transgenderism

[Bradski]

So again, sexual rights, not ‘human rights’ in regards to LGBTQI persons. Everyone should be treated in a civil manner but if overturning sodomy laws is job one, what are we really talking about?

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talkimg about. One minute it’s gay activism causing a single association out of hundreds around the world to deny what you seem to think is evidence of homosexuality being a disorder. On what evidence you believe it to be a disrder perhaps we should check with the Sudanese Psychological Association or the equivalent in Afghanistan.

Then you class it not being normal. Which will come to quite a shock to the millions of gay people around the world.

Now it’s sodomy laws. But please explain how you can express frustration at the disappearance of laws which makes criminals of people who have sex in a manner to which you disaprove and still have them ‘treated in a civil manner’. There appears to be a dichotomy in there someplace.

So yeah, I guess that’s what we are taling about. When what we perhaps should be discussing is how to show a degree of civility and compassion to people you insist on describing as abnormal.

 

[Rau]

…Then you class it not being normal. Which will come to quite a shock to the millions of gay people around the world.

What do you understand by “normal”? We read in Wikipedia that “scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality…” though no meaning of “normal” (in this context) is offered. It seems to me that “normal” is being used in a redundant way, repeating the idea of “natural” - ie. because “it happens” without us acting to cause it, it is “natural”.

IMO, “natural” may be a fair enough descriptor if homosexuality is the product of some natural process which has a statistical spread of outcomes (though admittedly, we know nearly nothing about the processes that control sexual orientation, let alone the cause of homosexuality). Perhaps to be born blind can also be a “natural” occurrence (though we wouldn’t call it “normal”). Eyes are meant to see.

“Normal” is often described as a rather slippery and relative concept, but to my mind, sexuality, by its nature, places restrictions on what can be normal. Eg.: Sterility is not normal. I would argue that a man whose sexual interests are toward men and not women needs to adopt an altered understanding of the nature sexuality - to discard some elements of it which are IMHO self-evident - to maintain the proposition that his sexuality is “normal”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To be honest, I have no idea what you are talkimg about. One minute it’s gay activism causing a single association out of hundreds around the world to deny what you seem to think is evidence of homosexuality being a disorder. On what evidence you believe it to be a disrder perhaps we should check with the Sudanese Psychological Association or the equivalent in Afghanistan.

Then you class it not being normal. Which will come to quite a shock to the millions of gay people around the world.

If “millions” around the world having the “condition” is all that is required to make it normal, then having warts, herpes, leprosy, heart disease, myopia, cataracts and anemia are all normal. This demonstrates what precisely?

Now it’s sodomy laws. But please explain how you can express frustration at the disappearance of laws which makes criminals of people who have sex in a manner to which you disaprove and still have them ‘treated in a civil manner’. There appears to be a dichotomy in there someplace.

So yeah, I guess that’s what we are taling about. When what we perhaps should be discussing is how to show a degree of civility and compassion to people you insist on describing as abnormal.

Brad, civility and compassion are one thing, but endorsement is something else completely. What about civility and compassion towards those considered homophobic by the gay crowd? I mean there are millions around the world who don’t agree with sodomy and yet you aren’t calling for civility and compassion for them, are you? The bakers, photographers and innkeepers who do not endorse gay “marriage” are being harassed, mocked and sued to strip them of their livelihoods. Where is the civility and compassion in that? That knife cuts both ways, no?

I was told just yesterday that we ought not donate money or items to the Salvation Army because they are “against gays.” All the good work the SA does is worth nothing to this person, apparently, because the SA doesn’t agree that males or females putting certain of their sexual organs in certain places of other persons bodies for no reason except mutual pleasure is an appropriate use of those organs. It isn’t that the SA hasn’t shown “civility and compassion” to gays, it is the simple fact that they don’t accept homosexual sex as “normal.” I suppose, that would be in flagrant disregard for the fact that millions around the world do it, which OUGHT to make it “normal.”

Perhaps the SA should just accept that poverty around the world is normal and do nothing about it BECAUSE it is therefore acceptable seeing as it is just part of the human condition?

I don’t know about you, but I think this person’s prejudice against the SA would seem just as regrettable and unjust as anyone who doesn’t treat homosexuals with civility and compassion, since it doesn’t demonstrate much in the way of civility and compassion towards SA members.

Civility and compassion don’t imply obsequious agreement to the ideas and endorsement of the behaviours of those to whom we are civil and compassionate, do they? I would suppose that I could be civil and compassionate towards alcoholics, adulterers, obnoxious people, leftist politicians and rational rat pack members without having to agree with them about every crucial issue or everything they do, would I?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That not only fails to answer the question it fails to even address it.

