"Thinking people need not apply"

Just yesterday I wrote a couple exams that required more preparation, blood, sweat, and tears, than any other exam of my life. They made the MCAT look like a 2nd grade spelling bee.

Now that that's all over with, I'm hoping that I can get back to blogging a little bit. Today we'll start things off easy (by letting someone else to all the writing). ;)

Via Canadian Cynic (who just recently linked to this blog, nearly making me crap my pants with excitement), Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post elaborates on how today's Republicans are more concerned with their outdated principles than adapting to the times.

My favourite part:

Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?

Touché

Hehehehehe

ZOMG this is funny.

When Galileo told the Pope
“Here, look into my telescope—
You’ll see much beauty there, I hope.”
His Holiness, the Pope, said “Nope.”

“Now kiss my ring, instead, and swear
That nothing of the sort is there—
I know you think it is not fair,
But I’m the Pope, as you’re aware.”

The Pope’s command was quite absurd,
But Galileo gave his word,
(Though some report him undeterred:
“E pur si muove” overheard.)

In hindsight now, with great delight,
We know, despite his Papal might,
That evidence would come to light
To prove the heretic was right.

With Urban’s ring already kissed,
The chance to get it right was missed,
Just one more error on the list—
But now, we find another twist!

What wonders will the cosmos bring?
Now Saturn sports another ring!
Much bigger than the Pope’s, this thing
Is interplanetary bling!

Four centuries have come to pass
Since Galileo ground his glass;
Far too much time for him, alas,
To tell the Pope to kiss his ass.

But now, the kids will learn in school:
That Saturn sports another jewel;
That telescopes are really cool;
One may be Pope, but still a fool.

Not that it's surprising anymore...

...but it never hurts to mention that gay couples make absolutely FABULOUS parents. ;)

H/T PHB

Won't somebody think of the CHILDRENZ!?!???!1!

A favourite scare-tactic among anti-gay activists is the idea that gay rights are detrimental to children. For example, when dissing gay marriage, they often argue that children to better "when raised by a mother and father." This is a sneaky trick, since the research that this is based on actually compared two-parent vs. one-parent families.* That's not the same thing as saying that being raised by both biological parents is better than being raised by same-sex parents (or remarried parents or adoptive parents for that matter--but anti-gay activists never seem to consider those...).

This information should be considered by Mainers who will be asked to approve or REJECT Proposition 1 this November, barring gays and lesbians from marrying in that state.

In a much-appreciated memo today, the Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians urged voters to reject the ban. Cuz, you know, that's what would ACTUALLY be good for the children of Maine. From the press release:

"As pediatricians, we see how supportive parents -- whether gay or straight -- positively impact the development of children. That is why we oppose the referendum that would rescind the law that allows same sex couples to marry."

*Please note that there are also studies that suggest that single-parents can do just as well raising children.

Sinead's Hand

This is a fantastic PSA from Ireland that is particularly poignant given the vote that will be taking place soon in Maine. It shows just how demeaning it is for gays and lesbians to have to grovel for the basic right to have their relationships recognized.

Maine's gay marriage law is being put up to a public vote this fall because of the workings of anti-gay activists who simply couldn't accept that the Maine legislature passed the law fair and square. If you live in Maine, or know anyone who does, spread the message: NO ON 1!



Hat tip to Sandwalk--a fantastic Canadian science blogger based out of Toronto.

Queer thoughts

Unsurprisingly, yet another team of researchers has found that gay people are more likely to seek treatment for mental health disorders. This is not exactly news (in that it's not new information) but it bears repeating for two reasons.

First, the plight of homosexuals with regards to mental health bears the double taboo of homosexuality and mental illness. Both of these topics tend to make people skiddish, particularly when speaking in public. But this issue needs to be discussed publicly, not least because LGBT people have higher rates of suicide and suicide attempts than the general population.

Secondly, the old mistake of equating correlation with causation plays into the hands of anti-gay activists. They consistently take these types of findings and twist them to make it seem as though being gay is inherently detrimental to one's mental well-being. This will likely also happen with this study, despite the authors' own statement that:

"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems."

The truth needs to be trumpeted, loud and clear.
Alvin McEwan does an excellent job of cataloging and dismantling these anti-gay attacks at his blog Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.

