G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
Are people born pedophiles?
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
So, you draw this conclusion about gender based on a study of “taxon”…as defined in the article…
You use what you believe to relevant to your opinions based on this study of “taxon”…and the study itself points out limitations that you seem not to have in drawing erroneous conclusions.
R
RobbyS
Guest
We don’t know why or when a person becomes homosexual. But the claim is now generally accepted, since no one can prove otherwise. However, I don’t think that homosexuals would really be happy if someone did find a “gay” gene,because then they might get the same treatment as those unborn who are discovered with down’s syndrome. I mean, isn’t part of the acceptance based on the notion that who would CHOOSE to be gay? In that case we get parents saying, well, maybe better dead than gay, because it is still thought of as an oddity.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
This is a study. It is sort of science and to ignore it may be relevant rather than promoting it to our detriment…
You fail to point out the frailities of the study. You fail to point out that the study itself says it has limitations and it is only one perspective.
It proves nothing that you want to promote.
God created man and woman. They look different, think different, act different and while this study suggests that they have some similarities pscyhologically…that is probably why they are able to get married, have children, and find common purpose.
This has nothing to do with your notions promoting some path to accepting homosexuality as a normal strain of existence. Are people born homosexual. No. This study does not answer that question.
B
buffalo
Guest
There are many individual testimonies that attest to his success. Tell them it doesn’t work.
Was Never Done," Says Former A.P.A. President in Interview
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Mark,
So here is what we have to do. We have to continue to study the aberrant behavior of homosexuals. The American Psychatric Association and all their propaganda that followed after Homosexuals took the society over erupted into an attempt to silence NARTH in California. You cannot stop someone from speaking and that is what therapy is, talking. So what we have here is the reverse of the Protestant Reformation…
Protestants continue to talk, continue to spread their thoughts and beliefs and whoever listens will listen and you can’t stop them from talking.
The attempt by the LGBT group to silence NARTH should result in a proliferation of talk, thoughts, study and some answers that would please you and allow homosexuals that want help to get it and those that don’t to be left alone.
It would not prevent Homosexuals from spreading their beliefs and thoughts and trying to erode the beliefs of others…
Time will tell…let’s keep studying homosexuals…
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I have never denied that both biology and a multitude of external social/environmental factors shape who we are. What I have denied is the assumption that gender represents an essential and normative category (a taxon) which arises naturally (and/or consistently!) out of biology. I.e., there is no essential masculine or feminine ideal which is naturally and universally expressed by human biology. The study is clear–there is no categorical (taxonic) gender difference between men and women in the same way that there is categorical (taxonic) sex difference between men and women: gender difference is dimensional, not taxonic. I have not concluded from any of this that men and women are identical, but I do find the study’s conclusions regarding the fundamental similarities between men and women across a gender spectrum to be convincing and intriguing with respect to a broader consideration of the formation of identity (sexual or otherwise).
Now…can I be criticized for coming down too hard on a “gender is purely social” line when it’s clear that who and what we are is both biologically and socially constructed? I think that’s an accurate criticism, yes. In my defense, I could claim that my emphasis was rhetorical in order to more clearly get my point across, but I won’t make that claim . Nonetheless, a sentence from the previous paragraph may more reasonably be stated thus: “there is no essential masculine or feminine gender ideal which is completely, naturally and universally expressed by human biology alone. Or put in another way, gender difference is not fatalistically determined by- or emergent from sex alone.” But the larger point remains intact: insofar as we believe in a ctaegorically essential masculinity or femininity that looks a certain way, we are buying into a predominantly social product, not a purely biological or natural construct. The paper touches on this:
If gender is dimensional, why do categorical stereotypes of men and women persist in everyday life? Although our research does not speak to this issue, several explanations seem relevant. One reason is that people tend to think categorically (Medin, 1989), or as Fiske (2010) put it, referring to both laypeople and researchers, “we love dichotomies” (p. 689).
