Politically Incorrect Thoughts: HSD and LGBTQ ... continued

Politically Incorrect Thoughts: HSD and LGBTQ … continued

A reply to my critic—a reply that may be of interest to HSD trustees and the general public

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 15, 2016

(Background: I sent a version of this document [see below] to the Hanover School Division trustees and superintendents on July 14, 2016.  The HSD is in engaged in some very serious discussions concerning how and to what extent LGBTQ matters should be handled in my region's public school curriculum.  The HSD is courageously taking some time to examine the issue carefully in the face of pressure and criticism and even a human rights complaint from so-called "progressives."  The document below is my contribution to the discussions.  Because I am merely replying to a critic of one of my columns, my contribution, relative to the larger discussion, is small.  Nevertheless, I hope my contribution will be helpful in ensuring that whatever decisions are made by the HSD, the HSD's decisions will be properly informed decisions, not decisions reached via faulty reasoning driven by ideology rather than good reasoning based on truth.)

Dr. Barbara Paterson, a person with considerable expertise in the medical field, recently wrote a letter to the editor of The Carillon to criticize an APOLOGIA column in which I set out some LGBTQ-related health concerns and in which I quote Hanover School Division trustee Lynn Barkman (who raised some of those concerns).   From the point of view of reason and truth, the letter writer's critique is a failure.  It misuses argument (it presents three straw man fallacies) plus engages in sophistry, all buttressed with manipulative rhetoric (I present arguments for this below). I am concerned that Dr. Paterson's misuse of argument will not be noticed by the public at large and may cloud matters relevant to HSD's discussions relating to persons who identify themselves as LGBTQ.  For the sake of informed decision-making, it seems to me that Dr. Paterson's letter deserves careful consideration by HSD trustees and the public.  Perhaps this document may be helpful.  Below I do the following: (1) I set out my original column (please focus on the second half, subtitled "Politically Incorrect Thoughts: HSD and LGBTQ"); (2) I set out Dr. Paterson's letter to the editor; (3) I set out the letter with my critical responses within its text (in red print).

I hope that my work is helpful.  Although emotionally and politically charged, the discussion of LGBTQ matters requires careful, truth-seeking thought—for the well being of all.

1. APOLOGA column

Politically Incorrect Thoughts: Orlando massacre, HSD and LGBTQ

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, June 23, 2016

Politically Incorrect Thoughts: Orlando massacre

Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University:

“All human life is sacred. All murder is murder. All murder is to be condemned. All victims are to be mourned. It doesn't affect the gravity of the evil—at all—that the murderer killed homosexuals in a gay nightclub.”

“Murder is to be condemned and victims are to be mourned, whether the victims are nuns in a convent, prostitutes in a bordello, children in a school, or fishermen in a boat.”

Professor George, again: “All human life is sacred. All murder is murder. All murder is to be condemned. All victims are to be mourned.”

George continues: “Mateen [the Orlando shooter] was a Muslim and a Democrat. That doesn't make Muslims and Democrats guilty. Christians aren't guilty either. Mateen & IS are guilty.”

Stan Guthrie, editor at Christianity Today (on blaming Christians for Orlando): “Didn't Nero blame the Christians for the fire?”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, human rights activist, former Muslim, fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School:

“Following the horrific attack in Orlando, people as usual have been rushing to judgment. President Obama blames lax gun laws. Donald Trump blames immigration. Neither is right. There has been comparable carnage in countries with strict gun laws. The perpetrator in this case was born in the United States. This is not primarily about guns or immigration. It is about a deeply dangerous ideology that is infiltrating American society in the guise of religion. Homophobia comes in many forms. But none is more dangerous in our time than the Islamic version.”

Contemporary Sharia Law: Engaging in homosexual sex is punishable by death.

Politically Incorrect Thoughts: HSD and LGBTQ

Hanover School District trustee (and nurse) Lynn Barkman: “HSD teachers, students and their parents know that our culture is changing, that does not suggest that we should abandon truth."

