Are people born homosexual ?

[JillianRose]

Grace & Peace!

Just as an interesting counter and gloss to JillianRose’s post, there’s a recent study which suggests that while there are certainly “nonarbitrary” differences between the sexes (which are largely biologically determined), when it comes to an examination of psychology, the differences between the sexes are minimal if not insignificant. The study provides substantial evidence against the sort of (commonplace) thinking which sees male and female as absolute categories with absolutely distinct psychological profiles, attributes and aptitudes. This is the study:

Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2012, October 22). Men and Women Are From Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030437

It can be found in PDF form here: psych.rochester.edu/people/reis_harry/assets/pdf/CarothersReis_2012.pdf

Here is the abstract:
Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex. Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to
Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex.

Here is the conclusion:
For some time, there has been a striking difference in the way that most scholars and the lay public conceptualize sex differences. Whereas most researchers, with a few noteworthy exceptions, have conceived of psychological sex differences as dimensional constructs, laypersons were more likely to view these differences as fundamentally taxonic. We conducted our analyses with the goal of making explicit the mathematical properties that follow from these distinctive positions and then testing their relevance for a diverse set of measures. In all instances the dimensional approach prevailed. At least with regard to the measures we examined, therefore, it can be concluded that they unambiguously represent exemplars of the same underlying attributes rather than qualitatively distinct categories of human characteristics.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Dude, no offence have know Idea what these psycho Babel means. LOL

I do know what the Lord says. That means more to me then any doctors. Science has changed. Not God. I just saw on T.V. that you need a pill if you laugh to much!! REALLY? I will not conform to societal standards. Thats why it is called “practicing medicine”. Now, if you don’t like what the Lord commands people can go find a church that fits their life style. A sin is a sin. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. I did not make the Laws. God did. I am not God. I will not hate either.

Men need to be valued in our society. MEN ARE OUR PROTECTORS, THE PRIEST OF THE HOME!! We need to encourage them and let MEN BE MEN. We need them. Society wants women to believe we don’t need them. We are already at the point women do not need a man to have a baby.

Dude, to say there is that big of a difference in men in women is statistical, opinion, based on the variables measured. Other Doctors can come up with different conclusions based on their variable.

Please, don’t tell me Men and Women are not that different. I go to my husband hysterical and he won’t let me vent, he wants to solve the problem.

Anyway, you know what they say about opinions? LOL Please don’t think I am yelling either. I am a hyper stroke who is very bubbly. LOL

I conclude with saying " I like my men strong, Like my coffee"

Your fellow Dudette in Christ,
Jillian

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t know, epan. I had my view about this before Pope Benedict expressed that view. Just like I don’t need a specific, official Church teaching on IV drug use, to deduce that if you’re going to shoot up drugs, then do the least harm you can and try your best to use clean needles.

But yeah… I suspect Pope Benedict XVI has the same or similar opinion as me on this. So, I think you may be right.

Questions like this attempt to sound more logical and express more absolute truth than they do.

But I have an answer for you. Pedophiles, gay men that seduce 16 year old boys, and men and uncles that sexually molest their own sons and nephews.

That question makes as much sense as this statement and question, “Of course individuals are born as heterosexual rapists, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own family?”

For one, not everyone is hated or disinherited by their family for being gay. I have a non-biological nephew that is gay. Two aunts on my mother side that are lesbian. A deceased brother of her’s that was gay. And another brother of her’s after his wife left him, he has moved into a romantic relationship with a man (his wife left before that and for none of those reasons, and not because he was a bad husband). None of them were or are hated or disinherited.

I have an uncle on the other side of my family that maintains as a young boy he was sexually molested by one of his older sisters along with one of his older brothers.

Just one thing, pedophiles and homosexuals are two separate and distinct things. Most pedophiles are attracted to the AGE of their victims and not the gender. Most pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.

Anita Bryant and the Save our children people are feeding bad stereotypes and yes though I hate to use the word irrational predjudice. I was never molested as a boy and I have never had an attraction to boys, God forbid

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)

Questions like this attempt to sound more logical and express more absolute truth than they do.

But I have an answer for you. Pedophiles, gay men that seduce 16 year old boys, and men and uncles that sexually molest their own sons and nephews.

That question makes as much sense as this statement and question, “Of course individuals are born as heterosexual rapists, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own family?”

(…)

There is a big difference between being gay and using power and control over another which is what pedophiles, gay men that seduce 16 year old boys, and men and uncles that sexually molest their own sons and nephews, and heterosexual rapists do.

 

[Publisher]

Just one thing, pedophiles and homosexuals are two separate and distinct things. Most pedophiles are attracted to the AGE of their victims and not the gender. Most pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.

