Bush's new Surgeon General nominee denies being anti-gay

[joft]

We all know about the recent story:
Ex-surgeon general: I was muzzled

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general testified Tuesday that his speeches were censored to match administration political positions and that he was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem cell research and teen pregnancy prevention.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,"

This happened recently, but the story has another part which happened a month ago and I missed it somehow. Does anybody know if this second thing was even covered in the media? Here it is:

President Bush's nominee for surgeon-general, Dr. James Holsinger, may be in trouble because of his homophobic statements.

As reported in The Nation, "Holsinger argues that male-female 'reproductive systems are fully complementary' because 'anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis.' The remainder of his paper is a graphic account of the 'delicate' rectum which is 'incapable' of 'protection' if 'objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted' into it."

...

Gay sex, he warned, can lead to "lacerations, perforations and deaths...The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above."

here's his paper

I've seen minimal coverage of this in the news. His first confirmation hearing was 2 days ago and this is the biggest story on it... there's practically nothing there, except that he's just flatly denying being anti-gay.

Have we as a nation run out of outrage? Are we just accepting that our president is so fucking horrible and he's just going to keep doing things that screw us over for decades to come and we don't even bother paying attention anymore? is this another media failure, or has it been covered and I've just not seen it? (I do check cnn.com several times a day and foxnews.com on days I could use a laugh)

It's like Bush has no compunction whatsoever; his previous guy resigns and says that he was being muzzled and oppressed with conservative politics and theology, and Bush just immediately nominates a ridiculous homophobe who uses plumbing analogies to explain why homosexuality is unnatural...

[Priran]

Let me just ask you something.





Are you stupid?

[joft]

I'm easily smarter than you, but that has no relevance to this thread. Why don't you try addressing the topic?

[Priran]

I'm easily smarter than you

Ok, then why aren't you explaining to the surgeon general how evolutionarily useful homosexuality is? Here, I'll help you: you can bring up the point that if you were homosexual, you'd remove yourself from the genepool.

[Zosi]

I'm easily smarter than you

Ok, then why aren't you explaining to the surgeon general how evolutionarily useful homosexuality is? Here, I'll help you: you can bring up the point that if you were homosexual, you'd remove yourself from the genepool.

It's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that human civilization (more specifically, medicine) has largely made individual evolution in the sense that you're talking about irrelevant. Modern medicine has made it possible for people with formerly universally fatal conditions to live long, healthy, reproducing lives. Sperm banks and artificial insemination have made it possible for people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce the "traditional" way to have children that share at least some of their DNA.

However, don't let that stop you from spewing your antiquated anti-gay propaganda.

[Kuya]

I don't see anything particularly homophobic there, unless there is something else. It's a no brainer that vaginal sex is safer, don't know what the big deal is.

As for the first thing you posted, yea i read that. It particularly rubbed me the wrong way, but many presidents have done this. It's still wrong that they're allowed to censor the Surgeon General like that, and kick him out if he says anything the administration doesn't like. (Even though they assign him to that role)

[joft]

Priran, Since when has anyone been concerned with being "evolutionarily successful"? Before I even try to address how wrong this is, I should point out that it's definitely not the goal of any physician to lifeguard the gene pool. He wrote that paper for his church, which was considering changing its doctrine on homosexuality. He also founded a church organization to minister to ex-gays. His motivations for the paper are obviously theological.

And I really hope you're not agreeing with him and trying to use evolution to prove that homosexuality is not natural. That would be so wrong for so many reasons, it's mind boggling. For one, individual organisms are not the agents of evolution, genes are (although this stretches the definition of "agent" a bit). This is the thesis of Richard Dawkins's "selfish gene" theory, which is a widely accepted part of the modern synthesis of evolution.

And Kuya, first, previous surgeons general were there with the most recent one to back him up; they're the ones that told him that he had it much worse than they did. Second, I think you're just trying to be contrarian about the homophobia, so I'm not sure I should even address it. Suffice it to say that other medical professionals (sane ones) have accused him of ignoring plenty of data when he wrote that paper, data that shows homosexuality is quite natural. I already pointed out that he was writing it to try to help prevent his church from changing their stance on homosexuality. And what makes you think vaginal sex is safer? Did you know the majority of STD transmission, including AIDS, occurs during vaginal sex, and women are highly disproportionately at risk for contracting STDs during heterosexual intercourse? What about all the women who die in childbirth? Is that more natural, or more safe?

[Priran]

It's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that human civilization (more specifically, medicine) has largely made individual evolution in the sense that you're talking about irrelevant. Modern medicine has made it possible for people with formerly universally fatal conditions to live long, healthy, reproducing lives. Sperm banks and artificial insemination have made it possible for people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce the "traditional" way to have children that share at least some of their DNA.

However, don't let that stop you from spewing your antiquated anti-gay propaganda.

Wow, that's a lot of unrelated bullshit! At least you managed to sneak the word "propaganda" in there and made me out to be homophobic.

I'm not against gay people raising kids, getting married, fucking like bunnies, or whatever the fuck else they want to do. I am, however, incredibly annoyed by people with the mindset that being offensive is against the law.

