Most of this material was published in the journal Russian Journal of Education and Psychology: Lysov V. Science and homosexuality: political bias in modern Academia.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12731/2658-4034-2019-2-6-49

“The reputation of true science has been stolen by its sinister
twin sister - "fake" science, which
It’s just an ideological agenda.
This ideology usurped that trust
which rightfully belongs to true science. "
from Austin Rousse's book Fake Science

Summary

Statements such as “the genetic cause of homosexuality has been proven” or “homosexual attraction cannot be changed” are regularly made at popular science educational events and on the Internet, intended, among other things, for scientifically inexperienced people. In this article, I will demonstrate that the modern scientific community is dominated by people who project their socio-political views into their scientific activities, making the scientific process highly biased. These projected views include a range of political statements, including in relation to the so-called. “sexual minorities”, namely that “homosexuality is the normative variant of sexuality among humans and animals”, that “same-sex attraction is innate and cannot be changed”, “gender is a social construct not limited to binary classification”, etc. and so on. I will demonstrate that such views are considered orthodox, stable, and established in modern Western scientific circles, even in the absence of compelling scientific evidence, while alternative views are immediately labeled as “pseudoscientific” and “false,” even when they have compelling evidence behind them. Many factors can be cited as the cause of such bias - a dramatic social and historical legacy that led to the emergence of "scientific taboos", intense political struggles that gave rise to hypocrisy, the "commercialization" of science leading to the pursuit of sensations, etc. Whether it is possible to completely avoid bias in science remains controversial. However, in my opinion, it is possible to create conditions for an optimal equidistant scientific process.

Introduction

In April 2017, the information resource USA Today published a video entitled The Psychology of Infertility (USA Today via MSN) The story told the story of three couples who could not have children even with long sex without contraception - that is, they suffered from infertility, according to the definition of the World Health Organization (Zegers-Hochschild 2009, from. 1522). Each of the couples solved the problem of infertility in a certain way - due to in vitro fertilization, adoption and the use of a surrogate mother. The video was stylishly designed and compiled in a popular scientific manner, and the history of each couple was described in detail.

However, the USA Today media resource, in an absolutely ordinary way and without the slightest share of humor or biological rationality, listed a pair of two men among two couples who had medical problems (impaired reproductive functions and organs). The authors of the video on a touching musical background lucidly explained to the audience that the problem of “infertility” of two American married homosexuals - Dan and Will Neville-Reyben - is that “they have no womb” (flory 2017) Probably, USA Today admits that for some part of its audience, such subtleties of the structure of the male and female body were hitherto unknown. One way or another, one of the main leitmotifs of the news was the argument that medical insurance should cover the expenses of homosexual couples for the treatment of infertility.

Messages of this nature, full of biological absurdity, are not uncommon in the Atlantic media, and, in fact, are increasingly found in the Russian information and popular science space. Statements about the "proven genetic cause of homosexuality" or "one and a half thousand species of homosexual animals" are made at popular science educational events for young people.

In this article, I will demonstrate that in the modern scientific community people who project their liberal views into their scientific activities, making science highly biased, predominate. These liberal views include a series of propaganda statements regarding the so-called “Sexual minorities” (“LGBT”), namely, that “homosexuality is the normative variant of sexuality among people and animals”, that “same-sex attraction is inborn and cannot be changed,” “gender is a social construct, not limited to binary classification” etc.

Later in the text I will mention such views as LGBT propaganda¹. At the same time, there are views and opinions that contradict the above, I will call them LGBT-skeptical. I will demonstrate that LGBT advocacy in the modern official academic community is considered orthodox, persistent, and well-established, even in the absence of convincing scientific evidence, while LGBT views are skeptical and labeled as “pseudo-scientific” and “false”, even if they are supported convincing factology.

Science and Political Ideology

The first important condition for understanding what science is is to determine what the scientific method is. The scientific method consists of several stages: (1) posing the question (what needs to be studied): determining the object and subject, goals and objectives of the study; (2) work with literature: the study of issues on this topic that have already been investigated by others; (3) hypothesis development: the formulation of an assumption about how the process under study proceeds and what can happen when exposed; (4) experiment: testing a hypothesis; (5) analysis of the results: studying the results of the experiment and ascertaining the extent to which the hypothesis was confirmed; and, finally, (6) conclusions: bringing to other results of the experiment and analysis.

This foundation for study has been the basis of scientific research for centuries, and its rational, objective method has allowed mankind to achieve impressive results.

However, as Professor Henry Bauer noted in 1992, the scientific and, especially, the popular science community is increasingly turning its back on the scientific method in order to comply with liberal ideology as the only decisive way to “scientifically” interpret the world around it (Bauer 1992) Thus, the main scientific method was reduced to the following: (1) definition of the problem and, as far as possible, avoiding “forbidden” topics, for example. race and gender as biologically determined concepts, “sexual orientation” as a social construct; (2) the search for what has already been studied by others, and the selection of results that do not contradict the prevailing ideology; (3) hypothesis development: the assumption of an explanation of a problem that does not contradict liberal ideology; (4) experiment: hypothesis testing; (5) analysis of the results: ignoring and decreasing the significance of “unexpected” results while increasing and reassessing the “expected” results; and finally; (6) conclusions: the announcement of results that triumphantly “support” liberal ideology. Professor Bauer is not the only one who is concerned about this ideological shift in science.

For example, similar conclusions regarding the current state of science were made by Professor Ruth Hubbard (Hubbard and Wald 1993), Professor Lynn Wordel (Wardle 1997, 852), Dr. Stephen Goldberg (Goldberg 2002), Dr. Alan Sokal and Dr. Gene Brichmont (Sokal and Brichmont 1998), American publicist Kirsten Powers (Powers 2015), and Dr. Austin Ruse (Rise 2017).

Professor Nicholas Rosenkrantz of Georgetown Law School and Professor Jonathan Haidt of New York University even founded Heterodox Academy, an online project focused on the problem of ideological homogeneity and resistance to different points of view in American institutions of higher education (Heterodox academy.nd).

Dr. Bret Weinstein quit Evergreen State College after he refused to take part in the so-called “Day of Absence” - when representatives of any race and ethnic group other than Caucasians are admitted to the university - he was bullied by angry students and activists (Weinstein xnumx) Later, together with his brother, Dr. Eric Weinstein and other scientists, he founded a community, jokingly called the “Intellectual Dark Web” (Bari 2018). Journalist Bari Weiss described this community as follows: “First, these people are ready to fiercely defend their point of view, but at the same time debate civilly, on almost all relevant subjects: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Secondly, in an era when the popularized opinion about the world and events around us often rejects the real facts, everyone is determined to resist the propagandists of politically convenient opinions. And third, some have paid the price of wanting to express alternative opinions by being fired from academic institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought - and finding a receptive audience elsewhere" (Bari 2018).

For those who have not previously been interested in this problem, the dominance of ideological dogmatism in science may seem incredibly absurd. They can naively believe that in modern science only those facts that have been indisputably confirmed are the only truth, and everything else is based on assumptions, hypotheses, theories and socio-political constructivism. Nevertheless, the assumption of assumptions, hypotheses, theories and socio-political constructivism as “proven facts” is observed in an increasingly wide range of problems (Bauer 2012, c. 12), some of which have a great public outcry. For example, is homosexual attraction a “variation of human sexuality”, or is it a non-physiological (unproductive) deviation of sexual behavior along with sexual attraction to children, animals, or inanimate objects? In these matters, as well as some others, the scientific method has become a victim of political views (Wright and Cummings 2005, from. XIV).

Consider the following: today, in academia, researchers who claim to have the so-called “Progressive” beliefs far outperform those that claim “conservative” beliefs (Abrams 2016) An impressive list of peer-reviewed publications revealing the same issue can be found in the database of the Heterodox Academy community mentioned above (Heterodox Academy nd Peer-Reviewed Research) And LGBT propaganda views are one of the main aspects of modern “progressive” liberal ideology.

In a private conversation, one of my colleagues, a practicing psychologist and Ph.D. in one of the largest cities in Russia (asked me not to disclose his name because he is afraid of the consequences of having an alternative opinion) jokingly told me about the simple principle of “modern” popular science, so that judge by topics related to homosexuality: everything that shows any positive facts for homosexuals is indicated by an example of objective science and an exemplary scientific method. In turn, everything that shows any skepticism regarding homosexuals is branded as “pseudoscience from right-wing extremists” (personal conversation, October 14, 2018). In other words, in “modern science” to doubt the “normality” of homosexuality is tantamount to doubt the “progressiveness” of postmodernism and popular culture. To establish this phenomenon, only the simplest observation of modern popular science discourse is enough. The governments of rich countries and rich non-governmental foundations establish certain permissible beliefs regarding homosexuality, as if it were an undeniable and obvious truth, such as that only women can give birth to people (although I am afraid that in the light of what is happening in the field of “transgenderism” today , this example will be severely criticized).

Replacing the scientific with the politically correct

Some argue that a scientific political and public debate must be very sensitive to a number of topics because of the bitter legacy of human history. But scientific facts have nothing to do with politics. There are obvious biological differences between human races (phenotypes) (2005), there are obvious biological differences between the human sexes (Evans and DeFranco 2014) etc. Indeed, such facts were partially used as “arguments” for unimaginable crimes and atrocities throughout the history of mankind, and humanity and society should always keep this in mind. There is no argument for inequality.

However, the above-mentioned sad pages of history do not negate the existence of physiological phenotypes and sex differences in humans, because they occur in nature and are biologically determined. For example, a man cannot give birth due to the biological characteristics of his body (the absence of a uterus, first of all, as USA Today aptly noted). We can simply avoid talking about it, gloss over these obvious natural things, or change the meaning of the word “woman” - this adds nothing to the unshakable reality of science. Scientific facts exist regardless of their interpretation by ideologues of political doctrines, regardless of whether they are listed in any declaration or classification of diseases, and regardless of political correctness.

In my opinion, the establishment of an equal sign between “political correctness” and science is one of the huge problems of our time, and this fact hinders novelty and innovation. Some researchers have a similar opinion (Hunter 2005) According to the HarperCollins dictionary in British English, “political correctness” means “demonstrating progressive ideals, especially by refusing to use a vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory or judgmental, especially with regard to race and gender” (Collins English Dictionary. nd) And according to Webster’s dictionary “Random House” of American English, “political correctness” “... is characterized, as a rule, by a commitment to progressive orthodoxy on issues of ethnic and gender, sexual orientation or ecology” (Dictionary / Thesaurus nd).

