Thread by @LeClairJoshua

OKAY! In light of the recent international issue of LGBTQ education (as disgraced by Andrea Leadsome and Doug Ford), the Colour Purple controversy, and rising hate crimes against gay people in London, I feel the need to say SOMETHING.

I wanted to join in the passionate flag-waving and strongly worded letters, but people far better at it than I have already said much of what needs saying on that front (here's looking at you @darren_bell), but there was something else I wanted to add to the discussion.

I've always been halfway decent at writing an essay and summarising research. I know science these days means relatively little in a political sphere (climate change, if you need an example), but I figured as a footnote, a sidebar, it could still be useful to see what's there.

From what I can see, there are three misconceptions commonly discussed that are troubling me:
1. Being gay is a choice.
2. The Bible says not to be gay.
3. LGBTQ education is negative for children.
I’d like to put forward a few theories that counter these dangerous assumptions.

Now I already know this is going to be a proper long thread, so if you're more interested in one of those three I'll number them so you can skip ahead to your favourite.

One quick disclaimer: scientific conclusions are usually broad statements at the expense of more nuanced details. When limited to ideas of 140 characters, there's no time to acknowledge everything, so I've chosen seminal theories and reputable sources which I hope will do.

MISCONCEPTION 1: BEING GAY IS A CHOICE
The very first thing they tell you in intro Psychology (alright, maybe the third thing) is that genetics and environment BOTH influence behaviour. Despite this, lots of research money has been poured into isolating genetic OR social causes.

Research into genetic causes, while not conclusive, have found some success: concentrations of prenatal hormones, DNA correlates and cross-cultural tendencies all seem to point to a genetic basis for sexual preference. (In more detail: scientificamerican.com/article/cross-…)

Research into environmental causes are ALSO not conclusive, but it becomes dangerous when researchers make it sound more conclusive than it is. One example of a researcher who has caused damage based on these views is Richard Cohen, an American "gay conversion therapist."

Gay conversion therapy often says being gay is a disorder caused by environmental trauma — claims made despite evidence to the contrary. Research made into Cohen's therapy and others like it have proven them to be ineffective and dangerous leading to outright bans.

(For more information on these bans and the discussion surrounding them check this article out: liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.108…)

The harm Cohen caused through this unfounded therapy had him kicked out of the APA and his license revoked. (For more: ) This being said, environmental factors are relevant when viewed in conjunction with genetic factors, and could inform your tendencies.

In 1948 Alfred Kinsey published his studies, the result of thousands of interviews about people's sexual histories, and created his now-famous Kinsey scale where he placed each interviewee at some point on this graph:

He argued that, based on his data, most people are not completely straight or completely gay, but exist on a continuum, and they could move up and down the scale over the course of their lives (this is where the joint influence of nature and nurture come in).

This was the first major study that acknowledged the fluidity of sexuality at the time and that we all have inseparable gay and straight tendencies to some degree. These findings are still driving research today, which is often the measure of how good a piece of research is.

The argument that being gay is a choice ignores the genetic influences described above, ignores Kinsey's widely accepted findings, and promotes the false dichotomy that an individual is either gay OR straight. Even the church has decided to change its tune in light of this.

Religious scholars who accept these findings have since adapted the church's teaching. Modern Catholicism admits that falling on Kinsey's spectrum is not a choice, it's okay to have gay feelings, but that the Bible says it's not okay to act on them. This leads us nicely to...

MISCONCEPTION 2: "BUT THE BIBLE SAYS!"
Wading through religious scholarship on homosexuality is more uncomfortable than a crown of thorns, not only because most conclusions denounce being gay, but also because the word of the Bible is usually the final, untouchable argument.

For argument's sake, let's give the Bible divine credibility. My favourite source on this topic is @VinesMatthew, a former Harvard student of viral YouTube fame in 2012. The whole hour-long video () is absolutely worth the watch if you've got the time.

In the video, he systematically breaks down common Bible verses used to illustrate the church's rejection of homosexuality by looking at politically charged translation choices, contextualising old testament vs. new testament, and highlighting inclusive messages of the text...

...which are incompatible with the church's attitude towards the LGBTQ community. My favourite argument of his (below) is that at the time the Bible is thought to be written, there wasn't even a word for homosexuality — so how could they already be condemning it?

Obviously, these theories came up against huge outcry from staunch traditionalists, but they also received support from religious leaders and theologians who recommended his book as an important voice to consider for any leader in modern Christianity. (nyti.ms/2sy2doW)

Vine is ONE example of a huge movement of gay scholarship within religion that goes largely unnoticed in the public eye and especially in my experience of churches. In 2007 Capetz' study found "a pattern of misusing the Bible to justify oppression" and...

...Cornwall in 2001 justified a translation of the book of Samuel that showed David and Jonathan as gay lovers. The point is that people weaponising the Bible are doing so based on a set of assumptions built on foundations undermined by subjectivity and translation bias.

In face of theology becoming an environment where multiple theories are bouncing around (back in the day you got stoned for differing opinion), using the Bible to say "being gay is not okay", is to enter a discussion where that is one of MANY viable interpretations. Not fact.

MISCONCEPTION 3: CHILDREN ARE VULNERABLE TO GAY INFLUENCE
This week Andrea Leadsom (Conservative MP) said parents should have the right to remove kids from LGBTQ lessons, saying parents should decide "the moment to which their children become exposed to that information".

Toronto premier Doug Ford reverted an LGBTQ-inclusive sex-ed curriculum to the outdated version from 1998, saying he's "standing up for parents" by removing potentially objectionable content like non-traditional family structures and the definition of the word vulva.

But what risk are children actually under? Surely, the best case studies for that are children of gay parents? Cornell University (Ivy League, good at research) performed a meta-analysis of 79 studies to ascertain what threat knowledge of gay people posed to young children.

Of these 79 studies, 75 of them concluded that "children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children." As for the four remaining studies...(whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-eq…)

That one's pretty conclusive. In short, no, "exposing" a child to non-traditional family structures and the existence of LGBTQ individuals does not carry the risk of causing any harm to a child.

Congrats (and thank you!) if you've made it this far. Obviously, these are a FEW examples of heaps of research and complex debates but it's difficult to stay silent when they're so available, and yet so absent in conversation — especially when it's someone who should know better.