.
These four videos consist of a statement of opinion, an errant quoting of the Human Sexuality Report and two videos based entirely on a concept that is not defined anywhere we could find. As such, there is no viable evidence against the HSR to be found here.
.
Don Huizenga claims God created a spectrum of sexuality before the fall. However, no evidence of such is given. No books are referred to. It is simply stated as fact. How do we know it is the case? Without evidence, this claim is a statement of opinion, it is not a case that is likely to win adherents.
.
Misuse of Research – Dr. Emily Helder
Helder misquotes the Human Sexuality Report in her main objection to the report. This is a very important matter before the church. Research must be done in a solid, objective manner. Once again, there is no presentation of evidence. That is a very important shortcoming.
.
Intersex and Transgender – Dr. Loren Haarsma
This video relies heavily, if not entirely on the concept of what is called a creational variant. The primary issue here is that after months of searching, we have not been able to find a definition of what “creational variant” means. How can one subscribe to something that is not defined? Especially when one considers the fact that there are a number of serious difficulties with what it is assumed this concept might entail.
.
Variant or Defect – Dr. Naranjo-Huebl
This video also is in its entirety a statement of belief in creational variants. It claims that “Gender variance is a direct challenge to the report.” How can a concept be a challenge to the report if that concept is not defined anywhere? Is “creational variant” here serving as a blank check, something that magically accomplishes what one wants to be accomplished? No one can discredit or argue against something that is not defined anywhere. But can it be used to successfully support certain conclusions if it is not defined? No.