Domestic publicists Belyakov and co-authors described “political correctness” without undue sentiment:

“... Political correctness is one of the products of a postmodern society characterized by multiculturalism, methodological anarchism, social fragmentation and the coming to the fore of narrower identities. Democracy in such a society appears as a social system, implying not the power of the majority, but primarily the protection of the rights of any minority, down to the individual. In fact, even the most democratic state is not able to protect all the rights proclaimed by it and to ensure the realization of the ambitions of each member of society. A simulation of the solution to this problem is the widespread use of language practice of political correctness, which suggests avoiding the use of those words and phrases regarding race and gender, age, health, social status, and the appearance of representatives of certain social groups that they may consider offensive and discriminatory. So, it’s “politically correct” to call a black man “African American”, an Indian “native American”, a disabled person “overcoming difficulties because of his physical condition (physically challenged), and a fat man“ horizontally oriented ”( horizontally oriented), the poor - “deprived of advantages” (disadvantaged), the person rummaging in garbage dumps - “the collector of things which were refused” (refuse collectors), etc. To prevent stigmatization of “sexual minorities”, or “people with non-traditional orientation ”(also politically correct euphemisms), before agaetsya use to them, for example, the term "gay" and "homosexual." “Sexist” morphemes, allegedly alluding to the superiority of men over women, were also found offensive. Words etymologically related to the root “man” (chairman), foreman (chief), fireman (fireman), postman (postman) are proposed to be excluded from use in favor of chairperson, supervisor, fire fighter, mail carrier, respectively . For the same reason, the word woman should henceforth be written as “womyn” (or even vaginal american), and instead of the pronouns he, his, he should always use she, her (her, her). In order to avoid the manifestation of anthropocentrism offensive to animals and plants, the words pets (domestic animals) and house plants (domestic plants) representing a person as their owner are proposed to be replaced by animal companions (animal companions) and botanical companions (plant companions) ... ”(Belyakov and Matveychev 2009).

Thus, “political correctness”, if we clear this term from “politically correct” wrapper, means nothing more than a kind of censorship.

Certain cultural beliefs of a left-liberal orientation have become public dogmas from which no one has the right to retreat, whether they be scientists, teachers or students. Any scientist who wants to achieve recognition and funding should use the language of "political correctness." Thus, “political correctness” is sometimes quite properly called “liberal fascism”, emphasizing the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed liberals acting as authoritarian fascists (Coppedge 2017).

It is obvious how seriously “political correctness” perverts science, since it destroys all classical scientific norms and principles. These norms can be generalized as universalism, openness, disinterestedness, skepticism, which are taken for granted in science as a matter of course, as well as simple honesty and lack of hypocrisy. However, today what was previously taken for granted is no longer considered as such. In the end, to argue that something is indisputably and unequivocally proven at a time when there is convincing evidence to the contrary (which is known to competent and impartial scientists) is simply dishonest and dishonorable.

On this occasion, journalist Tom Nichols noted:

“... I’m afraid that we are moving away from natural healthy skepticism regarding the statements of various experts towards extinction of expert opinion as such: towards fueled by Google, based on Wikipedia and stifled by blogs by professional experts and laymen, teachers and students who know and are interested ... "(Nichols xnumx).

Wikipedia and Youtube as a source of “knowledge”

Wikipedia is one of the most visited Internet sites, which presents itself as an "encyclopedia" and is accepted by many non-specialists as well as schoolchildren as an unquestioning source of truth. The site was launched in 2001 by an Alabama entrepreneur named Jimmy Wales. Before founding the Wikipedia site, Jimmy Wales created the Internet project Bomis, which distributed paid pornography, a fact that he diligently strives to remove from his biography (Hansen 2005; Schilling xnumx).

Many people think that Wikipedia is trustworthy, because "any user can add an article or edit an existing article." This is half-truth - in fact, any information that does not correspond to liberal and left-wing radical dogmas will be censored due to the existence of intricate mechanisms for verifying the article under which there is an institution of the so-called intermediaries - editors representing certain liberal movements, for example, an intermediary from “LGBT +” - a movement that can edit or reject materials (Jackson 2009) Thus, despite its official policy of supposedly neutrality, Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias and an openly leftist bias.

In an article in FrontPageMagazine magazine, David Swingle analyzed and demonstrated that the Wikipedia project presents the point of view of its most persistent and regular editors, some of them (especially in the areas of social conflict) are activists seeking to influence public opinion (Swingle xnumx) For example, Swingle calculated:

“... Compare [Wikipedia articles] about Ann Coulter²) and about Michael Moore (Michael Moore³) The article about Coulter consisted of 9028 words (on 9 of August 2011 of the year). Of this amount, 3220 words were in the section “Contradictions and Criticism”, which described a number of incidents with Coulter and quoted quotes of critics who criticized her, mainly among leftists and liberals. That is, 35,6% of the article devoted to Ann Coulter was devoted to presenting it in a bad light, controversial and full of criticism.

On the other hand, an article about Moore consisted of 2876 words (which is approximately equal to the average volume of articles about political figures on Wikipedia), of which 130 words were in the section “Contradictions”. This is 4,5% of the entire Moore article.

Does this mean that the “unbiased” reader believes that Coulter is eight times more controversial than Moore? ... ”(Swingle xnumx).

In his article, journalist Joseph Farah writes that Wikipedia:

“... is not only the disseminator of inaccuracy and bias. This is a wholesale supplier of lies and slander, such as the world has never known ... "(Farah 2008).

In addition, Wikipedia is heavily influenced by paid public relations and reputation management professionals who remove any negative facts about their customers and present biased content (Grace 2007; Gohring 2007) Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to comply with its rules, especially for large donors.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the project, admitted that Wikipedia does not follow its own declared neutrality policy (Arrington 2016).

Researcher Brian Martin writes in his work:

“...Despite nominal adherence to the user guide, systematic biased editing may occur in Wikipedia, which is constantly maintained. Techniques for biased editing of a Wikipedia entry include deleting positive information, adding negative information, using biased selection of sources, and exaggerating the importance of specific topics. To maintain bias in an entry, even if it is pointed out by some users, key techniques include unediting the entry, selectively enforcing Wikipedia rules, and blocking editors...” (Martin 2017).

All Wikipedia articles on LGBT + should be approved by the so-called intermediaries, and any facts objectionable to them are removed from the materials. The mediation regime of the LGBT + representative is mandatory for all articles of LGBT +, and it is the mediator who decides what will be published and what will not. rule Wikipedia.

Thus, all Wikipedia articles related to LGBT + are biased, self-serving, and represent only a compilation of carefully edited information from often dubious or generally unscientific, artistic sources. It is impossible not only to add a new article, or to make additions to an existing article, but even to change one single word if it contradicts the unspoken dogma “either good or nothing”.

About 300 examples of the engagement of Wikipedia, including on the issue of LGBT +, are documented on the Conservapedia website (Conservapedia 2018).

For example, in Wikipedia, for a very long time, the article on same-sex behavior among animals (which is itself very biased, see Chapter 2) contained an unreasonable phrase about “1500 species of homosexual animals”, which was presented by Wikipedia as a scientific truth - despite the fact that there are no sources citing these figures. In fact, this advertising slogan was launched by an employee of the Norwegian Museum of Natural History named Petter Böckmann during the organization of the exhibition in 2006, which Böckmann and introduced him in a Wikipedia article in 2007. Only 11 years later, the information was deleted: during the discussion, Böckman was unable to provide a source and admitted the fallacy of the statement: 

Ultimately, as Wikipedia executives claim:

“… Wikipedia is a private website owned by the privately held Wikimedia Foundation and managed exclusively by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are free to set their own rules regarding who can write and edit articles on the site ... As a private website, Wikipedia has every right to block, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any reader read or edit the content of the site for any reason, or even for no reason ... The Wikimedia Foundation has every right to change its rules for any reason it deems necessary - or even for no reason, simply because "you want to" ... "(Wikipedia: Free Speech 2018).

It is this "encyclopedia" that is the main source of "knowledge" about the world around for a huge number of young people ...

Another source of information for modern laymen is the YouTube video hosting service, owned by Google’s largest corporation. The YouTube site has officially positioned itself as a free resource that supposedly does not interfere with the expression in favor of LGBTKIAP +, or expressions that refute the rhetoric of LGBTKIAP +. This is not true.

In recent years, YouTube has increasingly been accused of obstructing conservative views (Carlsson 2018) Censorship on YouTube was subjected to the channel “PragerU” and other channels that express a point of view that is different from the views of liberal ideologists.

FoxNews reporters mentioned the YouTube YouTube internal memo that came to their disposal in April 2017, which details how the censorship of videos occurs. One of the reasons that the scale of censorship on YouTube is not obvious to most people is because the company is smart enough not to erase every video that it wants to censor. Instead, a “restricted mode” is introduced for many videos.⁴. Such videos are blocked on campuses, schools, libraries, and other public places; they cannot be viewed by minors and unregistered users. The site’s restricted content is intentionally sent to the very end, so it’s harder to find. In addition, they are demonetized: those who posted them cannot earn money on them, regardless of the number of views.

Imagine, for example, that the New York Times stopped selling at the newsagent — you can, of course, get it, but only by subscription. And, in addition, - exclusively for free. That is, publishers were forbidden to make money selling newspapers. Obviously, such actions would fall under the definition of censorship.

What are the censorship criteria for YouTube videos? As stated in the memo, censorship includes, I quote, "controversial religious or chauvinistic content", as well as "extremely controversial, provocative content." No definition of what it is - controversial religious, chauvinistic, religious or provocative content - is not given. The decision is made by YouTube, and it is as politicized as possible.

FoxNews cites an example: YouTube found the PragerU channel a “provocative” attempt to cast doubt on the allegation of rampant racism among US police. If you do not consider all American police officers to be racists, then, according to YouTube, you share "extremely controversial, provocative content." So the video “PragerU” was demonetized and, in fact, declared to be inciting hatred. At the same time, videos claiming to be “naturally white evil” remain on YouTube without any restrictions.

A memo provides a clear understanding of where YouTube takes censors. The document explains that the company is committed to “freedom of ownership, including those benefits that are a product of diversity and inclusiveness.” Among those whom YouTube entrusted with censorship against “extremist content” was an organization that shared radical ultra-liberal, including “LGBT +” views, - “Southern Poverty Law Center” (Influencewatch; Thiessen 2018).

Harassing Dissenters

Numerous, well-funded and, as a result, influential groups and organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, applying the experience of the early 1970s of the last century (see Chapter 14), create a situation in which any speaker, even fully scientifically argued , which does not coincide with the rhetoric of “LGBT +”, risks losing a lot - from career to health. Even at the dawn of the era of “mainstream science” and “political correctness”, researchers who defend views that differ from the “mainstream line of the party” run the risk of being accused of “undemocratic”, “cruelty and inhumanity” (Marmor xnumx), “Irresponsibility, homophobia and prejudice” (1986) Such accusations are supported by the "mainstream culture" in the media and show business.

Professor Robert Spitzer (1932–2015) was one of the most important figures during the scandalous actions of the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, making every effort to exclude homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, Spitzer made for the “LGBT” movement, perhaps more than others, gaining respect and authority from the LGBT community (Bayer 1981).

However, almost 30 years later, at a conference of the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer reported on the results of his recent studies that “66 percent of men and 44 percent of women have achieved a good degree of heterosexual functioning,” that is, “they maintained stable, loving heterosexual relationships throughout the year, getting enough satisfaction from an emotional relationship with their partner, rated at least 7 points on a 10-point scale, having sex with a sex partner in cr at least monthly, and never or rarely fantasizing about homosexual contact during sex ”; later, the results were published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (Spitzer 2001; 2003a). This was completely contrary to LGBT propaganda dogmas about the supposedly immutable nature of homosexual attraction. Hell broke out around Spitzer: “Today, the hero of the gay movement suddenly became Judas” (van den Aarweg 2012). Spitzer’s article has been harshly criticized by renowned repressive therapy persecutors such as A. Lee Becksted, Helena Carlson, Kennette Cohen, Ritch Savin-Williams, Gregory Herek, Bruce Rind, and Roger Worsington (Rosik 2012).