Science education

So if you're of the opinion that science education in North America is A-Ok...watch this:

This is not my kind of medicine

Just this week, I had a patient who checked himself out of the hospital early in order to pursue "traditional healing" at home. I honestly don't know what that specifically entails, but presumably something of the Inuit tradition. I've also had lots of other patients in the past tell me that they will or would rather pursue X treatments (where X = "natural," "homeopathic," etc).

These treatments are usually benign. Usually. How, you might ask, could something like homeopathy (which is really just water) be unhealthy? Well, sometimes the practitioners of ACM (alternative and complimentary medicine) are very critical of real medicine. Frankly, I'd hate to lend my credibility to a practitioner that is just going to diss me behind my back and possibly convince my patient they no longer need my help. Also, some ACM/natural treatments actually are harmful, or can decrease the efficiency of proven medical remidies. St. John's wort, for example decreases the efficacy of anti-retrovirals (used in the treatment of HIV infection) and oral contraceptive therapy. Even grapefruit juice can alter the metabolism of certain drugs.

So even though "alternative treatments" usually don't hurt, I still cringe when my patients say they use them, and I never recommend them.

But some other people in the world are soooooo certain that their unproven, hokey, primitive, might-as-well-be-called-magic treatments are the only way to go, they let people die instead of taking them to a real doctor. Like this kid. Washington really, really needs to fix their legislation.

...SRSLY

In Totally Unsurprising News...

The APA has adopted a resolution declaring that sexual reorientation therapy (aka "ex-gay" therapy, "reparative therapy") is bunk. Colour me shocked. ;) You can find the press release here and the guidelines in PDF form here.

The short story is that the APA set up a task force to review the (admittedly scant and old) literature concerning efforts to change peoples' sexual orientation. They did manage to find about 80 old studies, and after reviewing them, found no evidence to suggest that sexual "reorientation" is possible. In fact:

"Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."

That paragraph made me smile ;)

This resolution is extremely important, because there are still a large number of organisations that run or support programs that claim to cure homosexuality.* If someone you know tells you that they're considering patronizing one of these types of programs, please direct them to this resolution, so they at least know what they're getting into.

Many of these programs cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the psychological trauma of being "treated" by someone with no psychological credentials and the guilt of being systematically told that you're sick in some way.

Another reason this resolution is so important is because it was recently found that many therapists in the UK are still under the impression that sexual orientation can be changed in some way, and many have actively helped their patients to try to become straight. Hopefully this consensus will bring an end to this ridiculous practice.


*Actually, a lot of these programs only claim to help you "leave homosexuality" or claim that "change is possible," whatever that means. It's probably just so they don't get sued for false advertising.

The Gay Gene?

I had a discussion with two friends recently about the genetic nature of homosexuality. This topic is often terribly misunderstood, so today I'll try to sum up all the information as concisely as possible.[1]

First, though, it's important to distinguish the difference between the terms "genetic," "developmental," and "in-born." When we say that something is genetically inherited, we mean that a quality is determined by one's genetic code. A good example would be sickle cell anemia. The hemoglobin (Hb)in your red blood cells is coded for by a handful of genes; a particular mutation in one of these genes results in misshaped Hb, which then deforms your red blood cells and makes you sick. Sickle cell anemia is entirely genetic in origin.

To say that something is developmental is to mean that a quality is determined by the the environment an organism is exposed to during development. Your height, for example, is partially determined by what kind of foods you eat while growing up, your level of exercise, and other factors.

However, we still refer to one's height as something that is "in-born;" that is to say, a personal quality that is outside one's control. Something determined by one's own nature. Keep this in mind for later in the post...

Now, homosexuality poses a bit of an evolutionary paradox. If evolution favours traits that improve a species' reproductive success, how could a trait like homosexuality become so common?[2] Surely any gene or genes for homosexuality would decrease the likelihood of its' possessor's reproduction, and be lost from the gene pool.

In a June 2008 paper, Andrea Ciani et al.[3], propose an evolutionary mechanism called "sexually antagonistic selection" that could account for the prevalence of homosexual behaviour. To sum up (to the best of my abilities), their paper suggests that sexuality is determined by two genes, one of which is located on the X chromosome. Having the "gay" version of these genes (we could say "gay alleles") makes males gay but makes females more likely to reproduce. The gay alleles could be said to simultaneously decrease male fitness but increase female fitness. This provides a solution to our paradox, assuming that the advantage for females outweighs the disadvantage to males.[4] Indeed, this genetic model is also compatible with other data, such as the fact that homosexual males' maternal aunts and grandmothers are found to be more fecund than baseline. [3]

This model adds to the growing data that support a natural cause for homosexuality. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality is at least 35% genetic in origin, and various other theories are being researched to understand the developmental components (handedness, brain anatomy, and hormonal exposure in the womb, for example).