Barkman on young students “being taught anal sex and oral sex”: “I just feel that there is enough cancer around and the increase in cancer is phenomenal.”

Gens Hellquist, executive director of pro-gay Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition: “There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our [gay] community…. We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community….”

Mayo Clinic: “All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however.” E.g., HIV, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, syphilis. Cancer, too, if anal sex is often practiced.

Robert Cushman, senior medical advisor at Health Canada: “HIV is much more common in the MSM [men who have sex with men] population than in the general population.”

Cushman adds: “MSM is a risky behaviour. There's anatomical reasons.”

Researcher Thomas Coy, “The risk of HIV from sexual contact for MSM (men who have sex with men) was approximately 150 times greater than the heterosexual male population in 2010.”

Coy adds, for perspective: “According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times greater than for men who do not smoke.”

From Miriam Grossman's You're Teaching My Child WHAT? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child (this book is recommended by Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association):

Compared to the general heterosexual population, persons who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report “more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental health problems [anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts].”

These disparities also occur in accepting, gay-friendly societies such as The Netherlands (and elsewhere).

“Clearly, societal bias is not to blame for the disproportionately higher numbers in the homosexual populations in the Netherlands.”

Dr. Grossman concludes: “While I'm sure that for some people, societal bias contributes to their distress, the entire onus for these difficulties—emotional and physical—cannot be placed at the feet of a 'heterosexist' society. It's just not intellectually honest.”

If HSD schools discuss LGBTQ matters, I hope it's done truthfully.

---

[Note to critics: Before commenting, please read my (relevant) previous work, the criticisms from my previous critics, plus my replies to my critics.  Look here, for starters: Is promoting same-sex sex wise?]

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

2. LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Columnist's assessment incomplete

By Barbara Paterson

The Carillon, July 7, 2016

I was dismayed to read "Apologia" in the June 23 edition of The Carillon. Columnist Hendrik van der Breggen attempted to fuel his argument against teaching children that there are various types of families by referring to the health risks of people who are LGBTTQ*. He cites various sources, including Health Canada and the Centre for Disease Control as evidence that LGBTTQ* people's sexual practices increase their risk for disease.

I worked as a university professor, a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and as an internationally renowned researcher in the field of chronic illness, including HIV. I have no quarrel with Mr. van der Breggen's assertion that men who have sex with men are at risk for HIV, but to make such a statement without acknowledging its complexities is a bit like putting your toe in the ocean and saying that now you know all about the fish there.

Men who have sex with men are at risk for HIV if they have unprotected sex with a partner who is HIV positive or have shared needles with someone who is HIV positive; heterosexual people are at risk for the same reasons. However, there are biological factors why men who have sex with men are at greater risk for HIV than other groups. One critical factor must be considered in light of Mr. van der Breggen's column.

The column uses a selective culling of online and other sources to suggest that we must be afraid of members of the LGBTQQ* community, particularly gay men, because they are likely to be infected with communicable diseases. Recent research has indicated that if a person at risk for HIV fears judgment and discrimination, he or she will likely avoid being tested for HIV. Consequently, the person may be HIV positive, and transmit HIV to another. This phenomenon is most evident where conservative religion teaches that heterosexuality is "normal" and any other sexual orientation is deviant. This factor is widely acknowledged to be significant in the transmission of HIV in rural areas and small cities of Canada. Given such findings, combating the exclusion of LGBTTQ* people is not, as Mr. van der Breggen suggests, a political correctitude but a necessity.

I fear Mr. van der Breggen's column with its incomplete and judgmental portrayal of health risks has contributed to the stigmatization of LGBTTQ* people in this region. It promotes a culture where members of the LGBTQQ*community may risk their health and their lives to avoid being discriminated against or stigmatized. I hope that Mr. van der Breggen will educate himself more fully about this topic.

