Gay and transexuals

[chubber]

Well.. first, male and female brains are awfully similar to begin with despite attraction. (Let's not even delve into historically straight males in ancient times engaging in same sex relations, and that society sort of puts standards on how taboo homosexuality is or is not. Many children experiment with the same sex at young ages, but young boys tend to hide it because of the taboo it is seen as now.)

There have been some studies showing correlations between second and third sons and homosexuality via the mother's resistance to testosterone, etc. Or how levels of estrogen can be higher in more effeminate men. But it is important to remember correlation is not causation. While we know being born gay is definitely a thing, we don't know how much of it is influenced by genes and how much is influenced by personality and society. We have a lot of exciting research about how some people born prone to things with certain genes can have them switched on and off so to speak based on events that happen as they grow up. So society can literally influence gene expression.To top that off... There is a whole spectrum (bisexuality is a thing as well), and we see social changes in people born straight (aka prison systems and the like) and gay (being married to a woman despite attraction to men). So, the more feminine-like brains could be an influence without being a major component at all. Or a red herring.. and have nothing to do with it. We don't know.

Transexuality is a very complex thing. Very complex. I think it is safe to say that this a part from attraction to the sexes.. because you can have a trans gay person (ftm that like men) just as easily as a trans straight person (ftm that likes women), or trans bi, or trans-only attractions (only attracted to other trans people). It is a whole other can of worms and it is not really in the same categories as homosexuality.

Edit:I should mention I don't subscribe to this non source feminine brain thing. I'm just rolling with it for the sake of argument in case the OP was talking about hormone expression or something to that effect. They're just gay man.

So you are saying that, there are multiple reasons why one could end up being a transexual. And we shouldn't fall into the trap, that one "thing" or event, will cause the person to become transexual?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

If people can become traumatized and get physical ailments and psychological disorders from childhood abuse and neglect, why can they not get sexual disorders from abuse and neglect as well?

I am suggesting that sexual disorders comprise a wide spectrum of what used to be considered strange and sinful but we now call normal variation; that sexual disorders range from asexuality and inorgasmia to hypersexuality and erectile dysfunction to homesexuality, promiscuity, and transgender issues, to name a few.

Instead of even considering this, in order to potentially FIX an underlying and dormant problem, we are quick (as a society) to falsely claim biology or organic genesis as the reason for such aberrant sexual inclinations.

 

[magpie]

In order to be a disorder, something must cause harm or dysfunction. Homosexuality does neither. Take a step into the shoes of someone who is LGBT, and imagine how they must feel if they're told their natural urges and attractions are unhealthy and wrong.

Further, spreading the notion that this is somehow a disorder stigmitizes it, and causes societal mistreatment.

Classifying it as such in the past caused measurable harm.

Look. Homosexuality was thought of as a disorder for a very long time. Some people still think it is. I don't think it's a disorder. But going by your line of reasoning, you've put yourself into a place where you wouldn't even be able to question that diagnosis. I don't need to put myself into anyone's shoes. I'm asexual. I was misdiagnosed with a somatoform disorder when I was 12 because they couldn't figure out what my actual illness was. I had an organ removed in error. According to you I should have accepted that diagnosis as hard fact and was delusional to question it.

Classifying things as disorders does cause measurable harm. Classifying things as disorders is stigmatizing. It does cause social mistreatment. I'm glad we finally agree.

 

[Yama]

So you are saying that, there are multiple reasons why one could end up being a transexual. And we shouldn't fall into the trap, that one "thing" or event, will cause the person to become transexual?

Kyuuei made a really good post there with fantastic points. Yes, there's no distinct universal "cause" to being trans. To be quite honest, nothing "happened" to me that "made" me trans (I know, I know, anecdotal evidence, but whatever). I just am. I assume it's the similar (if not the same) for sexuality as well.

(Also +1000 to you [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] for noting trans people aren't all straight. A lot of people don't understand that. I once had a conversation about my gender with my mother. She asked me why I felt the way I do. So I asked her why she feels the way she does. And she said, "I believe I am a woman because I am attracted to men." To which I replied, "Then why do lesbians exist?" Much more complicated than it seems. )

 

[á´…eparted]

Look. Homosexuality was thought of as a disorder for a very long time. Some people still think it is. I don't think it's a disorder. But going by your line of reasoning, you've put yourself into a place where you wouldn't even be able to question that diagnosis. I don't need to put myself into anyone's shoes. I'm asexual. I was misdiagnosed with a somatoform disorder when I was 12 because they couldn't figure out what my actual illness was. I had an organ removed in error. According to you I should have accepted that diagnosis as hard fact and was delusional to question it.

