cite it in my book.  

Regarding anecdotal data, the scientific community only cites anecdotal evidence when 1) it seeks to illustrate the results of a proper scientific study, or 2) it seeks to spell out the need for a proper scientific study.  Conclusions and generalized diagnostic criteria are never drawn from this type of data. 

I am not building my case on anecdotal evidence; I am using it to illustrate some data and provide additional evidence.

Erik, I'm concerned that you're purpose is not to illuminate as you say, but to harm.  You have a vested interest in bigotry.  You make money from people who buy your book to find justification for their bigotry.  Jesus said that you will know a tree by it's fruit.  What is your fruit Erik?  Love? Or is it hate?

Time will tell what fruits I bear.



Re: My response