Anita Bryant and the Save our children people are feeding bad stereotypes and yes though I hate to use the word irrational predjudice. I was never molested as a boy and I have never had an attraction to boys, God forbid

Pedophile men tend to molest boys because of accessibility…it is not necessarily the gender of their victim they are attracted to sexually…but the extreme youth of their victims…girls tend to be more “protected” by society from men than are boys.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Dude, no offence have know Idea what these psycho Babel means. LOL

I do know what the Lord says. That means more to me then any doctors. Science has changed. Not God. I just saw on T.V. that you need a pill if you laugh to much!! REALLY? I will not conform to societal standards. Thats why it is called “practicing medicine”. Now, if you don’t like what the Lord commands people can go find a church that fits their life style. A sin is a sin. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. I did not make the Laws. God did. I am not God. I will not hate either.

{…)

Sorry to go off topic a bit but yes there is a disorder called emotional incontinance or pseudobulbar effect. It’s common in people diagnosed with ALS and MS. My mom didn’t laugh inappropriately but cried when she didn’t feel like crying.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Dude, no offence have know Idea what these psycho Babel means. LOL

I do know what the Lord says. That means more to me then any doctors. Science has changed. Not God. I just saw on T.V. that you need a pill if you laugh to much!! REALLY? I will not conform to societal standards. Thats why it is called “practicing medicine”. Now, if you don’t like what the Lord commands people can go find a church that fits their life style. A sin is a sin. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. I did not make the Laws. God did. I am not God. I will not hate either.

Jillian, when we ignore science, we do it to our detriment. It does not make us more faithful people when we choose to disregard either reality or a new attempt at understanding it. What you have written sounds less like a principled moral position and more like typical American anti-intellectualism.

Men need to be valued in our society.

Indeed. Women too.

MEN ARE OUR PROTECTORS, THE PRIEST OF THE HOME!! We need to encourage them and let MEN BE MEN.

Part of the point of the study, though, is that when we say we would like “men to be men,” what we’re actually saying is we would like men’s behavior and attitudes to conform to a series of preconceived notions we quite like to think are intrinsic to maleness but which are not actually native expressions or functions of male biology or psychology.

Please, don’t tell me Men and Women are not that different. I go to my husband hysterical and he won’t let me vent, he wants to solve the problem.

I don’t doubt that you exhibit this behavior, but what the study suggests is that to the extent to which you identify your or your husband’s behavior or attitudes as a function of your or his sex and not just an expression of the sort of people you’ve happened to wind up becoming, then you happen to be engaged in socially supported and socially acceptable role-play.

Anyway, you know what they say about opinions? LOL

Here’s the thing, though: it’s not an opinion. It’s a peer-reviewed scientific study. That doesn’t mean it’s unassailable or not subject to future revision based on a better accumulation of evidence, but it isn’t just an opinion.

I conclude with saying " I like my men strong, Like my coffee"

It appears we have that in common.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[TimeEntrance]

I am a mother of two boys. I am close to them. I realize that little Boys need their Mommy’s. I also believe that ONLY a MAN can make a Man.

I don’t really buy into that, Jillian. That is a very popular notion in Black-America where most the homes are fatherless. And that in part fuels a romantic notion that fathers reveal all sorts of life secrets and infuse all sorts of wisdom in their boys.

We briefly discussed this in the Christopher Dorner thread in the World News section of this discussion board. As I stated in that thread, I’d like to know what fathers teach you? So far as I can tell that is a zero. I exaggerate. My father taught me to ride a bike and told me never to leave the house without money. That was all the teaching and wisdom imparted on me over a sum of 18 or more years. There were probably a few other things taught to me but most members of this board might find them anti-social and violent. But he came up through a dysfunctional, alcoholic family. And endured the Jim Crow era racism that existed in milder forms even in the North. So, he was an extremely angry man. Yelling and things flying pretty much defined my childhood family life.

One of my best friends I grew up with didn’t have his father much in his life. He was surrounded by women in his family. They also closed ranks to psychologically encourage him not to fall into a statistic of black males. He always had girlfriends.

I think girlfriend can be a big help to any developing boy if he has no father in the home or whatever.

Grace & Peace!

Just as an interesting counter and gloss to JillianRose’s post, there’s a recent study which suggests that while there are certainly “nonarbitrary” differences between the sexes (which are largely biologically determined), when it comes to an examination of psychology, the differences between the sexes are minimal if not insignificant. The study provides substantial evidence against the sort of (commonplace) thinking which sees male and female as absolute categories with absolutely distinct psychological profiles, attributes and aptitudes. This is the study:

The point, I suppose, is that there is no essential masculinity and no essential femininity. Views similar to Nicolosi’s which depend on the maintenance of an essential masculinity and femininity (and who develop therapies designed to recover these essentialist categories during the course of “reparation”) will more and more be found to be pseudo-scientific fraudsters at worst, superstitious witch doctors at best.

However, if masculinity and femininity are indeed dimensional and not taxonic as the paper suggests, that does seem to hint that sexual identity (much like the “self” in toto), is a socially constructed thing that is informed by biology, culture, etc. To what degree that identity (or the self more broadly) is a stable reflection of an underlying personhood, whether or not that identity can be intentionally deconstructed and whether or not such a deconstruction represents a positive good are perhaps related but more difficult questions to unravel than the thread topic will allow…

and does not simply

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I’m an undergad in biology. Gender is not taxonomical. Not like it is with species. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges a difference between biological sex and gender. The Church just differs with sociologists in that the former thinks it’s immoral to have the opposite gender of your biological sex. The latter regards it as an amoral issue.