Interestingly, as noted by Dr. Christopher Rowsick, some of the criticized aspects of Spitzer’s 2003 work were as follows: the study was based on personal interviews from a sample drawn from consultative organizations and the National Association for the Study and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) (Wilde 2004 ) This is the highest degree of hypocrisy: a work in which the results of an LGBT-skeptical study were presented was criticized for using the same methodology that was used in LGBT advocacy work, for example the study of Shidlo and Schroeder was also based on personal reports (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002 ) In fact, all psychological science and other social sciences are largely dependent on personal communications and self-reports of research objects. In addition, a large proportion of LGBT advocacy publications about children raised by same-sex couples are based on small samples collected by homosexual organizations (Marks 2012).

In the end, after ten years of hate raging over him, Spitzer surrendered. At the age of 80, he wrote a letter to the editors of Archives of Sexual Behavior asking him to withdraw the article (Spitzer 2012). He also apologized to the entire homosexual community for "harm." Dr. van den Aardweg recalls a telephone conversation with Professor Spitzer, some time after the publication of his article in 2003, in which he spoke about attempts to resist critics: (Spitzer 2003b): “I asked him if he would continue his research, or even try Does he work with people with homosexual problems who are looking for "alternative" professional help, that is, help and support in order to change their homosexual interests to heterosexual ones ... His answer was unequivocal. No, he will never again touch upon this subject. He was nearly broken emotionally after terrible personal attacks by militant gays and their supporters. It was a stream of hatred. A person can really be broken by such a traumatic experience. ” (Spitzer 2003b).

Another researcher whose work is often quoted by homosexual activists is Professor Charles Roselli of the University of Oregon. Professor Roselli studies neurobiological processes in domestic sheep models. In the early stages of his activity, Professor Roselli conducted experiments to study the sociosexual behavior of domestic sheep. He suggested that some hormonal intrauterine imbalance could disrupt the sexual behavior of the rams. In his early publications on this subject, Professor Roselli's studies focused only on improving sheep breeding and its effects on the economy, and Roselli acknowledged the fallacy of studying human sexual behavior in animal models, noting: “Studies aimed at understanding the factors governing sexual behavior and fertility sheep are of obvious importance to sheep breeding. The information obtained on the hormonal, neural, genetic and environmental factors that determine the preferences of sexual partners should allow a better choice of sheep for reproduction and, as a result, have economic value. However, this study also has wider relevance for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and partner selection for different types of mammals, including humans. In this regard, it is important to understand that the sexual behavior of a ram aimed at another male cannot be strictly equated with the homosexuality of a person, because the sexual orientation of a person includes perception, fantasies and experience, as well as observed sexual behavior ”(Roselli 2004, p. . 243).

In his 2004 review article, Professor Roselli admitted that he did not find convincing evidence for his theory [of intrauterine hormonal imbalance], and mentioned various hypotheses to explain same-sex behavior in some rams (Roselli 2004, pp. 236 – 242). In his activities, Roselli was very sensitive to LGBT people in his formulations and interpretations, and certainly did not in any way express LGBT-skeptical views.

Nonetheless, Professor Roselli was harassed and persecuted by LGBT activists for opening autopsies in his laboratory - although there is obviously no other cheap way to study ram anatomy (Cloud 2007). Roselli instantly declared "homophobic" and "flayer." In an article entitled “Hands Off Gay Sheep!” in the London Sunday Times, Roselli was called “the head of a secret conspiracy against homosexuals” (Ersly 2013, p. 48). PETA, in the form of its representative, a well-known athlete and activist of the LGBT + movement Martina Navratilova (PETA UK 2006), joined the rising uproar. Activists sent Roselli and various employees of the University of Oregon about 20 thousand letters with threats and insults (“you need to shoot!”, “Please die!”, Etc.) (Ersly 2013, p. 49).

A few years later, when Roselli, probably taught by the bitter experience of opposing mainstream ideas, switched to the rhetoric of "LGBT +" - movement, in a subsequent article he wrote: “The preference for sexual partners in humans can be studied in animal models using special tests ... Despite the imperfection , animal mate preference tests are used to model a person's sexual orientation ”(Roselli 2018, p. 3).

Dr. Ray Milton Blanchard of the University of Toronto is an authority on sexology and served on the American Psychiatric Association's Gender Identity Subcommittee that developed the DSM-IV classification. Dr. Blanchard hypothesized that homosexual attraction (including homosexual pedophilia) and transsexualism (DSM-IV gender identity disorder, now DSM-5 gender dysphoria) are caused by male-specific immune responses similar to those of the male sex. incompatibility (Blanchard 1996). Although Dr. Blanchard's scientific discourse is very restrained and almost LGBT-propagandistic, he is persecuted by LGBT activists for his belief that transsexualism is a mental disorder. This is something of a blasphemy to modern LGBT ideology, which is why Dr. Blanchard has been harshly criticized by some LGBT activists (Wyndzen 2003). Moreover, in an interview, Blanchard noted: “I would say, if you could start from scratch, ignore the whole history of the exclusion of homosexuality from the DSM, normal sexuality is all about reproduction” (Cameron 2013). Regarding transsexualism, Dr. Blanchard stated: “The first step in politicizing transsexualism—whether you are for or against it—is to ignore or deny its basic nature as a type of mental disorder” (Blanchard 2017 on Twitter).

An LGBT activist from the Bilerico project wrote about Blanchard: “If Dr. Blanchard were some kind of crazy person without position or authority, he could be easily discredited. But this is not the case – on the contrary, he was on the American Psychiatric Association committee responsible for paraphilias and sexual disorders” (Tannehill 2014). If you get the meaning right, the activist is complaining that Dr. Blanchard "has authority" otherwise "he would be easy to discredit." That's all.

Dr. Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas did not have Blanchard's authority when he published his findings in 2012 in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research that parental homosexual relationships negatively affect children (Regnerus 2012). The publication caused the effect of an exploding bomb far beyond the community of scientists who work in the field of family sociology. This discovery contradicted the mainstream, which had been established in the liberal American scientific community since the beginning of the 2000s about the absence of the influence of parents' sexual inclinations on children and caused the fury of homosexual public associations. Regnerus was instantly branded a “homophobia” and was accused of his results against the legalization of homosexual “marriages” (the story happened before the famous decision of the Supreme Court of America), although Regnerus did not put forward such arguments anywhere in the article. The liberal media even called Regnerus “an elephant in the china shop of mainstream sociology” (Ferguson 2012).

Sociologist Gary Gates, director of the Institute for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity at the University of California, led a group of two hundred LGBT-friendly sociologists who signed a letter to the editor-in-chief of Social Science Research magazine asking them to appoint a group of scientists with special experience in LGBT parenting to write a detailed critical conclusion on the article by Regnerus (Gates 2012).

The piquancy of the situation is that Gary Gates, who lives in a same-sex partnership, was sharply criticized by LGBT activists “as a traitor to ideals” (Ferguson 2012) for publishing a study that only 3,8 percent of Americans identify themselves as homosexuals ( Gates 2011a). This contradicted the statement of "10%" from the work of the famous entomologist Alfred Kinsey, which represents one of the dogmas of LGBT propaganda. As Gates frankly shared, “When my research was first published, prominent gay bloggers and their followers called me“ irresponsible, ”hailed criticism of my work, and even compared me to the Nazis” (Gates 2011b).

In any case, just a year later, Gates led the persecution of Regnerus and his LGBT-skeptical research. LGBT activist Scott Rose sent an open letter to the president of the University of Texas, demanding sanctions against Regnerus for publishing it as an “ethical crime” (Rose 2012). The university replied that it had begun a test to determine if the Regnerus publication had “a corpus delicti” to initiate the necessary official investigation. The audit did not reveal any inconsistencies in the actions of Regnerus with ethical scientific ethical standards, and no investigation was launched. However, the story was far from over. Regnerus has been harassed by the blogosphere, the media, and official publications, not only in the form of criticism of his scientific work (analytical methods and processing of statistical data), but also in the form of personal insults and threats to health and even life (Wood 2013).

Christian Smith, a professor of sociology and director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame, commented on this incident: “Those who attack Regnerus cannot openly admit their true political motives, so their strategy was to discredit him for carrying out "bad science". It's a lie. His [Regnerus] article is not perfect - and no article is ever perfect. But from a scientific point of view, this is no worse than what is usually published in sociological journals. No doubt, if Regnerus had published the opposite results using the same methodology, no one would have complained about his methods. In addition, none of his critics expressed methodological concerns about earlier studies on the same topic, the flaws of which were more serious than the limitations that are discussed in detail in Regnerus's article. Obviously, weak studies that arrive at the “right” conclusions are more acceptable than stronger studies that produce “heretical” results ”(Smith 2012).

Dr. Lawrence Meyer and Dr. Paul McHugh, who published an extensive review of scientific research in New Atlantis, entitled Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, have come under heavy pressure from the LGBT + movement (Hodges 2016). In their work, the authors have very delicately and carefully demonstrated the unfoundedness of the rhetoric of the homosexual movement in relation to the cause of homosexual attraction, concluding that "the analysis of the results of biological, psychological and social research ... has not revealed any scientific evidence for some of the most frequently disseminated claims about sexuality" (Mayer and McHugh 2016, p. 7).

Dr. Quentin van Mieter, a colleague of Mayer and McHugh at Johns Hopkins University, said that initially, Mayer and McHugh planned to publish their article in some of the authoritative major peer-reviewed specialized scientific journals, but the editors refused them over and over again, citing the fact that their work “Politically incorrect” (Van Meter 2017).

An article by Mayer and McHugh was immediately attacked violently by LGBT + activists — the movement. Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which, according to its website, is LGBT +’s largest representative and has an annual budget of about $ 50 million, published a commentary on Mayer and McHugh, stating that these authors “Mislead”, “spread hatred”, etc. Activists began to put pressure on the editors of the magazine, demanding to discredit the article (Hanneman 2016). The editors of the magazine were even forced to publish an official letter in response to the HRC allegations called “Lies and Bullying from the Human Rights Campaign,” in which they commented on some of the most odious attacks. The editors of New Atlantis noted: “This disgusting attempt to intimidate is a destructive thing for science, aimed at destroying the existence of mutually respectful disagreement on controversial scientific issues. Intimidation tactics of this kind undermine the atmosphere of free and open research, which scientific institutions must support ”(Editors of The New Atlantis 2016).

