Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
— 6 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019,Том10,№2• http://rjep.ru
ÏÑÈÕÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ
ÈÑÑËÅÄÎÂÀÍÈß
PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES
DOI: 10.12731/2658-4034-2019-2-6-49
UDC 613.885
SCIENCE AND HOMOSEXUALITY:
POLITICAL BIAS IN MODERN ACADEMIA
Lysov V.G.
Allegations like “proven genetic reason for homosexuality” or “prov-
en inef cacy of sexual orientation change efforts” are put forward at
popular science educational events for scienti cally unsophisticated peo-
ple. In this article I will demonstrate that modern academia is dominated
by persons who project their socio-political views into their scienti c
activity, making scienti c process strongly biased. These projected views
include a spectrum of political claims, including those with regard to
non-heterosexual individuals, and namely that “homosexuality is a nor-
mative variation of sexuality among humans as well as animals”, that
“same-sex attraction is inborn and cannot be changed”, that “gender
is a social construct not limited to binary classi cation”, and so forth.
In this paper it will be demonstrated that such views in modern aca-
demia are considered orthodox, steadfast and settled, even when there
is lack of convincing scienti c background, whereas alternative views
are instantly labeled “pseudoscienti c” and “false” even when there
is a certain factology behind. One could mention many factors as the
reason for this bias – dramatic social and historical legacy which led
to the emergence of “scienti c taboos”, intense political struggle that
gave rise to hypocrisy, “commercialization” of science, leading to the
— 7 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
pursuit of sensations, etc. Whether it is possible to completely avoid bias
in science remains a controversial issue. However, it is possible to create
conditions for an optimal equidistant scientic process.
Keywords: bias in science; scientic integrity; social controversy;
LGBT.
Лысов В.Г.
Такие заявления, как «генетическая причина гомосексуализма
доказана» или «гомосексуальное влечение невозможно изменить»
регулярно выдвигаются на научно-популярных образовательных
мероприятиях и в сети Интернет, предназначенных, в том числе,
и для научно неискушенных людей. В этой статье я продемонстри-
рую, что в современном научном сообществе доминируют люди,
которые проецируют свои общественно-политические взгляды в
свою научную деятельность, делая научный процесс сильно пред-
взятым. Эти проецируемые взгляды включают в себя спектр по-
литических заявлений, в том числе в отношении т.н. «сексуальных
меньшинств», а именно, что «гомосексуализм является норматив-
ным вариантом сексуальности среди людей и животных», что «од-
нополое влечение является врожденным и не может быть измене-
но», «пол является социальной конструкцией, не ограничивающейся
бинарной классификацией» и т.д. и т.п. Я продемонстрирую, что
такие взгляды в современных научных кругах на Западе считаются
ортодоксальными, устойчивыми и устоявшимися, даже при отсут-
ствии убедительных научных данных, тогда как альтернативные
взгляды сразу же помечаются как «псевдонаучные» и «ложные»,
даже если за ними стоит убедительная фактология. В качестве
причины подобной предвзятости можно упомянуть множество
факторов – драматическое социальное и историческое наследие,
— 8 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
которое привело к появлению «научных табу», интенсивную поли-
тическую борьбу, которая породила лицемерие, «коммерциализа-
цию» науки, ведущую к погоне за сенсациями, и т.д. Возможно ли
полностью избежать предвзятости в науке, остается спорным
вопросом. Однако, представляется возможным создать условия
для оптимального равноудаленного научного процесса.
Ключевые слова: предвзятость в науке; научная этика; социаль-
ные противоречия; ЛГБТ.
Introduction
In April 2017, the USA Today published a video entitled “Psychol-
ogy of Infertility” [1]. This was a story of three couples who could not
have children even after long time of regular unprotected sexual inter-
course–thatis,theysufferedfrominfertility,denedsobytheWorld
Health Organization [2, p. 1522]. Each couple solved the problem of in-
fertility in a certain way — through in vitro fertilization, adoption and
use of a surrogate mother. This stylish popular science video described
in details the history of each pair.
One important note: the authors of this video in an absolutely ordi-
nary way and without the slightest amount of humor listed a same-sex
couple—twomarriedmales,DanandWillNeville-Reyben–amongthe
two opposite-sex couples who had reproductive medical problems (that
is, disorders of reproductive functions which lead to infertility). The au-
thors of the video on a touching musical background lucidly explained
totheviewersthatthe“infertility”problemofDanandWillisthatthey
have no uterus [3]. USA Today probably assumes that for some part of
its audience such subtleties of human biology are unknown. Anyway,
one of the main leitmotifs of this news was the argument that medical
insurance should cover the expenses of homosexual couples for “infer-
tility” treatments.
Messages of similar nature, full of biological absurdity, are not un-
common in nowadays media, and, truly speaking, begin to dominate the
professional, and especially, popular science. Allegations like “proven
genetic reason for homosexuality”, “proveninefcacyofsexualorien-
— 9 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
tation change efforts” and “1,500 species of homosexual animals” are
putforwardatpopularscienceeducationaleventsforscienticallyun-
sophisticated people. In this article I will demonstrate that modern aca-
demia is dominated by persons who project their liberal views into their
scienticactivity,makingsciencestronglybiased.Theseliberalviews
include a spectrum of advocative claims with regard to non-heterosexual
individuals (those, who usually identify themselves as “lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, and transgenders” – LGBT), e.g. that homosexuality is a nor-
mative variation of sexuality among humans as well as animals, that
same-sex attraction (SSA) is inborn and cannot be changed, that gender
isasocialconstructnotlimitedtobinaryclassication,andsoforth.I
will refer to such claims as LGBT-advocative. At the same time, there is
a vast amount of evidence that contradicts the above mentioned ones, I
will refer to them as LGBT-sceptical. I will demonstrate that LGBT-ad-
vocative views in modern academia are considered orthodox, steadfast
andsettled,evenwhenthereislackofconvincingscienticbackground,
whereasLGBT-scepticalviewsareinstantlylabelled“pseudoscientic”
and “false” even when there is a certain factology behind.
Science and political ideology
I will start with a brief mentioning of the basic principles of science.
Whatisscience?Scienceis a way of knowledgebasedonscientic
method. The latter includes several steps, which are fundamental for
science.Theseare:(1)deningtheproblem(whatneedstobestudied);
(2) searching for what have already been studied by others to answer the
problem;(3)developmentofthehypothesis:assumptionofanexplana-
tionoftheproblem;(4)experiment:testingthehypothesis;(5)analysis
oftheresults:studyoftheresultsoftheexperimentandndingoutto
whatextentthehypothesiswasconrmed;and,nally,(6)conclusions:
bringing to the other results of the experiment and analysis.
However, as noted by Professor Henry H. Bauer in 1992, nowadays
Academiaisincreasinglyturningawayfromscienticmethodinorderto
matchtheliberalideologyastheonlydecisivewayto“scientic”inter-
pretationoftheworldaround[4].Thus,themainstreamscienticmeth-
— 10 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
odturnedoutintothefollowing:(1)deningtheproblemandavoiding
as far as possible the “tabooed” topics, e.g. races and sexes as biological
construct,sexualorientationassocialconstruct;(2)searchingforwhat
have already been studied by others and selecting the results which do not
contradicttheestablishedideology;(3)developmentofthehypothesis:
assumption of an explanation of the problem which does not contradict
theliberalideology;(4)experiment:testingthehypothesis;(5)analysis
oftheresults:ignoringandreducingthesignicanceofthe“unexpected”
resultswhilemagnifyingandoverestimatingthe“expected”ones;and,
nally;(6)conclusions:bringingtotheotherresultswhichtriumphant-
ly “support” the liberal ideology. Prof. Bauer is not the only one, who is
worried by this ideological shift of science. Similar was noted by Profes-
sorRuthHubbard[5],ProfessorLynnD.Wardle[6,p.852],Dr.Steven
Goldberg [7], Dr. Alan D. Sokal and Dr. Jean Brichmont [8], American
columnistKirstenPowers[9],andDr.AustinRuse[10].
ProfessorNicholasQ.RosenkranzfromGeorgetownLawSchooland
ProfessorJonathanD.HaidtfromNewYorkUniversityevenfounded
“Heterodox Academy” – an Internet project focused on “[T]he question,
then, is whether colleges and universities welcome and celebrate view-
pointdiversity.Whilesomeindividualinstitutionsdo(seeourGuideto
Colleges),manyAmerican universities are typiedbyanideological
monoculture.” [11].
Dr.BretWeinsteinwhoresignedfromtheEvergreenStateCollege
after he refused to take part in the so called “Day of Absence” of whites
and was bullied by infuriated students and activists [12], later founded
togetherwithhisbrotherDr.EricWeinsteinandotherscientistsacom-
munitywhichwashalf-jokingly called “Intellectual Dark Web”[13].
JournalistBariWeissdescribedthiscommunityinthe following way
“First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about near-
ly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature
of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the
way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actu-
ally are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically conve-
nient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged
— 11 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox
thought – and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.” [13].
For those who have not previously been interested in this problem,
the reign of ideological dogmatism in science may seem unbelievably
absurd. They may think that in science only those facts that have been
conrmedbeyondcontroversyaretheonlytruth,andeverythingelseis
based on assumptions, hypotheses, theories and socio-political construc-
tivism.Nevertheless,puttingforwardassumptions,hypotheses,theories
and socio-political constructivism as “proven facts” is observed in an in-
creasinglywiderangeofissues[14,p.12],someofwhichhaveagreat
public response. For example, is same-sex attraction (SSA) a “variation
of human sexuality,” or is it a non-physiological (non-reproductive) de-
viation of sexual behavior, along with sexual attraction to children, ani-
mals,orinanimateobjects?Inthesematters,aswellassomeothers,the
scienticmethodfellvictimtopoliticalviews[15,p.14].
Consider the following: nowadays in Academia, researchers who de-
clarethemselveshaving“modern”viewssignicantlyoutnumberthose
declaring “conservative” views [16]. An impressive list of peer-reviewed
publications revealing the same problem can be found in the database of
the above mentioned Heterodox Academy [17]. And LGBT advocacy is
one of the main aspects of current liberal ideology.
In a private discussion, one of my colleagues who is a practicing
Ph.D.psychologistinoneofthelargestcitiesofRussia(askedmenot
to disclose his name, because he was afraid of consequences of having
an alternative opinion) half-jokingly told me about a very simple for-
mula of “modern” science to judge on topics related to homosexuality:
anythinggayafrmativeequalsobjectivescienceandexemplaryschol-
arship;anythinggaynegativeequalsbiasedandbigotedpseudoscience
fromright-wingextremists(personalcommunication,October14,2018).
That’s about it. In other words, in “modern and mainstream” science to
doubt the “normality” of homosexuality is to doubt the “progress” and
“freedom” of postmodernism and popular culture. In order to ascertain
this phenomenon, only the simplest observation of popular science dis-
courseissufcient.Governmentsandrichnon-governmentalfoundations
— 12 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
haveofciallyestablishedcertainbeliefsregardinghomosexualityasif
they were unquestionably and without controversy proved true, such as
that only women can give birth to people (I am afraid that in a very close
future the semantic fundamentality of my last example is far from rosy).