But who ever wrote that paper I doubt ever trained a champion boxer or took a beaten down NFL team and turned them into Super Bowl champs like Vince Lombardi did.

I learned a good deal from play sports I think. Neither of my parents played sports in school or organized sports. In their mind you can’t create a Tiger Woods or the Williams sisters because they can only be born.

My point here is whoever wrote the quotes you provided never grew up in my neighborhood, and I would bet dollars to doughnuts I’d survive American prison and they might not.

I’m not familiar with all the professional locutions or jargon in those quotes.

What I do know is this. If I’m a father of a teenage daughter it would be inappropriate of me to continually walk in on her in her room while she is naked. It would be inappropriate for me, due to her humble build, acne face, lower confidence, and not having a boyfriend to ask her in an accusatory tone if she is gay and having sex with her aunt? And then dismiss all reactions she has into such an inquiry.

I know this in part because I played sports and I got glimpses into the psychology behind making champions.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks about gender. They exist and a developing girl is going to be concerned about hers. Like if she looks nice or pretty in a prom dress. You know… the feminist concern with the female mind. Ergo, the aphorism, “All girls are beautiful.”

What Dr. Nicolosi stated in the short portion of that video I listened to resonated with me.

But I’m a realest. I know there are going to be males dressed as females being abused by males. There are plenty of transsexuals prostituting around my apartment building. I used to see plenty of them along Church street in Norfolk, Virginia when I was stationed there in the military. I also realize murders are going to continue to go on in Milwaukee and the United States. I realize children are going to be continued to be abducted in the United States.

So, I understand the field I’m on. The question for me is not if I’m going to be a figurative NBA or NFL player but if I’m going to be a good coach for my son. And that means I will protect his mind and his “masculinity” that you so disregard.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Of course individuals are born homosexuals, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own families? Obviously not all are born with an attraction to the opposite gender, and not all are born heterosexual.

Questions like this attempt to sound more logical and express more absolute truth than they do.

But I have an answer for you. Pedophiles, gay men that seduce 16 year old boys, and men and uncles that sexually molest their own sons and nephews.

That question makes as much sense as this statement and question, “Of course individuals are born as heterosexual rapists, who would choose to be hated and disinherited by their own family?”

Just one thing, pedophiles and homosexuals are two separate and distinct things. Most pedophiles are attracted to the AGE of their victims and not the gender. Most pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.

Anita Bryant and the Save our children people are feeding bad stereotypes and yes though I hate to use the word irrational predjudice. I was never molested as a boy and I have never had an attraction to boys, God forbid

There is a big difference between being gay and using power and control over another which is what pedophiles, gay men that seduce 16 year old boys, and men and uncles that sexually molest their own sons and nephews, and heterosexual rapists do.

Adrewstx, you asked the above in blue and I answered you with what’s in green.

Being a substance addict I’ve heard time and again alcoholics and drug addicts talk about “the gene” they inherited for their addictions. It makes people feel better about themselves to think that.

Pedophiles have sexual orientations too. At minimum you would have to subscribe to them a bisexuality, otherwise they would have no sexual orientation (attracted to a biological sex) at all, because in the science of biology age is not listed as one of the sexes of humans. The science of biology only recognizes two sexes among human beings: male and female.

And I never insinuated that homosexuals were pedophiles.

What was implied in your proposition was something like: If X results in being hated and disinherited by ones family then one will only choose to be or do Y. Where Y is the contradiction of X.

As if that proposition was equal to a scientific law in physics and chemistry.

It’s not. People do things all the time to get them disowned or hated, because they derive some pleasure from it. Who would drink before driving? Who would murder their own kids they gave birth to?

My point with pedophiles is that they are one of the most reviled categories of people in the U.S. and the Western World. I mean… what Catholic Priest would have sex with a kid if he knew it would incur so much wrath if the world found out? Apparently quite a number.

Active homosexuality between consenting peers of age does not result in prison sentencing. So, I wouldn’t think of it as the greatest burden one could have, in that sense of persecution. You can go to school dressed as a girl if you want no one is going to throw you in state or federal prison.

I’d rather be a regular gay person than a pedophile. Plus, the former has plenty of bars to go to. College organizations. Flags. Probably group cruises on ships for all I know.

That’s not to say openly gay people don’t have their crosses and burdens of facing unjust discrimination. They do. It’s much easier and status quo to be heterosexual.

Hope that helps you and Bruised Reed understand where I was coming from.

 

[Gricken]

Suffice to say there is a lot of debate over whether or not someone is born homosexual. IMO, it doesn’t matter. But I don’t know enough to say one way or another.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Suffice to say there is a lot of debate over whether or not someone is born homosexual. IMO, it doesn’t matter. But I don’t know enough to say one way or another.

