skip to Main Content

Libs Bypass the Science and Facts Vis-À-Vis the ‘Gay Gene’

Libs Bypass the Science and Facts Vis-À-Vis the ‘Gay Gene’
By Tony Perkins

They call themselves “progressives,” but on science, liberals are anything but! From climate change and stem cell research to fetal pain and gender, the relationship between the Left and the facts has always been a rocky one. For years, liberals have been quite content to throw overboard any evidence-based realities if it moves the needle on their agenda. They’ll ignore the facts, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll silence the fact-finders.


Just ask the research community at Johns Hopkins Medicine. Furious that two of the university’s scholars would dare to challenge their “born gay” myth, the country’s biggest LGBT bully — the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — is determined to make the researchers’ pay. In special reports for The New Atlantis, Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh both found that there’s very little science to support the idea of a “gay gene.” From “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” they write:

“Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding,” the report said. “The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation.”

The report went on to throw just as much cold water on the politically-correct theories of transgenderism. Enter the HRC’s ideological hostage-takers. Almost immediately, the group contacted the leadership of the university and demanded that Johns Hopkins disavow the report “or face consequences.” “This year, for the first time, HRC Foundation’s Healthcare Equality Index will rate hospitals with a numerical score and will consider whether hospitals and health systems’ practices reflect ‘responsible citizenship.’ If Hopkins’ leadership ignores their community’s call to correct the record — clarifying that McHugh and Mayer’s opinions do not represent it, and that its healthcare services provided reflect the scientific consensus on LGBTQ health and well-being — its Healthcare Equality Index score will be reduced substantially.”

It’s not enough that HRC bullies businesses, Christians, and companies. Now it wants to keep hospitals in line with its lying agenda! This is exactly what the organization did in North Carolina over H.B. 2. They knew they couldn’t win a debate on the facts of the law, so they twisted them! Now, they want to do the same with science. This is how intolerant and afraid of the truth the Left is. Instead of adapting their point of view to fit the research, liberals are demanding the research change.

And to its credit, The New Atlantis will have none of it. Firing back at HRC, the editors write:

“This blatant effort to intimidate Johns Hopkins University by insisting that the entire university must answer collectively for everything written by its faculty is a disturbing strategy designed to make impossible respectful disagreement in the academy on controversial matters. The HRC’s claim that its efforts ‘pose no threat to academic freedom’ is nonsense; intimidation tactics of this sort undermine the atmosphere of free and open inquiry that universities are meant to foster.”

They’re right. Isn’t the world of academia about fighting censorship and advocating for the free flow of ideas and information? Hopkins officials seem to think so. After reminding HRC of its commitment to the LGBT community, the university sticks to its guns on the value of the report.

“We… restate that as an academic medical research institution, academic freedom is among our fundamental principles — essential to the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry, and a privilege that we safeguard. When individuals associated with Johns Hopkins exercise the right of expression, they do not speak on behalf of the institution. As set forth in the Johns Hopkins University Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom, academic freedom is designed to afford members of the community the broadest possible scope for unencumbered expression, investigation, analysis, and discourse.’”

Original Article

Back To Top