Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Solstyce]

I can tell you how I feel.

You can't tell me how I feel.

I can't tell you how you feel.

How can that woman know Rmoney didn't feel any empathy towards their cause?

I thought that was self evident.

Homosexuals lie about their sexuality all the time, especially when they have religious people breathing down their neck. Their testimony is no more reliable. I would know, I did it.

 

[Eterna]

You can guess whatever you want about people, but that doesn't mean you'll reach the truth. Like when you spent pages trying to convince mattj that he thought something he clearly didn't.

What? MattJ thinks Homosexuality can be changed. I wasn't putting words in his mouth.

Care to explain what I inferred incorrectly about him?

 

[Sadib]

What? MattJ thinks Homosexuality can be changed. I wasn't putting words in his mouth.

Care to explain what I inferred incorrectly about him?

He believes that only some people can change their sexuality. Just like I believe that only some people can master all of time and space.

 

[Eterna]

He believes that only some people can change their sexuality. Just like I believe that only some people can master all of time and space.

That's the same thing as saying that sexuality can be changed, I don't see the difference.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Really? Does that mean we can identify the orientation of babies?

Well, allegedly we can, based on some problematic research (for more on that, see the next section of my post), but those words were not my own view.

Changing your sexuality would require a change in brain structure. Can therapy change ones brain structure?

First, you are taking Simon Le Vay's study as unquestionably true and you are reading it as proof that people are born gay, the latter of which which he himself argues is an incorrect assessment of his work. This quote speaks to both of those issues:

LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media. LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior." Some critics of LeVay questioned the accuracy and appropriateness of his measurements, saying that the structures are difficult to see in tissue slices and that he measured in volume rather than cell count. Nancy Ordover wrote in her 2003 book American Eugenics that LeVay has been criticized for "his small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories."

I feel the need to elaborate on the issue of the shortcomings of his study. The last statement in the above quote "compiling inadequate sexual histories" is due to one simple fact: this study was done on dead people. They weren't "available for comment." There is a distinct possibility that their sexual orientation was not known completely. It also said nothing about bisexuality (an important point to which I will return). Take a look at this other quote:

In the sixth chapter, The Brain, LeVay mentioned his research on INAH3. He wrote that, "The findings on INAH3 fit very well with the model put forward by Hirschfeld nearly a century ago, and in my view they greatly strengthen the notion that the development of sexual orientation, at least in men, is closely tied in with the prenatal sexual differentation of the brain. But it is important to stress several limitations of the study. The observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a really compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life - preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior - perhaps on the 'use it or lose it' principle. Furthermore, even if the differences in the hypothalamus arise before birth, they might still come about from a variety of causes, including genetic differences, differences in stress exposure, and many others. It is possible that the development of INAH3 (and perhaps other brain regions) represents a 'final common path' in the determination of sexual orientation, a path to which innumerable prior factors may contribute.

Another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of complications of AIDS. Although I am confident that the small size of INAH3 in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is always the possibility that gay men who die of AIDS are not representative of the entire population of gay men. For example, they might have a stronger preference for receptive anal intercourse, the major risk factor for acquiring HIV infection. Thus, if one wished, one could make the argument that structural differences in INAH3 relate more to actual behavioral patterns of copulation rather than to sexual orientation as such. It will not be possible to settle this issue definitively until some method becomes available to measure the size of INAH3 in living people who can be interviewed in detail about their sexuality."

So, to sum up what I've said so far, I'm not saying his study has no merit; I'm just saying you're exaggerating its significance and taking it as proof of something it didn't prove.


But that's not all that should be said. There is some useful evidence about the hypothalamus in a scientific article linked by Cosmical Tel El Amarna a few pages back.

Here's something important that Dr. Swaab says in the study:

In 1990, we described the first brain difference related to sexual orientation in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN)—the brain's “clock”—which in HoM is twice the size that it is in HeM. We later induced a similar brain difference in rats by pharmacologically disturbing the interaction between testosterone and the developing brain, using the aromatase inhibitor ATD in the neonatal period. This experiment yielded bisexual adult rats that had a larger-than-normal number of vasopressin neurons and total cells in their SCNs. The difference in the SCN of HoM was, therefore, not caused by a difference in sexual behavior, as was suggested at the time, but by an atypical interaction between sex hormones and the developing brain.