Actually, it is your question that failed to address Ed’s point. This is the sequence:

Bradski began with this statement:

Or we can take the sensible view that all civilised countries on the planet do not consider it a disorder because it isn’t.

Then Ed:

Civilized? Based on what? Facts or assumptions? And where are the pre-1973 studies? All the reports that were published? So uncivilized countries consider it a disorder because someone decided that if your country does not agree, we will call you uncivilized. That’s not a valid argument.

Then your country suddenly becomes civilized if gay activists and legal bodies force a capitulation? And yes, constant pressure is being put on international bodies, especially any who have the power, to change another country.

Ed

Then you apparently interjected but didn’t address Ed’s main question regarding the grounds for calling a country “uncivilized” and the forcing of countries to presume politically correct ideology when any grounds for assuming it are shaky, at best.

Would you say that if one recruits their sample of homosexuals exclusively from patients or former patients of a mental institution that it might bias a study involving mental illness and homosexuality?

I suppose you were inferring that all of the studies done before 1973 regarding homosexuality were faulty because their samples came exclusively from patients in institutions.

That may or may not be true, and it may or may not render the studies unreliable, but where is your answer to Ed’s question about what makes a country civilized?

You shouldn’t now complain that Ed didn’t answer your question, when you skirted his by focusing on a side issue. His main concern was how entire cultures and societies are being denigrated as “uncivilized” on this one issue of whether they accept homosexuality when whether or not homosexual behaviours are conducive to the common good has been entirely thrown out of the discussion as the result of reckless thinking leading to rapidly passed laws.

The issue of pre-1973 studies was to point out that those studies led to conclusions completely opposite to the ones now accepted. Now, merely because the sampling was somewhat limited does not mean the conclusions were necessarily false. So you have to answer his concern that conclusions were not merely dismissed and research started anew, but that a complete about face occurred without much in the way of explanation nor by a complete and exhaustive set of new studies.

The rationale for the 180° turn was more along the lines of the studies were improperly done, therefore the opposite conclusion must be true. Which is simply a false claim.

But let’s get back to Ed’s main question: What makes a country “civilized?”

 

[Bradski]

I would suppose that I could be civil and compassionate towards alcoholics, adulterers, obnoxious people, leftist politicians and rational rat pack members without having to agree with them about every crucial issue or everything they do, would I?

What, no paedophilia, bestiality or incest?

Well, I suppose it’s an improvement of sorts. One small step at a time.

 

[edwest2]

What, no paedophilia, bestiality or incest?

Well, I suppose it’s an improvement of sorts. One small step at a time.

Pedophiles have been reclassified as “minor attracted persons” by a group seeking to change public perceptions. The primary issue in those countries where gay rights are being sought is legalizing sodomy. They’ve seen what happened in the US.

catholic.org/news/international/africa/story.php?id=61849

Gay people - no people - should be harassed or abused. However, what is being classed as a human right is more precisely, the issue of a gay right to sodomy in those countries where it is not considered acceptable behavior.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Gay people - no people - should be harassed or abused. However…

A similar sentence structure to: I’m not a racist. But…’

And what on earth is this fixation with sodomy?

 

[Bradski]

But let’s get back to Ed’s main question: What makes a country “civilized?”

Quote a lot. But The fact that they don’t execute you for having a gay relationship is a good start. And in regard to the countries already mentioned, do you really need a list of their uncivilised behaviour? I would think that any reasonable person would look at the countries and instantly realise what they had in common. And it certainly isn’t an exemplary attitude to human rights.

Now one for you: Do you think that any country that does execute people for having a gay relationship can be classed as civilised?

 

[edwest2]

A similar sentence structure to: I’m not a racist. But…’

And what on earth is this fixation with sodomy?

How can a gay person be out and proud without overturning sodomy laws? The CDC offers the reason for the focus:

cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/msm.htm

Again, try to avoid the name calling.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Quote a lot. But The fact that they don’t execute you for having a gay relationship is a good start. And in regard to the countries already mentioned, do you really need a list of their uncivilised behaviour? I would think that any reasonable person would look at the countries and instantly realise what they had in common. And it certainly isn’t an exemplary attitude to human rights.

Now one for you: Do you think that any country that does execute people for having a gay relationship can be classed as civilised?

Please cut the drama, OK? The US never had a law where it was OK to execute gay people but there was still a fight. Over what? Any gay person could have as much gay sex as they wanted, especially if the activists got those sodomy laws overturned so the law couldn’t bother them.