Some say that science, as political and social discourse, should be
very sensitive to a range of topics, because of bitter legacy of the hu-
manhistory.Butscienticfacthasnothingtodowithpolitics.Thereare
certain biological differences between human races (phenotypes) [18],
there are certain biological differences between human sexes (heteroch-
romosomes) [19] and so on. Indeed, such facts were partly used as “ar-
gument” for unimaginable crimes, atrocities and inequality throughout
human history, and humanity and society must always keep this in mind.
Noargumentfordiscriminationexists.
However, the aforementioned sad pages of history do not cancel the
existence of physiological phenotypes and sex differences in humans,
because they occur naturally and biologically. For instance, a male can-
not give birth because of the biological particularities of his organism
(absenceofuterus,rstofall,asaptlynoticedbyUSAToday).Wemay
just avoid talking about it or change the meaning of “female” – this adds
nothingtotheunshakablerealityofscience.Scienticfactsexistinde-
pendently of their interpretation by the ideologists of political doctrines,
regardlessofbeinglistedinanydeclarationordiseaseclassication,and
irrespective of political correctness.
In my opinion, establishing an equal sign between “political correct-
ness” and science is one of the greatest contemporary problems and this
fact discourages novelty and innovation. Some researchers share simi-
lar opinion [20]. According to Harper Collins in British English “polit-
ical correctness” means “demonstrating progressive ideals, especially
by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or
judgmental, esp. concerning race and gender” [21]. And according to
RandomHouseWebster’sinAmericanEnglish“politicalcorrectness”
is “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues
— 13 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology”
[22].RussianthinkersDr.AntonV.BelyakovandDr.OlegA.Matvey-
chevdened“politicalcorrectness”withoutunduesentiments:“Political
correctness is one of the products of the postmodern society, character-
ized by multiculturalism, methodological anarchism, social fragmentation
and advancement of narrower identities. Democracy in such a society
appears as a social order that entails not the power of the majority, but
theprotectionoftherightsofeveryminorityrstofall,downtoasin-
gle individual. In fact, even the most democratic state is unable to pro-
tect all declared rights or ensure the realization of the ambitions of each
member of society. A simulated solution to this problem is promoting the
use of politically correct language, which suggests avoiding the words
and statements referring to race, gender, age, health, social status, and
the appearance of members of certain social groups, that may be deemed
offensiveanddiscriminatorybythem.”[23,p.34].
NowadaysintheUnitedStates(andtherestoftheworld)“political
correctness”isthebattleeldbetween liberalsandconservatives[24].
But I would like to step away from socio-political discourse to science.
If we strip the term “political correctness” of its “politically correct”
wrapper, it would mean nothing but another kind of censorship, regard-
less of its proclaimed purpose, be it noble or evil. In reality, “political
correctness” comes down to the desire to succumb everyone and every-
thingtoadeniteideologicalmodel.
I am deeply convinced that such censorship is extremely harmful to
science, as some other researchers noticed [25]. Certain cultural and po-
litical beliefs have become social dogma from which no one has the right
to retreat, be they scholars, teachers or students. Any scientist who wants
to gain recognition and funding must submit to “political correctness”.
It is obvious how seriously “political correctness” distorts science,
because it negatively affects universalism, openness, disinterestedness,
skepticism,whichareperceivedinscienticactivityassomethingtaken
for granted, as well as simple honesty and lack of hypocrisy.
Onthisoccasion,ProfessorTomNicholsnoticedinan article in
“Foreign Affairs”, “I fear we are moving beyond a natural skepticism
—14—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
regarding expert claims to the death of the ideal of expertise itself: a
Google-fueled,Wikipedia-based,blog-soddencollapseofanydivision
between professionals and laypeople, teachers and students, knowers
and wonderers – in other words, between those with achievement in an
area and those with none ...” [26].
Wikipedia and YouTube
WikipediaisoneofthemostvisitedInternetsites,whichpositions
itself as an “encyclopedia” and is accepted by many non-specialists, as
well as schoolchildren, as an unquestioning source of truth. The site was
launchedin2001byanAlabama entrepreneur JimmyWales.Before
startingtheWikipediawebsite,JimmyWalescreatedtheBomisInternet
project, which distributed paid pornography – a fact that he diligently
sought to remove from his biography [27].
It is a commonplace opinion that any user can add an article or edit
anexistingarticleinWikipedia.Infact,anyinformationthatdoesnot
correspond to “a typically progressive orthodoxy” will be censored by
means of complex intricate mechanisms for checking the article under
which there is an institution of so-called. mediators – editor-judges rep-
resenting certain movements and groups, such as an LGBT-mediator
whocanultimatelyeditorrejectarticles[28].Thus,despiteitsofcial
policyofsupposedneutrality,Wikipediaisstronglybiased.
In an article in “FrontPage”, David Swindle analyzed and demon-
stratedthattheWikipediaproject represents the point of view of its
most persistent and permanent editors, some of whom (especially in ar-
easofsocialcontroversy)areactivistsseekingtoinuencepublicopin-
ion: “Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on
August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long. Of this longer-than-usual entry,
3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a
series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with
accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left.
That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad.
By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for
entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.”
— 15 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
That’s4.5%ofthewordcount,afractionofCoulter’s.Doesthismean
thatan“unbiased”commentatorwouldndCoultereighttimesas“con-
troversial”asMoore?”[29].
JournalistJosephFarahwritesthatWikipedia:“...isnotonlyapro-
vider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slan-
der unlike any other the world has ever known ...” [30]. One of the the
co-foundersofWikipediahimself,LarrySangerwholefttheproject,ad-
mittedthatWikipediadoesnotfollowitsowndeclaredneutralitypolicy:
“Wikipediadoesn’tliveuptoitspolicyandinfactdeliberatelymisinter-
pretsitonsomeissues.AlthoughIfoundedWikipedia,I’malsolonggone
from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so...” [31].
ResearcherBrianMartinin his work Persistent Bias onWikipedia
writes: “Systematically biased editing, persistently maintained, can oc-
curonWikipediawhilenominallyfollowingguidelines.Techniquesfor
biasing an entry include deleting positive material, adding negative ma-
terial, using a one-sided selection of sources, and exaggerating the sig-
nicanceofparticulartopics.Tomaintainbiasinanentryinthefaceof
resistance, key techniques are reverting edits, selectively invoking Wiki-
pedia rules, and overruling resistant editors ...” [32, p. 379].
AllWikipediaentriesonLGBTissuesmustbe approved by the
above-mentioned mediators, and any facts they deem inappropriate
would be removed on the pretext of belonging to “fringe theories — any-
thingthatdepartssignicantlyfromtheprevailingviewsormainstream
viewsinaparticulareld.”Forexample,addingtoWikipediaarticleon
reparative therapy some statistical data indicating that sexual orienta-
tion change efforts can be successful for some individuals, was reversed
withinminutesunderthestandardpretext–“WP:FRNG”–“profession-
al mainstream associations consider reparative therapy useless and even
dangerous, and therefore all other opinions are unfounded and represent
fringe theories.”. This mode of mediation is mandatory for all articles on
LGBT topics. It is the LGBT representative who decides what will be
publishedaboutLGBTandwhatwillbenot–thisistheactualWikipe-
dia rule. And this is, slightly speaking, not quite the proclaimed princi-
ple “any user can add an article or edit an existing article”.
— 16 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Thus,allWikipediaarticlesrelatedtoLGBTarewritteninabiased,
self-serving way, and present mainly a compilation of carefully edited
informationfromquestionableorunscientic,oreven artistic sourc-
es–all of them are considered“scienticallyappropriate”iftheyare
LGBT-advocative.WhereasanysourcethatisLGBT-scepticalwillhave
to pass a thorough and scrupulous control and approval from the medi-
ators (see the principle told by my colleague above). Generally, without
the moderation and last word of LGBT mediators it is impossible to add
a new LGBT article or update an existing one. Their judging criteria is
simple: “either good or nothing.”
Forexample,foraverylongtimeWikipediaarticleonhomosex-
ual behaviour in animals contained a claim that this type of non-re-
productive behaviour was seen in 1500 species of animals. This was
presentedbyWikipediaasascienticfactinspiteofthelackofad-
equate sources.
In fact, the “1500 species of homosexual animals” was an advertising
sloganlaunchedbyanemployeeoftheNorwegianMuseumofNatural
History named Petter Bøckman during an exhibition in 2006. Bøckman
himselfincludedthisphraseinanarticleinWikipediain2007.Only11
years later, after facing an intense opposition from the LGBT editors and
appealing personally to Bøckman, this false information was deleted:
during the discussion, Bøckman was unable to provide the source and
acknowledged the fallacy of the statement [33].
Finally,astheadministrationofWikipediaacknowledgesitself:“As
aprivatewebsite,Wikipediahasthelegalrighttoblock,ban,orother-
wise restrict any individual from editing its pages, or accessing its con-
tent,withorevenwithoutreason.”[34].Butwhocares?Itisthismodern
“encyclopedia” that is the main source of “knowledge” for huge num-
bers of people across the world.
Anothersourceofinformationfor modern society isYouTube –a
videohostingplatformownedbytheGooglecorporation.YouTubehas
censored channels with non-liberal and LGBT-sceptical discourse, among
thesearePragerUandMassResistance.TuckerCarlsonfromFoxNews
mentionedinternalofce memo datedApril 2017, which describes in
— 17 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
detailhowYouTubecensorshipisorganizedandmaintained[35].One
of the reasons why the scale of this censorship is not so obvious to most
people is that the company instead deleting “politically incorrect” videos
puts them under a “restricted mode”. Such videos are blocked in cam-
pusnetworks,schools,libraries,andotherpublicplaces;theycannotbe
viewedbyminorsandunregisteredusers.Videosin“restrictedmode”
are intentionally send to the very end of the search list, so that they are
moredifculttond.Leastbutveryimportant–theycan’tbemonetized,
meaning that their authors cannot earn on them. Imagine, for example,
thatonedaytheNewYorkTimesdisappearedfromnewspapersstands–
they just stopped selling it in public. Of course, one can get it, but only
by subscription and, besides, exclusively for free. That is, the publishers
were forbidden to make money by selling newspapers. Obviously, such
actionswouldfallunderthedenitionofcensorship.
Interestingly,thatthecensorshipcriteriaforvideosonYouTube(as
stated in the memo) is, “controversial religious or chauvinistic content,”
aswellas“extremelycontroversial,provocativecontent”.Noclearde-
nitionsaregiven.ThedecisionismadesolelybyYouTubeonthegrounds
of organizations like Southern Poverty Law Center, which shares radical
liberal and LGBT-advocative ideology [36].
Harassment of dissenters
Numerous,well-fundedand,asa result, inuential groups and or-
ganizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center create a situation in
whichanyexpressionofopinion,evenifthisopinionisfullyscienti-
callyreasoned,butdoesnottintotherhetoricofLGBTmovements,
leads to high risks of losing career and authority. Such accusations are
supported by mass culture in the media and show-business.