Nothing that was said by the surgeon general is incorrect. Because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he has to shut up.

[Priran]

For one, individual organisms are not the agents of evolution, genes are (although this stretches the definition of "agent" a bit). This is the thesis of Richard Dawkins's "selfish gene" theory, which is a widely accepted part of the modern synthesis of evolution.

Hmm, sounds like some context. Oh wait shit I forgot about how at night, my genes pop out of my body and go searching for something to fuck.


I'm gonna go ask the Center for Contagious Disease to quarantine this thread, your stupidity might be contagious! But thanks to advances in modern medicine, not deadly.

[Sadler]

lol... there is no point challenging Joft.. he will dance around your insults and turn your facts into his own fuel.

Joft is too smart for his own good... he would make a great dictator one day!

[joft]

He's not the surgeon general, he's a nominee. And the majority of the scientific, medical, and public health community would strongly disagree with you that his comments were not absolutely wrong and inflammatory.

If you disagree with the selfish gene theory, take it up with the professional evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they just love taking breaks from hard research to totally pwn ignorant people who disagree with them on a main tenet of their most established theory. But even if you won't accept that, you still can't come up with a reason why any individual should be concerned with their evolutionary success, and especially why homosexuals should be so depressed that they can't pass on their genes when the majority of heterosexual couples are doing everything in their power to prevent pregnancy so they can screw for fun.

[Kuya]

And Kuya, first, previous surgeons general were there with the most recent one to back him up; they're the ones that told him that he had it much worse than they did. Second, I think you're just trying to be contrarian about the homophobia, so I'm not sure I should even address it. Suffice it to say that other medical professionals (sane ones) have accused him of ignoring plenty of data when he wrote that paper, data that shows homosexuality is quite natural. I already pointed out that he was writing it to try to help prevent his church from changing their stance on homosexuality. And what makes you think vaginal sex is safer? Did you know the majority of STD transmission, including AIDS, occurs during vaginal sex, and women are highly disproportionately at risk for contracting STDs during heterosexual intercourse? What about all the women who die in childbirth? Is that more natural, or more safe?

Now that you've told me about the church, it is quite likely that he has an agenda besides revealing scientific facts. And i'm quite aware that homosexuality is quite natural, me being a bisexual and all. And i do belive you should investigate more into anal sex, as it requires alot of maintanance and precautions, even more so than vaginal sex. And women dieng during childbirth... ok, i don't know where you're going with that.

Though i can't help but feel you're only trying to sensationalize this because he was chosen by Bush.

[Sadler]

He's not the surgeon general, he's a nominee. And the majority of the scientific, medical, and public health community would strongly disagree with you that his comments were not absolutely wrong and inflammatory.

If you disagree with the selfish gene theory, take it up with the professional evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they just love taking breaks from hard research to totally pwn ignorant people who disagree with them on a main tenet of their most established theory. But even if you won't accept that, you still can't come up with a reason why any individual should be concerned with their evolutionary success, and especially why homosexuals should be so depressed that they can't pass on their genes when the majority of heterosexual couples are doing everything in their power to prevent pregnancy so they can screw for fun.

Yup, because we use forms of contraception we are pretty much fucked.

We are just fueling the "homo-sexual" agenda when we have proven that we just want to fuck for fun without the consequences.

[Zosi]

Wow, that's a lot of unrelated bullshit! At least you managed to sneak the word "propaganda" in there and made me out to be homophobic.

I'm not against gay people raising kids, getting married, fucking like bunnies, or whatever the fuck else they want to do. I am, however, incredibly annoyed by people with the mindset that being offensive is against the law.

Nothing that was said by the surgeon general is incorrect. Because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he has to shut up.

It's not unrelated, because you chose to bring up that being gay isn't "evolutionarily useful". I agree that that has nothing to do with what the surgeon general said, but YOU brought it up as if it somehow proved something about his statement.

Let's talk about the surgeon general's statement, then. "Gay sex, he warned, can lead to 'lacerations, perforations and deaths' ". First off, he's using "gay sex" as a synonym for "anal sex". He's also assuming that only gay men have anal sex. The two phrases are very obviously different, and there's nothing more dangerous about gay anal sex as opposed to hetero anal sex. Furthermore, "gay" sex doesn't necessarily mean homosexual anal sex. There's a lot of other sexual things gay people can do besides intercourse, and none of them share the presumed dangers of anal sex.

The other bolded section of his statement is similar. He says that "breaching the complementarity of the sexes" results in injuries and diseases, which is similarly inaccurate. As I said above, any chance of injury or disease transmission (NOT disease CAUSATION, which he claims) is equally possible with heterosexual anal sex.

You can make the argument that he simply says "gay sex" because it's more common for gay men to have anal sex than heterosexual women or men, but that doesn't suddenly make the two phrases mean the same thing, particularly in a medical paper where accuracy is paramount.

Edited because I accidentally left in an extra quote tag, messing up the display.

[Priran]

He's not the surgeon general, he's a nominee. And the majority of the scientific, medical, and public health community would strongly disagree with you that his comments were not absolutely wrong and inflammatory.

I see, so you've already consulted with a majority of the scientific, medical, and public health communities? You work fast.

And they disagreed with the idea that the penis was designed to go into the vagina, not the anus, and that this doesn't change despite people's opinions? Wow, the majority of the scientific, medical, and public health communities are fucking dumb!in before context

If you disagree with the selfish gene theory, take it up with the professional evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they just love taking breaks from hard research to totally pwn ignorant people who disagree with them on a main tenet of their most established theory.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept, I'm disagreeing with the Downs version of it you just shat out. You can't take one line from a theory, apply some wackjob logic to it, and say it's in agreement with the thing you tore it from.

But even if you won't accept that, you still can't come up with a reason why any individual should be concerned with their evolutionary success, and especially why homosexuals should be so depressed that they can't pass on their genes when the majority of heterosexual couples are doing everything in their power to prevent pregnancy so they can screw for fun.

I'm not trying to. Good job.

[archibaldcrane]

Let's talk about the surgeon general's statement, then. "Gay sex, he warned, can lead to 'lacerations, perforations and deaths' ". First off, he's using "gay sex" as a synonym for "anal sex". He's also assuming that only gay men have anal sex. The two phrases are very obviously different, and there's nothing more dangerous about gay anal sex as opposed to hetero anal sex. Furthermore, "gay" sex doesn't necessarily mean homosexual anal sex. There's a lot of other sexual things gay people can do besides intercourse, and none of them share the presumed dangers of anal sex.

The other bolded section of his statement is similar. He says that "breaching the complementarity of the sexes" results in injuries and diseases, which is similarly inaccurate. As I said above, any chance of injury or disease transmission (NOT disease CAUSATION, which he claims) is equally possible with heterosexual anal sex.

You can make the argument that he simply says "gay sex" because it's more common for gay men to have anal sex than heterosexual women or men, but that doesn't suddenly make the two phrases mean the same thing, particularly in a medical paper where accuracy is paramount.

This is the correct answer. The guy is making an anti-anal sex argument, and using it to insinuate that being gay is unnatural. Of course, anal sex has virtually nothing to do with lesbians, but let's ignore that half of the gay community as well.

The argument that the anus isn't built for sex has little to do with the "naturality" of gay men. It's just retarded.

[Priran]

It's not unrelated, because you chose to bring up that being gay isn't "evolutionarily useful". I agree that that has nothing to do with what the surgeon general said, but YOU brought it up as if it somehow proved something about his statement.

Wow, you're right, I must have imagined this line:

male-female 'reproductive systems are fully complementary' because 'anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis.'

You can make the argument that he simply says "gay sex" because it's more common for gay men to have anal sex than heterosexual women or men, but that doesn't suddenly make the two phrases mean the same thing, particularly in a medical paper where accuracy is paramount.

It was a statement submitted to a church. Go figure?

[archibaldcrane]

It was a statement submitted to a church, not published in a scientific journal. Go figure?

That's true, once you're dealing with religion, just say 'fuck off' to facts and accuracy. I think he'll fit into the Bush Administration nicely.

I can just see the apologists now: "He was in the Bush Administration - you expected accuracy or unbiased opinions? LOL"

[Priran]

It was a statement submitted to a church, not published in a scientific journal. Go figure?

That's true, once you're dealing with religion, just say 'fuck off' to facts and accuracy.

More like once you're writing for a target group, say hello to bias?

[joft]

I see, so you've already consulted with a majority of the scientific, medical, and public health communities? You work fast.

And they agreed with your opinion that the penis was designed to go into the vagina, not the anus, and that this doesn't change despite people's opinions? Wow, the majority of the scientific, medical, and public health communities are fucking dumb!

I didn't have to do any work because I knew this already. You can try looking up medical journals or publications, for example, the APA stopped classifying homosexuality as an abnormal behavior a long time ago. Any physician will tell you heterosexual behaviors (including heterosexual anal sex) are just as dangerous. Holsinger is a conservative religious nutcase who tries to bend science to fit his previously chosen worldview, rather than letting science change his worldview as it advances.

And speaking of wacky logic, disagreeing with your opinion that his comments were not wrong is a double negative, indicating his comments were wrong.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept, I'm disagreeing with the Downs version of it you just shat out. You can't take one line from a theory, apply some wackjob logic to it, and say it's in agreement with the thing you tore it from.

I agree with your second sentence, except that's not what I did. I understand the theory quite well, having read quite a bit about evolution. The way that I used the theory, to show that individuals are not concerned with their evolutionary success, is one of the main thrusts of the theory-- the other being inter-gene conflict (certain genes in one organism's DNA may be at odds with each other and "fight" over which will be expressed).

I'm not trying to. Good job.

You were arguing that I'm stupid because apparently I don't realize homosexuality is bad or unnatural or something like that, as evidenced by the supposed lack of evolutionary usefulness of homosexuality. Unless you go back and edit all your posts, I'm pretty sure anyone can see that's exactly what you were trying to do.