A similar orgy from LGBT activists is associated with the publication of Dr. Lisa Littman, an assistant professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University. Dr. Littman studied the reasons for the surge in “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (the name for adolescent transsexualism) among young people and concluded that their sudden desire for gender reassignment may be spread through peers and may be a pathological coping mechanism for age-related difficulties (Littman 2018). Before declaring themselves “transgender,” teenagers watched videos about gender reassignment, communicated with transsexuals on social networks, and read “transgender” resources. In addition, many were friends with one or more transsexuals. A third of respondents reported that if they had at least one transgender teenager in their social circle, more than half of the teenagers in this group also began to identify as “transgender.” A group in which 50% of its members become “transgender” is 70 times higher than the expected prevalence of this phenomenon among young people. In addition, it was found that before the onset of gender dysphoria, 62% of respondents had one or more diagnoses of a mental health or neurodevelopmental disorder. And in 48% of cases, respondents had experienced a traumatic or stressful event before the onset of “gender dysphoria,” including bullying, sexual abuse, or parental divorce. Dr. Littman suggested that the so-called. social contagion and interpersonal contagion play a significant role in the causes of gender identity disorder. The first is “the spread of affect or behavior across a population group” (Marsden 1998). The second is “the process in which an individual and peers mutually influence each other in ways that stimulate emotions and behaviors that can potentially undermine their own development or harm others” (Dishion and Tipsord 2011). The results of the study were even posted on the Brown University website. But this publication, as expected, was met with hysterical accusations of “transphobia” and demands for censorship. The university administration readily caved in and quickly removed the research article from its website. According to the dean, university community activists “have expressed concern that the study's findings could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and ignore the views of members of the transgender community” (Kearns 2018).

Professor Jeffrey S. Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, commented on the issue: “In all my years in academia, I have never seen such a reaction from a journal several days after the publication of an article that the journal had already vetted, peer-reviewed, and accepted.” for publication. One can only assume that this reaction was in large part a response to intense pressure and threats - explicit or implicit - that the worst of the social media backlash would befall PLOS One if no censorship action was taken" (Flier 2018 ).

Professor Kenneth Zucker of the University of Toronto is the former director of the former (closed in December 2015) Gender Identity Clinic for Children and Families at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Professor Zucker published an impressive list of works on gender identity disorders, he was a member of the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR classifications working groups and led the American Psychiatric Association's Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Working Group for "DSM-5." Professor Zucker can hardly be called an LGBT skeptic, and it was under his leadership that the American Psychiatric Association “updated” the diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria,” removing the word “disorder” from the diagnosis to the triumph of LGBT people (Thompson 2015).

One way or another, in the former Gender Identity Clinic, Professor Zucker worked with patients aged 3 to 18 years, contrary to the mainstream principles of “gender-positive” pediatric services in Canada, which provide for every possible assistance in the gender transition of such children - support in expressing the desired gender through changing names, clothes, behavior and other means - until children reach the legal age for surgery and taking hormones. Instead, Dr. Zucker believed that at this young age, gender identity is highly malleable and gender dysphoria will subside over time (Zucker and Bradley 1995). This approach was contrary to LGBT ideology, and Dr. Zucker's work has long been under pressure from LGBT activists. Despite the recognized existence of different treatment models for gender identity disorder (Ehrensaft 2017), the administration of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health decided to conduct an audit of Dr. Zucker's activities (Thompson 2015). The selected reviewers wrote in their report, “During the course of the review, two dominant themes emerged as concerns for the reviewers: first, that the Clinic appears to be acting as an outlier within the Addiction and Mental Health Center system in particular and the community in general, and - secondly, the activities of the Clinic do not seem to correspond to modern clinical and operational practice. Feedback from clients and stakeholders has been both positive and negative regarding the Clinic. Some former clients were very pleased with the service they received, while others felt that the specialists' approach was inconvenient, frustrating and unhelpful. The professional community has recognized the Clinic's academic contributions, while some stakeholders have expressed concerns about the current model of care." (CAMH 2016).

The reviewers also wrote that they invited unidentified stakeholders to comment on their experience at the clinic, with one stating that Dr. Zucker "asked him to take off his shirt in front of the other clinicians present, laughed when he agreed, and then called him a 'little hairy parasite.' (Singal 2016a). Dr. Zucker was immediately fired (the clinic's second full-time employee, Dr. Haley Wood, had been fired earlier), so the Gender Identity Clinic was closed. Well, the fact that “some stakeholders expressed concern” (despite the fact that the Gender Identity Clinic's practice had received academic recognition) and the unsubstantiated allegation of unethical treatment—which, by the way, was subsequently withdrawn by the accuser (Singal 2016b)—was enough to apply strict censorship.

Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez of California State University, who himself was raised in a pair of two homosexuals and considers himself a bisexual, published an essay in 2012, “Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children's View”, telling about his extremely unpleasant experience of raising a pair of two women, who later turned him into a convinced LGBT skeptic about gay marriage and adoption of children. This led to immediate bullying and blogging allegations (Flaherty 2015). Lopez continued to write in the same discourse, as a result of which he was included in the lists of “hate speech” of such LGBT propaganda organizations as Human Rights Campaign (HRC staff 2014) and GLAAD (GLAAD nd).

Any even the mildest LGBT-skeptical statement is immediately branded as hate.

This is also evidenced by a woman raised in a same-sex couple, Heather Barwick, who published her sensational - inside the information ghetto of the media of traditional views - an open letter to the "LGBT +" - community. Barwick said that unlike children who have survived divorce, and unlike children adopted by opposite-sex couples, children in same-sex couples are criticized if they decide to complain about their situation: “… There are so many of us. Many of us are too intimidated to speak out and tell you about our suffering and pain, because for whatever reason, it seems that you are not listening. What you don't want to hear. If we say we suffer because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or branded as haters ... ”(Barwick 2015). A month later, another daughter of a lesbian couple published her open letter, criticizing the totalitarian culture of the “LGBT +” community in it: “... I would never consider myself to be as intolerant and self-centered as the LGBT community, which requires hot and passionate tolerance, but does not show mutual tolerance, sometimes even to its own members. In fact, this community attacks anyone who disagrees with it, no matter how heartily the disagreement is expressed ... ”(Walton 2015).

A perversion of science for the sake of ideology

Scientists and all people associated with science should always try to stay out of the cultural and political continuum as part of their scientific activities. Science as an eternal and impersonal desire to search for knowledge about the world around us decides what is “right”, based on evidence, and not “concerns expressed by some interested parties in the community”. If there is no such evidence or they are contradictory, then we can only talk about theories and hypotheses. Science must be universal, that is, apply the same criteria for the interpretation of experiments and research. There is no ideal publication; each scientific work has its limitations and shortcomings. However, if a study or publication whose results are LGBT-skeptical revealed a methodological limitation, and this restriction does not allow final conclusions, then a similar methodological restriction identified in a study or publication whose results are LGBT-propaganda is in exactly the same way does not allow to draw final conclusions. For example, many methodological limitations have been shown in the famous LGBT advocacy work of Alfred Kinsey (Terman 1948; Maslow and Sakoda 1952; Cochran et al. 1954) and Evelyn Hooker (Cameron and Cameron 2012; Schumm 2012; Landess nd).

However, these works are considered as examples containing “convincing and proven scientific facts” that were used to make important socio-political and scientific-administrative decisions. At the same time, any restriction in LGBT-skeptical publications actually nullifies it and turns it into "pseudoscience." Otherwise, this is a classic example of a speck and a log in the eye.

Dr. Lauren Marx of Louisiana State University published in 2012 a review of 59 scientific papers (Marks 2012) on children raised in same-sex couples; these papers were used as an argument for the American Psychological Association's statement that there was no effect of parental homosexual relationships on children (APA 2005). Marx pointed out the many shortcomings and limitations of these works. Dr. Marx’s review was not only ignored by leading research organizations, but was also branded as “low-quality research,” which was “inappropriate for a journal that publishes original research” (Bartlett 2012).

In many respects, as shown above, researchers are justifiably afraid and avoid disclosing LGBT-skeptical findings and even refuse to work in such “forbidden” directions. Does this fact distort science? Undoubtedly. For example, former President of the American Psychological Association (1979-1980), Dr. Nicholas Cummings, believes that social science is in decline because it is under the dictatorship of social activists. Dr. Cummings stated that when the American Psychological Association conducts research, it does so only "when they know what the outcome will be ... only studies with predictably favorable results are acceptable" (Ames Nicolosi nd).

Another former president of the American Psychological Association (1985-1986), Dr. Robert Perloff, stated: "... The American Psychological Association is too 'politically correct' ... and too subservient to special interests ..." (Murray 2001).

Clevenger in his work described a systemic bias associated with the publication of articles on the topic of homosexuality (Clevenger 2002). He showed that there is an institutionalized bias that prevents the publication of any article that does not correspond to a specific political and ideological understanding of homosexuality. Clevenger also concludes that the American Psychological Association, like other professional organizations, is becoming increasingly politicized, leading to doubts about the veracity of their statements and the impartiality of their activities, although they are still highly respected and used in judicial issues. Opinions of researchers that contradict liberal doctrine are drowned and marginalized.

Take, for example, the 2014 study entitled “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality”, in which Michael Lacourt from Los Angeles examined the answers inhabitants to a question on the relation to so-called “Legalizing” same-sex marriage based on the sexual identity of interviewers (LaCour and Green 2014). LaCourt argued that when the interviewer appeared to be homosexual, this greatly increased the likelihood of an affirmative answer. The results again spread through the headlines of the leading media. LaCourt has become almost a star. However, it can be said that his rudeness killed him when a randomly interested reader discovered that LaCourt completely falsified the data in his study (Broockman et al. 2015). LaCourt's publication was recalled (McNutt 2015), but, again, the news of the recall did not spread to the media.

Journalist Naomi Riley describes the case of the publication of Mark Hatzenbühler (Riley 2016). In 2014, Columbia University professor Mark Hatzenbühler stated that he discovered the following: homosexuals living in places with a high level of “prejudice” had lower life expectancy 12 years lower than those living in “liberal” areas. For a better understanding: a 12-year difference is more than a similar difference between regular smokers and non-smokers. Naturally, the news of Hatzenbühler’s study scattered across the headlines of the mainstream media, while proponents of marginalization who reject homosexuality received the “scientific” argument as the norm. However, none of these media outlets mentioned the publication in the journal Social Science and Medicine that the researcher mentioned above, professor at the University of Texas Mark Regnerus, tried to replicate Hatzenbühler’s results and received completely different data - there is no influence of the “level of prejudice” on the life expectancy of homosexuals (Regnerus 2017). Regnerus honestly tried ten different methods of statistical calculations in an attempt to confirm the data stated by Hatzenbühler, but not one method showed statistically significant results. Regnerus concluded: “The variables in the original Hatzenbühler study (and therefore its key findings) are so sensitive to subjective interpretation during measurements that they can be considered irrelevant” (Regnerus 2017).

In the social sciences, a real “crisis of replicability” (ie, repeatability, in other words universality) of published studies has occurred to date. In 2015, a large research project called the Reproducibility Project, led by Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia, was tasked with repeating the results of 100 published psychological studies - only one third of them were reproduced (Aarts et al. 2015).

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the scientific journal The Lancet, expressed his concern in the author’s article:

“... Most of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply not reflect reality. Overwhelmed by studies with small samples, negligible effects, inadequate analysis, and obvious conflicts of interest, together with an obsession with fashion trends of dubious importance, science has turned towards darkness ... The apparent prevalence of such unacceptable research behavior in the scientific community is alarming ... to impress scientists too often adjust data to fit their worldview or adjust hypotheses to their data ... Our pursuit of "significance" poisons the scientific literature with many statistical fairy tales ... Universities are engaged in a constant struggle for money and talent ... And individual scientists, including their very top management do little to change the culture of exploration, which at times borders on malice ... ”(Horton 2015).