ProfessorRobertL.Spitzer(1932–2015)wasone of the most im-
portantguresduringthecontroversialactionswithin(andfromtheout-
side of) the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and had made
perhaps the most crucial for the homosexual movement decision to re-
movehomosexualityfromtheclassication ofsexualdeviations[37].
Constantlyarguingthatsame-sexattractionitselfdidnottthecriteria
— 18 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
of psychological disorder, Spitzer was praised and gained respect from
community of gays and lesbians.
However, almost 30 years later, at the conference of the American
PsychiatricAssociationin2001, Spitzer reported about his ndings,
that“66percentofmenand44percentofwomen[withinitialsame-sex
attractions] achieved a good degree of heterosexual functioning”, later
published in “Archives of Sexual Behavior” [38, 39]. The homosexu-
alcommunitywasinfuriated–thendingswereindeepcontradiction
with one of the principle claims of the homosexual movement – “im-
mutability”ofSSA.“Nowtheheroofthegaymovementhadsuddenly
becomeaJudas”[40].TheSpitzer’spaperwasseverelycriticizedby
the familiar opponents of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), e.g.
A.Lee Beckstead,HelenaCarlson,KennethCohen,Ritch Savin-Wil-
liams,GregoryHerek,Bruce Rind, and Roger Worthington[41]. In-
terestingly,asDr.ChristopherH.Rosiknoted,someheavilycriticized
aspects of the Spitzer’s 2003 paper were the following: relying on the
personal communications of the respondents from a sample, collected
withanassistancefromcounselingorganizationsandNationalAssoci-
ationfortheResearchandTherapyofHomosexuality[42].Thisisthe
highest hypocrisy: the paper, delivering the study results which do not
correspond to the claims of the homosexual movement was blamed for
the very same shortcomings of research methodology, which were used
as an argument for LGBT movement in other papers. For instance, the
LGBT-advocative publication of Shidlo & Schroeder was similarly based
onpersonalcommunicationsandself-reports[43].Actually,thewhole
eldofpsychologyandothersocialsciencesheavilyreliesonsubjects’
self-reports. Also, an enormous proportion of pro-homosexual publica-
tions on children raised by same-sex couples is based on small samples,
collectedbyhomosexualorganizations[44].
Finally, after almost 10 years of stance, Prof. Spitzer, at the age of 80
and suffering of Parkinson’s disease, succumbed to pressure. He wrote a
letter of apologize to the editor of “Archives of Sexual Behavior” stat-
ingthathe[Spitzer]hasre-assesedtheinterpretationofthendingsand
cametoconclusionthatthecriticswerecorrect[45].Healsoapologized
— 19 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
to the whole homosexual community “for the harm”. Doctor van den
Aardweg recollects on telephone talk with Prof. Spitzer some time after
thepublicationofhis2003articleandattempttoresistthecritics[46]:
“I asked him if he would continue his research, or even if he would try
to guide a few people with homosexual problems and who sought “al-
ternative” professional help that is, help and support to change as much
as possible from homosexual to heterosexual interests ... His reply was
adamant.No,hewould never touch the whole subject ever again. He
had nearly broken down emotionally after terrible personal attacks from
militant gays and their supporters. There was an outpouring of hatred.
Amancanindeedbebrokenbysuchatraumatizingexperience.”[46,
emphasis added].
Another researcher, whose works are often quoted by homosexual
activists,isProfessorCharlesRosellifromtheOregonHealthandSci-
enceUniversity.ProfessorRosellistudiesneurobiologicalprocesseson
modelsofdomesticsheep.IntheearlystagesofhisactivityProf.Roselli
carried out experiments to study sociosexual behavior of domestic rams.
He hypothesized that some hormonal intrauterine disbalance may impair
rams’ sexual behavior. In his early publications on this topic the research
ofProf.Roselliwasfocusedonthesheepindustry–improvingofthe
breeding and its consequences for the economy – and acknowledged the
fallacyofstudyinghumansexualorientationonanimalmodels:“Research
aimed at understanding the factors that regulate the sexual behavior and
fertility of rams is of obvious importance to the sheep industry. The in-
formation gained about the hormonal, neural, genetic and environmental
determinants of sexual partner preferences should allow better selection
of rams for breeding and, as a consequence, be economically important.
However, this research also has broader implications for understanding the
development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across
mammalian species, including humans. In this respect, it is important to
realize that male-oriented sexual partner preference in the ram cannot
be strictly equated with homosexual behavior in humans, because hu-
man sexual orientation involves perceptions, fantasies and experiences,
aswellasobservablesexualbehavior.”[47,p.243,emphasisadded].
— 20 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Inhis2004reviewpaperProf.Roselliacknowledgedthathedidnot
ndconvincingevidenceforhishypothesis,andmentionedvarioushy-
pothesesexplainingsame-sexmountinginsomerams[47,pp.236–242],
he was very sensitive to LGBT in his formulations and interpretations
andwasinnowayLGBT-scepticaloroffensive.However,Prof.Rosel-
li was harassed by LGBT activists for making autopsy of the rams – in-
deedtherewasnootherwaytostudytherambrainanatomy[48].Prof.
Roselliwasinstantlydeclared“homophobe”,inanarticletitled“Hands
off homosexual sheep!” in the Sunday Times it was claimed that “not
onlydidRoselli’sresearchopenupaPandora’sBoxofscienticallyra-
tionalizedhomophobia,butRosellihimselfwasleadingthesecretcharge
against homosexuality, conducting his research so that he might even-
tually uncover the biological basis of homosexuality and eliminate it”
[49,p.48].PETAorganizationrepresentedbywell-knownathleteand
LGBTactivistMartinaNavratilova[50],joinedtheuproar.Activistssent
RoselliandvariousUniversityofOregonemployeesabout20thousand
email letters with threats and insults (“[you] should be shot!”, “please
die!”,etc.)[49,p.49].
Inhislaterpublications,Prof.Roselli,probablytaughtbybitterex-
perience in confronting mainstream ideas, switched to LGBT-advoca-
tive rhetoric and is not reluctant to study human sexual orientation on
animal models: “Sexual partner preferences can be studied in animals
by using sexual partner preference tests and recording the amount of
time spent alone or interacting with the same or opposite sex stimulus
animal. Although imperfect, tests of sexual partner preference or mate
choice in animals have been used to model human sexual orientation”
[51, p. 3, emphasis added].
DoctorRayMiltonBlanchardfromtheUniversityofTorontoisan
authorityintheeldofsexology,whoservedontheAmericanPsychi-
atricAssociationDSM-IVSubcommitteeonGenderIdentityDisorders.
Dr. Blanchard suggested a hypothesis that same-sex attraction (includ-
ing homosexual pedophilia) and transsexualism (gender identity disorder
inDSM-IV,nowgenderdysphoriaaccordingtoDSM-5)arecausedby
sex-specicimmunereactionssimilarto Rhesus incompatibility [52].
— 21 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
AlthoughDr.Blanchard’sscientic discourse istemperedandalmost
LGBT advocative, he is harassed by LGBT activists for considering
transsexualism a disorder. This was sort of blasphemy in modern LGBT
ideology and Dr. Blanchard was severely criticized [53]. Moreover, in
one of the interviews Blanchard noted that: “I would say if one could
start from scratch, ignore all the history of removing homosexuality from
theDSM,normalsexualityiswhateverisrelatedtoreproduction.”[54].
WithregardtotranssexualismDr.Blanchardstated“Therststepinpo-
liticizing transsexualism – either pro or con – is ignoring or denying its
essential nature as a type of mental disorder” [55].
LGBT activist from the Bilerico project Brynn Tannehill wrote: “If
Dr. Blanchard were some wingnut with no positional authority or cred-
ibility, it would be easy to dismiss him. But that is not the case — to the
contrary, he was on the DSM committee in charge of paraphilias and
sexual disorders” [56, emphasis added]. If you got the meaning properly
the activist is complaining that Dr. Blanchard “has authority”, otherwise
it “would be easy to dismiss him”.
Dr.MarkRegnerusfrom the University of Texashas not had the
Blanchard’s authority when in 2012 he published in a peer-reviewed
journal“Social ScienceResearch”hisndings thatsame-sexcontacts
of the parents have negative impacts on children [57]. The publication
caused the effect of a bombshell far beyond the community of scientists
whoworkintheeldoffamilysociology.Dr.Regneruswasinstantly
denounced as a “homophobe” and was accused of advocating against
thelegalizationofhomosexual“marriages”,althoughRegnerusdidn’t
put forward any arguments of that kind in his article. Mainstream media
calledRegnerus“abullinthechinashopofmainstreamsociology”[58].
SociologistGaryGates,directoroftheWilliamsInstituteonSexual
Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy at the University
of California headed a group of two hundred LGBT-friendly sociologists
whosignedalettertothechiefeditorof“SocialScienceResearch”with
arequest toinvitescholarswithspecicexpertiseinLGBTparenting
issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying com-
mentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal [59].
— 22 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Especially interesting is that Gary Gates himself, who lives in
same-sex partnership, was heavily criticized by LGBT-activists “as a
traitor to the cause” [58] for publishing a study that only 3.8 percent
ofAmericansareself-identiedhomosexuals[60].Thisopposedthe
“10%”misquoteofthefamousentomologistAlfredKinsey.AsGates
franklyrevealed“[W]henthestudywasrstpublished,prominentgay
bloggers and their followers labeled me “irresponsible,” hailed one
critique of my work as a “great takedown,” and even compared me to
theNazis.”[61].
Anyway, just a year later Gates led the movement to discredit the
LGBT-scepticalstudyofMarkRegnerus.LGBTactivistScottRosead-
dressed an open letter to the President of the University of Texas, de-
mandingsanctions againstRegnerusforhispublication asan“ethical
crime” [62]. The university responded that it had begun a check to de-
termineifRegnerushadthe“corpusdelicti”inordertolaunchaformal
investigationnecessary.Thevericationdidnotrevealanyinconsisten-
ciesinRegnerus’actionswithethicalscienticethicalstandards,and
no investigation was launched. However, the story was far from over.
Regneruswasharassedintheblogosphere,themediaandofcialpub-
lications,notonlyinthe formofcriticismof hisscienticwork(ana-
lytical methods and statistical data processing), but also in the form of
personal insults and threats to health and even life [63].
Chistian Smith, Professor of Sociology and director of the Center for
theStudyofReligionandSocietyandtheCenterforSocialResearchat
theUniversity of NotreDame,commentedonthisissue:“Those who
areattackingRegneruscannotadmittheirtruepoliticalmotives,sotheir
strategy has been to discredit him for conducting “bad science.” That is
devious. His article is not perfect – no article ever is. But it is no scien-
ticallyworsethanwhatisroutinelypublishedinsociologyjournals.
Withouta doubt, had Regnerus published differentndings withthe
same methodology, nobody would have batted a methodological eye.
Furthermore, none of his critics raised methodological concerns about
earlier research on the same topic that had greater limitations, which are
discussedindetailin the Regnerus article. Apparently, weak research
— 23 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
that comes to the “right” conclusions is more acceptable than stronger
studies that offer heretical results”[64,emphasisadded].
Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh, who published a com-
prehensivereviewofscienticresearchentitled“SexualityandGender:
Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences” in the
journal“NewAtlantis”,cameunderheavypressurefromthe“LGBT”
movement [65]. In their work, the authors very gently and carefully
showed the groundlessness of the rhetoric of the homosexual movement
regarding the cause of homosexual attraction, concluding that “The un-
derstandingofsexualorientationasaninnate,biologicallyxedprop-
erty of human beings – the idea that people are “born that way” – is not
supportedbyscienticevidence”[66,p.7].
Dr.QuentinvanMeter,acolleagueofDr.MayerandDr.McHughat
Johns Hopkins University, said that initially they [Mayer and McHugh]
planned to publish their article in any of the major peer-reviewed spe-
cializedscienticjournals,buttheeditorsrefusedthemagainandagain,
stating that the work is “politically incorrect” [67].
The article by Dr. Mayer and Dr. McHugh was immediately sub-
jectedtoerceattacksfromLGBTactivists.HumanRightsCampaign
(HRC)–anorganization,which,accordingtoitswebpage,isthelarg-
est representative of LGBT with an annual budget of about $50 million,
published their statement on the work of Meyer and McHugh, saying
that these authors were “misleading” and that the “report’s falsehoods
attacktheentireLGBTQcommunity”,etc[68].Activistsbegantoput
pressureontheeditorsof“TheNewAtlantis”,demandingtodiscredit
thearticle.Moreover,HRCactivistsappealedtotheadministrationof
Johns Hopkins University, where Mayer and McHugh worked, demand-
ingtopunishthemandpubliclydisavowtheirndings.Otherwise,they
threatenedtoaffectthe institution’sratings.The editors of “The New
Atlantis”publishedanofcialresponsetotheallegationsofHRC,called
“LiesandBullyingfromtheHumanRightsCampaign”,inwhichthey
commented on some of the most odious attacks. “This blatant effort to
intimidate Johns Hopkins University by insisting that the entire universi-
ty must answer collectively for everything written by its faculty is a dis-
—24—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
turbing strategy designed to make impossible respectful disagreement in
the academy on controversial matters.TheHRC’sclaimthatitsefforts
“posenothreattoacademicfreedom”isnonsense;intimidationtactics
of this sort undermine the atmosphere of free and open inquiry that uni-
versities are meant to foster.” [69, emphasis added].
Similar pressure from LGBT activists is related to the publication of
Dr. Lisa Littman, an assistant professor of behavioral and social scienc-
es at Brown University. Dr. Littman studied the reasons for the surge of
“rapid-onset gender dysphoria” among youth and concluded that their
sudden drive to transition might spread through peers and may be a harm-
ful coping mechanism [70]. Before declaring themselves transgenders,
teenagers watched videos about transition, communicated with trans-
gender people on social networks and read transgender resources. Also,
many were friends with one or more transgender people. A third of the
respondents reported that if there was at least one transgender teenager
in their circle of communication, more than half of the adolescents in
this group also began to identify themselves as transgender people. A
groupin which 50%ofitsmembersbecometransgender people isan
indicator 70 times higher than the expected prevalence of the phenome-
non among young people. In addition, it turned out that, before the onset
ofgenderdysphoria,62%ofrespondentshadoneormorediagnosesof
mentaldisorderorneurodevelopmentaldisorders.Andin48%ofcases,
respondents experienced a traumatic or stressful event before the on-
set of “gender dysphoria”, including bullying, sexual abuse or paren-
tal divorce. Dr. Littman suggested that social and peer contagion play
asignicantroleinthecausesofgenderidentitydisorder.Therstisa
“spread of affect or behaviors through a population” [71]. The second is
“theprocesswhereanindividualandpeermutuallyinuenceeachother
in a way that promotes emotions and behaviors that can potentially un-
dermine their own development or harm others” [72]. The results of the
study were even placed on Brown University webpage. But again, this
publication was met with accusations of “transphobia” and demands for
censorship. The university administration readily caved in and quickly
removed the research article from its own site. According to the dean,
— 25 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
the community activists of the University were “expressing concerns
that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to
support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members
of the transgender community” [73].
Professor Jeffrey S. Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School,
commented on this issue: “In all my years in academia, I have never once
seen a comparable reaction from a journal within days of publishing a
paper that the journal already had subjected to peer review, accepted and
published. One can only assume that the response was in large measure
due to the intense lobbying the journal received, and the threat – wheth-
er stated or unstated – that more social-media backlash would rain down
uponPLOSOneifactionwerenottaken.”[74].Prof.KennethZucker
of the University of Toronto is a former Head of the former (closed in
December2015)ChildYouthandFamilyGenderIdentityClinicatthe
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).
Prof.Zucker has publishedanimpressivelistofworksin the eld
ofgenderidentitydisorders,heservedonworkgroupsfortheDSM-IV
andtheDSM-IV-TR,andheadedtheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation
workgroup on “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders” for the DSM-5.
Prof.ZuckerisinnowayLGBT-sceptical,anditwasunderhischairing,
that American Psychiatric Association “updated” the diagnosis of “gen-
der identity disorder” into “gender dysphoria,” dropping, to the pleasure
of LGBT advocates, the word “disorder.” [75].
Anyway,attheformerGenderIdentityClinic,Prof.Zuckerwaswork-
ing with patients between ages 3 and 18, contrary to favored mainstream
principlesof“gender-afrmative”paediatricservices,thatisto“help”
the social “transition” of such children – express their prefered gen-
der to others through their name changes, clothes, behaviour and other
means – until they reach the legally permitted age to start intervention-
al “transition”, e.g. taking hormones and undergo surgical intervention.
Instead,Dr.Zuckerbelievedthatatthatyoungagegenderidentication
is quite malleable and gender dysphoria will likely disappear with time
[76].ThiswascontrarytoLGBTideologyandtheactivityofDr.Zucker
was since long time under pressure from LGBT activists. In spite of the
— 26 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
acknowledged existence of various treatment models of gender identi-
ty disorder [77], the administration of Centre for Addiction and Mental
HealthdecidedtolaunchanexternalreviewoftheactivityofDr.Zucker
[75]. Two reviewers wrote in their report “in the course of this review,
two predominant themes emerged as areas of concern for the reviewers:
rstly,theGICappearstooperateasaninsularentitywithinCAMHand
the community at large, and secondly, the GIC appears to be out of step
with current clinical and operational practices. The feedback to the re-
viewersreectedtheverypolarizedviewsin thiseld,indicatingthat
client and community stakeholder feedback was both positive and neg-
ativeregardingtheclinic.Someformerclientswereverysatisedwith
the service they received while others felt the assessment approach was
uncomfortable, upsetting and unhelpful. The professional community
recognized the academic contributions of the clinic while some com-
munity stakeholders voiced concerns with regard to the present model
ofcare.”[78,emphasisadded].Thereviewersalsoinvitedunidentied
stakeholders to comment on their experiences in the clinic, and one of
themclaimedthatDr.Zucker“askedhimtoremovehisshirtinfrontof
other clinicians present, laughed when he complied, and then referred
tohimasa‘hairylittlevermin”[79].Dr.Zuckerwasredimmediately
(theclinic’ssecondfull-timestafferDr.HayleyWoodwaslaidoffear-
lier),so the Gender IdentityClinicwasshutdown.Well,the factthat
“some community stakeholders voiced concerns” (despite the fact that
the practices of Gender Identity Clinic were academically acknowledged)
andanunconrmedaccusationinunethicalreferral–bythewaysubse-
quentlyretractedbytheaccuser[80]–wassufcienttoapplycensorship.
Dr.RobertOscarLopezfromCaliforniaStateUniversity,whohimself
wasraisedbyalesbianpartnershipandidentiesasbisexual,published
in2012anessay“GrowingUpWithTwoMoms:TheUntoldChildren’s
View”,tellinghisdramaticallyunpleasantexperiencesofbeingraised
by a couple of two women, which turned him subsequently into a strong
LGBT-sceptical in the issues of gay marriage and children adoption. This
resulted in an immediate backlash in blogs, with some calling it “hate
speech” [81]. Lopez continued writing in the same discourse, which
— 27 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
landed him in “hate speech” lists of LGBT advocative organizations like
HumanRightsCampaign[82]andGLAAD[83].
Any LGBT-sceptical expression of opinion is immediately labelled as
hate. As another person raised in a homosexual couple, Heather Barwick,
wrote in an open letter to gay community: “Many of us are too scared
to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever
reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear. If
we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we
areeitherignoredorlabeledahater.”[84].BrandiWalton,personwith
similar history has written in her open letter: “... I would never align my-
self to a community as intolerant and self-absorbed as the LGBT com-
munity, a community that demands tolerance with fervor and passion,
yet does not give it in return, even to its own members at times. In fact,
this community attacks anyone who does not agree with them, no matter
how lovingly any difference of opinion is expressed” [85].
Ideological distortion of science
Scientists and all related people should always try to keep science
outside cultural and political continuum. Science, as an eternal and de-
personiedstrivingtosearchforaknowledgeoftheworldaroundus,
decides what is “right” on the basis of the evidence, not on “concerns
voiced by some community stakeholders”. If there is no such evidence
or they are contradictory, then we can talk only about theories and hy-
potheses. Science should be universal, that is applying the same criteria
forinterpretationoftheexperimentsandresearch.Noidealpublication
exists,everyscienticworkhasitsownlimitationsandaws.However,
ifalimitationisidentiedinaresearchorpublication,whichprovides
LGBT-sceptical results, andthislimitationpushesawaythedenitive
conclusions,thenthesimilarlimitation,identiedinaresearchorpub-
lication, which provides LGBT-advocative results in absolutely simi-
larwaypushesawaythedenitiveconclusions.Forinstance,plentyof
methodological limitations were shown in famous LGBT-advocative
works by Alfred Kinsey [86-88] and Evelyn Hooker [89–91]. Howev-
er,these works are considered as thosecontainingdeniteandestab-
— 28 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
lishedscienticfacts,whichwereusedforcrucialsocio-politicaland
scientic-administrativedecisions.Atthesametime,anylimitationina
LGBT-scepticalpublicationseffectivelynulliesitandturnsinto“pseu-
doscience”. Otherwise this is a classical example of the Mote and the
Beam (Matthew 7:1-5).
Dr. Loren D. Marks from the Louisiana State University published a
review of 59 papers [92] in 2012 that had been published on the children of
same-sex parents and has since been used as a background for the positive
statement of same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Associa-
tion [93], showing plenty of limitations of those papers. The review of Dr.
Markswasnotonlyignoredbymainstreamscienticorganizations,but
also called “a lowbrow meta-analysis of studies” that was “inappropriate
forajournalthatpublishesoriginalquantitativeresearch”[94].
In many ways, as shown above, the researchers reasonably fear and
avoid to disclose LGBT-sceptical results and even work in such “tabooed”
directions. For instance, the former president of the American Psycho-
logicalAssociation(1979–1980),Dr.NicholasCummingsbelievesthat
social science is in decline, since it has established the dictatorship of
social activists. Dr. Cummings stated that when the American Psycho-
logical Association does conduct research they only do so “when they
know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably
favorable outcomes is permissible” [95].