Classifying things as disorders does cause measurable harm. Classifying things as disorders is stigmatizing. It does cause social mistreatment. I'm glad we finally agree.

So, you're bringing in another topic we discussed (which I have since exited out of as it was going no where), and I am not going to entertain your attempt to bring up that discussion again because A. I am not interested and B. it's not on topic for this thread. This adds nothing to discussion.

BTW. If you have something to say to me, say it to me directly. Not some passive aggressive bullshit in three separate posts not even addressing the topic at hand.

 

[Coriolis]

Technically though, the laws of physics also won't tell us whether homosexuality can be classified as a disorder. Nor will physiological differences. Who cares if homosexuality has a biological basis? So do all disorders, according to lots. Why is everyone so upset about Aphrodite suggesting homosexuality is a disorder? I thought we didn't believe that disorders themselves were inherently stigmatizing here. So why is this different?

I was wondering how long it would take someone to make this distinction.

The objection to Aphrodite's position is that it denies the physiological basis for sexual orientation in favor of presenting it as a learned behavior. The physiological basis has been demonstrated. You are right, though, that this says nothing about whether being gay is (1) a disorder, or (2) morally wrong.

We address the first by looking at how being gay impacts one's ability to function in day-to-day life: keep a job, pay one's bills, meet one's daily needs, maintain meaningful relationships, be a good neighbor, etc. When gay people have had trouble doing any of these things, it has been due to artificial limitations imposed by others, such as when homosexuality is made illegal, when employers won't hire gay folks, when landlords won't rent to them, and and when families disown them. None of this stems from the physiology of gayness or even from its expression in gay relationships. Compare this with disorders like bipolar, or schizophrenia where the problems originate in the individual's brain chemistry.

The second is where religion rightly applies. Yes, if someone accepts a religious writing or doctrine that says being gay is wrong, that is what they will believe. It doesn't change physiology, nor the fact that a gay person can function in society as well as anyone else. They have a right to that belief, just as they have a right to believe that women should be under the authority of men, that whites have more value than blacks, and that everyone who is not part of their specific Christian denomination will go to Hell. I find such beliefs unfortunate, but people are free to believe what they want. Their actions, however, must comply with standards of the society, most notably laws and regulations.

If someone believes being gay is wrong, the most they can say is: some people are born gay. Since living a gay lifestyle is wrong, this gives them a special burden through life, as they must learn to resist these innate impulses in order to be wholesome and good. As such, it would be seen almost as a handicap, or similar to alcoholism in that the affected person must refrain from something enjoyed by the majority around him. One should then love gay people and support them in every way as they strive to resist temptation.

Of course I don't believe the above, it's just for the sake of argument.

 

[á´…eparted]

If people can become traumatized and get physical ailments and psychological disorders from childhood abuse and neglect, why can they not get sexual disorders from abuse and neglect as well?

Homosexuality is NOT a sexual disorder. Accept it.

I am suggesting that sexual disorders comprise a wide spectrum of what used to be considered strange and sinful but we now call normal variation; that sexual disorders range from asexuality and inorgasmia to hypersexuality and erectile dysfunction to homesexuality, promiscuity, and transgender issues, to name a few.

Again, homosexuality, and transexuality are not a sexual disorders, so your entire argument is moot.

Instead of even considering this, in order to potentially FIX an underlying and dormant problem, we are quick (as a society) to falsely claim biology or organic genesis as the reason for such aberrant sexual inclinations.

There isn't a problem! PERIOD. Stop spreading falsehoods.

/thread.

 

[magpie]

So, you're bringing in another topic we discussed (which I have since exited out of as it was going no where), and I am not going to entertain your attempt to bring up that discussion again because A. I am not interested and B. it's not on topic for this thread. This adds nothing to discussion.

BTW. If you have something to say to me, say it to me directly. Not some passive aggressive bullshit in three separate posts not even addressing the topic at hand.