The debate is something like the past debates over eugenics or phrenology. Both were regarded in the same way people like Deo Volente regard biological determinism today. Catholic intellectuals opposed eugenics (biological determinism) back in the early half of the 20th Century when secular American and European intellectuals all subscribed to it. And they (people like G.K. Chesterton and other Catholic intellectuals) were mocked in the same way advocates of determinism today like Deo Volente mock those that oppose the new front of biological determinism today (the heritability of homosexuality).

My current science text book for A&P class states that the old definition of the gene as “a unit of heridity” (the definition I was taught in science courses just a few years ago) is too simplistic. One reason is that biologist now know that genes aren’t the sole, absolute masters of destiny we once thought they were. Bear in mind scientist once thought there were rougly 100,000 genes in our DNA that coded for at least 100,000 protiens. It’s the coding of these protiens that give you your skin color and hair color and in a few cases are directly linked to certain diseases. But as it turns out the human being has only between 20,000 to 25,000 genes. And only 2% of those genes code for anything biologist now say.

It must also be kept in mind that all gene expression is now said by biologist to be influenced by if not contingent on enviormental (name removed by moderator)uts.

At any rate… in a different thread I state I was reading the book Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers From Everybody Else.

I’m happy I picked up the book and it has really changed one of my fundamental beliefs and perceptions: innate talent (e.g., God given or genentically encoded capability). Not to say there are no genetically caused capabilities and limitations. Humans have language and can speak as a result of our genome. But the author of this book points out the enthusiasim in the West over “talent” (ergo, you are simply born X way or not) really burst forth with the apostles of Darwinism. And it became regarded as a virtue to simply accept your destiny prescribed in your genotype. In other words, if you are poor in math it is a result of your genotype and no amount of energy put into it can make you into a mathematician one day. Same thing with being gay (having an attraction to the opposite sex) or saying your are a girl trapped in a boys body. Nothing can overcome “what you were born as.”

But ample examples in life–studied by scientists themselves–is now sheding light on this being pure myth. People with below average IQ’s have transformed themselves into champion chess players. IQ while it measures something really does not have much bearing on the individual human’s capability.

But just any kind of hard work or practice is not enough. In fact, the research show people can get worse with hard work and practice. This includes everyone from medical doctors to accountants. At best they cease any marked improvements. But there is a specific kind of practice which requires an enormous amount of energy (calories/hard work), and good amounts of rest (sleep). It’s what has been termed “deliberate practice.”

All these years I thought I was horrible at math simply because I had no talent for it. I thought I was genetically programed incapable of progressing in math. That in part motivated me to give up trying. But now I’m assessing my past differently and seeing that it was me (my environment as well) that limited my potential in math. And my poor performance and beliefs caused me to develop a real phobia and panic over math. Which one might call effectively disabling.

I guess my message is this. We can’t be perfect but we can improve. But it requires a certain kind of deliberate practice. Which also requires competent authority/coaching that can provide us outside observation and analysis of ourselves as well as appropriate instruction.

And the younger you start (e.g., Tiger Woods, the Williams sisters) the better. In fact, if one waites too late in life it is near impossible to arise to the competative level of those that have years more worth of deliberate practice put in.

Pace.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But who ever wrote that paper I doubt ever trained a champion boxer or took a beaten down NFL team and turned them into Super Bowl champs like Vince Lombardi did.

I’m not sure that’s relevant to the study…

My point here is whoever wrote the quotes you provided never grew up in my neighborhood, and I would bet dollars to doughnuts I’d survive American prison and they might not.

I’m not quite clear on the point you’re making, but what you appear to be saying is totally in line with what the paper suggests: that gender is a social construct that is not reflective of biological realities. The larger picture as it relates to sexual identity or identity more broadly is that who we are is a function of our time, our place, and our biology–that is, biology, culture, social influences, the world around us, etc. construct our identities, not in a rigid or deterministic way, but in a way that is relational and process-oriented. It’s entirely reasonable, rational and natural that your neighborhood and the people in it will have affected who you are. In light of the paper, though, it is not reasonable, rational or natural that the notion of masculinity which you received from your neighborhood or your family is actually reflective of or an expression of a biological category–the biological category “male” does not appear to express itself psychologically in a way which is significantly or categorically different from how the biological category “female” expresses itself psychologically, notwithstanding the fact that male and female are categorically distinct sexes.

It doesn’t matter what one thinks about gender. They exist and a developing girl is going to be concerned about hers. Like if she looks nice or pretty in a prom dress. You know… the feminist concern with the female mind. Ergo, the aphorism, “All girls are beautiful.”

People will generally be concerned with the social perception of their gender because, socially speaking, gender is not recognized as a construct but is treated as if it arose (in a deterministic or fatalistic way) from the biological difference between the sexes. Social forces constantly re-enforce the idea that biology represents a kind of gender fatalism within which there is room for very little modulation (or deviation as the case may be). But that gender fatalism is non-existent: it is learned, not naturally emergent from- or expressive of one’s biological sex. So the girl who is concerned with her prom dress is not actually concerned with her gender as if gender comes from within and is native to her, but with maintaining a construct she has received from without, from those around her. Naturally this will affect her identity as she internalizes and perpetuates the constructs she’s been given and by which she is expected to be shaped and/or formed.