There are several interesting things about this:
(1) It indicated that abnormal hormonal influence on the rats' developing brains caused a difference in brain structure and of sexual orientation. This is not evidence that different sexual orientations are "perfectly normal."
(2) The sexual orientation of the rats was not strictly homosexual, but bisexual. If such an alteration of brain structure results in an organism that is only partly homosexual, what alteration is necessary to result in one that is completely homosexual?

This reminds me of SunnyC's comment in the OP, "The penguins can't help you," only here it's more like "The rats may harm your case."




SunnyC, I'd like to continue the debate about "straight privilege" from earlier, but I don't want to proceed until I know you're ready. Please let me know.

 

[Peter Quill]

SunnyC, I'd like to continue the debate about "straight privilege" from earlier, but I don't want to proceed until I know you're ready. Please let me know.

Unless you're trying to be intentionally rude by ignoring the other people who responded to you on that topic (Myself, Kaiserin and Valoo for instance) I'm sure that there are other people who are completely able to discuss the issue of straight privilege with you.

 

[donteatsoap7]

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

 

[Sadib]

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

Did you find men sexy before senior year? Was it a conscious decision to change your orientation?

 

[CSolarstorm]

Unless you're trying to be intentionally rude by ignoring the other people who responded to you on that topic (Myself, Kaiserin and Valoo for instance) I'm sure that there are other people who are completely able to discuss the issue of straight privilege with you.

Pretty sure he was just waiting for me to join the 'group', not ignoring everyone else in favor of debating with just me.

Didn't we already discuss on how we can't accept witness testimony based on their self because of the inherent bias behind it? Which isn't to deny that third person can be biased biased, but it seems a bit faulty idk.

Well personally, I think that witness testimony alone is problematic, but it's not nothing, nor is it inherently wrong.

Honestly, in an alternate universe where my mom had decided Mormonism meant more to her than her sexuality, and she tried one of these therapies, I would be here arguing for the individual right to decide to get it because of her. Do I think it's more healthy to embrace your sexuality and make peace with your religion or lack of from there? Yes. And I'd tell that to anyone who isn't sure what to do when they find themselves Christian and gay. Do I value doing the healthy thing over free will itself? No. That's ridiculous. We have the right to pursue whatever kind of treatment we like. If we have the right to opt to change our appearance and our form through plastic surgery, we've got the right to try to change our sexuality through other means.

Sure, saying that some people can change their sexuality means that it's possible. But so what? I don't think it's right to try to speak out against the choices people are making with their own lives just because you're afraid it will open the door to people forcing those choices on others.

One could say that witness testimony about their own sexual orientation is based strictly around how they feel, meanwhile testimony by a person sitting in the room is in essence third person and thus they have a bit more reason to be biased.

It's sometimes difficult to put contradicting feelings into explanation, so the testimony might be pretty simplified based on what they want to say.

This is the driving concept behind the more abusive "pray the gay away" programs, and indeed, the people who won't hesitate to say they'd much rather throw all the gay people on an island and let them stick it out there where they don't have to be dealt with. Because I have seen people say that in complete seriousness, and then go on to defend their statement.

On one hand, this is a very deep point. Supporting people who try to change their sexuality involves turning a blind eye to their motivation and thus allowing this mentality that homosexuality is something to be changed continue to spread, which creates a possibly deadly environment for the gay community. We should all decide what paradigms we do and don't want to support. Evil prevails when good men do nothing and all that jazz.

On the other hand, I think the accusation of straight privilage was misaimed at mattj. It was my understanding that he holds his stance because of his experiences with someone he knows, not because he's trying to rationalize homophobic beliefs. There's always going to be a situation each of us doesn't understand. For instance I've been told a make pretty good feminist critique, but as a man I'm going to have moments where I don't identify. Similarly, mattj is not going to be saying everything with a sociological consideration for the gay individual. He is somewhat restricted to a heteronormative perspective. He might not consider the plight of the suicidal LGBT, but he didn't tell anyone to go die either. The rest can be chalked up to his tired attitude with us. He is being unnecessarily brief in explaining himself and leaving confusing explanations alone. Considering the amount of controversy he drums up, I'd be tired too.

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

We've had a person saying they experienced the exact same thing. Unless you made it a conscious goal to be homosexual as well as heterosexual, it sounds like you unconsciously became biseuxal.