…]
Another reason for the endurance of categorical beliefs about gender is that people tend to essentialize human categories when such categories are discrete, have sharp boundaries, are rooted in cultural traditions, are involuntary and immutable, and are perceived to originate in natural distinctions (i.e., are nonarbitrarily part of what makes “living kinds . . . the things they are”; Prentice & Miller, 2007, p. 205; see also Prentice & Miller, 2006). Essentialized categories are seen as having deep significance and meaningful coherence, factors that lead them to play important roles in social perception and behavior. As Prentice and Miller (2006, 2007) noted, however, psychological essentialism need not reflect actual taxonic differences. Nonetheless, “every time people invoke biology to explain gender differences, they further strengthen the view that women and men are different human kinds” (Prentice & Miller, 2007, p. 205). Of course, the widespread attention to “male” and “female” as discrete categories that is virtually endemic across public media and lay theories of gender only serves to bolster these beliefs. Popular examples include self-help gurus such as Gray (1992) and Fein and Schneider (1995), who attribute relational problems between men and women to their putatively taxonic differences in goals, behaviors, and communication styles.
What I find slightly bemusing in all this is that conversations like that in these threads seem to generally come down to the following:
Person A says: Look! I’m gay because I was born that way!
Person B says: No, no. There’s nothing biological or genetic to do with you being gay–it’s all psychological or social. Your innate masculinity has been damaged and has not been able to be expressed naturally, so you’re going to need therapy to repair that categorical and essential but currently broken masculinity which is a part of you by virtue of your sex.
I think person A and person B are both mistaken. Person A is not admitting the effects of social/environmental factors on human development, which is short-sighted; but Person B is conveniently compartmentalizing what is socially/environmentally constructed and what biologically/genetically constructed, which is like “trying to have your cake and eat it, too.” Saying that sexual orientation (insofar as it is not normative) is a purely social/environmental construct while gender (insofar as it most accords with a masculine or feminine ideal) is indefatigably determined by biology/genetics doesn’t seem quite accurate. It seems much more reasonable to say that who we are (including our sexual identity and our gender) is synergistically emergent from a confluence of factors both biological/genetic and social/environmental.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Coptic, I’m sorry you’re confused. I suspect that, as is your wont, you’ve not been paying attention to what I’ve written. At this point, I expect that.
I have never denied that both biology and a multitude of external social/environmental factors shape who we are. What I have denied is the assumption that gender represents an essential and normative category (a taxon) which arises naturally (and/or consistently!) out of biology. I.e., there is no essential masculine or feminine ideal which is naturally and universally expressed by human biology. The study is clear–there is no categorical (taxonic) gender difference between men and women in the same way that there is categorical (taxonic) sex difference between men and women: gender difference is dimensional, not taxonic. I have not concluded from any of this that men and women are identical, but I do find the study’s conclusions regarding the fundamental similarities between men and women across a gender spectrum to be convincing and intriguing with respect to a broader consideration of the formation of identity (sexual or otherwise).
Now…can I be criticized for coming down too hard on a “gender is purely social” line when it’s clear that who and what we are is both biologically and socially constructed? I think that’s an accurate criticism, yes. In my defense, I could claim that my emphasis was rhetorical in order to more clearly get my point across, but I won’t make that claim . Nonetheless, a sentence from the previous paragraph may more reasonably be stated thus: “there is no essential masculine or feminine gender ideal which is completely, naturally and universally expressed by human biology alone. Or put in another way, gender difference is not fatalistically determined by- or emergent from sex alone.” But the larger point remains intact: insofar as we believe in a ctaegorically essential masculinity or femininity that looks a certain way, we are buying into a predominantly social product, not a purely biological or natural construct. The paper touches on this:
If gender is dimensional, why do categorical stereotypes of men and women persist in everyday life? Although our research does not speak to this issue, several explanations seem relevant. One reason is that people tend to think categorically (Medin, 1989), or as Fiske (2010) put it, referring to both laypeople and researchers, “we love dichotomies” (p. 689).