It is on topic. You can choose not to discuss it if you wish, but I'm just pointing out how your line of reasoning in the previous thread contradicts your line of reasoning here. I have said it to you directly. You are very good though at not replying directly to anything I say. What is addressing the topic at hand for you? Is your outrage at AphroditeGoneAwry on topic? Is discussion about religion on topic? How can I be more direct? Please let me know.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Homosexuality is NOT a sexual disorder. Accept it.



Again, homosexuality, and transexuality are not a sexual disorders, so your entire argument is moot.




There isn't a problem! PERIOD. Stop spreading falsehoods.

/thread.

Says who? The dsmv? That changes every year or so??

I have little respect for what the current psychiatric 'authorities' opinions are from year to year. Psychology is not an exact science.

 

[Poki]

We are born liking certain things. It's an innate trait that can be altered and does change over time. Our taste buds change our preferences change based purely on age which is dependent on DNA and birth. So why is it not possible that so does our preference in who we like. I don't think there is a "gay" gene. I think people are blinded by the simple fact that it's a preference. It may be the personality of a gay person combined with aesthetics that attract someone. It's no different then liking onions or a certain car. Why do some men like fast, others like big, some like cars that would be girly. Some guys lie flowers or poems or anything. Until we can find out what affects our preferences we will not find the "gay" gene. People who think otherwise are blinded from the concepts of gay and dont see it for its simplicity of like vs dislike

You know the only difference is...that stuff like a car, an onion can't dislike being liked by what it doesn't like. We have the ability to judge our preference of what we do like and don't like and grouping it into a box of good vs bad. People who have issues have this distaste for being liked by a guy. Others are just followers.

 

[á´…eparted]

It is on topic. You can choose not to discuss it if you wish, but I'm just pointing out how your line of reasoning in the previous thread contradicts your line of reasoning here. I have said it to you directly. You are very good though at not replying directly to anything I say. What is addressing the topic at hand for you? Is your outrage at AphroditeGoneAwry on topic? Is discussion about religion on topic? How can I be more direct? Please let me know.

Let's assume for a second that it does contradict (it doesn't) it. It doesn't invalidate a darn thing that I am saying here. I am not going to bother trying to patch up or explain the differences because based on past experience with you, you will not agree with me on it, and it will be a complete waste of my time. Further, it would be a distraction from what I see as the current primary issue: The fact that AGA is spreading harmful factually wrong crap, and is (once again) ignoring every reasonable argument or point brought up by everyone that says anything to her, and living in her own self-created world. So yes, my outrage is completely valid.

 

[magpie]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to make this distinction.

The objection to Aphrodite's position is that it denies the physiological basis for sexual orientation in favor of presenting it as a learned behavior. The physiological basis has been demonstrated. You are right, though, that this says nothing about whether being gay is (1) a disorder, or (2) morally wrong.

We address the first by looking at how being gay impacts one's ability to function in day-to-day life: keep a job, pay one's bills, meet one's daily needs, maintain meaningful relationships, be a good neighbor, etc. When gay people have had trouble doing any of these things, it has been due to artificial limitations imposed by others, such as when homosexuality is made illegal, when employers won't hire gay folks, when landlords won't rent to them, and and when families disown them. None of this stems from the physiology of gayness or even from its expression in gay relationships. Compare this with disorders like bipolar, or schizophrenia where the problems originate in the individual's brain chemistry.

This is true. But it's worth pointing out that the way physical disabilities impact a person's functionality is often exacerbated by or even due entirely to artificial limitations. For example, take a person who is paralysed below the waste. If they lived in a world that were made accessible to them and didn't encounter stairs with no elevator, buildings without automatic doors, buildings without ramps, companies unwilling to hire them, etc, they could live a life just as functional as anyone else. Their legs still wouldn't work but it wouldn't matter as much because it wouldn't be as much of a disability.

And some people with certain mental illlnesses don't see their mental illnesses as something that impedes their functioning. Some people do. For the people who don't see it as something that impedes their functioning, since that is the qualification for what counts as a disorder, should we still treat it as a disorder? If we should, then by that logic we should treat homosexuality as a disorder, since excluding impeded functioning, the only qualification for a disorder is different physiology.