What Dr. Nicolosi stated in the short portion of that video I listened to resonated with me.

That’s nice. I have little use for him.

But I’m a realest. I know there are going to be males dressed as females being abused by males. There are plenty of transsexuals prostituting around my apartment building. I used to see plenty of them along Church street in Norfolk, Virginia when I was stationed there in the military. I also realize murders are going to continue to go on in Milwaukee and the United States. I realize children are going to be continued to be abducted in the United States.

Transexuality is a bit of non sequitur here, no?

The question for me is not if I’m going to be a figurative NBA or NFL player but if I’m going to be a good coach for my son. And that means I will protect his mind and his “masculinity” that you so disregard.

I don’t disregard “masculinity.” It’s a useful concept–it’s also worth understanding correctly, or is at least worth interrogating, particularly if one is to actually “know thyself” as opposed to knowing only what others would very much like us to think is “thyself.”

You may be referring to my comment that Nicolosi is a witch-doctor. I say this not because I think masculinity can be disregarded or is useless, but because I do not find that treating a construct as if it were biological or natural destiny is actually conducive to an accurate view of reality. It seems as if Nicolosi is treating masculinity is if it were an innate and relatively fixed (and recoverable if lost or “broken” or suppressed or unexpressed) artifact of identity naturally arising from biological sex. But that does not appear to be reflective of reality which would suggest that it is an extrinsic socially determined category which conditions identity from without, not within.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The debate is something like the past debates over eugenics or phrenology. Both were regarded in the same way people like Deo Volente regard biological determinism today. Catholic intellectuals opposed eugenics (biological determinism) back in the early half of the 20th Century when secular American and European intellectuals all subscribed to it. And they (people like G.K. Chesterton and other Catholic intellectuals) were mocked in the same way advocates of determinism today like Deo Volente mock those that oppose the new front of biological determinism today (the heritability of homosexuality).

I believe you’ve managed to misapprehend my view on this rather completely. I do not believe in biological determinism (see my post immediately above for more info). With regard to the genesis of same-sex attraction, I remain relatively agnostic, though it’s reasonable to me to conclude that it and opposite-sex attraction both arise from a confluence of conditioning relationships and influences: biology, genetics, time, place, people, etc. In what way is that determinist? In what way do you see me as a determinist if I have argued against gender as if were fated by our sex and have not actually commented here (until now) on the genesis of same-sex attraction? I think your own preconceived expectations of what you believe my position should be (given what little you may know of me) have clouded your judgment regarding what my position actually is.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[TimeEntrance]

Grace & Peace!

You come with none of that toward me, so, let’s not pretend.

I’m not sure that’s relevant to the study…

It is to me, which is all that matters.

I’m not quite clear on the point you’re making, but what you appear to be saying is totally in line with what the paper suggests: that gender is a social construct that is not reflective of biological realities.

Which is what the Church has known. And I knew that when I made my remarks about Dr. Nicolosi.

So what.

It’s a social gender construct that it’s not manly and emasculating to have another man put a broom stick or baseball bat up your butt. And your point of trying to remind me of this academic wisdom is?

The larger picture as it relates to sexual identity or identity more broadly is that who we are is a function of our time, our place, and our biology–that is, biology, culture, social influences, the world around us, etc. construct our identities, not in a rigid or deterministic way, but in a way that is relational and process-oriented. It’s entirely reasonable, rational and natural that your neighborhood and the people in it will have affected who you are. In light of the paper, though, it is not reasonable, rational or natural that the notion of masculinity which you received from your neighborhood or your family is actually reflective of or an expression of a biological category–the biological category “male” does not appear to express itself psychologically in a way which is significantly or categorically different from how the biological category “female” expresses itself psychologically, notwithstanding the fact that male and female are categorically distinct sexes.

I don’t disagree with any of that per se.

But it’s like talking about the theory of evolution with a sanitation worker (garbage man). They don’t care and it does apply to their life. I’m not martyring myself–or my son–for some ideological causes ending gender differences.

People will generally be concerned with the social perception of their gender because, socially speaking, gender is not recognized as a construct but is treated as if it arose (in a deterministic or fatalistic way) from the biological difference between the sexes.

And you say…

Social forces constantly re-enforce the idea that biology represents a kind of gender fatalism within which there is room for very little modulation (or deviation as the case may be). But that gender fatalism is non-existent: it is learned, not naturally emergent from- or expressive of one’s biological sex. So the girl who is concerned with her prom dress is not actually concerned with her gender as if gender comes from within and is native to her, but with maintaining a construct she has received from without, from those around her. Naturally this will affect her identity as she internalizes and perpetuates the constructs she’s been given and by which she is expected to be shaped and/or formed.

