*LGBT* movement recognized as an extremist organization!

This report is a meticulous review of scientific evidence that refutes the myths and slogans promoted by LGBT* activists who postulate that homosexuality is a normal, universal, innate and unchangeable condition. This work is not “against homosexual people” (as proponents of false dichotomy), but rather behind them, since it focuses on the problems of a homosexual lifestyle hidden from them and the observance of their rights, in particular the right to access reliable information about their condition and related health risks, the right to have a choice and the right to receive specialized therapeutic care to get rid from this condition, if they are interested.

Content

1) Do homosexual individuals represent 10% of the population? 
2) Are there "homosexual" individuals in the animal kingdom? 
3) Is homosexual attraction congenital? 
4) Can homosexual attraction be eliminated? 
5) Is homosexuality associated with health risks? 
6) Is hostility to homosexuality a phobia? 
7) "Homophobia" - "latent homosexuality"? 
8) Are homosexual drives and pedophilia (sex drive for children) related? 
9) Are gay rights violated? 
10) Is homosexuality linked to sexual licentiousness? 
11) Was homosexuality the norm in ancient Greece? 
12) Are there any risks for children brought up in same-sex couples? 
13) Is the “normativeness” of homosexual attraction a scientifically proven fact? 
14) Was homosexuality excluded from the list of sexual perversions by scientific consensus? 
15) Is “modern science” impartial to the issue of homosexuality?

State Public Scientific and Technical Library SB RAS

Report purpose

In recent years, ideologists and activists of the LGBT* movement have significantly increased their activities (both in Russia and around the world), advocating that, from the point of view of morality, physiology and legality, romantic and sexual relations between individuals of the same sex should be perceived as absolutely equal (and sometimes even superior) to relations between people of different sexes. Relationships between people of different sexes and their highest manifestation - the creation of a family and the birth of a new life - are based on historical, cultural-ethnic, moral, sociological, physiological, psychological and biological norms. However, these norms are criticized by LGBT* activists, who demand a rethinking of the concept of the norm or the complete abolition of the normativity of sexual and marital relations in order to legitimize homosexual relations. In their activities, these activists often cite a number of arguments that turn into slogans, on the basis of which they criticize opponents of the changes they demand. Among such arguments, for example, are “every tenth person is gay,” “people are born gay,” “orientation cannot be changed,” “homosexuality is found among 1500 species of animals,” etc. The report focused on analyzing the validity of some of the claims used by these activists.

The aim of this work is to disseminate information that is currently becoming less accessible due to the political situation that has developed over the past decades. The purpose of this work is not to justify violence against individuals; we, the authors categorically condemn the infliction of physical and mental violence and illegal activities to the same extent as we condemn the lie, manipulation of facts and intolerance of the opinions of others.

Relevance of the problem

The question of the attitude of the scientific community, the media, and, as a consequence, the townsfolk towards non-reproductive forms of sexual desire is not an easy one. For example, same-sex attraction is considered an unconditional variation of the norm from 1987 of the year according to the classification of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) (DSM-III-R 1987), but is considered conditional paraphilia (ego-dystonic homosexuality) according to the classification of the Chinese Society of Psychiatry (CCMD 2001) Attraction to immature individuals (pedophilia) is considered a conditional norm according to APA (DSM-V 2013), akin to the concept of “violation of sexual orientation”, introduced by the APA decision in 1973 year (Drescher 2015) In a Harvard School of Mental Health newsletter, pedophilia is called “orientation” (Harvard Mental School 2010) Open discussion on the inclusion of sexual interest in animals in the category of "orientation" (Miletski 2017), as well as the abolition of the concept of paraphilia (sexual perversion) as such (Bering2015, ch. 5). The complexity of the issue is also due to a significant political component: there are social movements to protect the interests of individuals who want to fully realize the non-reproductive forms of sexual attraction in social behavior, for example, “ILGA","Nambla","B4U-Act","Zeta-verein","Objectum-sexuality" and etc.

