Can we have a purely scientific discussion on treating homosexuality and transsexualism?

Can we have a purely scientific discussion on treating homosexuality and transsexualism?

What hypotheses have shown the most promise? Which areas are worth further study?

There was a study a few years ago where bisexuality was induced in mice by altering them to not have serotonin receptors, but not full homosexuality. As far as I know though, SSRI's don't reverse homosexuality in humans and generally decrease sex drive. Even drugs that flood the brain with serotonin like MDMA don't change the sexuality of humans. What is your interpretation of the serotonin system on the sexual orientation of humans?

Other urls found in this thread:

thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

>Can we have a purely scientific discussion on treating homosexuality and transsexualism?
Probably not but I'll try.

>What hypotheses have shown the most promise?

Not 'social constructs'. It's better to view transsexualism as a behavior, where a member of one gender behaves and identifies as a member of another. There may be a cognitive root to this, but that should be viewed as beyond our current grasp. Social constructs, on the other, render gender impossible to study scientifically. If gender is whatever you want it to be, there's no point in defining it. It looses all semantic value.

>thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf
>Finding of Social Science and Psychology ...
>Doesnt belong in Veeky Forums

>>Doesnt belong in Veeky Forums

Don't get your jimmies rustled there, Billy.

>What hypotheses have shown the most promise?

None

/thread

Social sciences are not real sciences

Real sciences > feel sciences

>psychology
>not a real science

Its borderline at best

>Its borderline at best
t. never read a psychology paper in his/her life

>have shown the most promise?
Given the level of drama in a topic like this I think "promise" would be hard to demonstrate.

"Feathering the nest" was an old theory. How do you really falsify that?

A more recent theory is that genes that makes women go to bed with everyone and from an early age, will in men result in homosexuality. That gives a plausible way to explain why the genes exist and are not bred out as such women tend to have a LOT of children.

Yet again, how do you go about testing this?

There's an epigenetic theory that's pretty solid as far as homosexuality is concerned.

Simply: our genetic material can be modified in several ways such as methylations, acetylations, etc. to affect transcription and/or translation. This is known as "epigenetics," and is in essence another layer of complexity in the system by which the central dogma of molecular biology operates. Like genes, these modifications are semi-conserved. Meaning parents pass them on to offspring, and the offspring copy the modification into their own genetic code.

Among the many epigenetic modifications to our code, there are some which protect embryos from androgens during gestation. A female embryo typically has epigenetic "protection" from testosterone exposure and the opposite is true of a male. Because of the way androgens alter neurological architecture during development (ex: why your dog still humps your pillow even after being neutered), it's thought that homosexuality can be at least partly explained by a malfunction in the transfer of epigenetic material such that an embryo has inadequate protection from angrogens and therefore is altered neurologically -- leading to altered behavior through puberty and adulthood.

Are you saying that busting a nut in another dude's ass has the potential to alter his DNA?

Precisely.

It is literally not a science. It doesn't use the scientific method.

>can't model the brain
And you want to treat it? Fuck off. Anything you do is just going to be throwing darts and hoping you hit something relevant without incredibly deadly side effects.

...

>It is literally not a science. It doesn't use the scientific method.
t. never read a psychology paper in his/her life

P value: 0.65
It's significant!

Y'all are throwing darts in a darkened room full of fans and random objects trying to hit dartboards you don't know the location of or even if they exist. Then whenever you hear a "thunk" you record it as groundbreaking data. Most psychology experiments are not replicated and even the Stanford prison experiment failed the next time it was conducted.

Make it illegal to either promote, denigrate or participate in homosexuality in public. Problem solved.

>Can we have a purely scientific discussion
No, but here's a mathematical one.

We'll consider several variables, when multiplied together, to create a male heterosexuality coefficient MH

|MH| > 1 means you are hypersexual (read: desperate)
MH = 1 is the baseline
MH [math]\leq[/math] 0 implies you are homosexual

(Wanting to fuck women)(wanting to fuck people who appear feminine) = MH = 1
baseline established

(Wanting to fuck women) > 1

this implies that
0 < (wanting to fuck people who appear feminine) = [math] \frac{1}{Wanting \ to \ fuck \ women} < 1[/math]

(wanting to fuck men) < 0
obviously

(wanting to fuck men)(wanting to fuck people who appear feminine) = (a negative number)(a positive number between 0 and 1) = (a negative number)

[math]\mathbb{T}\mathbb{H}\mathbb{E}\mathbb{R}\mathbb{E}\mathbb{F}\mathbb{O}\mathbb{R}\mathbb{E} \ \mathbb{T}\mathbb{R}\mathbb{A}\mathbb{P}\mathbb{S} \ \mathbb{A}\mathbb{R}\mathbb{E} \ \mathbb{G}\mathbb{A}\mathbb{Y}. \\
\blacksquare[/math]

The best treatment is to just not let them breed.

It'll die out eventually.

>Y'all
Are you a cartoon character? Who talks like this, let alone types like this?

It's not gay if her penis is really feminine though.

you've never been to texas then. Y'all is completely appropriate and accepted speech there for "you all"

the more feminine the penis, the gayer you are
i've mathematically proven it