Another former president of the American Psychological Associa-
tion(1985–86),Dr.RobertPerloffdenouncedtheorganizationas“too
politically” correct and beholden to special interests” [96]. Clevenger
already in 2003 in his work described the systemic bias associated with
the publication of articles on the topic of homosexuality [97]. He showed
that there is an institutionalized bias that prevents the publication of any
article that does not correspond to a certain political and ideological un-
derstanding of homosexuality.
Clevenger also concludes that the American Psychological Associa-
tion, like other professional organizations, is becoming increasingly po-
liticized, which leads to doubts about the veracity of their statements and
the impartiality of their activities, although they are still high authority
— 29 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
and used in judicial and legal matters. issues. Opinions of researchers
who contradict liberal doctrine are drowned and marginalized. But any
LGBT-advocative information is momentally spread in news media and
across Academia.
Consider,forexample,a2014studywiththesoundtitle“Whencontact
changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equal-
ity”, in which Michael LaCour from Los Angeles studied the answers of
ordinary people to a question about attitudes towards legalization of gay
marriagedependingonthesexualorientationidenticationofthe inter-
viewers [98]. LaCour claimed that when the interviewer presented to be
homosexual,thissignicantlyincreasedthelikelihoodofafrmativean-
swer. The results again spread through the mainstream media headlines.
LaCour became almost a star. However, it can be said that his own boast-
fulness ruined him when an accidentally interested reader revealed that
LaCourhadcompletelyfalsieddatainhisstudy[99].LaCour’spublica-
tion was retracted [100], but again, this news did not spread in mass media.
ThejournalistNaomiRileydescribedthecaseofMarkHatzenbue-
hler[101].In2014,MarkHatzenbuhler,aprofessoratColumbiaUni-
versity, stated that he found that homosexuals who lived in places with
a high level of “prejudice” had a 12 years lower life expectancy than
thoselivingin“liberal”areas.Naturally,the news about Hatzenbue-
hler’s research has spread through the headlines of mainstream media,
and supporters of the marginalization of non-accepting homosexuality
asanormhavereceiveda“scientic”argument.However,thesesame
media outlets were almost silent when in a publication in the journal
“Social Science and Medicine” the aforementioned researcher Dr. Mark
Regnerus,scrupulouslytriedtoreplicateHatzenbuehler’sresultsbyten
different statistical methods, but none of the methods showed statisti-
callysignicantresults[102].
Indeed, nowadays a real “crisis of replicability” in the social sciences
hasoccurred.In2015,alargeresearchReproducibilityProject,headed
byDr.BrianA.NosekfromtheUniversityofVirginia,wastaskedwith
replicating the results of 100 published psychological studies – only the
results of one third of them were reproducible [103].
— 30 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Theeditor-in-chiefofthescienticjournalTheLancet,RichardHor-
ton, expressed his concern, “The case against science is straightforward:
muchofthescienticliterature,perhapshalf,maysimplybeuntrue.Af-
ictedbystudieswithsmallsamplesizes,tinyeffects,invalidexplorato-
ryanalyses,andagrantconictsofinterest,togetherwithanobsession
for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken
a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get re-
sults”.TheAcademyofMedicalSciences,MedicalResearchCouncil,and
BiotechnologyandBiologicalSciencesResearchCouncilhavenowput
their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable
research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour
is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too
oftensculptdatatottheirpreferredtheoryoftheworld.Ortheyretro-
thypothesestottheirdata.Journaleditorsdeservetheirfairshareof
criticismtoo.Weaidandabettheworstbehaviours.Ouracquiescenceto
the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a se-
lectfewjournals.Ourloveof“signicance”pollutestheliteraturewith
manyastatisticalfairy-tale.Werejectimportantconrmations”[104].
BacktothecaseofRegnerusandHatzenbuehler:Thedifferencebe-
tweenthemediaattitudetothepublicationsofRegnerusandHatzenbue-
hler is obvious: just some conclusions are more acceptable than others.
ProfessorWalterR.SchummoftheKansasStateUniversitynoticedin
hisanalysisofthecitationsofthestudiesofsame-sexparenting:“Re-
sults here suggest that, even when outcomes are from the same samples
by the same authors at the same time in even the same journals, the more
supportiveresultsaremorelikelytobecomewell-knownintheeld.
Remarkably,thisapparentbias is not of a simplegarden-varietytype
in which perhaps progressive scholars would cite articles in their favor
and conservative scholars would cite articles on their side. It appears
that almost no one cites articles unfavorable to a progressive stance...
To the extent that scholars realize that articles supportive of gay rights
will be cited much more frequently than nonsupportive articles, there
will be pressure to publish supportive results rather than nonsupportive
results” [105, p. 378].
— 31 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
In 2006, Dr. Brian P. Meier from the Gettysburg College comment-
edonthemediaeffectofthepublicationbyAdams,WrightandLohr,
who hypothesized that “homophobia” indicates “latent homosexuality”
[106]: “However, we do note that no one has published a direct or con-
ceptual replication of this effect with any type of task or instrument de-
signed to measure unconscious forms of sexual attraction. This absence
isparticularlypuzzlinggiventheattentiongeneratedbythearticle.We
nditinterestingthatmanydiversesourcesofinformation(e.g.,journal
articles,books,andcountlesswebsites)appeartoacceptthisndingas
support for a psychodynamic explanation of homophobia, even in the
absence of follow-up empirical research” [107, p. 378, emphasis added].
In1996Dr.AlanD.SokalprofessorofphysicsfromtheNewYork
University submitted an article entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries:
TowardsaTransformativeHermeneuticsofQuantumGravity”toanac-
ademic journal “Social Text”. The editors of “Social Text” decided to
publish this article [108]. This was an experiment – the article was a to-
tal hoax – in this article, Sokal, discussing some of the current problems
of mathematics and physics, transfers, in an absolutely ironic way, their
implications in the sphere of culture, philosophy and politics (e.g. it pro-
posed that quantum gravity is a social construct) in order to attract the
attention of modern academic commentators who question the objectiv-
ity of science, this was a skillfully written parody of modern philosoph-
ical interdisciplinary research and was devoid of any physical meaning
[109]. As Sokal explained: “For some years I’ve been troubled by an
apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts
oftheAmericanacademichumanities.ButI’mamerephysicist:ifInd
myself unable to make head or tail of jouissance and différance, perhaps
thatjustreectsmyowninadequacy.So,totesttheprevailingintellectu-
al standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled)
experiment:WouldaleadingNorthAmericanjournalofculturalstudies–
whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson
andAndrewRoss–publishanarticleliberallysaltedwithnonsenseif
(a)itsoundedgoodand(b)itatteredtheeditors’ideologicalprecon-
ceptions?Theanswer,unfortunately,isyes.”[109].
— 32 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Anotherconrmationofthedeplorablestateofmodernsciencewas
presented by three American scientists – Dr. James A. Lindsay, Dr. Peter
Boghossian and Dr. Helen Pluckrose, who for a whole year deliberately
wrotecompletelymeaninglessandevenfranklyabsurd“scientic”ar-
ticlesinvariouseldsofsocialsciencestoprove:ideologyinthiseld
longprevailedovercommonsense.“Weundertookthisprojecttostudy,
understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupt-
ing academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around
topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship
that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot
theseconversations.Wehopethiswillgivepeople–especiallythose
who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social
justice – a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out
oftheacademicandactivistleftandsay,“No,Iwillnotgoalongwith
that.Youdonotspeakforme”[110].
SinceAugust2017,scientistsunderctitiousnameshavesent20
fabricatedarticlestorespectedandpeer-reviewedscienticjournals,
designedasordinaryscienticresearch.Subjectsofworkvaried,but
all of them were devoted to various manifestations of the struggle with
“social injustice”: studies of feminism, culture of masculinity, issues of
racial theory, sexual orientation, body positive and so on. In each ar-
ticle, some radical skeptical theory was put forward, condemning this
or that “social construct” (for example, gender roles). From a scien-
ticpointofview,thearticleswerefranklyabsurdanddidnotwith-
stand any criticism. For instance, they wrote a paper that men need to
be trained like dogs to prevent a culture of violence, or a study with
a statement that when a man secretly masturbates, thinking about a
woman (without her consent, and she will never know about it), he
does commit sexual violence against her, or a study with a recommen-
dation for men to anally penetrate themselves to reduce the hostility
against transsexualists and so on and on. But what is frightening and
shocking that almost half of the papers were accepted and published
and most of remaining were in peer-review process by the time this
story went on public.
— 33 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
Ad hominem circumstantiae
American philosopher and writer, who lived in a same-sex partner-
shipandidentiesherselfas“transgender”,CamillePaglia,Professorof
Humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia Camille Paglia
notedalreadyin1994:“Weshouldbeawareofthepotentiallypernicious
intermingling of gay activism with science, which produces more pro-
pagandathantruth.Gayscientistsmustbescientistsrst,gayssecond”
[111, p. 91]. This note is to some extent remarkable. It seems to me that
thiswhatstronglyinuencesresearchresultsisnotthescienticobser-
vations and, but the transformation of the ideological and social attitudes
of scientists. In my opinion, unfortunately, many of those who study ho-
mosexualityareclearlyaimedatcertainresults.Researcherswhodis-
tribute LGBT-sceptical results are often criticized on the principle of
“ad hominem circumstantiae”. For example, the fact that a scientist is
a believer or supports political parties with conservative views, that the
article is published in a “non- mainstream” or non-peer-reviewed jour-
nal, etc. At the same time, any attempts to expand this argument by 180
degreesareinstantlymufedbyaccusationsofprofanation,theabsence
of “political correctness”, “homophobia” and even the spread of hatred.
Consider the following. Dr. Alfred Kinsey – “the father of sexual rev-
olutionintheUnitedStates”–wasbisexual[112,p.48]andhadsexwith
other males, including his student and coauthor Clyde Martin [113, p. 59].
Dr. Evelyn Hooker started her famous research being urged by her friend
SamFromandothergays[114,pp.251–253]andherveryrstreporton
thisissuewaspublishedingaymagazine«MattachineReview»[115].
Dr. John Spiegel, the President-elect of the American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation in 1973 and persistent LGBT advocate was a closeted gay (and
member of the so called “GayPA”) [116], along with other colleagues,
whocontributedtothedeclassicationofhomosexualityassexualdevia-
tion:RonaldGold[117],HowardBrown[118],CharlesSilverstein[119],
JohnGonsiorek[120],andRichardGreen[121].Dr.GeorgeWeinberg,
who put in use the erroneous term “homophobia” having gay friends,
wasadevotedLGBTadvocate[122].Dr.DonaldWest,whoformulated
that “homophobes” may be “latent homosexuals”, is gay himself [123].