…]
Another reason for the endurance of categorical beliefs about gender is that people tend to essentialize human categories when such categories are discrete, have sharp boundaries, are rooted in cultural traditions, are involuntary and immutable, and are perceived to originate in natural distinctions (i.e., are nonarbitrarily part of what makes “living kinds . . . the things they are”; Prentice & Miller, 2007, p. 205; see also Prentice & Miller, 2006). Essentialized categories are seen as having deep significance and meaningful coherence, factors that lead them to play important roles in social perception and behavior. As Prentice and Miller (2006, 2007) noted, however, psychological essentialism need not reflect actual taxonic differences. Nonetheless, “every time people invoke biology to explain gender differences, they further strengthen the view that women and men are different human kinds” (Prentice & Miller, 2007, p. 205). Of course, the widespread attention to “male” and “female” as discrete categories that is virtually endemic across public media and lay theories of gender only serves to bolster these beliefs. Popular examples include self-help gurus such as Gray (1992) and Fein and Schneider (1995), who attribute relational problems between men and women to their putatively taxonic differences in goals, behaviors, and communication styles.
What I find slightly bemusing in all this is that conversations like that in these threads seem to generally come down to the following:
Person A says: Look! I’m gay because I was born that way!
Person B says: No, no. There’s nothing biological or genetic to do with you being gay–it’s all psychological or social. Your innate masculinity has been damaged and has not been able to be expressed naturally, so you’re going to need therapy to repair that categorical and essential but currently broken masculinity which is a part of you by virtue of your sex.
I think person A and person B are both mistaken. Person A is not admitting the effects of social/environmental factors on human development, which is short-sighted; but Person B is conveniently compartmentalizing what is socially/environmentally constructed and what biologically/genetically constructed, which is like “trying to have your cake and eat it, too.” Saying that sexual orientation (insofar as it is not normative) is a purely social/environmental construct while gender (insofar as it most accords with a masculine or feminine ideal) is indefatigably determined by biology/genetics doesn’t seem quite accurate. It seems much more reasonable to say that who we are (including our sexual identity and our gender) is synergistically emergent from a confluence of factors both biological/genetic and social/environmental.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
M
Monkey1976
Guest
That’s, like, eleventy-billion points in buzzword bingo. You still could have gotten more by using “biogenetic” and “socioenvironmental”
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I’m sure some people perceive a benefit from Nicolosi and his work. That’s fine. People perceive a benefit from crystal therapy, too. But neither crystal therapy nor NARTH/Nicolosi represent real science.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Buffalo, if the treatment is be considered objectively successful, then results (in this case, change of sexual orientation) should be significantly lasting and consistently demonstrable for a considerable majority of subjects. That does not appear to be the case with NARTH’s treatment.
I’m sure some people perceive a benefit from Nicolosi and his work. That’s fine. People perceive a benefit from crystal therapy, too. But neither crystal therapy nor NARTH/Nicolosi represent real science.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Whew! I was hoping someone was keeping score. I’m glad it’s you, Monkey, because I appreciate your numerical accuracy.That’s, like, eleventy-billion points in buzzword bingo. You still could have gotten more by using “biogenetic” and “socioenvironmental”
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
It does, though, because it shows he has an agenda. He’s playing the ‘word game’. He’s using loaded language.
Yes, because anal sex, and therefore all the problems associated with it, is not unique to homosexuals. Heterosexuals engage in it, too. It’s got nothing to do with political correctness.
I’ll give you an analogy. Christian men are more likely to suffer with a porn addiction. Does this mean that an addiction to porn should be called ‘Christian Sexual Repression Disease’? Of course not.