3. LETTER TO THE EDITOR plus critical response

Columnist's assessment incomplete – plus Hendrik van der Breggen's critique (in red)

By Barbara Paterson

The Carillon, July 7, 2016

I was dismayed to read "Apologia" in the June 23 edition of The Carillon. Columnist Hendrik van der Breggen attempted to fuel his argument against teaching children that there are various types of families by referring to the health risks of people who are LGBTTQ*. No, my argument is an attempt to support the conclusion which I clearly stated. I repeat: "If HSD schools discuss LGBTQ matters, I hope it's done truthfully." To say otherwise, as Barbara Paterson does, is to commit the straw man fallacy (the mistake of misrepresenting an opponent's position, and arguing against that position as if it were the actual position).  He cites various sources, including Health Canada and the Centre for Disease Control as evidence that LGBTTQ* people's sexual practices increase their risk for disease.ü Yes, I do.

I worked as a university professor, a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and as an internationally renowned researcher in the field of chronic illness, including HIV.  ü These are impressive and relevant credentials. I notice from a quick search of the internet that Barbara Paterson has a bachelor's degree in nursing, a master's degree in education, and an interdisciplinary PhD in nursing, psychology, and education (she isn't a medical doctor). I have no quarrel with Mr. van der Breggen's assertion that men who have sex with men are at risk for HIV, ü but to make such a statement without acknowledging its complexities is a bit like putting your toe in the ocean and saying that now you know all about the fish there. Hmmm. I'm glad that Dr. Paterson has "no quarrel with [my] assertion that men who have sex with men are at risk for HIV." That's an important agreement. It's of great concern, too. As I point out in my column, men who have sex with men have a 150 times greater risk of HIV than men who don't have sex with men. That is significant. Significant, too, is that my argument isn't merely about HIV. The health risks I present include HIV, yes, but they also include cancer, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, syphilis, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts. Men who have sex with men have a higher risk for all these. So is it true (accurate) that my not acknowledging the complexities is "a bit like putting your toe in the ocean and saying that now you know all about the fish there"? I don't think so. Yes, one should acknowledge complexities and admit to not knowing all there is to know, i.e., admit to not knowing all about the fish in the ocean. Sure. Nevertheless, one can still visit the beach and reasonably notice a growing consensus among lifeguards that there have been shark sightings nearby. (More on the "lifeguards"/ my sources below.)

Men who have sex with men are at risk for HIV if they have unprotected sex with a partner who is HIV positive or have shared needles with someone who is HIV positive; heterosexual people are at risk for the same reasons. However, there are biological factors why men who have sex with men are at greater risk for HIV than other groups. Right, I agree. It turns out (as I point out) that these factors make the risk of HIV about 150 times more likely for men who have sex with men (MSM) than for men who don't have sex with men. Surely, complexity or not, this is significant, especially in view of the fact that (as I also point out) the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times greater than for men who do not smoke. Yes, I haven't set out all the complexities that are involved in the HIV situation (nor have I set out the complexities for the smoking situation). But, surely, it's reasonable to take notice of this particular feature because it's so salient: the risk of HIV for MSM is six times—six times!—greater than the risk of lung cancer for smokers. Yes, there are complexities concerning HIV. Yet the much higher risk continues, even though our society has for decades been trying to educate the public about safe/ safer sex. The higher risk of cancer, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, syphilis, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts needs to be considered, too. Surely this needs to be acknowledged for the sake of truth and good health, especially if we are going to educate young people on the topic. One critical factor must be considered in light of Mr. van der Breggen's column.