Which is your way of trying to indirectly say her gender is out of her control and determined by molecular, chemical interactions at the genetic and neurological level she has no control over. Thank you, I pretty much got that from your previous posts.

But that’s a lot of ideological, feminist, driven nonsense, slapping together bits and pieces of facts (e.g., gender is a social construct), to promote a movement in the world that dismisses boys can develop gender identity problems due to certain kinds of stress factors in their lives.

My mother used to try and shame me for lifting weights. Like you she was emotionally autistic to the fact I was a short, thin, boy in a competitive urban jungle. That life is Darwinian. And that my decision to lift weights was a positive, rational, approach to my dilemma. In stead she had negative reactions and treated me with respects to that as if I was hurting the world, leading Jews to the gas chamber, and screwing up her ever holy social experiment and ideological goals. She did this all the way into my adulthood. I think she regrets it now as she sees crack has been far more destructive on me than lifting weights. She never hated me. She always loved me. But for reasons I’ll never know she disdained certain things about me. Qualities black women in the inner-cities always bemoaned too many boys and men lacked. But my mother is white and was raised in a very peaceful white neighborhood. Her feminism resembles that of white feminist moire than black feminist. The latter after seeing so many males incarcerated, on drugs, unemployed, murdered, and gay… promote a much different image of “the good man.” He has more traditionally masculine qualities.

Had I told her I was gay and wanted to be a girl she would have treated me with more empathy (my father would have said nothing, just grumbled and read his paper) and emotionally rewarded me with positive cues. I would have been one more soldier in the great feminist army damning patriarchy and all its repressive backwardness. And I would not have arrogantly defied my genetic destiny.

But I’m not buying your koolaid or her koolaid on that.

 

[TimeEntrance]

That’s nice. I have little use for him.

Your choice of diction and tone with that remark reveals the insincerity in your “Grace & Peace!” above. Like saying something or putting an exclamation mark after is going to trick any and everyone.

You would dismiss him as practicing “witchcraft” if I found him helpful and empathetic toward me. If I did meet with him and found that through my effort and his guidance and suggestion that I grew as a person. You would dismiss all of that.

I have no intent on seeing the guy but I’m just saying…

Your real intention are an ideological one. It has nothing to do with the individual. It has to with how you want to see things in the world.

I don’t disregard “masculinity.” It’s a useful concept–it’s also worth understanding correctly, or is at least worth interrogating, particularly if one is to actually “know thyself” as opposed to knowing only what others would very much like us to think is “thyself.”

You may be referring to my comment that Nicolosi is a witch-doctor. I say this not because I think masculinity can be disregarded or is useless, but because I do not find that treating a construct as if it were biological or natural destiny is actually conducive to an accurate view of reality. It seems as if Nicolosi is treating masculinity is if it were an innate and relatively fixed (and recoverable if lost or “broken” or suppressed or unexpressed) artifact of identity naturally arising from biological sex. But that does not appear to be reflective of reality which would suggest that it is an extrinsic socially determined category which conditions identity from without, not within.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Of course the external world influences your gender (and arguably your sexual orientation). That is what Dr. Nicolosi has been saying.

If you are male and regard yourself as female that comes from influences outside yourself and not from molecules strung together in your chromosomes programing you to feel “female.”

Or outside stressors can result in gender confusion. The genders like nation-state boundaries–are determined by society. Being biracial in the U.S. you often go through similar things with regards to your racial identity. It does not matter if race is a social construct. Where the biracial kid fits in can often be a source of internal confusion for them.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Grace & Peace!

I believe you’ve managed to misapprehend my view on this rather completely. I do not believe in biological determinism (see my post immediately above for more info).

I’ve read your posts with their contradictions: (a) a person’s gender is already in them irrespective of what societal expectations of gender are, and (b) a person’s gender comes from external influences telling them what attributes their gender is supposed to have and exhibit.

I suspect the purposes of your contradictions is to make your assertions irrefutable, unfalsifiable.

With regard to the genesis of same-sex attraction, I remain relatively agnostic, though it’s reasonable to me to conclude that it and opposite-sex attraction both arise from a confluence of conditioning relationships and influences: biology, genetics, time, place, people, etc. In what way is that determinist? In what way do you see me as a determinist if I have argued against gender as if were fated by our sex and have not actually commented here (until now) on the genesis of same-sex attraction? I think your own preconceived expectations of what you believe my position should be (given what little you may know of me) have clouded your judgment regarding what my position actually is.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Well… that’s a nice, safe position to take. And when no genetic cause can be found 2 decades from now go to the next best thing, save your assertions and ideology through an ad hoc, “It must be the nipple milk some breast fed infants consume, and statistical evidence suggests this.”

Of course… you can’t totally falsify a biological contingency to anything about humans because we are biological organisms. Even racism and sexism is biologically contingent. So, yeah, so is homosexuality.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You come with none of that toward me, so, let’s not pretend.

Not so. You may be projecting.