—34—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
Dr. Gregory Herek, who studied “homophobia” and conceptualized the
denitionof“hatecrimes”isgayhimself[124].Theauthorsofthemain
studies,whichareinterpretedasaconrmationofthebiologicalorigin
ofhomosexualityaregays:Dr.SimonLeVay(“thehypothalamusstudy”)
[125],Dr.RichardPillard(“thegaytwinsstudy”)[126],andDr.Dean
Hamer (“the gay gene study”) [127]. Dr. Bruce Bagemihl who published
a book arguing that homosexuality is widespread and normal across the
animals and “implications for humans are enormous”, is gay himself
[128]. In the report of the American Psychological Association on SOCE,
the conclusion that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to
be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of
SOCEpractitionersandadvocates”[129,p.V]wasdrawnoutbyaTask
Force of seven members, of whom Judith M. Glassgold, Jack Drescher,
BeverlyGreene,LeeBeckstead,ClintonW.Andersonweregaysthem-
selves,andRobin Lin Miller is bisexual [130].Theauthorofanother
report of the American Psychological Association on children raised by
gaycouples,whichconcludedthat“Notasinglestudyhasfoundchildren
oflesbianorgayparentstobedisadvantagedinanysignicantrespect
relative to children of heterosexual parents” [131, p. 15] Professor Char-
lotteJ.PattersonfromtheUniversityofVirginia,isthepast-Presidentof
theSocietyforPsychologicalResearchonLesbian,GayandBisexual
Issues–Division44oftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationandin-
vitedfacultyguestattheLGBTHealthGraduateCerticateProgramat
Columbian College of Arts and Sciences [132]. Dr. Clinton Anderson,
whom Dr. Patterson thanked for “invaluable assistance” with the man-
uscript [131, p. 22] is gay (see above). Among the other seven persons,
whomDr.Pattersonthankedfor“helpfulcomments”,Dr.NatalieS.El-
dridge is lesbian [133, p. 13], Dr. Lawrence A. (Larry) Kurdek was gay
[134],Dr.AprilMartinislesbian[135]and“apioneerinadvocatingfor
nontraditional sexualities and alternative family constellations” [136].
And in earlier version of the report [137] Dr. Patterson also thanked
Dr. Bianca Cody Murphy, who is lesbian [138].
I will stop this analysis of LGBT-advocative researchers here because
this is not the purpose of this paper. I personally consider that Ad ho-
— 35 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
minem circumstantiae is a wrong and harmful principle for the science,
this should be avoided at any cost.
Moreover, there are gay scientists who deliver LGBT-sceptical re-
sults: consider for instance Dr. Emily Drabant Conley, a lesbian neu-
roscientist from genomics company 23andme [139] who presented the
results of a large genome-wide association study of sexual orientation
at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Human Genetics in
2012ndingnolinkageofSSAandgenes[140].Although,tomybest
knowledge and for unknown reasons, these results were not published
in a peer-reviewed journal.
But this avoidance of Ad hominem circumstantiae applies universally
in science. In this case if one says A, they should say B. It is hypocriti-
cal to discredit certain publications on the grounds of political views or
spiritual beliefs of the researchers, because the publication is in a jour-
nal issued by Catholic Medical Association or because a funding from
theWeatherspoonInstituteisinthebackground,andatthesameignore
the things I provided above on LGBT-advocative researchers. Other-
wise, ideally, no Ad hominem issues should be used when interpreting
anyndings.
Conclusions
Of course, to a certain extent the title of this paper is somewhat
provocative. Science itself cannot be divided into politically “correct”
and “incorrect”, fashionable and conservative, democratic and repub-
lican. Science per se cannot be politically gay or politically straight.
Scienticprocesses–psychophysiologicalphenomenaandreactions,
viruses and bacteria – are absolutely indifferent to the political views
of the scientist who studies them, bacteria know nothing about “cultur-
al wars”. These are facts, which exist as a given thing, they can only
be ignored or those, who mention them, can be persecuted, but it is im-
possibletoknockthemoutofreality.Scienceisbasedonthescientic
method, everyone who transforms science into something else, whatev-
er goals they are guided by – humanism, ideology and politics, social
justice and social engineering, etc. – are the real preachers of “pseudo-
— 36 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
science.” However, the Academia, like any other community of individ-
uals having their own personal convictions and aspirations, is subject
to bias. And this bias is indeed strongly expressed. One could mention
many factors as the reason for this bias – dramatic social and historical
legacywhichledtotheemergenceof“scientictaboos”,intensepoliti-
cal struggle that gave rise to hypocrisy, “commercialization” of science,
leadingtothepursuitofsensations,etc.Naturally,theproblemofbiasin
science is not limited only to a bias on judging on LGBT advocacy and
scepsis, but involves many other issues that are often crucial and im-
portantforthedevelopmentofMankind.Whetheritispossibletocom-
pletely avoid bias in science remains a controversial issue. However, in
my opinion, it is possible to create conditions for an optimal equidistant
scienticprocess.Oneoftheseconditionsistheabsoluteindependence
ofthescienticcommunity–nancial,politicaland,lastbutnotleast,
freedom from the media agenda.
References
1. ThePsychology of infertility,USATodayviaMSNNetwork,2018.
URL:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-psychology-of-infertil-
ity/vp-BBK3ENT (Accessed September 9, 2018)
2. Zegers-HochschildF.,AdamsonG.D.,deMouzonJ.,IshiharaO.,Man-
sourR.T.,NygrenK.G.,SullivanE.A.InternationalCommitteeforMon-
itoringAssisted ReproductiveTechnology(ICMART)and the World
HealthOrganization(WHO)revisedglossaryofARTterminology,2009.
FertilityandSterility,no5(2009):1520-1524.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fertnstert.2009.09.009.
3. FloryN.The‘GayInfertility’Myth.TheStream.April26,2017.URL:
https://stream.org/the-gayinfertility-myth/ (Accessed September 9, 2018)
4. BauerH.H.ScienticLiteracyandMythoftheScienticMethod.Uni-
versity of Illinois Press, 1992. 180 p.
5. HubbardR.,WaldE.ExplodingtheGeneMyth:HowGeneticInforma-
tion Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers,
Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1993. 225 p.
— 37 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
6. WardleL.D.ThePotentialImpactofHomosexualParentingonChildren.
UniversityofIllinoisLawReview,no.3.1997:833-920.
7. Goldberg S. Fads and fallacies in the social sciences. Oxford: Lavis Mar-
keting, 2002.
8. SokalA.D.andBrichmontJ.FashionableNonsense:postmodernintel-
lectuals’abuseofscience.NewYork:Picador,1998.320p.
9. PowersK.Thesilencing:howtheleftiskillingfreespeech.Washington
D.C.:RegneryPublishing,2015.304p.
10.RuseA.FakeScience:ExposingtheLeft’sSkewedStatistics,FuzzyFacts,
andDodgyData.Washington,DC:RegneryPublishing,2017.256p.
11. Heterodox Academy. n.d. ”The Problem.” Accessed December 18, 2018.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/theproblem/.
12.WeinsteinB.“TheCampusMobCame for Me—andYou,Professor,
CouldBeNext.”WSJ,May30,2017.https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-
campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482.
13.WeissB.“MeettheRenegadesoftheIntellectualDarkWeb.”TheNew
YorkTimes,May8,2018.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opin-
ion/intellectual-dark-web.html.
14.BauerH.H.DogmatisminScienceandMedicine:HowDominantThe-
oriesMonopolizeResearch and Stie the Search forTruth.Jefferson,
N.C.:McFarland&Co.,Inc,2012.301p.
15.WrightR.H.,CummingsN.A.Destructivetrendsinmental health: The
well-intentionedpathtoharm.NewYork:Taylor&Francis,2005.384p.
16.AbramsS. J. “ThereAreConservativeProfessors.JustNotinThese
States.”The NewYorkTimes,July 1, 2016. https://www.nytimes.
com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/there-are-conservativeprofessors-just-
not-in-these-states.html.
17.HeterodoxAcademy,n.d.“Peer-ReviewedResearch.”Accessed
December 18, 2018. https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/li-
brary/#1517426935037-4e655b30-3cbd.
18.SarichV.,MieleF.Race:Therealityofhumandifferences.2004.West-
view Press: Boulder, Colorado, USA. 320 p.
19.EvansA.T.,DeFranco E. Manual of obstetrics. Philadelphia:Wolters
KluwerHealth,2014.
— 38 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
20.HunterP.“Ispoliticalcorrectnessdamagingscience?Peerpressureand
mainstream thinking may discourage novelty and innovation,” EMBO
reports2005;6,no.5:405-407.
21. Collins English Dictionary. n.d. “Politically Correct in British”. Accessed
December 18, 2018. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/en-
glish/politically-correct.
22. Dictionary/Thesaurus. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/political-
ly-correct.
23.BelyakovA.V.,MatveychevO.A.Bol’shayaaktual’nayapoliticheskaya
entsiklopedia[Bigactualpoliticalencyclopedia].Мoskva:Eksmo,2009.
24.Kaufman S.B.”ThePersonalityofPoliticalCorrectness.”Scientic
American,November20,2016.https://blogs.scienticamerican.com/
beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-politicalcorrectness/.
25. Coppedge D.F. ”Big Science Driven by Political Correctness.” Creation
Evolution, December 3, 2017. https://crev.info/2017/12/big-science-driv-
en-political-correctness/.
26.NicholsT.“HowAmericaLostFaithinExpertiseAndWhyThat’saGi-
antProblem.”ForeignAffairs2017;96,no.2:60(14).
27.SchillingC.“Here’sYourCorrection,WikipediaFounder.”WND,De-
cember 17, 2012. https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correc-
tion-wikipedia-founder/.
28.JacksonR.“OpenSeasononDomainersandDomaining—OvertlyBi-
ased L.A. Times Article Leads Latest Assault on Objectivity and Accu-
racy.”DNJournal,August4,2009.http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/
lowdown/2009/dailyposts/20090804.htm.
29.SwindleD.“HowtheLeftConqueredWikipedia,Part1.”FrontpageMag,
August 22, 2011. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-
conquered-wikipedia-part-1david-swindle.
30.FarahJ.“Wikipedialies,slandercontinues.”WND,December14,2008.
https://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640.
31. Sanger L. Comment to his own post “3 Major Mistakes People Make
About Media Bias.” The Federalist, December 1, 2016. http://thefederal-
ist.com/2016/12/01/3-major-mistakes-people-make-mediabias/#disqus_
thread. Also cited by Arrington, Barry. 2016.”Larry Sanger, Co-founder
— 39 —
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
ofWikipedia,AgreesThatitDoesnotFollowitsOwnNeutralityPoli-
cy.” 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/.
32.MartinB.“PersistentBiasonWikipediaMethodsandResponses.”So-
cialScienceComputerReview2017;36,no.3:379-388.https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439317715434.
33.BøckmanP.WikipediaTalk:Homosexualbehaviorinanimals#Source
for 1500 species not found. 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.
34.Wikipedia.n.d.”Wikipedia:Freespeech.”AccessedDecember19,2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech.
35.CarlsonT.“Youtube’sassaultonfreethought.”FoxNewsChannel,April
26,2018.AlsouploadedonFoxNewsChannelonYouTube,“Tucker:Why
YouTube’sallegedcensorshipmatters.”https://youtu.be/3_qWNv4o4vc.
36.InuenceWatch.n.d.”SouthernPovertyLawCenter(SPLC).”Accessed
December 19, 2018. https://www.inuencewatch.org/non-prot/south-
ern-poverty-law-center-splc/
37.BayerR.HomosexualityandAmericanPsychiatry:ThePoliticsofDi-
agnosis.NewYork:BasicBooks,1981.256p.
38.SpitzerR.L.“Subjectswhoclaimtohavebenetedfromsexualreorien-
tationtherapy.”AmericanPsychiatricAssociationAnnualMeetingNew
Orleans,May5-10,2001.No.67B.133-134.
39.SpitzerR.L.“CanSomeGayMenand LesbiansChangeTheirSexual
Orientation?200ParticipantsReportingaChangefromHomosexualto
HeterosexualOrientation.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior2003;32,no.
5:402-17.
40.vandenAarweg,Gerard. “FrailandAged,aGiantApologizes.”Mer-
catorNet,May31,2012.https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/
frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes.
41.RosikC.H.“Spitzer’s“Retraction”:WhatDoesItReallyMean?”NARTH
Bulletin, May 31, 2012.
—40—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
42.WildeW.“Repairinghomophobics.”ArchivesofSexualBehavior;2004;
33,no.4:325.
43.ShidloA.,SchroederM.“Changingsexualorientation:Aconsumers’report.”
ProfessionalPsychology:ResearchandPractice,2002;33,no.3:249–259.
44.MarksL.“Same-sexparentingandchildren’soutcomes:Acloserex-
amination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian
andgayparenting.”SocialScienceResearch,2012;41,no.4:735-751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006.
45.SpitzerR.L.“Spitzerreassesseshis2003studyofreparativetherapy
of homosexuality [Letter to the editor].” Archives of Sexual Behavior,
2012;41,no.4:757.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y.
46.SpitzerR.L.“Reply:Studyresultsshouldnotbedismissedandjustify
furtherresearchontheefcacyofsexualreorientationtherapy.”Archives
ofSexualBehavior,2003;32,no.5:469–472.
47.RoselliC.E.,LarkinK.,SchrunkJ.M.,StormshakF.“Sexualpartner
preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams.” Physi-
ology&Behavior,2004; 83, no. 2:233-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
physbeh.2004.08.017.
48.CloudJ.“Yep,They’reGay.”TimeMagazine,26January,2007.
49.ErslyW.“TheDesideratumofDiscourse:LessonsLearnedfromaGay
Sheep”.InMercerStreet2013–2014:acollectionofessaysfromthe
expositorywritingprogrameditedbyPatC.Hoy,47-56. NewYork:
ExpositoryWritingProgram,NewYorkUniversityCollegeofArtsand
Sciences, 2013. http://cas.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/casEWP/docu-
ments/erslydesideratum04.pdf.
50.PETAUK.2006.“MartinaNavratilovaSlams‘GaySheep’Experiment.”
Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www.peta.org.uk/media/newsre-
leases/martina-navratilova-slams-gay-sheep-experiment/.
51.RoselliC.E.“Neurobiologyofgenderidentityandsexualorientation.”
JournalofNeuroendocrinology,2018;30:e12562.https://doi.org/10.1111/
jne.12562.
52.BlanchardR.,BogaertA.F.“Homosexualityinmenandnumberofolder
brothers”.TheAmericanJournalofPsychiatry,1996;153,no.1:27-31.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.1.27.PMID8540587.
—41—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
53.WyndzenM.H. 2003. “AutogynephiliaandRayBlanchard’smis-di-
rected sex-drive model of transsexuality. All mixed up: A transgendered
psychology professor’s perspective on life, the psychology of gender,
& “gender identity disorder”. GenderPsychology.org. Accessed De-
cember 19, 2018. http://www.GenderPsychology.org/autogynpehilia/
ray_blanchard/.
54.CameronL.“HowthePsychiatristWhoCo-WrotetheManualonSex
TalksAboutSex?” Motherboard,April112013. https://motherboard.
vice.com/en_us/article/ypp93m/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-theman-
ual-on-sex-talks-about-sex.
55.BlanchardR.July16,2017,7:23a.m.,postonTwitter.com.
56.TannehillB.“NewYorkerShamefullyCitesAnti-LGBT’Researcher’.”
BilericoProject,July29,2014.bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/new_
yorker_shamefully_cites_antilgbt_researcher.php.
57.RegnerusM.“Howdifferentaretheadultchildrenofparentswhohave
same-sexrelationships?FindingsfromtheNewFamilyStructures
Study.”SocialScienceResearch,2012;41,no.4:752-770.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009.
58. FergusonA. “Revengeofthesociologists.”TheWeeklyStandard,
July 30, 2012. https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/re-
venge-of-the-sociologists.
59.GatesG.J.“LettertotheeditorsandadvisoryeditorsofSocialScienceRe-
search.”SocialScienceResearch,2012;41,no.6:1350-1351.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.008.
60. Gates G.J. “How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen-
der?”TheWilliamsInstitute,UCLASchoolofLaw,April2011.https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-stud-
ies/howmany-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/.
61. Gates G.J. “Op-ed: The Day Larry Kramer Dissed Me (and My Math).”
Advocate, September 2, 2011. https://www.advocate.com/politics/com-
mentary/2011/09/02/oped-day-larry-kramerdissed-me-and-my-math.
62.RoseScott.“OpenLettertoUniversityofTexasRegardingProfessor
MarkRegnerus’AllegedUnethicalAnti-Gay Study.”The NewCivil
RightsMovement(blog),June24,2012.Currentlyavailableathttps://
—42—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
www.there.org/scott-rose-open-letter-to-university-of-texas-regarding-
professor-mark-regnerus-alleged-unethical-anti-gay-study/.
63.WoodP.“TheCampaigntoDiscreditRegnerusandtheAssaultonPeer
Review”.AcademicQuestions,2013;26,no.2:171-181.https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12129-013-9364-5.
64.SmithC.“AnAcademicAuto-da-Fé.Asociologistwhosedatandfault
with same-sex relationships is savaged by the progressive orthodoxy.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 23, 2012. https://www.chron-
icle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107.
65.HodgesM. Fr.”‘NewAtlantis’editors push back after gay advocacy
groupbasheshomosexualitystudy.”LifeSiteNews,October12,2016.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/editors-push-back-after-gay-adov-
cacy-groupattacks-journal-over-homosexuali.
66.MayerL.S.,McHughR.P.“Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the
Biological,Psychological,andSocialSciences.”TheNewAtlantis50,
Fall 2016. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-
fall-2016.
67.vanMeter Q. “Thetransgendermovement:itsoriginsandhowsocial
theoryistrumpingscience.”TalkattheTeens4TruthConference,Tex-
as,Nov.18,2017.AvailableonYouTubehttps://youtu.be/6mtQ1geeD_c
(27:15).
68. Hanneman T. “Johns Hopkins Community Calls for Disavowal of Mis-
leadingAnti-LGBTQ“Report”.”HumanRightsCampaign,October6,
2016. https://www.hrc.org/blog/johns-hopkins-community-calls-for-dis-
avowal-of-misleadinganti-lgbtq-report.
69.EditorsofTheNewAtlantis.“LiesandBullyingfromtheHumanRights
Campaign.”TheNewAtlantis,October2016.https://www.thenewatlan-
tis.com/docLib/20161010_TNAresponsetoHRC.pdf.
70.LittmanL.“Rapid-onsetgenderdysphoriainadolescentsandyoung
adults:Astudyofparentalreports.”PLoSONE,2018;13,no.8:e0202330.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202330.
71.MarsdenP.“Memeticsandsocialcontagion:Twosidesofthesamecoin?”
Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission,
1998;12:68-79.http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html.
—43—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
72. Dishion T.J. and Tipsord J.M. “Peer Contagion in Child and Adolescent
SocialandEmotionalDevelopment.”AnnualReviewofPsychology,2011;
68:189-214.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412.
73.KearnsM.“WhyDidBrownUniversityBowtoTransActivists?”National
Review,September6,2018.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/
brown-university-caves-to-transactivists-protesting-research/.
74.FlierJ. S.“AsaFormerDeanofHarvardMedicalSchool,IQuestion
Brown’sFailuretoDefendLisaLittman.”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/.
75. Thompson P.J. “As trans issues become mainstream,question ofhow to
addressvariantgender expression comes to forefront.”NationalPost,
February 21, 2015. https://nationalpost.com/life/as-trans-issues-become-
mainstream-question-of-how-toaddress-variant-gender-expression-comes-
to-forefront.
76.ZuckerK.J.,BradleyS.J.1995.GenderIdentityDisorderandPsychosex-
ualProblemsinChildrenandAdolescents.NewYork:GuilfordPress.
77. Ehrensaft D. “Gender nonconforming youth: current perspectives.” Ad-
olescenthealth, medicine and therapeutics,2017;8:57-67.https://doi.
org/10.2147/AHMT.S110859.
78.CAMH.“SummaryoftheExternalReviewoftheCAMHGenderIdentity
ClinicoftheChild,Youth&FamilyServices.”January2016.Available
at https://2017.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/newsroom/news_releas-
es_media_advisories_and_backgrounders/current_year/Documents/Ex-
ecutiveSummaryGIC_ExternalReview.pdf.
79. Singal J. “How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got aLeading Sex
ResearcherFired.”TheCut, February 7, 2016. https://www.thecut.
com/2016/02/ght-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-red.html.
80.SingalJ.“AFalseAccusationHelpedBringDownKennethZucker,aCon-
troversialSexResearcher.”TheCut,January16,2016.https://www.the-
cut.com/2016/01/false-charge-helped-bring-down-kenneth-zucker.html.
81.FlahertyC.“WhoseBias?”InsideHigherEd,November24,2015.https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/24/cal-state-northridge-profes-
sor-sayshes-being-targeted-his-conservative-social-views.
—44—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
82.HRCstaff.“OnNotice:ItisTimeScottLivelyandRobertOscarLopez
EndtheExportofHate.”HumanRightsCampaign,September16,2014.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/on-notice-it-is-time-scott-lively-and-robert-os-
car-lopez-endthe-export-of.
83.GLAAD.n.d.“RobertOscarLopez.”AccessedDecember19, 2019.
https://www.glaad.org/cap/robert-oscar-l%C3%B3pez-aka-bobby-lopez.
84.BarwickH.“DearGayCommunity:YourKidsAreHurting.”TheFed-
eralist, March 17, 2015. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-
community-your-kids-are-hurting/.
85.WaltonB.“TheKidsAreNotAlright:ALesbian’sDaughterSpeaksOut.”
The Federalist, April 21, 2015. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the-
kids-are-not-alright-a-lesbians-daughter-speaksout/.
86. Terman L.M. “Kinsey ‘s ‘Sexual Behavior in the HumanMale’:Some
CommentsandCriticisms.”PsychologicalBulletin,1948;45:443-459.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060435.
87.MaslowA.H.,SakodaJ.M.“VolunteererrorintheKinseystudy.”Journal
ofAbnormalPsychology,1952;47,no.2:259-262.https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0054411.