The difference between the media attitude to the publication of Regnerus and Hatzenbühler is obvious: just some conclusions are more acceptable than others [1].

Professor Walter Schumm of the University of Kansas, on the same topic, noted: “… studies have shown that many scientific authors, when reviewing the literature, tend to refer to methodologically weaker studies, if such studies deduced the desired result in support of the hypothesis of no influence… "(Schumm 2010, p. 378).

In 2006, Dr. Brian Meyer of Gettysburg College noted, regarding the media effect of Adams et al., That homosexuality hostility was allegedly indicative of “hidden homosexuality” (Adams et al. 1996): “... The lack of [replicative research] is particularly perplexing if one considers the degree of attention generated by the article [Adams et al. 1996]. We find it interesting that many media outlets (journal articles, books, and countless Internet sites) have accepted the psychoanalytic hypothesis as an explanation for homophobia, even in the absence of subsequent empirical evidence ... ”(Meier et al. 2006, p. 378).

In 1996, Dr. Alan D. Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the academic journal Social Text". The editors of Social Text decided to publish this article (Sokal 1996a). It was an experiment - the article was a complete hoax - in this article Sokal, discussing some current problems in mathematics and physics, completely ironically conveys their significance in the field of culture, philosophy and politics (for example, he suggested that quantum gravity is a social construct) in order to attract to the attention of modern academic commentators who question the objectivity of science, it was a cleverly written parody of modern philosophical interdisciplinary research, devoid of any physical meaning (Sokal 1996b). As Sokal explained: “For several years I have been troubled by the apparent decline in standards of intellectual objectivity in some areas of the American academic humanities. But I'm just a physicist: if I can't understand the benefits of something like this, perhaps it just reflects my own inadequacy. So, to test mainstream intellectual standards, I decided to conduct a modest (if not entirely controlled) experiment: would a leading North American cultural studies journal, whose editorial staff includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross, publish complete nonsense if this nonsense (a) sounds good and (b) flatters the ideological biases of the editors? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.” (Sokal 1996b).

Another confirmation of the deplorable state of modern science was provided by three American scientists - James Lindsey, Helen Plakrose and Peter Bogossyan, who for the whole year intentionally wrote completely meaningless and even frankly absurd "scientific" articles in various fields of social sciences to prove: ideology in this field long ago prevailed over common sense. Since August 2017, scientists, under fictitious names, have sent 20 fabricated articles designed as ordinary scientific research to reputable and peer-reviewed scientific journals. The subjects of the works varied, but all of them were devoted to various manifestations of the struggle against “social injustice”: studies of feminism, a culture of masculinity, issues of racial theory, sexual orientation, body positive, and so on. In each article, a radical skeptic theory was put forward condemning one or another “social construct” (for example, gender roles). From a scientific point of view, the articles were frankly absurd and could not withstand any criticism.

In an article in Areo magazine, Lindsay, Plakrose and Bogossian talked about the motives for their act: “... Something in science went wrong, especially in certain areas of the humanities. Now scientific research has been firmly established, dedicated not to the search for truth, but to social discontent and conflicts that arise on their basis. Sometimes they dominate these areas unconditionally, and scientists increasingly intimidate students, administrators, and other departments, forcing them to stick to their point of view. This is not a scientific worldview, and it is inferior. For many, this problem is more and more obvious, but they have no convincing evidence. For this reason, we have been working in the field of education for a whole year, seeing in it an integral part of the problem ... ”(Lindsay et al. 2018).

“In this process, there is one thread that links together all 20 of our scientific papers, although we used a variety of methods, putting forward these or those ideas with the intention of seeing how the editors and reviewers would react. Sometimes we just came up with some kind of extravagant or inhuman idea and started to promote it. Why not write a paper about how men should be trained like dogs to prevent a culture of violence? So our work “Park for Dog Walking” appeared. And why not write a study with the statement that when a person secretly masturbates, thinking about a woman (without her consent, and she will never know about it), he commits sexual violence against her? So we got the Masturbation study. And why not say that the superintelligent artificial intelligence is potentially dangerous, since it is programmed masculine, misogynistic and imperialistic, using psychoanalysis of the author of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley and Jacques Lacan? They declared - and got the work “Feminist Artificial Intelligence”. Or maybe put forward the idea that a fat body is natural, and therefore in professional bodybuilding it is necessary to introduce a new category for fat people? Read the “Fat Study” and you’ll understand what happened.

Sometimes we studied existing studies of discontent in order to understand where and what went awry, and then tried to reinforce these problems. Is there a work "Feminist Glaciology"? Well, we will copy it and write a work on feminist astronomy, where we declare that the astrology of feminists and homosexuals should be considered an integral part of the science of astronomy, which should be labeled misogyny. Reviewers were very enthusiastic about this idea. But what if we use the topic analysis method to juggle your favorite data interpretations? Why not. We wrote an article about working transgender people, where they did just that. Do men use “male reserves” to demonstrate their fading masculinity there in a way that is unacceptable to society? No problems. We published a paper, the summary of which is as follows: “A researcher of gender problems goes to a restaurant with half-naked waitresses in order to find out why he is needed.” You are puzzled by generally accepted impressions, and you are looking for your explanation for this? We ourselves explained everything in our work “Dildo”, giving the answer to the following question: “Why do straight men usually do not masturbate by anal penetration, and what will happen if they start to do this?” We give a hint: according to our article in the leading scientific journal Sexuality and Culture, men in this case will have much less hostility towards transgender people and transgender people, and they will become more feminine.

We used other methods. For example, we thought whether to write a “progressive article” with a proposal to prohibit white men in colleges from speaking in the audience (or make the teacher respond to emails that came to them), and then, in addition to everything, make them sit on the floor in chains so that they feel remorse and make amends for their historical guilt. No sooner said than done. Our proposal found a lively response, and it seems that the titan of feminist philosophy, the magazine "Hypatia" reacted to him with great warmth. We faced another difficult question: “I wonder if the chapter from Hitler’s Mine Kampf will be published if the feminist rewrites it?” It turned out that the answer to it was positive, since the feminist academic journal Affilia accepted the article for publication. Moving forward along the scientific path, we began to realize that we could do anything if it did not go beyond the framework of generally accepted morality and demonstrate understanding of the existing scientific literature.

In other words, we had good reason to believe that if we correctly appropriate the existing literature and borrow from it (and this is almost always possible - we just have to refer to the primary sources), we will have the opportunity to make any politically fashionable statements. In each case, one and the same fundamental question arose: what do we need to write and what do we need to quote (all of our links, by the way, are quite real) so that our nonsense would be published as a science of high flight. ”

These articles have been successfully tested and published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. Due to their “exemplary scientific nature”, the authors even received 4 invitations to become reviewers in scientific journals, and one of the most absurd articles, “Dog Park”, took pride of place in the list of the best articles in the leading journal of feminist geography “Gender, Place and Culture”. The thesis of this opus was as follows:

“Dog parks indulge in rape and are a place of an expanding dog rape culture, where there is a systematic oppression of the“ oppressed dog ”, which allows us to measure the human approach to both problems. This gives an idea of ​​how to wean men from the sexual violence and bigotry they tend to ”(Lindsay et al. 2018).

Ad hominem

American activist and writer, who does not hide her homosexual preferences, professor of humanities Camilla Paglia, in her book Vamps And Tramps back in 1994, noted: “... Over the past decade, the situation has gotten out of control: a responsible scientific approach is impossible when rational discourse is controlled by stormtroopers , in this case, gay activists who, with fanatical absolutism, claim the exclusive possession of truth ... We must be aware of the potentially pernicious confusion of gay activism with science, which generates more propaganda than truth. Gay scientists should be scientists first, and then gay… ”(Paglia 1995, p. 91).

The last phrase is somewhat remarkable. The transformation of the ideological and social views of mental health professionals — not medical observations and scientific facts — has a strong influence on research results. Unfortunately, many of those who study homosexuality are clearly focused on a certain result.

Researchers whose results disprove the notion of “homosexuality as a form of orientation” are often criticized on the basis of the principle “ad hominem circumstantiae”. This is a vicious demagogic practice in which an argument, instead of a factual discussion of the argument itself, is refuted by pointing to the circumstances, nature, motive or other attribute of the person who brings the argument, or the person associated with the argument. For example, the fact that the scientist is a believer or supports political parties with conservative views, that the article is published in a “non-mainstream” or non-peer-reviewed journal, etc. Moreover, any attempts to turn this argument 180 degrees are instantly drowned out by accusations of profanity, lack of “political correctness”, “homophobia” and even the spread of hatred.

Judge for yourself.

Carl Maria Kertbeny, the Austrian pamphleteer who coined the words heterosexuality, monosexuality, and homosexuality (previously same-sex sexual activity was referred to as sodomy or pederasty), was a homosexual (Takács 2004, pp. 26–40). The German lawyer who coined the term “sexual orientation” and demanded that homosexual relationships be considered normal because they were innate, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, was a homosexual (Sigusch 2000). Edward Warren, an American millionaire with an interest in antiquity, provided the public with an allegedly ancient cup with images of pederastic acts, which allegedly confirmed the normativity of homosexuality in Ancient Greece (the so-called Warren Cup), was a homosexual (BrightonOurStory 1999). Entomologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey—“the father of the sexual revolution in the United States”—was bisexual (Baumgardner 2008, p. 48) and had sex with other men, including his student and co-author Clyde Martin (Ley 2009, p. 59). Psychiatrist Fritz Klein, author of the Klein Sexual Orientation Scale, was bisexual (Klein and Schwartz 2001). Dr. Evelyn Hooker began her famous study at the urging of her friend Sam Frome and other gay men (Jackson et al., 1998, pp. 251-253), and her very first report on the subject was published in the gay magazine Mattachine Review ( Hooker 1955). Psychiatrist Paul Rosenfels, who published Homosexuality: The Psychology of the Creative Process in 1971, which examined homosexual attraction as a normal variant, and whose involvement played a role in the events of 1973, was homosexual (Paul Rosenfels Community website n.d. ).

Dr. John Spiegel, who was elected president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, was homosexual (and a member of the so-called “GayPA”) (81 words, 2002), like other colleagues who contributed to the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of deviations: Ronald Gold (Humm 2017), Howard Brown (Brown 1976), Charles Silverstein (Silverstein and White 1977), John Gonsiorek (Minton 2010) and Richard Green (Green 2018). Dr. George Weinberg, who coined the manipulative term “homophobia” under the influence of contacts with gay friends, was a fiery fighter of the homosexual movement (Ayyar 2002).

Dr. Donald West, who formulated the “hypothesis” that individuals who are skeptical of homosexuality may be “hidden homosexuals,” is himself homosexual (West 2012). Dr. Gregory Herek, a specialist in “homophobia,” conceptualizing the definition of “hate crimes,” is himself a homosexual (Bohan and Russel 1999). The authors of the main studies, which are interpreted as confirmation of the biological origin of homosexuality, are homosexuals: Dr. Simon LeVey (“study of the hypothalamus”) (Allen 1997), Dr. Richard Pillard (“study of twin twins”) (Mass 1990) and Dr. Dean Heimer (“The study of gay genes”) (The New York Times 2004). Dr. Bruce Badgemeal, who published a book claiming that homosexuality is widespread and normal among animals and that “the consequences for humans are enormous,” is himself homosexual (Kluger 1999). Dr. Joan Rafgarden, a supporter of the hypothesis of the “naturalness" of homosexuality and transsexualism in animals, is nee Jonathan Rafgarden, who underwent medical intervention for plasticity of males to females at the age of 52 years (Yoon 2000).