We were talking about when people decide to get 'treatment' for their homosexuality because they consciously want to change their orientation. Some people have an ego-dystonic sexual orientation (thanks for pointing that out TFP) where their sexuality conflicts with their image of themselves.

Although really, I think everyone's bisexual. Pretty much everyone I know has told me about an experience where they had a same-sex crush. I did. And my (lesbian) parents have also told me how they had crushes on boys when they were children. XD

...

To finish off the entire post, I want to put this quote here from the ego-dystonic sexual orientation Wikipedia entry:

Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is an ego-dystonic mental disorder characterized by having a sexual orientation or an attraction that is at odds with one's idealized self-image, causing anxiety and a desire to change one's orientation or become more comfortable with one's sexual orientation.

 

[Grey Wind]

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

Like SunnyC said, that's not a conscious decision. Sexuality is fluid and can change easily, the topic we're discussing is whether someone can actually just force themselves to like a different sex. Loads of people have been in a position where their sexuality just naturally changes but that doesn't mean that they can make the conscious decision to change it.

For the most part though, I don't think it's a choice anyway. I haven't really seen anything to suggest that it's impossible, but... I just can't wrap my head around it tbh. Does a heterosexual man just decide one day that he's going to have sex with men and he will like it? It just doesn't make sense to me that someone would just decide to be attracted to a different sex. A lot of people seem to confuse deciding with realising, too, sort of like donteatsoap's case. Suddenly becoming attracted to the same sex or having sex with another man and going "hey, I could be gay" is not deciding.

Not saying that I don't believe that it can't be chosen, but I think the vast, vast majority don't choose. "But she was CLEARLY bisexual all along" arguments are sort of ridiculous for the most part, haha. I'm not going to tell someone how their sexuality works even if I get how or why they randomly decided to change.


Oh and TFP, I dunno about SunnyC but I'd love to continue the straight privilege debate \o/

 

[Eterna]

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

No it just means you developed bisexual tendencies later, you most likely never made a conscious choice. Ask yourself, cold you right now change who you are sexually attracted too?

Well personally, I think that witness testimony alone is problematic, but it's not nothing, nor is it inherently wrong.

Honestly, in an alternate universe where my mom had decided Mormonism meant more to her than her sexuality, and she tried one of these therapies, I would be here arguing for the individual right to decide to get it because of her. Do I think it's more healthy to embrace your sexuality and make peace with your religion or lack of from there? Yes. And I'd tell that to anyone who isn't sure what to do when they find themselves Christian and gay. Do I value doing the healthy thing over free will itself? No. That's ridiculous. We have the right to pursue whatever kind of treatment we like. If we have the right to opt to change our appearance and our form through plastic surgery, we've got the right to try to change our sexuality through other means.

Sure, saying that some people can change their sexuality means that it's possible. But so what? I don't think it's right to try to speak out against the choices people are making with their own lives just because you're afraid it will open the door to people forcing those choices on others.

People aren't arguing against them getting "treatment", they're arguing that it doesn't work and often causes more harm than good.

 

[CSolarstorm]

People aren't arguing against them getting "treatment", they're arguing that it doesn't work and often causes more harm than good.

Whether it actually turns them heterosexual might be beyond the point. Think of it from their perspective: their homosexuality gives them severe anxiety. They are not willing to participate in affirmative therapy to embrace their sexuality because the image of themselves and their family and friends, and their beliefs are just utterly not homosexual. It could be like being trapped in the wrong gender. If sexuality-change treatments are the only thing they're willing to participate in, do we want them to stop because we don't believe in it, or do whatever they feel they need to do in order to get relief? Even something that doesn't work still gives them something to hope for, some effort that they say eases their anxiety. At the very least, a placebo helps more than no treatment at all.

Of course, I'm talking about people who just do not like their sexuality, even after others have exhausted all their efforts to make them feel good about it. I support the status quo here, that the standard response should be suggesting that each person should embrace their sexuality. We're talking about the exceptions, since the exceptions are usually pretty loud and want to know how people will treat them.

 

[mattj]

For those who believe a healthy and honest change in either behavior or orientation requires a marked change in brain makeup, considering that even the people who have done the paltry few brainscan studies don't believe this, why do you believe it?