 

[á´…eparted]

Says who? The dsmv? That changes every year or so??

I have little respect for what the current psychiatric 'authorities' opinions are from year to year. Psychology is not an exact science.

You still haven't addressed anything else I have said to you, there are much more pressing matters at hand, such as the harm you spread by making crap like this up.

Please re-read the entire thread to see why, as it has been explained multiple ways by multiple people, and I am not going to waste my time re-explaining something that you're ultimately going to ignore.

I also find it INCREDIBLY ironic how you could regard something as a mental disorder when you question the very basis of psychology and mental disorders in the first place. It's immensely hypocritical.

 

[Forever]

Says who? The dsmv? That changes every year or so??

I have little respect for what the current psychiatric 'authorities' opinions are from year to year. Psychology is not an exact science.

Homosexuality hasn't been a "disorder" since the 1970's... this is from the APA. American Psychological Association. This is 2015, almost '16.

 

[Yama]

If people can become traumatized and get physical ailments and psychological disorders from childhood abuse and neglect, why can they not get sexual disorders from abuse and neglect as well?

The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "sexual disorder." As in, a person can't develop something that doesn't exist. Mental and physical illnesses are very real. There is a reason homosexuality was taken out of the DSM--because it isn't a disorder.

I am suggesting that sexual disorders comprise a wide spectrum of what used to be considered strange and sinful but we now call normal variation; that sexual disorders range from asexuality and inorgasmia to hypersexuality and erectile dysfunction to homesexuality, promiscuity, and transgender issues, to name a few.

Not only is there not such a thing as a "sexual disorder," but they (things that you classified as them) are not exactly caused by anything. I'm not trans because anyone told me to be, or because I was raised wrong, or because I was traumatized. Honestly, I didn't even know what transgender was for so long because of the social stigma, because no one talked about it and I never once heard about it for so long. It was always just this dark, socially stigmatized, Very Bad Thing that people would scoff at. Knowing and accepting that I am trans now is wonderful because I am more comfortable with myself now than I ever was being forced to wear the dress to Christmas dinner or feeling alienated from my peers for not acting like a girl when I was supposed to be a girl (cuz society). The only problem I have with being trans is that people I've never met, people I pass by on the street, people I sit next to in school feel that they can pass judgment on me and hate me and discriminate me for being who I am. They think that they can be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. They think that they have the right to be. I have absolutely no qualms saying that there is absolutely no problem with me--but with those people.

Instead of even considering this, in order to potentially FIX an underlying and dormant problem, we are quick (as a society) to falsely claim biology or organic genesis as the reason for such aberrant sexual inclinations.

^Implies that they need "fixing." I'd rather die than stop being true to myself. That doesn't make me sick or ill or broken. It actually makes me quite normal. It's like telling a cisgender person that suddenly they start need to be trans. Reaction: "Wtf?! No!! It's impossible!"

Also, no one falsely or hurriedly claimed that there is a biological factor in these matters. Careful research was put into it.

Being different is not bad, and does not need to be fixed.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Homosexuality hasn't been a "disorder" since the 1970's... this is from the APA. American Psychological Association.

Interesting. That is when the womens lib movement persuaded women taking care of their families was selling themselves short.

I think the 70s/80s was when things really took an irreparable turn for the worse on our society. Including our ideas about sexual expression which laid the current foundation of 'anything goes! It's all good!'

 

[Coriolis]

This is true. But it's worth pointing out that the way physical disabilities impact a person's functionality is often exacerbated by or even due entirely to artificial limitations. For example, take a person who is paralysed below the waste. If they lived in a world that were made accessible to them and didn't encounter stairs with no elevator, buildings without automatic doors, buildings without ramps, companies unwilling to hire them, etc, they could live a life just as functional as anyone else. Their legs still wouldn't work but it wouldn't matter as much because it wouldn't be as much of a disability.

And some people with certain mental illlnesses don't see their mental illnesses as something that impedes their functioning. Some people do. For the people who don't see it as something that impedes their functioning, since that is the qualification for what counts as a disorder, should we still treat it as a disorder? If we should, then by that logic we should treat homosexuality as a disorder, since excluding impeded functioning, the only qualification for a disorder is different physiology.