The American Psychological Association's report on gay reparative therapy concluded that "efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and carry some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of reparative therapy practitioners and advocates" (APA 2009, p. V) ; this report was created by a task force of seven people, of whom Judith M. Glassgold, Jack Drescher, Beverly Greene, Lee Beckstead, Clinton W. Anderson are gay, and Robin Lyn Miller is bisexual (Nicolosi 2009). The author of another American Psychological Association report on children raised by same-sex couples, who wrote that “no studies have found that children of lesbian or gay parents are disadvantaged compared with children of heterosexual parents” (APA 2005, para. 15), Professor Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia is the former president of Division 44, the APA's lesbian, gay, and bisexual advocacy subgroup, and a visiting faculty member in the LGBT Health Graduate Certificate Program at Columbia College of Arts and Sciences (GW Columbian College). Dr. Clinton Anderson, whom Dr. Patterson thanked for her “invaluable assistance” with the report (APA 2005, p. 22), is homosexual (see above). The other seven people whom Dr. Patterson thanked for their “helpful comments” included Dr. Natalie S. Eldridge, who is gay (Eldridge et al., 1993, p. 13), and Dr. Lawrence A. (Larry) Kurdek, who is gay (Dayton Daily News 2009). ), Dr. April Martin is a lesbian (Weinstein 2001) and “a pioneer in advocating for queer sexuality and alternative family arrangements” (Manhatann Alternative. n.d.). And in an earlier version of the report (APA 1995), Dr. Patterson also thanked Dr. Bianca Cody Murphy, also a lesbian (Plowman 2004).

Igor Semenovich Kon, a historian and philosopher who published a number of works that positively describe homosexuality for Russian society, has repeatedly supported the rhetoric of the homosexual movement in Russia, is a recipient of grants from American and other LGBT + organizations, has passed away single, never not married (Kuznetsov and Ponkin 2007). Celia Kitzinger and Susan (Sue) Wilkinson, authoritative members of the British Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association, authors of many books and publications criticizing the traditional understanding of gender roles and heterosexuality, are married to each other (Davies 2014). Psychiatrist Martha Kirkpatrick, author of the 1981 study on the “no effect” on parenting in same-sex partnerships, is a lesbian (Rosario 2002). Gynecologist Catherine O'Hanlan, author of articles on homophobia, is married to a woman (The New York Times 2003). Dr. Jesse Bering, popularizer of all forms of so-called. "Alternative sexuality", is homosexual (Bering 2013).

I will stop here the analysis of the personalities of scientific LGBT propagandists, because this is not the purpose of this article. Personally, I believe that Ad Hominem analysis of material is a wrong and flawed principle for science and should be avoided at all costs. Dot.

Moreover, it should be recognized that there are homosexual scientists who have the courage to present LGBT-skeptical results: for example, Dr. Emily Drabant Conley, a lesbian neuroscientist from the genomic company “23andme” (Rafkin 2013), who presented as a poster the results of an extensive study of genomic association of sexual preferences at the annual congress of the American Society of Human Genetics in 2012 - the study found no connection between homosexual attraction and genes (Drabant et al., 2012). Although, as far as I know, for unknown reasons, Drabant did not submit these materials for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

But the rejection of the principle of “Ad hominem” must be universal in science. In this case, if someone says “A”, he should say “B”. It is monstrously hypocritical to discredit certain studies based on the political views or spiritual beliefs of researchers, for example, because the publication was made in a journal published by the Catholic Medical Association, or because the study received funding from the conservative Witherspoon Institute, and at the same time ignore the above data on researchers presenting LGBT advocacy results. Then, ideally, when discussing the problem of homosexual attraction, the principle of “Ad hominem” should not be used at all in interpreting any conclusions.

Conclusion

Science cannot be divided into politically “correct” and “incorrect,” fashionable and conservative, democratic and authoritarian. Science itself cannot be LGBT propaganda or LGBT skepticism. Simply put, scientific processes - psychophysiological phenomena and reactions, viruses and bacteria - are absolutely indifferent to the political views of the scientist who studies them; bacteria know nothing about “culture wars”. These are facts that exist as a given, they can only be ignored or those who mention them can be censored, but these facts cannot be knocked out of reality. Science is based on the scientific method, everyone who turns science into something else, no matter what goals they are guided by - humanism, ideology and politics, social justice and social engineering, etc. - are real preachers of “pseudoscience”. However, the scientific community, like any other community of people with their own beliefs and aspirations, is subject to bias. And this bias towards certain people, the so-called. “neoliberal” values ​​are indeed strongly expressed in the modern world. Many factors can be cited as the reason for this bias - a dramatic social and historical legacy that led to the emergence of "scientific taboos", intense political struggles that gave rise to hypocrisy, the "commercialization" of science leading to the pursuit of sensations, etc. Naturally , the problem of bias in science is not limited to bias in the assessment of homosexuality, but includes many other issues that are often critical and important to the development of humanity. Whether bias in science can be completely avoided remains controversial. However, in my opinion, it is possible to create conditions for an optimal equidistant scientific process. One of these conditions is the absolute independence of the scientific community - financial, political and, no less important, freedom from the media.

Additional Information

1. Socarides CW Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality. The Journal of Psychohistory. 10th, no. 3 ed. 1992
2. Satinover J. The “Trojan Couch”: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science. 2004
3. Mohler RA Jr. We cannot be silent: speaking the truth to a culture redefining sex, marriage, and the very meaning of right and wrong. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2016
4. Rose A. Fake Science: Exposing the Left's Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2017.
5. Cameron P., Cameron K., Landess T.Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Educational Association in Representing Homosexuality in Amicus Briefs about Amendment 2 to the US Supreme Court. Psychological Reports, 1996; 79 (2): 383–404. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.2.383
6. Delion R. The science of political correctness. The Naked Science. June 22, 2015 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/science-political-correctness
7. Hunter P. Is political correctness damaging science? Peer pressure and mainstream thinking may discourage novelty and innovation. EMBO Rep. 2005 May; 6 (5): 405-7. DOI: 10.1038 / sj.embor.7400395
8. Tierney J. Social Scientist Sees Bias Within. The New York Times. February 7, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3

---

Notes

1 Encyclopedia Britannica defines propaganda as follows: “Advocacy, dissemination of information - facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies - to influence public opinion. Propaganda is a more or less systematic effort to manipulate the beliefs, relationships or actions of other people through symbols (words, gestures, posters, monuments, music, clothing, decals, hairstyles, drawings on coins and postage stamps, etc.). Intentionality and a relatively strong emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from ordinary communication or the free and easy exchange of ideas. A propagandist has a specific goal or set of goals. To reach them, the propagandist deliberately selects facts, arguments, and symbols and presents them in such a way as to achieve the greatest effect. In order to maximize the effect, he may miss essential facts or distort them, and may try to distract the attention of the audience from other sources of information. ” https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda

2 Traditional Politician

3 Left-Wing Community Activist

4 So it is named in the memo

---

Bibliographic sources

1. 81 words. 2002. “The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.” This American Life radiopodcast, aired January 18, 2002.https://www.thisamericanlife.org/204/81-words.
2. Kuznetsov M.N., Ponkin I.V. A comprehensive conclusion from 14.05.2002 on the content, orientation and actual value of the publications of I. S. Kon // Law against xenomorphs in the field of public morality: Methodology of counteraction: Collection of materials / Otv. ed. and comp. Doctor of Law, prof. M.N. Kuznetsov, Doctor of Law I.V. Ponkin. - M .: Regional Fund for the Support of Peace and Stability in the World; Institute of State-Confessional Relations and Law, 2007. - S. 82 — 126. - 454 with
3. Aarts, Alexander A., ​​Joanna E. Anderson, Christopher J. Anderson, Peter R. Attridge, Angela Attwood, Jordan Axt, Molly Babel, Štěpán Bahník, Erica Baranski, Michael Barnett-Cowan, et al. 2015. “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science 349, no. 6251: aac4716.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
4. Abrams, Samuel J. 2016. “There Are Conservative Professors.” Just Not in These States.” The New York Times, July 1, 2016.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/there-are-conservativeprofessors-just-not-in-these-states.html.
5. Adams, Henry E., Lester W. Wright Jr, Bethany A. Lohr. 1996. “Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105, no. 3: 440-445.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440.
6. Allen, Garland E. 1997.”The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Determinism: Social and Political Agendas in Genetic Studies of Homosexuality, 1940–1994.” In Science and Homosexualities, edited by Vernon A. Rosario, 243–270. New York: Routledge.
7. Ames Nicolosi, Linda. nd “Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders.” Description of the NARTH Conference at Marina Del Rey Marriott Hotel on November 12, 2005.
8. APA (American Psychological Association). 2005. Lesbian & Gay Parenting. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
9. APA (American Psychological Association). 2005. Lesbian & Gay Parenting. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
10. APA (American Psychological Association). 2009. Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
11. APA (American Psychological Association). 1995. Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Resource for Psychologists. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
12. Ayyar, R. 2002. "GeorgeWeinberg: Love is Conspiratorial, Deviant & Magical." GayToday, November 1, 2002.http://gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.asp.
13. Bartlett, Tom. “Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal's Audit Finds.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 26, 2012.
14. Barwick, Heather. 2015. “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting.” The Federalist, March 17, 2015.http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/.
15. Bauer hh. 1992. Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press.
16. Bauer, Henry H. 2012. Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., Inc.
17. Baumgardner, Jennifer.2008. Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics. Farrar: Straus and Giroux.
18. Bayer, Ronald. 1981. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books
19. Belyakov, Anton V., OlegA. Matveychev. 2009. Bol'shayaaktual'naya politicheskaya entsiklopedia [Big actual political encyclopedia]. Moskva: Eksmo.
20. Bering J. Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013
21. Blanchard Ray, July 16, 2017, 7: 23 am, post on Twitter.com.
22. Blanchard, Roy, AnthonyF. Bogaert. 1996. “Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 153, no. 1:27-31.https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.1.27. PMID8540587.
23. Bøckman, Peter. 2018.Wikipedia Talk: Homosexual behavior in animals #Source for 1500 species notfound. Posted March 7, 2018.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomosexual_behavior_in_animals&type=revision&diff=829223515&oldid=829092603#Source_for_1500_species_not_found.
24. Bohan, Janis S. and Glenda M. Russell. 1999. Conversationsabout Psychology and Sexual Orientation. New York University Press.
25. BrightonOurStory: Auguste Rodin/Edward Perry Warren,” Issue 6, Summer 1999, http://www.brightonourstory.co.uk/newsletters/rodin.html  accessed January 31, 2018
26. Broockman, David, Joshua Kalla, and Peter Aronow. 2015. “Irregularities in LaCour (2014).” Stanford University, May 19, 2015.https://stanford.edu/~dbroock/broockman_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf.
27. Brown, Howard. 1976. Familiar Faces, Hidden Lives: The Story of Homosexual Men in America Today. New York: Harcourt.
28. Cameron, Laura. 2013. “How the Psychiatrist Who Co-Wrote the Manual on Sex Talks About Sex?” Motherboard, April 11 2013.https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ypp93m/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-themanual-on-sex-talks-about-sex.
29. Cameron, Paul and Kirk Cameron. 2012. “Re-Examining Evelyn Hooker: Setting the Record Straight with Comments on Schumm's (2012) Reanalysis.” Marriage & Family Review 48, no. 6: 491-523.https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2012.700867.
30. CAMH. 2016.”Summary of the External Review of the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic of the Child, Youth & Family Services.” January 2016.Available athttps://2017.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/newsroom/news_releases_media_advisories_and_backgrounders / current_year / Documents / ExecutiveSummaryGIC_ExternalReview.pdf.
31. Carlson, Tucker. 2018. "Youtube's assault on free thought." FoxNews Channel, April 26, 2018. Also uploaded on FoxBews Channel on YouTube, “Tucker: Why YouTube's alleged censorship matters.”https://youtu.be/3_qWNv4o4vc.
32. Clevenger, Ty. Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy. Regent University Law Review Vol. 14; 2001-2002: 241-247.
33. Cloud, John. "Yep, They're Gay." Time Magazine, 26 January, 2007.
34. Cochran, William G., Frederick Mosteller, John W. Tukey. 1954. “Statistical problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” American Statistical Association, National Research Council (US). Committee for Research in Problems of Sex — Psychology. Journal of the American Statistical Association48, no. 264: 673-716.https://doi.org/10.2307/2281066.
35. Collins EnglishDictionary. nd “Politically Correct in British”. Accessed December 18, 2018.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/politically-correct.
36. Coppedge, David F.2017. ”Big Science Driven by Political Correctness.” Creation Evolution, December 3, 2017.https://crev.info/2017/12/big-science-driven-political-correctness/.
37. Davies C. Gay couple who wed overseas celebrate in UK as same-sex marriage law arrives. The Guardian, March 13, 2014.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/13/gay-couple-wed-overseas-same-sex-marriages-england
38. Dayton Daily News. 2009. “Obituary to Larry Kurdek.” Published in Dayton Daily News from June 13 to June14, 2009.https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dayton/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=128353548.
39. Dictionary / Thesaurus.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/politically-correct.
40. Dishion, Thomas J. and Jessica M. Tipsord. 2011. “Peer Contagion in Child and Adolescent Socialand Emotional Development.” Annual Review of Psychology 68:189–214.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412.
41. Drabant, Emily, AK Kiefer, N. Eriksson, JL Mountain, U. Francke, JY Tung, DA Hinds, CB Do. 2012. “Genome-Wide Association Study of Sexual Orientation in a Large, Web-based Cohort.”https://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Drabant-Poster-v7.pdf
42. Editors of The NewAtlantis. 2016. “Lies and Bullying from the Human Rights Campaign.” The NewAtlantis, October 2016.https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20161010_TNAresponsetoHRC.pdf.
43. Ehrensaft, Diane. 2017. “Gender nonconforming youth: current perspectives.” Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics 8: 57-67.https://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S110859.
44. Eldridge, Natalie S., Julie Mencher, Suzanne Slater. 1993. “The Conundrum of Mutuality: A Lesbian Dialogue.” Wellesley Centers for Women Work in Progress, no. 62.
45. Ersly, Warren. 2013. “The Desideratum of Discourse: Lessons Learned from a Gay Sheep.” In MercerStreet 2013-2014: a collection of essays from the expository writing programedited by Pat C. Hoy, 47-56. New York: Expository Writing Program, New York University College of Arts and Sciences.http://cas.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/casEWP/documents/erslydesideratum04.pdf.
46. Evans, Arthur T., and Emily DeFranco. 2014. Manual of obstetrics. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.
47. Farah, Joseph. 2008. “Wikipedia lies, slander continues.” WND, December 14, 2008.https://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640.
48. Ferguson, Andrew. 2012. “Revenge of the sociologists.” TheWeekly Standard, July 30, 2012.https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/revenge-of-the-sociologists.
49. Flaherty, Colleen. 2015.”Whose Bias?” InsideHigher Ed, November 24, 2015.https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/24/cal-state-northridge-professor-sayshes-being-targeted-his-conservative-social-views.
50. Flier, Jeffrey S. 2018.”As a Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, I Question Brown's Failure to Defend Lisa Littman.” Quilette, August 31, 2018.https://quillette.com/2018/08/31/as-a-former-dean-of-harvard-medical-school-iquestion-browns-failure-to-defend-lisa-littman/.
51. Flory N. The 'Gay Infertility' Myth. The stream. April 26, 2017. URL:https://stream.org/the-gayinfertility-myth/ (Accessed September 9, 2018)
52. Gates, Gary J. 2011a.”How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender?” TheWilliams Institute, UCLA School of Law, April 2011.https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/howmany-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/.
53. Gates, Gary J. 2011b.”Op-ed: The Day Larry Kramer Dissed Me (and My Math).” Advocate, September 2, 2011.https://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/09/02/oped-day-larry-kramerdissed-me-and-my-math.
54. Gates, Gary J. 2012.”Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research.” Social Science Research 41, no. 6: 1350-1351.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.008.
55. GLAAD. nd “RobertOscar Loper.” Accessed December 19, 2019.https://www.glaad.org/cap/robert-oscar-l%C3%B3pez-aka-bobby-lopez.
56. Goldberg, Steven. 2002. Fads and fallacies in the social sciences. Oxford: LavisMarketing.
57. Green, Richard. 2018. Gay Rights, Trans Rights: A psychiatrist / lawyer's 50-year battle. Columbia, South Carolina: Agenda Book.
58. GW Columbian College (George Washington University Columbian College of Art and Sciences). nd "LGBT Health Policy & Practice Program / Charlotte J. Patterson." Accessed December 19, 2018.https://lgbt.columbian.gwu.edu/charlotte-j-patterson.
59. Hanneman, Tari. 2016.”Johns Hopkins Community Calls for Disavowal of Misleading Anti-LGBTQ “Report”.” Human Rights Campaign, October 6, 2016.https://www.hrc.org/blog/johns-hopkins-community-calls-for-disavowal-of-misleadinganti-lgbtq-report.
60. Heterodox Academy, nd “Peer-Reviewed Research.” Accessed December 18, 2018.https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/library/#1517426935037-4e655b30-3cbd.
61. Heterodox Academy.nd ”The Problem.” Accessed December 18, 2018. https://heterodoxacademy.org/theproblem/.
62. Hodges, Mark Fr.2016. ”'New Atlantis' editors push back after gay advocacy group basheshomosexuality study.” LifeSite News, October 12, 2016.https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/editors-push-back-after-gay-adovcacy-groupattacks-journal-over-homosexuali.
63. Hooker, Evelyn. 1955. “Inverts are not a distinct personality type.” Mattachine Review 1: 20 – 22.
64. Horton, Richard. 2015. "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" The Lancet 385, no. 9976: 1380.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1.
65. HRC staff. 2014.”On Notice: It is Time Scott Lively and Robert Oscar Lopez End the Exportof Hate.” Human Rights Campaign, September 16, 2014.https://www.hrc.org/blog/on-notice-it-is-time-scott-lively-and-robert-oscar-lopez-endthe-export-of.
66. Hubbard, Ruth, Elijah Wald. 1993. Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers. Boston: Beacon Press.
67. Humm, Andy. 2017. “Ron Gold, Pioneer in Challenging Sickness Label, Dies.” Gay City News, May 16, 2017.https://www.gaycitynews.nyc/stories/2017/10/w27290-ron-gold-pioneer-challengingsickness-label-dies-2017-05-16.html.
68. Hunter, Philip. 2005. “Is political correctness damaging science? Peer pressure and mainstreamthinking may discourage novelty and innovation, ”EMBO reports 6, no.5: 405-407.
69. Influence Watch. nd ”Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).” Accessed December 19, 2018.https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/southern-poverty-law-center-splc/
70. Jackson, Kenneth T., Arnie Markoe and Karen Markoe. 1998. The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
71. Jackson, Ron. 2009. “Open Season on Domainers and Domaining - Overtly Biased LA Times ArticleLeads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accuracy.” DN Journal, August 4, 2009.http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/20090804.htm.
72. Kaufman, Scott Barry.2016. “The Personality of Political Correctness.” Scientific American, November 20, 2016.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-politicalcorrectness/.
73. Kearns, Madeleine. 2018. “Why Did Brown University Bow to Trans Activists?” National Review, September 6, 2018.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brown-university-caves-to-transactivists-protesting-research/.
74. Klein and Schwartz 2001. Bisexual and Gay Husbands: Their Stories, Their Words – Fritz Klein, Thomas R Schwartz – Google Books. Books. Routledge 2009
75. Kluger, Jeffrey. 1999. “The Gay Side of Nature.” Time, April 26, 1999.http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html.
76. LaCour, Michael J. and Donald P. Green. 2014. “When contact changes minds: An experiment ontransmission of support for gay equality.” Science 346, no.6215: 1366-1369.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256151.
77. Landess, Thomas. nd “The Evelyn Hooker study and the normalization of homosexuality.” nd Available athttp://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhookerstudy.htm.
78. Ley, David J. 2009. Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