 

[donteatsoap7]

Okay, I understand now. Yeah, forcibly changing your sexual preference could be rather difficult when you guys talk about it. Like getting electronic diodes on your brain or something like taking chemicals? That would be rather interesting and would (in my opinion) just make homosexuality look more like an ostracized event because people are getting "transplants" to change their orientation. I think that would rather harmful and just make the community look bad. Anyways, I'm glad that there are people with similar interest on (get this) a pokemon forum, lol. I think I love this site. Well, what else is there to debate about on this thread?

 

[Sadib]

Well, what else is there to debate about on this thread?

Anything about homosexuality is relevant. Gay people aren't the only ones that have anal sex, but I don't see any mention of straight anal sex on tv shows for some reason.

 

[mattj]

You're not watching the right TV shows.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Unless you're trying to be intentionally rude by ignoring the other people who responded to you on that topic (Myself, Kaiserin and Valoo for instance) I'm sure that there are other people who are completely able to discuss the issue of straight privilege with you.

Understood, and I will be glad to include you in this. I was thinking of making my response just one brief statement to start off, so it should be easy enough to address it to everyone.

Okay, not being here, idk much about what's been discussed but I want to jump on this thread. I saw something on this page about people changing their sexual orientation. I personally have done this. All up until my senior year in high school, I was straight. When I became a senior, I realized that I found men attractive. So now I consider myself bisexual 100%. I no longer question it because I know that's how I feel. So idk if the topic was that sexuality could or couldn't be changed, but from my understanding, it can.

That is interesting. I think, though, that some people were confused by the way you worded that last statement. When people see "sexual orientation can be changed" most would think it means a change from outside. It seems that what you spoke of was evidence that, at least in some people, sexual orientation can change, which is an important and often-ignored possibility.

Oh and TFP, I dunno about SunnyC but I'd love to continue the straight privilege debate \o/

No problem! I plan on making a very short response on that point at the end of my post.

People aren't arguing against them getting "treatment", they're arguing that it doesn't work and often causes more harm than good.

First, I want to say that it really seems you are arguing against them getting treatment, and using quotation marks around the word only serves to further that impression of your position. I want to add that I really do agree with the sentiment that not all treatment methods are created equal (exorcisms seem to stand out in my mind as a bad method).

Along different lines, you ignored what I said about the brain structure issue (although related to the previous issue, your suggestion that change of orientation requires a change in brain structure indicated that you think treatment will never work, and will always cause harm and no good). I want to make a few points I missed from before regarding the brain study on the rats:
(1) This experiment was conducted on rats in the neonatal period; the rats were already born.
(2) The change in brains structure resulted from hormonal changes, not genetic changes.

Thus from these two observations, we could conclude that the causes of sexual orientation, even with accompanying brain structure differences, could not be solely genetic. This even suggests that genetics may play little to no role if artificial hormone alteration was all that it took to produce it. Additionally, the fact that these changes can occur on neonatal rats shows that the hormones in the mother are not the only ones to consider; even hormones may not be able to show that homosexuality is technically inborn.

For those who believe a healthy and honest change in either behavior or orientation requires a marked change in brain makeup, considering that even the people who have done the paltry few brainscan studies don't believe this, why do you believe it?

I'm not sure I understand. Would you elaborate?




Regarding the issue of straight privilege and gay/straight pride parades:
This is to everyone who debated this issue with me before, and for that matter, anyone else is welcome to comment. I thought of restricting myself to just one sentence, but that quickly became ridiculous.

First I'd like to say that the statement repeated endlessly on the internet that "every day is Straight Pride Day" is flatly inaccurate. Maybe Parents' Day is (but I suspect many pro-gay people would object to that). Children's Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Independence Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Christmas can't be called Straight Pride Day (the Virgin Birth doesn't count). and given that the defense of "every day is Straight Pride Day" involved straight privilege, perhaps "every day is Straight Privilege Day" would be a more accurate statement. Every day might be full of straight privilege without every day celebrating straight pride, and the arguments I've heard fail to make that distinction.

Also, even on the assumption that every day is Straight Pride Day, this cannot mean that every parade is a straight pride parade.