W
Walcot
Guest
Oh my! All these words/opinions and beliefs…and still so many people are in the unhappy position of being ostracised by their neighbours, and for what? Yes, I believe people are born with their sexual orientation. It would be very odd that so many people thru’ the ages would risk so many penalties just for the hell of it otherwise! Promiscuity is what causes all the problems which have been discussed, and that is true for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But when committed gay people want to get married and be monogamous, many people want to prevent them. If they are religious, they may want to make a religious commitment, but it is their conscience and that of their church that counts.
Basically I don’t think they believe (and I agree) that some homophobic contributors to the OT were inspired by God in their rantings any more than I believe that God inspired other OT writers to condone slavery, stoning people to death or committing genocide.
If two men or two women want to live together, they should be able to. Whether or not they are sexually active is not anyone else’s business, just as any other neighbours’ sex lives are not our business either.
Basically I don’t think they believe (and I agree) that some homophobic contributors to the OT were inspired by God in their rantings any more than I believe that God inspired other OT writers to condone slavery, stoning people to death or committing genocide.
If two men or two women want to live together, they should be able to. Whether or not they are sexually active is not anyone else’s business, just as any other neighbours’ sex lives are not our business either.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
(Also, is there real evidence that homosexuals actually took over the APA–i.e., that homosexual members–either at leadership levels or in the general membership–at some point in the '70’s outnumbered heterosexual members and staged a coup?)
(Also, in what way is opposition to reparative therapy analogous to the reverse of the Protestant Reformation? Is there a reparative therapy opponent who is advocating for Indulgences or burning copies of the Book of Concord?)
(Also, when you say that we should study the “aberrant behavior of homosexuals,” are you suggesting we should not study the “normal” behavior of homosexuals as it relates to or arises out of their homosexuality?)
Also, it seems as if, to you, the central or defining question regarding someone’s encounter with their same-sex attraction should be, “Do I wish to be cured or not?” I think that question (particularly when promoted as definitive of the experience of same-sex attracted folks) is more than a bit loaded: it assumes a lot regarding the nature of same-sex attraction, is a clear instance of “begging the question,” and represents, moreover, a real impediment to actually understanding same-sex attraction.
Speaking of impediments to understanding, you wrote this in a previous post:
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Coptic, you seem to be indicating (with words like “aberrant” and “propaganda”) that the study you want conducted should not be impartial, but should be conducted in order to support your particular preconceived notions. If that’s what you’re after: what, really, is the point?
(Also, is there real evidence that homosexuals actually took over the APA–i.e., that homosexual members–either at leadership levels or in the general membership–at some point in the '70’s outnumbered heterosexual members and staged a coup?)
(Also, in what way is opposition to reparative therapy analogous to the reverse of the Protestant Reformation? Is there a reparative therapy opponent who is advocating for Indulgences or burning copies of the Book of Concord?)
(Also, when you say that we should study the “aberrant behavior of homosexuals,” are you suggesting we should not study the “normal” behavior of homosexuals as it relates to or arises out of their homosexuality?)
(Help me see how Protestantism specifically and/or Protestant speech specifically is analogous to or illustrative of issues surrounding reparative therapy.)
Talk about all this is great! I don’t think NARTH should close its doors or Nicolosi should be out of a job, Coptic–but I do think that what’s important is whether or not NARTH’s or Nicolosi’s therapy represents actual science. There’s no evidence that it does, and the therapy is discredited as a practice among therapists. People can believe in and seek out reparative therapy all they want, but they should know that what they’re seeking is not real science.
Also, it seems as if, to you, the central or defining question regarding someone’s encounter with their same-sex attraction should be, “Do I wish to be cured or not?” I think that question (particularly when promoted as definitive of the experience of same-sex attracted folks) is more than a bit loaded: it assumes a lot regarding the nature of same-sex attraction, is a clear instance of “begging the question,” and represents, moreover, a real impediment to actually understanding same-sex attraction.
