The development of feminist movements gave impetus to the formation of the pseudoscientific theory of "gender", which claims that differences in interests and abilities between men and women are determined not by their biological differences, but by upbringing and stereotypes that a patriarchal society imposes on them. According to this concept, “gender” is the “psychosocial sex” of a person, which does not depend on his biological sex and does not necessarily coincide with it, in connection with which a biological man can psychologically feel himself as a woman and perform female social roles, and vice versa. Adepts of the theory call this phenomenon "transgender" and claim that it is absolutely normal. In medicine, this mental disorder is known as transsexualism (ICD-10: F64).
Needless to say, the entire “gender theory” is based on absurd unsubstantiated hypotheses and unfounded ideological postulation. It simulates the presence of knowledge in the absence of such. However, in recent years, the spread of “transgender”, especially among adolescents, has become an epidemic. It's obvious that social contamination in combination with various mental and neurological disorders, it plays an essential role in this. The number of young people willing to “change sex” has increased in recent years tenfold and reached a record level. For an unknown reason, 3/4 of them are girls.
LGBT parades, adoption of children by same-sex couples, homosexual "marriages", self-harm "sex reassignment" operations and other similar phenomena do not start by themselves. It is an elaborate and purposeful process that begins with the depathologization of mental disorders and a change in the scientific status quo. Such paradigm shifts usually elude the public's attention, as they occur as part of specialized events in a narrow circle of people. Moving significant scientific discussions out of these narrow frameworks will help both impartial medical professionals and the whole society to defend the scientific reliability, sovereignty and demographic security of Russia.
Anyone who supported this appeal can stand between the harmful diktat of political correctness of the West and the future of Russia, protecting children and future generations from deliberate depopulation.
This report is a thorough review of scientific evidence refuting myths and slogans promoted by LGBT activists who postulate that homosexuality is a normal, universal, innate and unchanging state. This work is not “against homosexual people” (as adherents will certainly argue false dichotomy), but rather behind them, since it focuses on the problems of a homosexual lifestyle hidden from them and the observance of their rights, in particular the right to access reliable information about their condition and related health risks, the right to have a choice and the right to receive specialized therapeutic care to get rid from this condition, if they are interested.
1) Do homosexual individuals represent 10% of the population? 2) Are there "homosexual" individuals in the animal kingdom? 3) Is homosexual attraction congenital? 4) Can homosexual attraction be eliminated? 5) Is homosexuality associated with health risks? 6) Is hostility to homosexuality a phobia? 7) "Homophobia" - "latent homosexuality"? 8) Are homosexual drives and pedophilia (sex drive for children) related? 9) Are gay rights violated? 10) Is homosexuality linked to sexual licentiousness? 11) Was homosexuality the norm in ancient Greece? 12) Are there any risks for children brought up in same-sex couples? 13) Is the “normativeness” of homosexual attraction a scientifically proven fact? 14) Was homosexuality excluded from the list of sexual perversions by scientific consensus? 15) Is “modern science” impartial to the issue of homosexuality?
(1) A critical attitude towards homosexuality does not meet the diagnostic criteria of a phobia as a psychopathological concept. There is no nosological concept of “homophobia”, it is a term of political rhetoric. (2) The use of the term “homophobia” in scientific activity to denote the entire spectrum of critical attitude to same-sex activity is incorrect. The use of the term “homophobia” blurs the line between a conscious critical attitude to homosexuality based on ideological beliefs and forms of manifestation of aggression, shifting associative perception towards aggression. (3) Researchers note that the use of the term “homophobia” is a repressive measure directed against those members of society who do not accept the consolidation of a homosexual lifestyle in society, but who do not feel hatred or unreasonable fear of homosexual individuals. (4) In addition to cultural and civilizational beliefs, the basis for a critical attitude to same-sex activity, apparently, is behavioral immune system — biological reaction disgustdeveloped in the process of human evolution to ensure maximum sanitary and reproductive efficiency.
On 26 on June 2015, the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, requiring all states to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, as well as to recognize such certificates issued in other jurisdictions. However, as shown data American Institute of Public Opinion Gallup, homosexuals are in no hurry to exercise their newly acquired rights. As expected, no influx of “oppressed sex minorities” into registration authorities took place, despite the complete elimination of “discriminatory” restrictions.
One of the slogans of the "LGBT" movement is the assertion that the proportion of people with homosexual attraction is supposedly 10% - that is, every tenth. In reality, according to large-scale modern studies conducted in the United States and the countries of the European Union (that is, in countries where homosexuality is fully supported and protected by the state apparatus), the proportion of people who identify themselves as homosexuals varies from <1% to a maximum of 3 %.
The point of view currently accepted in industrialized countries according to which homosexuality is not subject to clinical assessment is conditional and devoid of scientific credibility, because it reflects only unjustified political conformism, and not a scientifically reached conclusion.
The Federation Council recently adopted a statement condemning unwarranted political censorship by Western digital giants. Meanwhile, their Russian counterparts - VKontakte and Yandex.Zen - censor family defenders and traditional values in the same way.
Despite the amendments to the Constitution approved by the people and the government's policy of preserving morality, family and demographic security, some Russian (or no longer Russian) companies do not want to work in accordance with the Constitution and do not hesitate to violate it at the first request of their Western partners. In recent months, the most mundane things we used to take for granted have suddenly found themselves under a big question mark. We are talking about the elementary human right to freely express their thoughts - that is, freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which: "Everyone has the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information in any legal way".
So, the social network "VKontakte" began cleaning up "intolerant" publics, which included groups denouncing modern feminism and LGBT propaganda, and Yandex blocked Zen channel groups "Science for the truth».