Ed

 

[pnewton]

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to compare the experience of clinically established dysphoria with stubbornly holding an opinion. The sufferer has not been persuaded of some viewpoint and then bought into it. They experience it without trying. The cause is unknown.

I understand that there is some degree of mental issue in transgenderism. I would think the suicide rate alone would bear witness to that. I find the bigger issue is how this is best addressed. In every other area, psychological practice does not encourage encouraging people in their delusion. Again, the high suicide rate would tend to indicate this is not working. I would rather see males and females encouraged into acceptance of themselves as they are, especially when dealing with children. If necessary, approach the idea of gender as a simple defining of terms, namely, the physical organs one has, but in a way that does not require masculinity of males, femininity of females.

I think eventually this will be where the swinging back and forth on this will settle in. It is the simplest compromise. Define the terms, “male” and “female”, then allow those terms to be irrelevant to one’s dress, affections, hobbies, interests, etc.

 

[pnewton]

These gay activists certainly get around, don’t they…

Yes, they do. Most older people who have been around know this.

 

[Strydersroom]

Please cut the drama, OK? The US never had a law where it was OK to execute gay people but there was still a fight. Over what? Any gay person could have as much gay sex as they wanted, especially if the activists got those sodomy laws overturned so the law couldn’t bother them.

Ed

“activists” got those sodomy laws overturned? Do you think they were wrong in overturning said laws? I have a very strong feeling straight couples practice “sodomy” as much if not more than gay people

 

[edwest2]

“activists” got those sodomy laws overturned? Do you think they were wrong in overturning said laws? I have a very strong feeling straight couples practice “sodomy” as much if not more than gay people

Off topic. And speculative at best.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Yes, they do. Most older people who have been around know this.

So you travel a lot, I guess. Europe, the Americas, Australasia, SE Asia. And you have information which you can share with us how ‘gay activists’ have managed to hoodwink all psychology associations around the world that being gay is not a disorder.

Feel free to post that info any time you are ready.

 

[Bradski]

Please cut the drama, OK? The US never had a law where it was OK to execute gay people but there was still a fight. Over what? Any gay person could have as much gay sex as they wanted, especially if the activists got those sodomy laws overturned so the law couldn’t bother them.

Well, thumbs up to the US for not actually executing any gays these days. Although Virginia used to back in the day. But you were still up for a lengthy sentence and hard labour in the States right up until 1962. That’s within living memory for a lot of people. And Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah still ban oral and anal sex, even between married opposite sex couples.

And do you agree that if countries execute homosexuals it is reasonable to class them as uncivilised?

Off topic. And speculative at best. Ed

Thank heavens for that. Sodomy is off topic. Maybe we’ll hear a little less about it from now on. And speculative? Despite that fact that the majority of people have enjoyed it at some time (it includes oral sex, don’t ya know).

 

[pnewton]

So you travel a lot, …
Feel free to post that info any time you are ready.

Okay, I will. I see no logic in your response. In seems a complete non sequitur and a tad sophomoric. News has been around longer than the internet. It was arguably more reliable.

I am reminded of a theory of creation that believes the world was created in seven days a few thousand years ago with the appearance of being billions of years old. I think there is a bit of this in science, history and politics. The current majority opinion of a subject is seen as though it has always been. Popularity works no better as a means of choosing scientific truth than it does high school president. An innovative and subjective theory, regardless of its popularity among professionals, will more often than not prove a passing fad. No where have fad theories, dangerous and transitory, have done as great of damage as they have in the area of psychology. Gender theory is the electro-shock of this generation.

 

[Bradski]

An innovative and subjective theory, regardless of its popularity among professionals, will more often than not prove a passing fad.

First it’s gay activists, now it’s a passing fad. Notwithstanding that NOT including homosexuality in a list of psychological disorders is neither inovative or a theory.

Although I guess that if you think it should be and all the psychological associations around the world disagree with you then you might, drawing an exceptionally long bow, describe it as subjective.

 

[Thorolfr]

And Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah still ban oral and anal sex, even between married opposite sex couples.

Even though many states still have sodomy laws on their books, they were all declared unconstitutional for consenting adults acting in private in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. So those parts of sodomy laws having to do with consenting adults in private are no longer enforceable, including those parts on oral sex and anal sex.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

 

[pnewton]

First it’s gay activists, now it’s a passing fad. Notwithstanding that NOT including homosexuality in a list of psychological disorders is neither inovative or a theory.

Transgenderism, not homosexuality, is innovative. Homosexuality has always been known to be gravely disordered.