88.CochranW.G.,MostellerF.,TukeyJ.W.“Statisticalproblemsofthe
KinseyReportonSexualBehaviorintheHumanMale.”American
StatisticalAssociation,NationalResearchCouncil(U.S.).Committee
forResearchinProblemsof Sex–Psychology.JournaloftheAmer-
icanStatisticalAssociation, 1954; 48, no. 264: 673-716. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2281066.
89.CameronP.,andCameronK.“Re-ExaminingEvelynHooker:Settingthe
RecordStraightwithCommentsonSchumm’s(2012)Reanalysis.”Mar-
riage&FamilyReview,2012;48,no.6:491-523.https://doi.org/10.1080
/01494929.2012.700867.
90.SchummW.R.“Re-examiningaLandmarkResearchStudy:ATeaching
Editorial.”Marriage&FamilyReview,2012;48,no.5:465-489.https://
doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2012.677388.
91. Landess T. n.d. “The Evelyn Hooker study and the normalization of ho-
mosexuality.” n.d. Available at http://www.angelre.com/vt/dbaet/eve-
lynhookerstudy.htm.
—45—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
92. Marks L. “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer ex-
amination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian
andgayparenting.”SocialScienceResearch,2012;41,no.4:735-751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006.
93. APA (American Psychological Association). 2005. Lesbian & Gay Par-
enting.AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Washington,DC.
94.BartlettT.“ControversialGay-ParentingStudyIsSeverelyFlawed,Jour-
nal’s Audit Finds.”Chronicle of Higher Education, July 26, 2012.
95.AmesNicolosiL.n.d.“Psychology Losing Scientic Credibility,Say
APAInsiders.”Descriptionof the NARTHConference atMarinaDel
ReyMarriottHotelonNovember12,2005.
96.MurrayB. “Sameofce,differentaspirations.”AmericanPsychologi-
calAssociationMonitorStaff,December2001,Vol.32.no.11.https://
www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/aspirations.aspx.
97.ClevengerT.GayOrthodoxyandAcademicHeresy.RegentUniversity
LawReviewVol.14;2001-2002:241-247.
98.LaCourM.J.andGreenD.P.“Whencontactchangesminds:Anexper-
imentontransmissionofsupportforgayequality.”Science,2014;346,
no.6215:1366-1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256151.
99.BroockmanD.,KallaJ.,andAronowP.“IrregularitiesinLaCour(2014).”
Stanford University, May 19, 2015. https://stanford.edu/~dbroock/broock-
man_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf.
100.McNuttM.“Editorialretraction.”Science348,no.6239:1100.https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6638.
101.RileyN.S.“Gays,biasandphonyscience.”NewYorkPost,December
1, 2016. https://nypost.com/2016/12/01/gays-bias-and-phony-science/.
102.Regnerus M. “Is structural stigma’seffectonthemortalityofsexu-
alminoritiesrobust?Afailuretoreplicate the results of a published
study.”SocialScience&Medicine,2017;188:157-165.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.018.
103.AartsA.A.,AndersonJ.E.,AndersonC.J.,AttridgeP.R.,AttwoodA.,
Axt J., Babel M., Bahník Š., Baranski E., Barnett-Cowan M.,et al. “Es-
timatingthereproducibilityofpsychologicalscience.”Science,2015;
349,no.6251:aac4716.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
—46—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
104.HortonR.“Ofine:Whatismedicine’s5sigma?”TheLancet,2015;
385,no. 9976:1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1.
105.SchummW.R.“Evidenceofpro-homosexualbiasinsocialsci-
ence: citation rates and research on lesbian parenting.” Psycholog-
icalReports,2010;106,no.2:374–380.https://doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.106.2.374-380.
106.AdamsH.E.,WrightJrL.W.,LohrB.A.“IsHomophobiaAssociated
WithHomosexualArousal?”JournalofAbnormalPsychology,1996;
105,no.3:440-445.https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440.
107.MeierB.P.,RobinsonM.D.,GaitherG.A.,HeinertN.J.“Asecretat-
tractionordefensiveloathing?Homophobia,defense,andimplicitcog-
nition.”JournalofResearchinPersonality,2006;40:377-394.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.007.
108. Sokal A.D. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
HermeneuticsofQuantumGravity”.SocialText,1996;46,no.47:217-
252. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856.
109.SokalA.D.“APhysicistExperimentsWithCulturalStudies.”Lingua
Franca, June 5, 1996. https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_fran-
ca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html.
110. Lindsay J. A., Boghossian P., and Pluckrose H. “Academic Grievance
Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship.” Areo Magazine, October 2,
2018. https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-stud-
ies-and-the-corruptionof-scholarship/.
111.PagliaC.VampsandTramps:NewEssays.London:Viking,1995.
112.BaumgardnerJ.LookBothWays:BisexualPolitics.Farrar:Strausand
Giroux, 2008.
113.LeyD.J.InsatiableWives:WomenWhoStrayandtheMenWhoLove
Them.NewYork:Rowman&Littleeld,2009.
114.JacksonK.T.,MarkoeA.,andMarkoeK.TheScribnerEncyclopedia
ofAmericanLives.NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1998.
115.HookerE.“Invertsarenotadistinctpersonalitytype.”MattachineRe-
view,1955;1:20–22.
116. This American Life in 81 words. “The story of how the American Psy-
chiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer
—47—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
a mental illness.” This American Life radio podcast, aired January 18,
2002. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/204/81-words.
117.HummA.“RonGold,PioneerinChallengingSicknessLabel,Dies.”Gay
CityNews,May16,2017.https://www.gaycitynews.nyc/stories/2017/10/
w27290-ron-gold-pioneer-challengingsickness-label-dies-2017-05-16.html.
118. Brown H. Familiar Faces, Hidden Lives: The Story of Homosexual
MeninAmericaToday.NewYork:Harcourt,1976.
119.SilversteinC.,WhiteE.Thejoyofgaysexanintimateguideforgaymen
tothepleasuresofagaylifestyle.NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1977.
120.MintonH.L.DepartingfromDevianceAHistoryofHomosexualRights
and Emancipatory Science in America. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press, 2010.
121.Green R. Gay Rights,TransRights:Apsychiatrist/lawyer’s50-year
battle. Columbia, South Carolina: Agenda Book, 2018.
122.AyyarR.“GeorgeWeinberg:LoveisConspiratorial,Deviant&Magical.”
GayToday,November1,2002.http://gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.
asp.
123.West,Donald.2012.GayLife:StraightWork.ParadisePress.
124.BohanJ.S.andRussellG.M.ConversationsaboutPsychologyandSex-
ualOrientation.NewYorkUniversityPress,1999.
125. Allen G. E. “The Double-Edged Sword of Genetic Determinism: So-
cialandPoliticalAgendasinGeneticStudiesofHomosexuality,1940–
1994.”InScienceandHomosexualities,editedbyVernonA.Rosario,
243–270.NewYork:Routledge,1997.
126.MassL.“Homophobiaonthecouch:AconversationwithRichardPil-
lard,rstopenlygaypsychiatristintheUnitedStates”.InHomosex-
ualityandSexuality:DialoguesoftheSexualRevolution—VolumeI
(Gay&LesbianStudies).NewYork:HaworthPress,1990.
127.TheNewYorkTimes.“WEDDINGS/CELEBRATIONS;DeanHamer,
JosephWilson.”,TheNewYorkTimes,April11,2004.https://www.
nytimes.com/2004/04/11/style/weddings-celebrations-dean-hamer-jo-
sephwilson.html.
128.KlugerJ.“TheGaySideofNature.”Time,April26,1999.http://con-
tent.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990813,00.html.
—48—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Том 10, № 2 • http://rjep.ru
129.APA(AmericanPsychologicalAssociation).Reportof theAmerican
PsychologicalAssociationTaskForceonAppropriateTherapeuticRe-
sponses to Sexual Orientation. American Psychological Association,
Washington,DC,2009.
130.NicolosiJ.n.d.“WhoweretheAPA“taskforce”members?”http://jo-
sephnicolosi.com/who-were-the-apa-task-force-me/. Cited in Kinney,
RobertL.III.2015.“Homosexualityandscienticevidence:Onsus-
pectanecdotes, antiquated data, and broad generalizations.” The Lina-
creQuarterly82,no.4:364-390.
131. APA (American Psychological Association). Lesbian & Gay Parenting.
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Washington,DC,2005.
132.GeorgeWashingtonUniversityColumbianCollegeofArtandScienc-
es. n.d. “LGBT Health Policy & Practice Program / Charlotte J. Pat-
terson.” Accessed December 19, 2018. https://lgbt.columbian.gwu.edu/
charlotte-j-patterson.
133.EldridgeN.S.,MencherJ.,SlaterS.“TheConundrumofMutuality:A
LesbianDialogue.”WellesleyCentersforWomenWorkinProgress,
no. 62, 1993.
134.DaytonDailyNews.“ObituarytoLarryKurdek.”PublishedinDayton
DailyNews fromJune13toJune14, 2009.https://www.legacy.com/
obituaries/dayton/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=128353548.
135.WeinsteinD. “It’saradicalthing:Aconversation withAprilMartin,
PhD.”Journalof Gay &Lesbian MentalHealth,2001;4,no.3:63-73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2001.9962253.
136. Manhatann Alternative. n.d. “April Martin.” Accessed December 19,
2018. http://www.manhattanalternative.com/team/april-martin/.
137. APA (AmericanPsychological Association). Lesbian and Gay Parent-
ing:AResourceforPsychologists.AmericanPsychologicalAssocia-
tion,Washington,DC,1995.
138.PlowmanW.B./GettyImages.“MassachusettsToBeginIssuingSame
SexMarriageLicenses.”Provincetown,MA,May17,2004.Photo
“17:BiancaCody-Murphy(L)andSueBuerkel(R)shareakissonthe
stepsofCityHallafterreceivingtheirmarriagelicensesMay17,2004
inProvincetown,Massachusetts.Massachusettsistherststateinthe
—49—
© Russian Journal of Education and Psychology
2019, Volume 10, Number 2 • http://rjep.ru
nationtolegalizesame-sexmarriages.”(PhotobyWilliamB.Plowman/
Getty Images). https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/bi-
anca-cody-murphy-and-suebuerkel-share-a-kiss-on-the-nachrichtenfo-
to/50849052.
139.RafkinL.“ErinConleyandEmilyDrabantmarryinredwoods.”SFGate,
October24,2013.https://www.sfgate.com/style/unionsquared/article/Er-
in-Conley-andEmily-Drabant-marry-in-redwoods-4924482.php.
140.DrabantE.,KieferA.K.,ErikssonN.,MountainJ.L.,FranckeU.,Tung
J.Y.,HindsD.A.,DoC.B.2012.“Genome-WideAssociationStudyof
SexualOrientationinaLarge,Web-basedCohort.”.https://blog.23and-
me.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Drabant-Poster-v7.pdf.
докторфилософиипомедицине(PhD
inClinicalResearch),независимыйисследователь
Почтовый ящик 1220, D-64382 Райхельсхайм, Федеративная
Республика Германия
lysovv1978@gmail.com
DATA ABOUT THE AUTHOR
PhDin ClinicalResearch,Independent
Researcher
Postfach 1220, D-64382 Reichelsheim, Germany
lysovv1978@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0001-9704-8905