Additionally, people indicated a gay pride parade is a matter of life or death seriousness. Some people even indicated that the whole point of a gay pride parade (and hence, what is wrong with a straight pride parade) is the fact that gays have a history of facing discrimination. If this is why nobody addressed my question of "don't homosexuals say everyone should be proud of their sexuality?" then the parade needs a new name. Call it "gay equality parade." For that matter, why don't they just march? Even leaving aside the issue of how a gay pride parade looks, this would be an appropriate step toward treating it as a serious civil rights issue (as the civil rights marches black people did in the Civil Rights Movement). As it stands, the need to have a gay pride parade suggests some have an excessive interest in celebrating, are not taking it that seriously until someone else wants one, and actually do oppose straight people being proud; all of which makes the debate about the Brazilian straight pride parade an unquestionable example of gay privilege.

 

[Grey Wind]

First I'd like to say that the statement repeated endlessly on the internet that "every day is Straight Pride Day" is flatly inaccurate. Maybe Parents' Day is (but I suspect many pro-gay people would object to that). Children's Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Independence Day isn't Straight Pride Day. Christmas can't be called Straight Pride Day (the Virgin Birth doesn't count). and given that the defense of "every day is Straight Pride Day" involved straight privilege, perhaps "every day is Straight Privilege Day" would be a more accurate statement. Every day might be full of straight privilege without every day celebrating straight pride, and the arguments I've heard fail to make that distinction

I, uh, think you're taking the phrase a little too literally, and it's really just dodging the point that there is no need for a straight pride parade. Straight people are accepted by society and are the much larger population, they don't need a special day to themselves. Heterosexuality is the norm in almost all forms of media - that is what is meant by "every day is straight pride".

While I'm at it, I'll just say that for this debate, straight pride is just the straight equivalent of the gay parade. The apparent misnomer really doesn't matter all that much. I don't really see what relevance that has to the debate honestly, as what we're talking about is whether there should be a straight pride equivalent to what the current gay pride is.

It's really just dodging the original point. It's about what the parade stands for, not the name.

Additionally, people indicated a gay pride parade is a matter of life or death seriousness. Some people even indicated that the whole point of a gay pride parade (and hence, what is wrong with a straight pride parade) is the fact that gays have a history of facing discrimination. If this is why nobody addressed my question of "don't homosexuals say everyone should be proud of their sexuality?" then the parade needs a new name. Call it "gay equality parade." For that matter, why don't they just march? Even leaving aside the issue of how a gay pride parade looks, this would be an appropriate step toward treating it as a serious civil rights issue (as the civil rights marches black people did in the Civil Rights Movement). As it stands, the need to have a gay pride parade suggests some have an excessive interest in celebrating, are not taking it that seriously until someone else wants one, and actually do oppose straight people being proud; all of which makes the debate about the Brazilian straight pride parade an unquestionable example of gay privilege.

Well yes, there is an element of celebration to it. Gay pride is about celebrating how far the gay rights movement has come, while also asking for acceptance and raising awareness about the struggles facing homosexual people. It's to give gay people in large cities a chance to meet up and show that they're proud of their sexuality. It's hardly a "privilege" when homsexuality is still taboo in society. And anyway, it's not like their telling straight people to **** off, any straight person can march as far as I know.

What would a straight pride parade accomplish? Straight people have nothing to celebrate. Yay, I'm part of a group of billions of people who have never been persecuted for their sexuality! There's no cause for celebration. Yeah, be proud of your heterosexuality if you want, but there's no real need to celebrate being the social norm. Likewise, straight people aren't vying for rights so a hypothetical parade wouldn't have anything to raise awareness for either. A straight man has nothing to march for because he already enjoys a privileged way of life in regards to his sexuality. There is literally no reason to have a straight pride other than the childish "gays have a parade, I want one too" train of thought.

I just really don't see any need for it.

 

[Kacho]

LOL on the gay pride parade day thing.
Similar note aside, why do we still have minority ethnic day/month? or is this going off topic?

and as far as TV portrayal of gay people goes, it's not always absolute.
Because according to TV trope analysis, most TV shows just cookie cut characters. Straight, gay, bi, nerd, jock, emo... one type or the other

Now back to your local debate

 

[Skydra]

LOL on the gay pride parade day thing.
Similar note aside, why do we still have minority ethnic day/month? or is this going off topic?

We still have those ethnic days/months because if we removed them, we would be faced down by immense criticism by blacks, Asians, Chinese, Irish, or just general supporters of equality for racism.

And, I guess if it makes them feel fulfilled, that's good for them. We can't exactly stop celebrations if people want them to happen.

Also, I agree that this argument is an "lol", lets just say that due to freedom of speech, we can have whatever ****ing parades we want.