Speaking of impediments to understanding, you wrote this in a previous post:
The study does not directly answer that question, no. But given the conflation of gender and sexual orientation in reparative therapy (in which the latter appears to be seen as a function of the former), an inquiry into the nature of gender is not immaterial to the discussion.
Sure! And since we’re keeping an open mind…while we study them, why don’t we listen to them, too? In particular, why don’t we listen to their descriptions of what a good life–a life in which human flourishing and wholeness is both possible and demonstrable–might look like; and then why don’t see if any such lives so lived by them have indeed contributed to the real flourishing of their humanity? Sound good? Okay!Time will tell…let’s keep studying homosexuals…
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
E
epan
Guest
The American Psychiatric Assoc… is 36,000 members. How was it taken over by homosexuals? I’ll bet they have some interesting conventions.Mark,
So here is what we have to do. We have to continue to study the aberrant behavior of homosexuals. The American Psychatric Association and all their propaganda that followed after Homosexuals took the society over erupted into an attempt to silence NARTH in California. You cannot stop someone from speaking and that is what therapy is, talking. So what we have here is the reverse of the Protestant Reformation…
Protestants continue to talk, continue to spread their thoughts and beliefs and whoever listens will listen and you can’t stop them from talking.
The attempt by the LGBT group to silence NARTH should result in a proliferation of talk, thoughts, study and some answers that would please you and allow homosexuals that want help to get it and those that don’t to be left alone.
It would not prevent Homosexuals from spreading their beliefs and thoughts and trying to erode the beliefs of others…
Time will tell…let’s keep studying homosexuals…
The American Psychological Assoc. is about 150,000 strong. Have they been taken over, too?
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
This calls for an hypothesis and experiment. If you go to a convention and someone grabs your nuts, tell us if you have accepted or rejected your hypothesis.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I have lesbian friends and associates. Aside from the fact their relationships are structured on the Yin/Yang of one being in the feminine role and one being in the masculine role (which is usually the case with gay male couples as well, but not always), it was the issue of gender identity (i.e., I’m a ‘girl’ born into a boys body) what I was speaking of. That is not specifically gay, that is what leads to transsexuals. Dr. Nicolosi began to speak about that where I tuned him off.
Gender is a social construct but the fact is neither here nor there in attacking psychological therapy to rectify the situation of a person that is a male who is but of the female gender (socially constructed).
In other words when little boys are dressed not as girls but 25 year old women with painted toes, they have received their views of gender (female in this case) from society.
Isolated one might be genderless. But even ferrel kids adapt behavioral traits of the animals they are around. Institutionalized children left in some of the orphanages of Eastern Europe, where they rarely have human contact and affection, are some of the most mentally and emotionally damaged children on earth.
Gender affiliation functions much in the social life of humans much the way our tool culture is put to practical use for us.
Masculinity does not have to be biological heritable to be real.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
E
ephesians4
Guest
No dear, of course they are not.
There is not any proof that even slightly bears out some of the crazy rationalisations people put forward do for this, merely speculation - but here’s the thing - it is not considered ethical to question this with too much enthusiasm - remember there are parts of the world where people like to saw the heads off homosexuals and there are other parts of the world which are marginal on this - it has not really been “on” to go nuts on proving that homosexuals either make a choice or have their tendency formed when there is so much hatred for them in the world.
That said, you may think attacking the predominant religion in the countries where they are safe would be an obviously stupid thing to do. Apparently not though.
There is not any proof that even slightly bears out some of the crazy rationalisations people put forward do for this, merely speculation - but here’s the thing - it is not considered ethical to question this with too much enthusiasm - remember there are parts of the world where people like to saw the heads off homosexuals and there are other parts of the world which are marginal on this - it has not really been “on” to go nuts on proving that homosexuals either make a choice or have their tendency formed when there is so much hatred for them in the world.
That said, you may think attacking the predominant religion in the countries where they are safe would be an obviously stupid thing to do. Apparently not though.
- Status