The column uses a selective culling of online and other sources to suggest that we must be afraid of members of the LGBTTQ* community, particularly gay men, because they are likely to be infected with communicable diseases. I have two points here. (1) My "selective culling" includes the following credible sources: Health Canada (its senior medical advisor), the pro-gay Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (its executive director), the Mayo Clinic (one of the world's most prestigious medical clinics), a researcher (whose master's thesis is titled "The Professional Division Over the Treatment of Homosexuality and How It Has Been Influenced by the Gay Political Movement"), plus a physician-psychiatrist (whose specialty is sex education and reproductive health, and whose work is recommended by a former president of the American Psychological Association). This is a reasonably good set of sources by any standard. All these sources tell us that men who have sex with men have a much greater risk of diseases than do men who don't have sex with men. The sources are in fact credible and what they say is important. They shouldn't be dismissed as "selective culling."  (2) No, contrary to what Dr. Paterson asserts, I do NOT suggest—I repeat: I do NOT suggest—that "we must be afraid of members of the LGBTQQ* community, particularly gay men, because they are likely to be infected with communicable diseases." Not at all! How utterly bizarre for Dr. Paterson to say this! Please re-read my column. My conclusion (again) is this: "If HSD schools discuss LGBTQ matters, I hope it's done truthfully."  I am pointing to serious health concerns presented by credible sources. By making her assertion, Dr. Paterson misrepresents me yet again (yes, another straw man fallacy). Moreover, which is serious morally, this misrepresentation serves as an accusation against me—a false accusation. In effect, Dr. Paterson appeals to the popular prejudice (apparently also held by Paterson) that mere questioning or critical engagement with LGBTQ issues is fear mongering, so I am allegedly encouraging fear (being afraid) of members of the LGBTQ community, especially gay men. But the truth is this: it's not fear mongering. Here is what I am doing in my column, apparently missed by Dr. Paterson: I am giving reasons for this conclusion: If schools discuss LGBTQ matters, then it should be done truthfully. That is to say, such discussion should include the truth that there are significantly higher health concerns in the LGBTQ community. Surely, that's important if LGBTQ matters are to be discussed in public schools. Surely, parents and teachers and students should know this. (Note: If pointing to health concerns related to smoking isn't fear-mongering, i.e., isn't inciting us to be afraid of smokers, which it in fact isn't, then pointing to LGBTQ health concerns isn't fear mongering, either.)  Recent research has indicated that if a person at risk for HIV fears judgment and discrimination, he or she will likely avoid being tested for HIV. Consequently, the person may be HIV positive, and transmit HIV to another.  Okay, but there is also research (as I point out in my column) that in gay-friendly societies (such as The Netherlands) the health concerns remain. That is, in societies in which persons at risk for HIV don't fear judgment and discrimination, the rates remain high. This is significant. Let's create a society, then, that welcomes those at risk for HIV, but without pretending the risks don't exist. Truth-telling and love are not mutually exclusive. This phenomenon is most evident where conservative religion teaches that heterosexuality is "normal" and any other sexual orientation is deviant. This factor is widely acknowledged to be significant in the transmission of HIV in rural areas and small cities of Canada. Okay, I'll take Dr. Paterson's word on this. If true, this is important. Again, though, let's keep in mind that there is also research (as I point out in my column) that in gay-friendly societies (such as The Netherlands) the health concerns remain. That is, in societies in which persons at risk for HIV don't fear judgment and discrimination (i.e., aren't under the influence of "conservative religion") the rates remain high. Again, let's create a society that welcomes those at risk for HIV, but without pretending the risks don't exist. Again, truth-telling and love are not mutually exclusive. Given such findings, combating the exclusion of LGBTTQ* people is not, as Mr. van der Breggen suggests, a political correctitude but a necessity. Huh? Please notice: I am neither attempting to exclude LGBTQ people, nor stating or suggesting that "combating" such exclusion is a "political correctitude." Rather, I am trying to bring truth to the discussion. I am trying to bring truth to the discussion so parents and teachers and students can be better informed about LGBTQ matters. This is yet another misrepresentation/ straw man by Dr. Paterson. (That's three straw man fallacies by my count.)