Which is your way of trying to indirectly say her gender is out of her control and determined by molecular, chemical interactions at the genetic and neurological level she has no control over. Thank you, I pretty much got that from your previous posts.

It is not, in fact, my way of saying that. Her gender is a social construction, not a biological one. That’s what I was saying. She sees it as “hers” insofar as she has adopted it as her own from the culture around her. And in that sense, yes, it is out of her control because it actually doesn’t come from her or her biology but is imposed on her from outside.

But that’s a lot of ideological, feminist, driven nonsense, slapping together bits and pieces of facts (e.g., gender is a social construct), to promote a movement in the world that dismisses boys can develop gender identity problems due to certain kinds of stress factors in their lives.

I’m not promoting any such movement. You are misreading me. Chances are, you are misreading me because this sort of conversation is related to some significant emotional trauma in your life and your emotions are getting the better of your judgment.

My mother used to try and shame me for lifting weights. …]The latter after seeing so many males incarcerated, on drugs, unemployed, murdered, and gay… promote a much different image of “the good man.” He has more traditionally masculine qualities.

It is clear that your relationship with your mother is complicated and troubling to you. It gives me no pleasure to see someone in pain, and you are clearly in pain.

But…

But I’m not buying your koolaid or her koolaid on that.

…just because you disagree with what I have to say (based on a misreading of what I have to say) on a topic that is very close to the wounds given you by your relationship with your mother does not mean that your mother and I share the same viewpoints or are analogous in any real way.

So while I appreciate that your pain is contributing to a lack of circumspection and a clouding of your judgment here, I want to draw your attention to this: you’re projecting some very serious baggage onto me. You will be in my prayers–that is the only way I know that I can help you bear this burden.

Your choice of diction and tone with that remark reveals the insincerity in your “Grace & Peace!” above.

I’m sorry you see it that way. My reaction to Nicolosi is visceral for a number of reasons. I’m sorry that my distaste for his practices translated, to you, as a disregard for your own feelings.

You would dismiss him as practicing “witchcraft” if I found him helpful and empathetic toward me. If I did meet with him and found that through my effort and his guidance and suggestion that I grew as a person. You would dismiss all of that.

Reparative therapy and it’s methods are widely discredited in the therapeutic industry. Many people nonetheless practice and pursue discredited therapies because they perceive that they experience some benefit. Crystal healing is one such practice that is also discredited but that people pursue and seem to enjoy. I do not dismiss your genuine experience of anything–I dismiss Nicolosi’s methodology and the assumptions on which it is based.

Of course the external world influences your gender (and arguably your sexual orientation). That is what Dr. Nicolosi has been saying.

That’s not quite what Nicolosi says. Nicolosi believes that the external world influences gender and sexual orientation, yes, but that it does so by obscuring or damaging what should be an emergent, natural or innate masculinity. The study I cited (and the sociology you’ve already said and demonstrated you know) suggests that there is no innate masculinity or gender that arises from biological sex–masculinity is a social construct extrinsic to sex which elides over the fundamental and overwhelming psychological similarity between the sexes. This leads me to believe that what Nicolosi does is not to repair a damaged and innate masculinity (because there is no such thing), but to construct one that a patient can buy into, only to pass it off as their own innate masculinity hitherto hidden or unexpressed. That’s a bit of sleight-of-hand to me, and strikes me as dishonest.

If you are male and regard yourself as female that comes from influences outside yourself and not from molecules strung together in your chromosomes programing you to feel “female.”

I agree in part and in principle.

I would only add that the conditioning we experience at the hands of others (and within the context of our time and our place) occurs in tandem with the unfolding of our biology and has lasting effects on that unfolding, for good, ill or indifferent. The takeaway, to some extent, is that the way culture, time, place and others condition us is as “natural” as the way in which biology and genetics condition (I certainly wouldn’t say “program”) us.

Or outside stressors can result in gender confusion. The genders like nation-state boundaries–are determined by society. Being biracial in the U.S. you often go through similar things with regards to your racial identity. It does not matter if race is a social construct. Where the biracial kid fits in can often be a source of internal confusion for them.

I agree 100%.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve read your posts with their contradictions: (a) a person’s gender is already in them irrespective of what societal expectations of gender are, and (b) a person’s gender comes from external influences telling them what attributes their gender is supposed to have and exhibit.

You are clearly misreading me as I never made that first claim. If you think I have, point it out to me and I’ll be happy to clarify. I have stated something along these lines: our sex is biologically irrefutable (we are male or female after all), but gender is not an innate expression of our sex. I’m sure you understand the distinction–you’re obviously a smart guy–but if you don’t, say so (you’ll still be an obviously smart guy).

As to the second claim, I would clarify it by restating it as:a person’s gender comes from external influences telling them what psychological, behavioral or social attributes their sex is supposed to have and exhibit

I suspect the purposes of your contradictions is to make your assertions irrefutable, unfalsifiable.

You suspect incorrectly.

Well… that’s a nice, safe position to take. And when no genetic cause can be found 2 decades from now go to the next best thing, save your assertions and ideology through an ad hoc, “It must be the nipple milk some breast fed infants consume, and statistical evidence suggests this.”