My use of this yardstick for measuring whether being gay is a disorder in no way precludes its use for other conditions. Indeed, I think it is the only standard that makes any sense. I have seen much debate in this vein concerning Asbergers/autism spectrum "disorders", with some focusing on the difficulties affected people often have, and others pointing out that much of this comes simply from how people treat them and how society is organized, and that it is simply a different way of thinking/processing.

The idea of what constitutes a disorder is interesting but a derail here, so if there is interest in further discussion, I will make a new thread.

Interesting. That is when the womens lib movement persuaded women taking care of their families was selling themselves short.

I think the 70s/80s was when things really took an irreparable turn for the worse on our society. Including our ideas about sexual expression which laid the current foundation of 'anything goes! It's all good!'

As I see it, the 70s were when we started treating people more as individuals, rather than insisting they to conform to externally imposed expectations based on the demographic group they happen to fall into.

 

[Yama]

Says who? The dsmv? That changes every year or so??

I have little respect for what the current psychiatric 'authorities' opinions are from year to year. Psychology is not an exact science.

But neither is anything that you are saying. Like the existence of "sexual disorders."

We are born liking certain things. It's an innate trait that can be altered and does change over time. Our taste buds change our preferences change based purely on age which is dependent on DNA and birth. So why is it not possible that so does our preference in who we like. I don't think there is a "gay" gene. I think people are blinded by the simple fact that it's a preference. It may be the personality of a gay person combined with aesthetics that attract someone. It's no different then liking onions or a certain car. Why do some men like fast, others like big, some like cars that would be girly. Some guys lie flowers or poems or anything. Until we can find out what affects our preferences we will not find the "gay" gene. People who think otherwise are blinded from the concepts of gay and dont see it for its simplicity of like vs dislike

You know the only difference is...that stuff like a car, an onion can't dislike being liked by what it doesn't like. We have the ability to judge our preference of what we do like and don't like and grouping it into a box of good vs bad. People who have issues have this distaste for being liked by a guy. Others are just followers.

Sexuality and gender are not fixed points. It is fluid. That's why it's a spectrum. Very few people are COMPLETELY gay or COMPLETELY straight, whether they are aware of it (or act upon it) or not. But since most people identify as straight and are almost exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, they're nearly blind to it--they think it's all fixed.

Also, yes. Romantic attraction, sexual attraction, aesthetic appeal--all separate. They can be the same. They aren't always.

- - - Updated - - -

Including our ideas about sexual expression which laid the current foundation of 'anything goes! It's all good!'

Is anything wrong with that?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "sexual disorder." As in, a person can't develop something that doesn't exist. Mental and physical illnesses are very real. There is a reason homosexuality was taken out of the DSM--because it isn't a disorder.


Not only is there not such a thing as a "sexual disorder," but they (things that you classified as them) are not exactly caused by anything. I'm not trans because anyone told me to be, or because I was raised wrong, or because I was traumatized. Honestly, I didn't even know what transgender was for so long because of the social stigma, because no one talked about it and I never once heard about it for so long. It was always just this dark, socially stigmatized, Very Bad Thing that people would scoff at. Knowing and accepting that I am trans now is wonderful because I am more comfortable with myself now than I ever was being forced to wear the dress to Christmas dinner or feeling alienated from my peers for not acting like a girl when I was supposed to be a girl (cuz society). The only problem I have with being trans is that people I've never met, people I pass by on the street, people I sit next to in school feel that they can pass judgment on me and hate me and discriminate me for being who I am. They think that they can be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. They think that they have the right to be. I have absolutely no qualms saying that there is absolutely no problem with me--but with those people.


^Implies that they need "fixing." I'd rather die than stop being true to myself. That doesn't make me sick or ill or broken. It actually makes me quite normal. It's like telling a cisgender person that suddenly they start need to be trans. Reaction: "Wtf?! No!! It's impossible!"

Also, no one falsely or hurriedly claimed that there is a biological factor in these matters. Careful research was put into it.

Being different is not bad, and does not need to be fixed.

i don't have dissociative personality disorder because i was raised wrong or was traumatized either!!! Yeehaw. We are just fucked up by nature ye gads!!




/denial much?

 

[Forever]

10 members, 0 guests... excellent.

Updated: 13 members, 0 guests...

Updated #2: 10 members. ;o