Annotation. A clinical observation is given, where it is about “bisexual»To the man, and describes the conversion therapy he underwent with the use of hypnosuggative programming, which proved to be very effective.
Currently, unprecedented efforts are being made to ban the use of conversion (reparative) therapy, which is aimed at changing the homosexual orientation of sexual desire to heterosexual. She is stigmatized and declared not only useless, but also extremely harmful to the human body. So, December 7, 2016 parliament of Malta unanimously passed a law prohibiting the use of reparative therapy. For “changing, suppressing and destroying a person's sexual orientation or gender identity,” this law provides for a fine or jail time.  The Bundesrat (representative of the federal states of Germany) on 5 June 2020 approved a law prohibiting this therapy. Deutsche Welle reports that its implementation can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, and advertising and mediation - a fine of up to 30 thousand euros . In the US, only 18 states, Puerto Rico and Washington DC, have banned conversion therapy for minors. Adults can volunteer for conversion therapy throughout the country ... Instagram and Facebook announced the blocking of all posts on these social networks that promote conversion therapy .
The assertions that conversion therapy is not only ineffective, but in all cases causes great harm to the body are false. The corresponding argumentation can be found in our articles [3;4;6].Moreover, a number of our works have presented the effective use of conversion therapy [2; 5].
Here is a case from our clinical practice, where conversion therapy was very successful in correcting the direction of sexual desire in a man with bisexual preferences.
15 December 1973 The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, yielding to the continued pressure of militant homosexual groups, approved a change in the official guidelines for psychiatric disorders. “Homosexuality as such,” the trustees voted, should no longer be seen as a “mental disorder”; instead, it should be defined as “violation of sexual orientation”.
Robert Spitzer, M.D., assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and a member of the APA nomenclature committee, and Irving Bieber, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at New York College of Medicine and chairman of the study committee on male homosexuality, discussed the APA's decision. What follows is an abridged version of their discussion.
World-renowned Dutch psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg has specialized in the study and treatment of homosexuality for most of his distinguished 50-year career. Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for the Study and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), author of books and scientific articles, today he is one of the few specialists who dare to disclose the inconvenient reality of this topic solely from factual positions, based on objective, not distorted ideological bias data. Below is an excerpt from his report “The Normalization” of Homosexuality and Humanae Vitae ”read out at the papal conference Academy of Human Life and Family in 2018 year.
(1) Children raised by same-sex couples have an increased risk of developing homosexual drive, sexual non-conformism and adopting a homosexual lifestyle - these results were obtained even in studies conducted by authors loyal to “LGBT +” movement. (2) The studies cited by LGBT + activists - movements and affiliates (defending the claim that there are no differences between children from traditional families and children brought up by same-sex couples) have significant shortcomings. Among them: small samples, a biased method of attracting respondents, a short observation period, the absence of control groups and the biased formation of control groups. (3) Studies conducted with large representative samples with a long observation period show that, in addition to the increased risk of adopting a homosexual lifestyle, children raised by homosexual parents are inferior to children from traditional families in a number of ways.
From the filing RBC, Fontanka and other media outlets that do not represent the opinion of the majority of Russians, calls for the introduction of "sex education" in Russia began to spread like a whistle. In one of the groups of the Facebook social network, a survey was even conducted, according to which “75% of Russians supported the idea of introducing sex education lessons in schools”. It is noteworthy that only three quarters of these "Russians" had children. We hope the organizers of this survey and those who voted will study the facts presented here and will be able to balance their point of view.
One of the arguments of the activists of the “LGBT” movement is that the partnership of homosexuals is the so-called. “Homosexual families” - supposedly no different from heterosexual families with traditional values and worldview. The prevailing picture in the media is that homosexual relationships are as healthy, stable and loving as normal heterosexual relationships, or even surpassing them. This picture is not true, and many representatives of the homosexual community honestly admit it. People of the same sex who engage in sexual relations are at increased risk of STDs, physical trauma, mental disorders, substance abuse, suicide and intimate partner violence. This article will focus on three significant features of interpersonal homosexual relationships that strikingly distinguish them from heterosexual ones: • promiscuity and related practices; • short-lived and non-monogamous relationships; • increased rates of violence in partnership.
(1) The hypothetical “homosexuality gene” is not known; it is not discovered by anyone. (2) The studies that underlie the statement of the "innate nature of homosexuality" have a number of methodological inaccuracies and contradictions, and do not allow unambiguous conclusions. (3) Even the studies cited by LGBT + activists speak not of the genetic determinism of homosexual inclinations, but at best of the complex effect in which the genetic factor presumably determines the predisposition, combined with environmental influences, upbringing, etc. (4) Some famous personalities among the homosexual movement, including scholars, criticize the statements about the biological predetermination of homosexuality and say that it is determined by conscious choice.
The political rhetoric of LGBT activists is built on three baseless postulates that affirm the “normality”, “congenitality” and “invariability” of homosexual attraction. Despite generous funding and numerous studies, this concept has not received scientific justification. Accumulated volume scientific evidence rather indicates the opposite: homosexuality is acquireddeviation from the normal state or development process, which, given the client’s motivation and determination, lends itself to effective psychotherapeutic correction.
Since the entire LGBT ideology is built on false grounds, it is impossible to prove it in an honest logical way. Therefore, in order to defend their ideology, LGBT activists are forced to turn to emotional idle talk, demagogy, myths, sophisms and knowingly false statements, in a word - rabulistic. Their goal in the debate is not finding the truth, but victory (or its appearance) in the dispute by any means. Some representatives of the LGBT community have already criticized such a short-sighted strategy, warning activists that one day it will return to them as a boomerang, and urged to stop the spread of anti-scientific myths, but in vain.
Next, we will consider the most common logical tricks, tricks, and sophisms, which are used by advocates of LGBT ideology.