Happily or unhappily, I do not currently live 2 decades from now…

Of course… you can’t totally falsify a biological contingency to anything about humans because we are biological organisms. Even racism and sexism is biologically contingent. So, yeah, so is homosexuality.

Of course you can’t deny biological influence–we are, as you say, biological organisms. But we’re also social organisms, and racism and sexism are both functions of social conditioning.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[aprilfloyd]

Dude, no offence have know Idea what these psycho Babel means.

Psycho Babel - Love it - Douglas Adams would be proud

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’m not sure that’s relevant to the study…

I’m not quite clear on the point you’re making, but what you appear to be saying is totally in line with what the paper suggests: that gender is a social construct that is not reflective of biological realities. The larger picture as it relates to sexual identity or identity more broadly is that who we are is a function of our time, our place, and our biology–that is, biology, culture, social influences, the world around us, etc. construct our identities, not in a rigid or deterministic way, but in a way that is relational and process-oriented. It’s entirely reasonable, rational and natural that your neighborhood and the people in it will have affected who you are. In light of the paper, though, it is not reasonable, rational or natural that the notion of masculinity which you received from your neighborhood or your family is actually reflective of or an expression of a biological category–the biological category “male” does not appear to express itself psychologically in a way which is significantly or categorically different from how the biological category “female” expresses itself psychologically, notwithstanding the fact that male and female are categorically distinct sexes.

People will generally be concerned with the social perception of their gender because, socially speaking, gender is not recognized as a construct but is treated as if it arose (in a deterministic or fatalistic way) from the biological difference between the sexes. Social forces constantly re-enforce the idea that biology represents a kind of gender fatalism within which there is room for very little modulation (or deviation as the case may be). But that gender fatalism is non-existent: it is learned, not naturally emergent from- or expressive of one’s biological sex. So the girl who is concerned with her prom dress is not actually concerned with her gender as if gender comes from within and is native to her, but with maintaining a construct she has received from without, from those around her. Naturally this will affect her identity as she internalizes and perpetuates the constructs she’s been given and by which she is expected to be shaped and/or formed.

That’s nice. I have little use for him.

Transexuality is a bit of non sequitur here, no?

I don’t disregard “masculinity.” It’s a useful concept–it’s also worth understanding correctly, or is at least worth interrogating, particularly if one is to actually “know thyself” as opposed to knowing only what others would very much like us to think is “thyself.”

You may be referring to my comment that Nicolosi is a witch-doctor. I say this not because I think masculinity can be disregarded or is useless, but because I do not find that treating a construct as if it were biological or natural destiny is actually conducive to an accurate view of reality. It seems as if Nicolosi is treating masculinity is if it were an innate and relatively fixed (and recoverable if lost or “broken” or suppressed or unexpressed) artifact of identity naturally arising from biological sex. But that does not appear to be reflective of reality which would suggest that it is an extrinsic socially determined category which conditions identity from without, not within.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Good try…

Thus, it will be important to think of these variables as continuous dimensions that people possess to some extent, and that may be related to sex, among whatever other predictors there may be. Of course, the term sex differences is still completely reasonable. In a dimensional model, differences between men and women reflect all the causalvariables known to be associated with sex, including both nature and nurture.

and

Our findings are silent with respect to the question of whether
gender differences in the variables we studied are caused primarily
by biological factors or experience

 

[CopticChristian]

Dude, no offence have know Idea what these psycho Babel means. LOL

I do know what the Lord says. That means more to me then any doctors. Science has changed. Not God. I just saw on T.V. that you need a pill if you laugh to much!! REALLY? I will not conform to societal standards. Thats why it is called “practicing medicine”. Now, if you don’t like what the Lord commands people can go find a church that fits their life style. A sin is a sin. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. I did not make the Laws. God did. I am not God. I will not hate either.

Men need to be valued in our society. MEN ARE OUR PROTECTORS, THE PRIEST OF THE HOME!! We need to encourage them and let MEN BE MEN. We need them. Society wants women to believe we don’t need them. We are already at the point women do not need a man to have a baby.

Dude, to say there is that big of a difference in men in women is statistical, opinion, based on the variables measured. Other Doctors can come up with different conclusions based on their variable.

Please, don’t tell me Men and Women are not that different. I go to my husband hysterical and he won’t let me vent, he wants to solve the problem.

Anyway, you know what they say about opinions? LOL Please don’t think I am yelling either. I am a hyper stroke who is very bubbly. LOL

I conclude with saying " I like my men strong, Like my coffee"

Your fellow Dudette in Christ,
Jillian

Jillian,

I don’t think Mark knows what this means either and he is using it to promote his belief of what it means…

It is a study with limitations of something called a “taxon”…defined here…

At this point, it may be useful to return to the definition of a
taxon: a category in which members form nonarbitrary classes.

Mark has wrongly drawn the conculsion that men and women are not different, just viewed differently based on this study…