However, undoubtedly the greatest influence has been achieved by organizations representing the homosexual movement within the “LGBT*+” movement.

The methods of the "LGBT*+" movement consist of, on the one hand, disseminating exclusively positive information about homosexuality, while on the other hand, marginalizing and suppressing any critical information. In the scientific community and popular culture, a certain, exclusively positive image of homosexual behavior and homosexuality has been created and continues to be created.

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 ... make an impression, scientists too often adjust the data to their picture of the world or adjust hypotheses to their data ... Our pursuit of "significance" poisons the scientific literature with many statistical fairy tales ... Universities are involved in a constant struggle for money and talent ... And individual scientists, including their highest leadership, do little to change the culture of exploration, which at times borders on malice ... "(Horton xnumx).

Former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, shared her revelations:

“... It is simply more impossible to believe most of the published clinical trials or to rely on the opinions of trusted doctors or reputable medical manuals. I don’t enjoy this conclusion, which I slowly and reluctantly came to after 20 years of working as an editor ... ”(Angell xnumx).

An American activist and writer who does not hide her homosexual preferences, liberal arts professor Camilla Paglia, in her book “Vamps And Tramps”, noted in 1994:

“... 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 the truth ... We must be aware of the potentially harmful mixing of gay activism with a science that generates more propaganda than truth. Gay scientists should be scientists first and foremost, and then gay ... "(Paglia 1994).

Researcher C. Martin states that ideological liberal censorship dominates in modern sociological science in the USA:

“... This ideological bias distorts science for several reasons ... censorship of research projects occurs: sociologists are not recommended to touch ideologically taboo and uncomfortable facts ... ignored results in which conservative ideas are portrayed positively and liberal ones negatively ... hide facts that do not fit into the liberal agenda ... "(Martin 2016).

It goes without saying that the dominance of a certain ideology and views in the scientific community influences science and the interpretation of scientific knowledge in society. This situation requires urgent educational activities.

Summary

Do homosexual individuals represent 10% of the population?

(1) Studies in the United States, Britain, Canada, and elsewhere, covering samples of at least several thousand people of all ages, show that the average percentage of individuals who identify themselves as homosexual is 1% –2%.
(2) The publication of the entomologist Alfred Kinsey, sometimes referred to for claiming 10% of same-sex people, is riddled with methodological and ethical flaws.
(3) Some prominent figures among the homosexual movement confirm that they overestimated the number for propaganda purposes.
(4) Observation of the prevalence of a phenomenon in a population does not say anything about its sociological or physiological normativity.

Do “homosexual” individuals exist in the animal kingdom?

(1) The arguments of LGBT*+ activists based on observations of same-sex behavior among animals are not relevant. Transient episodes of same-sex behavior among animals are not equivalent to same-sex sexual attraction and self-identification in humans.
(2) Interpretation of same-sex animal behavior to assess the medical, moral and legal normativity of same-sex human behavior is biased, is silent about observing other forms of non-reproductive animal behavior, which from an anthropomorphic point of view can be interpreted as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, etc.
(3) There are many factors that explain the phenomenon of non-reproductive behavior, including same-sex behavior. These phenomena require further study, but are outside the context of human sociology.

Is homosexual attraction congenital?

(1) The hypothetical “homosexuality gene” is not known; it is not discovered by anyone.
(2) The studies that underlie the statement of the "innate nature of homosexuality" have a number of methodological inaccuracies and contradictions, and do not allow unambiguous conclusions.
(3) Even the existing studies cited by activists of the LGBT*+ movement do not speak of the genetic determination of homosexual inclinations, but at best of a complex influence, in which the genetic factor presumably determines the predisposition, in combination with the influence of the environment, upbringing, etc.
(4) Some famous personalities among the homosexual movement, including scholars, criticize the statements about the biological predetermination of homosexuality and say that it is determined by conscious choice.