However, as my friend and I agreed, while all this information is interesting from a basic sciences perspective, it serves almost no purpuse in terms of informing public opinion or policy concerning homosexuality. ...Or, rather, it shouldn't.

Public interest in the genetic/developmental origins of homosexuality center around the debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. While all the evidence so far points to a substantial "in-born" component to sexual preference, it doesn't matter anyway. There is nothing unnatural, immoral, or harmful about homosexual behaviour, so there should be no public recourse against it. And even if it were a choice to be gay (can you imagine choosing to be gay!?), lots of other life choices (such as religion, most notably), receive widespread public support. People who advance the "it's a choice" argument are either lacking integrity or honesty.

1. My apologies for the long time since my last post.

2 It is, in fact, quite common. See here for some examples of homosexuality observed in the Animal Kingdom.

3. Camperio Ciani A, Cermelli P, Zanzotto G (2008) Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2282. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0002282

4. This paper uses a LOT of wacky mathematics that make my head spin. I leave it to my more "numbered" readers to judge the merits of the authors' work.

Two-faced AND incompetent + utterly transparent

In an effort to stem the tide of upset in the LGBT community after his Department of Justice denigrated them in a defense of DOMA (see my previous post), Obama today signed a memo that will allow the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive some of the benefits that heterosexual spouses receive.

...The condescension is so patronising it boils my blood. For the following reasons:

1. Same-sex partners and their children will not receive Health Care benefits, which is one of the most devastating aspects of marriage discrimination.
2. These benefits will only apply to Federal employees, i.e. very few people.
3. The only reason the LGBT community is being offered even this *scrap* of dignity is so that they won't make a fuss at the Democratic National Convention's big fund-raiser on June 25th.

LGBT's were thrilled at the prospect of a President who would treat them with dignity. ...Looks like their elation was premature.

For any Americans who might read this: I think you should tell Obama and the entire DNC--loudly--that your cash won't go to support "leaders" who have done nothing to stand up for your rights or dignity.

PS Another thing that just occurred to me is that this happened with the stroke of a pen. It was a ship-shod quick response to try to quell the LGBT community...and as such, it could have been done MONTHS ago. Obama has been sitting on this for 5 months, and is only now putting pen to paper.

So, once again to my American friends: If Obama's been able to grant you these rights (however limited they may be), what else is he holding back? What else can you pry out of the Democrats' terrified little paws? I suggest you yell, write, call, email, protest, and above all let them know you won't give them one pink penny until you get the civil rights you deserve! *HUG*

Total Betrayal

The Obama administration has officially thrown queer people under the bus.

Background: In the few states that do allow gay marriage, those marriages only entail rights at the state level (no federal recognition for tax purposes, for example) and the rights they do have end at the state border (once a couple enters another state, they are legal strangers). This stunning example of second-class citizenship is made possible by DOMA--the Defense of Marriage Act--that was enacted in 1996 under the Clinton Administration. DOMA ensures that:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So, in reality, when we talk about states that have achieved "marriage equality," it's really not equal at all. Gay people don't get federal recognition and lose whatever protections they do have as soon as they leave the state.

However, Americans have this pesky Amendment in their Constitution that guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law. So someone had the bright idea of taking DOMA to court since it's a pretty obvious case of discrimination and denial of civil rights at the federal level.

Since this lawsuit is challenging a federal law, it's up to the President's Department of Justice to try to defend it. One would think that the DoJ for a President who has described himself as a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights and has actually argued that DOMA needs to be repealed would take a fairly soft stance in defending this blatantly anti-gay law.

One would be gravely, slap-in-the-face-ingly wrong.

Not only did Obama's DoJ defend DOMA, they went so far as to claim that the law is totally constitutional, that it's ok cuz we also don't let adults marry kids, that gay people aren't a suspect class that can be discriminated against, and that it's not really discrimination since gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender.

WHHAAAAAAAAA?

Calling this a slap in the face is an understatement. This is the legal equivalent of a solid kick between the legs. Obama's administration has officially argued that gay people do not deserve to marry. They did this by completely dehumanizing gay people. It's disgusting.

Obama can go suck a lemon. I'm done supporting this two-faced liar.