I fear Mr. van der Breggen's column with its incomplete and judgmental portrayal of health risks has contributed to the stigmatization of LGBTTQ* people in this region. I have two responses here. (1) Is my column incomplete? Yes, space seriously limits the extent of my portrayal (it is a newspaper column, after all, not an academic/ scientific journal). Nevertheless, my sources provide a reasonable and credible overview of the risks—risks that are truly significant. (2) Is it true that my column is "judgmental" in its portrayal of health risks? Answer: No. My column discerns and sets out some of the salient and significant health risks to introduce them into the HSD-LGBTQ discussion. Notice this: It very much seems that Dr. Paterson's use of the word "judgmental" is an attempt to use loaded language (i.e., language laden with negative emotional baggage) to influence readers to hold a negative attitude towards me and my view. The word "judgmental" is ambiguous: it can mean (a) dismissing X as morally inferior/ to be damned, which carries negative emotional connotations in popular usage, or (b) the cognitive activity of making an accurate discernment about X, a usage many today have forgotten. I am making some judgments in sense b. However, Dr. Paterson is obviously accusing me of being "judgmental" in sense a, i.e., the negative sense of being dismissive morally or damning. In other words, by exploiting the ambiguity of "judgmental" Dr. Paterson is employing some sophistry—not logic—to "criticize" my view and influence readers' attitudes. (In my logic/ critical thinking courses, such sophistry is a "sin" against reason.)  It promotes a culture where members of the LGBTQQ*community may risk their health and their lives to avoid being discriminated against or stigmatized.  No it doesn't. My column promotes a culture that realizes the LGBTQ community has health risks and it promotes a culture of transparency concerning truth—a culture that allows parents and teachers and students to make informed decisions. (Again: truth and love are not mutually exclusive.) I hope that Mr. van der Breggen will educate himself more fully about this topic. I hope that Dr. Paterson does the same—and reads my work more carefully.

I conclude that Dr. Paterson's argument commits the straw man fallacy (i.e., the misrepresentation of my column) three times. Her argument also engages in some sophistry in alleging that I am "judgmental" and "contribut[ing] to the stigmatization" of persons who identify as LGBTQ.

One last point: I notice that in four of the five times Dr. Paterson refers to me she writes "Mr. van der Breggen" rather than "Dr. van der Breggen." As Dr. Paterson points out, she is an academic and a researcher. It's reasonable to think, then, that she is very probably aware that my academic credentials include the BA, MA, and PhD—all in philosophy, all from respectable Canadian universities. I do not take personal offence at her not calling me "Dr." However, I am concerned that her multiple references to me as "Mr." instead of "Dr." are an attempt to downplay my academic credentials relative to hers and thus constitute an attempt to manipulate readers who are weak in the use of argument and prone to the influence of rhetoric. This is unfortunate for, and unfair to, such readers. As a philosopher, my area of expertise is in the proper use of argument and discerning where and how argument is misused. In reviewing Dr. Paterson's critique of my column, it is my professional opinion that Dr. Paterson has not only misused argument by committing three straw man fallacies and some sophistry, but also has attempted to buttress her faulty arguments with manipulative rhetoric.

4. Main conclusion

Although Dr. Barbara Paterson has considerable expertise in the medical field, her critique of my column is a failure. Her critique misuses argument (it presents three straw man fallacies) plus engages in sophistry, buttressed with manipulative rhetoric.

As I mentioned in my introductory comments, I am concerned that Dr. Paterson's misuse of argument will not be noticed by the public at large and may cloud the discussion of matters relevant to the decisions facing the Hanover School Division. I hope that my assessment of Dr. Paterson's letter will help HSD trustees in making informed decisions relating to matters LGBTQ. As I also mentioned, although LGBTQ matters are emotionally and politically charged, they require careful, truth-seeking thought—for the well being of all.

Sincerely,

Hendrik van der Breggen

---

[Note to critics: Before commenting, please read my (relevant) previous work, the criticisms from my previous critics, plus my replies to my critics.  Look here, for starters: Is promoting same-sex sex wise?]