Can homosexual attraction be eliminated?

(1) There is a substantial base of empirical and clinical evidence that homosexual attraction can be effectively eliminated.
(Xnumx) An important condition for the effectiveness of reparative therapy is the conscious participation of the patient and the desire to change.
(Xnumx) In many cases, homosexual attraction, which can occur during puberty, disappears without a trace at a more mature age.

Is homosexuality associated with health risks?

(1) The use of the gastrointestinal tract as a genital organ is associated with health risks of an infectious and traumatic nature.
(2) Among people leading a homosexual lifestyle, both men and women, there are manifold increased risks of various diseases, both infectious (HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.), and surgical, and psychiatric.

Is hostility to homosexuality a phobia?

(1) A critical attitude towards homosexuality does not meet the diagnostic criteria of a phobia as a psychopathological concept. There is no nosological concept of “homophobia”, it is a term of political rhetoric.
(2) The use of the term “homophobia” in scientific activity to denote the entire spectrum of critical attitude to same-sex activity is incorrect. The use of the term “homophobia” blurs the line between a conscious critical attitude to homosexuality based on ideological beliefs and forms of manifestation of aggression, shifting associative perception towards aggression.
(3) Researchers note that the use of the term “homophobia” is a repressive measure directed against those members of society who do not accept that a homosexual lifestyle is enshrined in society, but who do not feel hatred or unreasonable fear of homosexual individuals.
(4) In addition to cultural and civilizational beliefs, a critical attitude to same-sex activity seems to be based on a behavioral immune system - a biological reaction that has developed in the process of human evolution to ensure maximum sanitary and reproductive efficiency.

“Homophobia” - “latent homosexuality”?

(1) Research does not support the psychoanalytic hypothesis of a critical attitude of heterosexual individuals to homosexual behavior.
(2) The critical attitude of heterosexual individuals to the demonstration of homosexual activity is explained by both biological underlying mechanisms (behavioral immune system) and the effect of attraction to like and rejection of unlike.

Are homosexual drives and pedophilia (sex drive for children) related?

Homosexual attraction and pedophilia are overlapping categories based on variations of homosexual attraction by age of the object of attraction.
(1) The movement to reduce and abolish the legal age of consent (to commit sexual activity) was born as an integral part of the homosexual movement, and organizations aimed at the abolition of the age of consent and the depatologization of attraction to children were created and led by homosexuals.
(2) In the scientific community, the issue of lowering the age of consent and depathologizing sexual attraction to children is in many cases lobbied within the framework of the “LGBT*+” movement.
(3) Among a large proportion of homosexual men, age preferences with a bias towards young men and boys are noted.
(4) Homosexual intercourse in childhood increases the risk of subsequent homosexual drive.
(5) The ratio of the number of cases of homosexual child abuse by adults to the number of cases of heterosexual child abuse is many times greater than the ratio of individuals with homosexual attraction to individuals with heterosexual attraction.

Are gay rights violated?

(1) The fundamental criteria and the traditional understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman exclude from it alliance with children, animals, inanimate objects, marriage from one spouse, marriage between persons of the same sex and other varieties of postmodern relativistic outlook on society.
(2) Every individual who considers himself to be homosexual and / or who practices homosexuality has the same rights and restrictions that an individual who does not consider himself to be homosexual and who does not practice homosexuality has and is restricted.
(3) Activists of the “LGBT*+” movement do not demand the extension to themselves of such legal norms that are supposedly inaccessible to them (in fact, they are completely accessible to them), but the elevation of actions based on homosexuality to an additional legal status; in other words, they demand a change in the definition and social functions of marriage.
(4) Some activists of the “LGBT*+” movement openly declare that the main goal of the proposed revaluation of marriage is not the pursuit of “equal rights,” but the abolition of marriage as a socially-forming unit.

Is homosexuality linked to sexual licentiousness?

(1) In homosexual registered partnerships and cohabiting couples, especially among men, there is a much higher level of sexual licentiousness than in the heterosexual population.
(2) On average, homosexual officially registered partnerships and “marriages” are significantly shorter than heterosexual marriages.
(3) Homosexual partnerships and “marriages” are predominantly sexually “open” - they allow sexual relations outside the couple.
(4) The levels of violence in homosexual partnerships and cohabiting couples, especially among women, are higher than in the heterosexual population.

Was homosexuality the norm in ancient Greece?

(1) In ancient Greek society, sexual acts took place between adults and children, between humans and animals, between adults of the same sex, but they were by no means equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
(2) Homosexuality in its modern sense - as a sexual relationship between equal people - especially in a male passive status, was severely condemned and severely punished by society in Ancient Greece.
(3) There are reasonably well-founded opinions about the existence in a certain period of history and in certain places of Ancient Greece not of homosexuality, but of pederasty (homosexual pedophilia), which was part of a specific institution for raising boys (strict sexual segregation due to public order or militarization). However, some researchers believe that the relationship between the boy and the mentor was strictly regulated and the pederastic component was excluded.

Are there any risks for children brought up in same-sex couples?

(1) Children raised by same-sex couples have an increased risk of developing homosexual attraction, sexual non-conformity, and accepting a homosexual lifestyle—these results have been obtained even in studies conducted by authors loyal to the LGBT*+ movement.
(2) The studies cited by LGBT*+ activists and affiliated organizations (defending the claim that there are no differences between children from traditional families and children raised by same-sex couples) have significant shortcomings. Among them are small samples, biased methods of recruiting respondents, short observation periods, lack of control groups, and biased formation of control groups.
(3) Studies conducted with large representative samples with a long observation period show that, in addition to the increased risk of adopting a homosexual lifestyle, children raised by homosexual parents are inferior to children from traditional families in a number of ways.

Is the “normativeness” of homosexual attraction a scientifically proven fact?

As a justification for the “normativeness” of homosexuality, it is argued that “adaptation” (adaptability or adaptability) and the social functioning of homosexuals are comparable to heterosexual ones. However, it has been shown that “adaptation” and social functioning are not related to determining whether sexual deviations are mental disorders and lead to false negative conclusions. It is impossible to conclude that the mental state is not deviant, because such a state does not lead to impaired “adaptation”, stress or impaired social function, otherwise many mental disorders should be mistakenly designated as normal conditions. The conclusions cited in the literature quoted by proponents of the normativity of homosexuality are not proven scientific facts, and questionable studies cannot be considered reliable sources.

Was homosexuality excluded from the list of sexual perversions by scientific consensus?

A vote by the American Psychiatric Association in December 1973 on the exclusion of homosexuality from the classification of mental disorders was conducted without presenting any significant research data, without relevant observations and analysis, without adequate discussion, under strong pressure from homosexual organizations and activists. This decision was the first significant symbol of the rapidly advancing era of the dogma of "political correctness."

Is “modern science” impartial to the issue of homosexuality?

Such statements as "the genetic cause of homosexuality has been proven" or "homosexual attraction cannot be changed" are regularly put forward 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 a normative variant of sexuality among humans and animals”, that “same-sex attraction is innate and cannot be changed”, “gender is a social construct that is not limited to binary classification”, etc. etc. I will demonstrate that such views in modern scientific circles in the West are considered orthodox, stable and well-established, even in the absence of convincing scientific evidence, while alternative views are immediately labeled as “pseudoscientific” and “false” even if there is compelling factual background behind them. Many factors can be mentioned as the reason for this bias - the 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 a moot point. However, in my opinion, it is possible to create conditions for an optimal equidistant scientific process.

---

The book is available by Creative Commons Attribution Licenses 4.0 Worldwide.

Reprint editions, translations into other languages, any nominations are welcome.