79. Lindsay, James A., Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose. 2018. “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship.” Areo Magazine, October 2, 2018.https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruptionof-scholarship/.
80. Littman, Lisa. 2018. “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports.” PLoS ONE 13, no. 8: e0202330.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202330.
81. Manhatann Alternative. nd “April Martin.” Accessed December 19, 2018.http://www.manhattanalternative.com/team/april-martin/.
82. Marks, Loren. 2012. “Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting.” SocialScienceResearch 41, no. 4: 735-751.https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006.
83. Marks, Loren. 2012. “Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting.” Social Science Research 41, no. 4: 735-751.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006.
84. Marsden, Paul. 1998. “Memetics and social contagion: Two sides of the same coin?” Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models ofInformation Transmission 12: 68-79.http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html.
85. Martin, Brian. 2017. “Persistent Bias on Wikipedia Methods and Responses.” Social Science Computer Review, 36, no. 3: 379-388.https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317715434.
86. Maslow, Abraham H., James M. Sakoda. 1952. “Volunteer error in the Kinsey study.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 47, no. 2: 259-262.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054411.
87. Mass, Lawrence. 1990. “Homophobia on the couch: A conversation with Richard Pillard, first openly gay psychiatrist in the United States”. In Homosexuality and Sexuality: Dialogues of the Sexual Revolution — Volume I (Gay & Lesbian Studies). New York: Haworth Press.
88. Mayer, Lawrence S., Paul R. McHugh. 2016. “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences.” TheNew Atlantis 50, Fall 2016.https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016.
89. McNutt, Marcia. “Editorial retraction.” Science 348, no. 6239: 1100.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6638.
90. Meier, Brian P., Michael D. Robinson, George A. Gaither, Nikki J. Heinert. 2006. “A secret attraction or defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition. ”Journal of Research in Personality 40: 377-394.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.007.
91. Minton, Henry L. 2010. Departing from Deviance A History of Homosexual Rights and Emancipatory Science in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
92. Murray, Bridget. 2001.”Same office, different aspirations.” American Psychological Association Monitor Staff, December 2001, Vol. 32. no. eleven.https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/aspirations.aspx.
93. Nichols, Tom. 2017. “HowAmerica Lost Faith in Expertise And Why That's a Giant Problem.” Foreign Affairs, 96, no.2: 60 (14).
94. Nicolosi, Joseph. 2009. “Who were the APA“ task force ”members?” Http://josephnicolosi.com/who-were-the-apa-task-force-me/. Cited in Kinney, Robert L. III. 2015. “Homosexuality and scientific evidence: On suspectanecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations.” The Linacre Quarterly 82, no. 4: 364-390.
95. Paglia, Camille. 1995. Vamps and Tramps: New Essays. London: Viking.
96. Paul Rosenfels Community website.Dean Hannotte, “A Conversation with Edith Nash”, Paul Rosenfels Community website http://www.rosenfels.org/wkpNash
97. PETA UK. 2006. “Martina Navratilova Slams' Gay Sheep'Experiment.” Accessed December 19, 2018.https://www.peta.org.uk/media/newsreleases/martina-navratilova-slams-gay-sheep-experiment/.
98. Plowman, WilliamB / GettyImages. 2004. “Massachusetts To Begin Issuing Same Sex Marriage Licenses.” Provincetown, MA, May 17, 2004. Photo “17: Bianca Cody-Murphy (L) and Sue Buerkel (R) share a kiss on the steps of City Hall after receiving their marriage licenses May 17, 2004 in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Massachusetts is the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriages. ”(Photo by William B. Plowman / Getty Images).https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/bianca-cody-murphy-and-suebuerkel-share-a-kiss-on-the-nachrichtenfoto/50849052.
99. Powers, Kirsten. 2015. The silencing: how the left is killing free speech.Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.
100. Rafkin, Louise. 2013.”Erin Conley and Emily Drabant marry in redwoods.” SFGate, October 24, 2013.https://www.sfgate.com/style/unionsquared/article/Erin-Conley-andEmily-Drabant-marry-in-redwoods-4924482.php.
101. Regnerus, Mark. 2012. “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sexrelationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. ”Social Science Research 41, no.4: 752-770.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009.
102. Regnerus, Mark. 2017. “Is structural stigma's effect on the mortality of sexual minorities robust? Afailure to replicate the results of a published study. ” Social Science & Medicine188: 157-165.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.018.
103. Riley, Naomi S. “Gays, bias and phony science.” New YorkPost, December 1, 2016.https://nypost.com/2016/12/01/gays-bias-and-phony-science/.
104. Rose, Scott. 2012. “OpenLetter to the University of Texas Regarding Professor Mark Regnerus' AllegedUnethical Anti-Gay Study.” The New Civil Rights Movement (blog), June 24, 2012. Currently available athttps://www.thefire.org/scott-rose-open-letter-to-university-of-texas-regardingprofessor-mark-regnerus-alleged-unethical-anti-gay-study /.
105. Roselli, Charles E., KayLarkin, Jessica M. Schrunk, Fredrick Stormshak. 2004.”Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams.” Physiology & Behavior 83, no. 2:233-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.08.017.
106. Roselli, Charles E. 2018.”Neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation.” Journal of Neuroendocrinology 30:e12562.https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12562.
107. Rosik, Christopher H. 2012. “Spitzer's“ Retraction ”: What Does It Really Mean?” NARTH Bulletin, May 31, 2012.
108. Ruse, Austin. 2017. FakeScience: Exposing the Left's Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.
109. Sanger, Larry. 2016. Comment to his own post “3 Major Mistakes PeopleMake About Media Bias.” The Federalist, December 1, 2016.http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/01/3-major-mistakes-people-make-mediabias/#disqus_thread. Also cited by Arrington, Barry. 2016. ”Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy.” Uncommon Descent, December 1, 2016.https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-sanger-co-founder-of-wikipediaagrees-that-it-does-not-follow-its-own-neutrality-policy/.
110. Sarich Vincent, Miele Frank. Race: The reality of human differences. 2004. Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado, USA. 320 pp.
111. Schilling, Chelsea. 2012. “Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder.” WND, December 17, 2012.https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/.
112. Schumm, Walter R. 2010. “Evidence of pro-homosexual bias in socialscience: citation rates and research on lesbian parenting.” Psychological Reports 106, no. 2: 374-380.https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.106.2.374-380.
113. Schumm, Walter R. 2012. “Re-examining a Landmark ResearchStudy: ATeaching Editorial.” Marriage & Family Review 48, no. 5: 465-489.https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2012.677388.
114. Shidlo, Ariel, Michael Schroeder. 2002. “Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33, no.3: 249– 259.
115. Sigusch, Volkmar, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Der erste Schwule der Weltgeschichte, Männerschwarm 2000.
116. Silverstein, Charles, Edmund White. 1977. The joy of gay sex an intimate guide for gay men to the pleasures of a gay lifestyle. New York: Simon and Schuster.
117. Singal, Jesse. 2016a. “How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired.” TheCut, February 7, 2016.https://www.thecut.com/2016 / 02 / fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html.
118. Singal, Jesse. 2016b. “A False Accusation Helped Bring DownKennethZucker, a Controversial Sex Researcher.” The Cut, January 16, 2016.https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/false-charge-helped-bring-down-kenneth-zucker.html.
119. Smith, Christian. 2012. “An Academic Auto-da-Fé. A sociologistwhose data find fault with same-sex relationships is saved by the progressiveorthodoxy.” The Chronicle ofHigher Education, July 23, 2012.https://www.chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107.
120. Sokal, Alan D. 1996a. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Social Text 46, no. 47:217-252.https://doi.org/10.2307/466856.
121. Sokal, Alan D. and Jean Brichmont. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense: postmodernintellectuals'abuse of science. New York: Picador.
122. Sokal. Alan D. 1996b. “A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies.” Lingua Franca, June 5, 1996.https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html.
123. Spitzer, Robert L. 2001. “Subjects who claim to have benefited from sexual reorientation thrapy.” American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting New Orleans, May 5-10, 2001. No. 67B. 133-134.
124. Spitzer, Robert L. 2003a. “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation. ”Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5: 402-17.
125. Spitzer, Robert L. 2003b. “Reply: Study results should not bedismissedand justify further research on the efficacy of sexual reorientation therapy.” Archives ofSexualBehavior 32, no. 5: 469 – 472.
126. Spitzer, Robert L. 2012. “Spitzer reassesses his 2003 study of reparative therapy of homosexuality [Letter to the editor].” Archives of Sexual Behavior41, no. 4: 757.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y.
127. Swindle, David. 2011. “How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 1.” FrontpageMag, August 22, 2011.https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1david-swindle.
128. Takács, Judit: The Double Life of Kertbeny In: G. Hekma (ed.) Past and Present of Radical Sexual Politics, UvA - Mosse Foundation, Amsterdam, 2004. pp. 26 – 40.
129. Tannehill, Brynn. 2014. “New Yorker Shamefully Cites Anti-LGBT'Researcher '.” Bilerico Project, July 29, 2014. bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/new_yorker_shamefully_cites_antilgbt_researcher.php.
130. Terman, Lewis M. 1948. "Kinsey 's' Sexual Behavior in the HumanMale': Some Comments and Criticisms." Psychological Bulletin 45: 443-459.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060435.
131. The New York Times 2003, WEDDINGS / CELEBRATIONS; Katherine O'Hanlan, Léonie Walker
132. The New York Times. 2004. “WEDDINGS / CELEBRATIONS; Dean Hamer, Joseph Wilson. ”, The New York Times, April 11, 2004.https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/style/weddings-celebrations-dean-hamer-josephwilson.html.
133. The Psychology of infertility, USA Today via MSN Network, 2018. URL:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-psychology-of-infertility/vp-BBK3ENT (Accessed September 9, 2018)
134. Thompson, Peter J. 2015. “As trans issues become mainstream, question ofhow to address variant gender expression comes to forefront.” National Post, February 21, 2015.https://nationalpost.com/life/as-trans-issues-become-mainstream-question-of-how-toaddress-variant-gender-expression-comes-to-forefront.
135. van den Aarweg, Gerard. 2012. “Frail and Aged, a Giant Apologizes.” MercatorNet, May 31, 2012.https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes.
136. van Meter, Quentin. 2017. “The transgender movement: its origins andhowsocial theory is trumping science.” Talk at the Teens4Truth Conference, Texas, Nov. 18, 2017. Available on YouTube https://youtu.be/6mtQ1geeD_c (27: 15).
137. Vernon A. Rosario MD and PhD (2002) An Interview with Martha J. Kirkpatrick, MD, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 6: 1, 85-98 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/ J236v06n01_09
138. Walton, Brandi. 2015. “The Kids Are Not Alright: A Lesbian's Daughter Speaks Out.” The Federalist, April 21, 2015.http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaksout/.
139. Wardle, Lynn D. 1997. “The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting Children.” University of Illinois Law Review, no. 3: 833-920.
140. Weinstein, Brett. 2017. “The Campus Mob Came for Me—and You, Professor, Could Be Next.” WSJ, May 30, 2017.https://www.wsj.com/articles/thecampus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482.
141. Weinstein, Debra. 2001. “It's a radical thing: A conversation with April Martin, PhD.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 4, no.3: 63-73.https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2001.9962253.
142. Weiss, Bari. 2018. “Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual DarkWeb.” The New York Times, May 8, 2018.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html.
143. West, Donald. 2012. Gay Life: Straight Work. Paradise Press.
144. Wikipedia nd ”Wikipedia: Free speech.” Accessed December 19,2018.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech.
145. Wilde, Winston. 2004. “Repairing homophobics.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 33, no. 4:325.
146. Wood, Peter. 2013. “The Campaign to Discredit Regnerus and the Assaulton Peer Review” Academic Questions 26, no. 2: 171-181.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-013-9364-5.
147. Wright, Rogers H., and Nicholas A. Cummings. 2005. Destructivetrends in mental health: Thewell-intentioned path to harm.New York: Taylor & Francis.
148. Wyndzen, Madeline H. 2003. “Autogynephilia and Ray Blanchard's mis-directed sex-drive model of transsexuality. All mixed up: A transgendered psychologyprofessor's perspective on life, the psychology of gender, & “genderidentity disorder”. GenderPsychology.org. Accessed December 19, 2018.http://www.GenderPsychology.org/autogynpehilia/ray_blanchard/.
149. Yoon, Carol Kaesuk. “Scientist at Work: Joan Roughgarden; A Theorist With Personal Experience Of the Divide Between the Sexes.” The New York Times.17 October 2000
150. Zegers-Hochschild F., Adamson GD, de Mouzon J., Ishihara O., Mansour RT, Nygren KG, Sullivan EA International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertility and Sterility, no 5 (2009): 1520-1524.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009
151. Zucker, Kenneth J., Susan JBradley. 1995.Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.

Science scandal of the year: scientists write fake research to expose corruption of science

History of the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders