Changing Societal Attitudes towards GLBTI/LGBT Individuals
Scroll to see replies
Original post by shadowdweller
I'm not sure 'chosen' is the right term for sexuality; people certainly don't make a decision in that regard. Personally I don't see any kind of issue with the number of terms increasing, as long as people are willing to offer an explanation about what their particular term means if they're asked.
What I mean by choice is people are creating new titles to describe what they think their gender should be called and it's just getting overly confusing now. I'm perfectly fine with a handful of genders because it's not that big of a deal but it is quickly escalating when we end up with hundreds of genders and people who claim to be those genders will be expected to be referred to as such and failure to do so due to forgetfulness could lead to unintended insults.
Facebook for example created 71 additional genders, how the hell am I meant to remember all 71? (and this is just the start). At this point I think just using the global "everyone" term is the best option to avoid any kind of unintended offensiveness.
We are so used to saying him, her, his, hers, men and women etc that thinking on the spot of the correct pronoun during a debate or conversation is going to be tough. It's fine just as long as those people don't take offence when we accidentally refer to them as the wrong pronoun.
Additionally if gender is in fact a spectrum then there are basically infinite genders... You can't possibly expect people to subscribe to that kind of thing.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by cat_mac
But yes, I’m saying that our feelings of attraction aren’t choices. How we act on them is a different story.
But yes, I’m saying that our feelings of attraction aren’t choices. How we act on them is a different story.
I'm not really sure about this.
This kind of implies that attractions are not in any way environmental, and there's nothing you can do about them.
Let's say I'm not into emos. I see emo girls all the time and it does nothing for me. All the combover hair and the eyeliner. This is what you're saying - I'm not into emos. I'm not attracted to them and there's nothing I can do about it.
Then one day, I decide to give the whole emo thing a try, and get really into emo girls. Isn't that my own choice? I have made the decision to be into them.
Like in Ancient Greece. In many city states, pretty much all men were gay padedophiles. It was normalised to have sex with young boys. This can't have been an aberration or mental illness as the whole country was on it. It was a societal norm and people just went along with it. They made their choices to have sex with young boys and to accept it - and they must on some level have had those desires on a societal level. And this lasted for hundreds of years -probably at least as long as from Renaissance Europe until today.
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
What I mean by choice is people are creating new titles to describe what they think their gender should be called and it's just getting overly confusing now. I'm perfectly fine with a handful of genders because it's not that big of a deal but it is quickly escalating when we end up with hundreds of genders and people who claim to be those genders will be expected to be referred to as such and failure to do so due to forgetfulness could lead to unintended insults.
Facebook for example created 71 additional genders, how the hell am I meant to remember all 71? (and this is just the start). At this point I think just using the global "everyone" term is the best option to avoid any kind of unintended offensiveness.
We are so used to saying him, her, his, hers, men and women etc that thinking on the spot of the correct pronoun during a debate or conversation is going to be tough. It's fine just as long as those people don't take offence when we accidentally refer to them as the wrong pronoun.
Facebook for example created 71 additional genders, how the hell am I meant to remember all 71? (and this is just the start). At this point I think just using the global "everyone" term is the best option to avoid any kind of unintended offensiveness.
We are so used to saying him, her, his, hers, men and women etc that thinking on the spot of the correct pronoun during a debate or conversation is going to be tough. It's fine just as long as those people don't take offence when we accidentally refer to them as the wrong pronoun.
Personally, I don't think you are expected to remember all 71 - for one thing, it's highly unlikely you'll ever need all of them yourself, nor that any one individual will need to learn them all. As long as you're open to taking a person's pronouns into account, and respectful of them/their gender, then I think you're doing a reasonable amount at that point.
I think most people would be understanding of the occasional slip-up with pronouns, especially if it was new information to you; equally though, I think it's fair for them to expect an apology with the accidental referral of the wrong gender, as it being a mistake doesn't stop the potential negative impact on their feelings.
Original post by shadowdweller
Personally, I don't think you are expected to remember all 71 - for one thing, it's highly unlikely you'll ever need all of them yourself, nor that any one individual will need to learn them all. As long as you're open to taking a person's pronouns into account, and respectful of them/their gender, then I think you're doing a reasonable amount at that point.
I think most people would be understanding of the occasional slip-up with pronouns, especially if it was new information to you; equally though, I think it's fair for them to expect an apology with the accidental referral of the wrong gender, as it being a mistake doesn't stop the potential negative impact on their feelings.
I think most people would be understanding of the occasional slip-up with pronouns, especially if it was new information to you; equally though, I think it's fair for them to expect an apology with the accidental referral of the wrong gender, as it being a mistake doesn't stop the potential negative impact on their feelings.
Yeah I think that is a fair point. As for greeting a large crowd though or a general statement of welcoming, I think "everybody" is the best option.
Original post by Just my opinion
My guess is Gays that think they deserve to by higher up the victim hierarchy than lesbians bisexuals transgenders and whoever the i's are, but I could be wrong, it has been known.
To be honest, the LGBT movement is completely separate from gay people. Its propaganda. And I will not refer to them as "LGBT people", I will refer to them as gay people. Because that is what homosexuals are. And I mean no disrespect.
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
Yeah I think that is a fair point. As for greeting a large crowd though or a general statement of welcoming, I think "everybody" is the best option.
I think that's probably quite sensible - it covers all bases I can think of!
Original post by Unkilled
To be honest, the LGBT movement is completely separate from gay people. Its propaganda. And I will not refer to them as "LGBT people", I will refer to them as gay people. Because that is what homosexuals are. And I mean no disrespect.
I'm not sure I agree here - the movement, on a broad level, face a lot of the same issues. If nothing else, it's much more sensible to push for things as as a collective than as individual branches, at least as things stand now, or you simply don't have sufficient drive behind it.
Original post by shadowdweller
Personally, I don't think you are expected to remember all 71 - for one thing, it's highly unlikely you'll ever need all of them yourself, nor that any one individual will need to learn them all. As long as you're open to taking a person's pronouns into account, and respectful of them/their gender, then I think you're doing a reasonable amount at that point.
I think most people would be understanding of the occasional slip-up with pronouns, especially if it was new information to you; equally though, I think it's fair for them to expect an apology with the accidental referral of the wrong gender, as it being a mistake doesn't stop the potential negative impact on their feelings.
I think most people would be understanding of the occasional slip-up with pronouns, especially if it was new information to you; equally though, I think it's fair for them to expect an apology with the accidental referral of the wrong gender, as it being a mistake doesn't stop the potential negative impact on their feelings.
One day the tide will turn and this nonsense identity politics will crumble upon the house of cards that it is.
Expecting people to address you by your 'chosen' pronouns, is nothing but validation for narcissists and troubled humans.
Original post by shadowdweller
I'm not sure I agree here - the movement, on a broad level, face a lot of the same issues. If nothing else, it's much more sensible to push for things as as a collective than as individual branches, at least as things stand now, or you simply don't have sufficient drive behind it.
LGB needs to split from T. For its own sake. For one, LGB is a sexual orientation. T is a feeling. No one self IDs into homosexuality, but that is exactly the chief aim of T atm.
Not to mention the blatant homophobia (in particular lesbophobia) underpinning the trans movement. Not a surprise that Iran has one of the highest rates of trans citizens, given that a better alternative to being killed for homosexuality is gay conversion therapy, er transitioning.
Original post by Trinculo
I'm not really sure about this.
This kind of implies that attractions are not in any way environmental, and there's nothing you can do about them.
Let's say I'm not into emos. I see emo girls all the time and it does nothing for me. All the combover hair and the eyeliner. This is what you're saying - I'm not into emos. I'm not attracted to them and there's nothing I can do about it.
Then one day, I decide to give the whole emo thing a try, and get really into emo girls. Isn't that my own choice? I have made the decision to be into them.
Like in Ancient Greece. In many city states, pretty much all men were gay padedophiles. It was normalised to have sex with young boys. This can't have been an aberration or mental illness as the whole country was on it. It was a societal norm and people just went along with it. They made their choices to have sex with young boys and to accept it - and they must on some level have had those desires on a societal level. And this lasted for hundreds of years -probably at least as long as from Renaissance Europe until today.
This kind of implies that attractions are not in any way environmental, and there's nothing you can do about them.
Let's say I'm not into emos. I see emo girls all the time and it does nothing for me. All the combover hair and the eyeliner. This is what you're saying - I'm not into emos. I'm not attracted to them and there's nothing I can do about it.
Then one day, I decide to give the whole emo thing a try, and get really into emo girls. Isn't that my own choice? I have made the decision to be into them.
Like in Ancient Greece. In many city states, pretty much all men were gay padedophiles. It was normalised to have sex with young boys. This can't have been an aberration or mental illness as the whole country was on it. It was a societal norm and people just went along with it. They made their choices to have sex with young boys and to accept it - and they must on some level have had those desires on a societal level. And this lasted for hundreds of years -probably at least as long as from Renaissance Europe until today.
Your emo example is making a choice and an effort to change your feelings, it isn’t the same as an attraction. Do you think being gay is a choice? Because that’d be a much better example. A gay guy can choose to suppress his sexuality, he can marry a woman and have kids and live a heterosexual life. But he’s still attracted to men, still thinks about having sex with them, gets a fluttery feeling when he’s in a lift with a hot guy.
Of course environment contributes, that’s the ‘nurture’ part of nature or nurture. There are those who experienced childhood sexual abuse that grow up to become the abuser, reliving their own experiences. When your early experiences of sex are of being repeatedly abused by an adult, your brain hardwires that way.
“More specifically, pedophiles tend to also have been molested as children. As children, they lacked the ability to control the situation. By sexually assaulting children, pedophiles attempt to re-live the trauma they experienced and they learn how to master it. A complete role reversal gives them the upper hand and prevents them from being victimized. Overall, through the impact of cerebral dysfunction and traumatic development, the sexual urges and desires for children can become ingrained within a person’s nervous system.” (from the first link)
It depends on how much you believe psychology, and the studies into how the brain works. Our choices aren’t always in line with our feelings and instincts. That’s what separates us from animals, we can go against feelings and choose to act in accordance with the law, society, personal values. But we still have those feelings.
Original post by cat_mac
I don’t think it’s as simple as “born that way”. Like you said, we can control a feeling. But we can’t stop the feeling existing.
Shadowdweller's argument was that we are born with these feelings. Hence, they are innate/natural...My counterargument was that they are not. They are programmed into us by society, through nurture.
Our feelings do not occur randomly. They are influenced by our biology, our experiences and our choices in life. We can influence our feelings, develop them and inhibit them. Feelings are malleable. Let me give you an example for our ability to stop feelings from existing. A close friend of mine fell in love with this good looking guy that she met at this family gathering. She got married to him. Within a few months after marriage she discovered that he was a violent alcoholic. He would constantly beat her up. She stopped loving him and grew to hate him. Feelings are not constant. They are subject to termination and change. You can stop a feeling from existing and completely reverse it. These LGBTQ+ are all choices born of feelings that are wrong and subject to change....as none of them are compatible with our biological reality.
Original post by cat_mac
You talk like all “natural” feelings are good? There isn’t such thing as natural feeling VS wrong feeling.
If you go against your nature you are doing something wrong. We cannot for example eat grass because we lack the chemicals necessary to digest its components. Our biology therefore defines the kind of food that we eat. Eating grass is unnatural/wrong. Why? because it isn't compatible with our nature. Similarly, our biology defines our sexuality which must be compatible with our biology to be considered correct. If I feel like I am a women when I have all the components of a man that feeling is wrong because it is not agreeable with my reality. Feelings can be right and wrong. They are subject to external influence and they are subject to change.
Original post by cat_mac
We don’t choose how our brains work, we do choose what we do with them. We choose our actions, not our impulses. Whether or not the feelings are approved by society doesn’t stop them from existing.
Our brains are semi-programmed computers. Our bodies come with all the components that enable that computer once it becomes programmed correctly to function effectively. Our brain is influenced as you know by two things. Nature (our innate biology) and nurture (the way we are raised). Our innate biology is heterosexual. Our anatomy is compatible with heterosexuality. Nurture (our choices, the environment that we grow up in etc.) can influence our brain in such a way as to lead us to develop wrong feelings which lead us to wrong choices that are not compatible with our biology i.e. I feel like a woman but I have all the anatomical and physiological components of a male. My feelings are disagreeable with my reality. Something is therefore wrong with my feelings. I need to reprogram that computer.
Original post by cat_mac
You’ve presented good and well thought out responses before so I know you’re not an idiot, but you are clearly uneducated about the psychology of paedophillia. We’re influenced by nature and nurture, but if it wasn’t “natural” this wouldn’t be such largely spread issue. If somehow people were unnaturally experiencing a feeling, how did it get in their head in the first place? Why has this happened throughout history all over the world?
How do these people develop these feelings? You answer your question in this same paragraph...nurture. Through abuse, hyper-sexualisation, pornography, perverts guiding them down this rotten path. I mean, Simone De Beauvoir (I know I keep mentioning this woman but she makes for a great example in all these topics) groomed all of the children that she abused into believing that paedophilia was normal. The first thing she did with her youngest victim Nathalie Sorokine was teach her that she should have no boundaries in sex. That those boundaries were put in place by society, by men, to subjugate her. She convinced the girl that sex without limitations was the way to go. She then engaged in sex with her having broken down all her natural inclinations and this was back in the 1930s. life is a lot worse now than it was back then so more people are going to be victims to this type of nurture that leads them into paedophilia.
Original post by cat_mac
You can not agree with something and also try to understand it. If we just pretend the paedophiles are people who made bad decisions, that does absolutely nothing to protect children or prevent someone for becoming a danger to society.
Arguing that paedophilia is natural trivialises paedophilia and encourages abuse of children. I'm arguing the contrary.
Original post by cat_mac
I’ll provide some links from a quick google if you’d like to be more educated on the issue:
https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/amp/
“There is significant evidence that indicate structural abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles (Schiffer, 2008). Abnormalities occur when the brain is developing and can be on-set through certain experiences, such as sexual abuse as a child. Abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles may result in compulsion, poor judgment, and repetitive thoughts.
These abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles are caused by early neurodevelopmental perturbations (Schiffer, 2008). The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRIs) and positron emission tomography scans (PET) has revealed that the abnormalities of pedophiles exhibit appear in the frontal and central regions of the brain. In particular, there is a decreased volume of gray brain matter in the central striatum. As a result, the nucleus accumbens, orbital frontal cortex, and the cerebellum are all affected (Schiffer, 2008).”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia
https://theconversation.com/amp/psychology-of-a-paedophile-why-are-some-people-attracted-to-children-59991
https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/amp/
“There is significant evidence that indicate structural abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles (Schiffer, 2008). Abnormalities occur when the brain is developing and can be on-set through certain experiences, such as sexual abuse as a child. Abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles may result in compulsion, poor judgment, and repetitive thoughts.
These abnormalities in the brains of pedophiles are caused by early neurodevelopmental perturbations (Schiffer, 2008). The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRIs) and positron emission tomography scans (PET) has revealed that the abnormalities of pedophiles exhibit appear in the frontal and central regions of the brain. In particular, there is a decreased volume of gray brain matter in the central striatum. As a result, the nucleus accumbens, orbital frontal cortex, and the cerebellum are all affected (Schiffer, 2008).”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia
https://theconversation.com/amp/psychology-of-a-paedophile-why-are-some-people-attracted-to-children-59991
This doesn't contradict anything of what I wrote. These articles tell me that the choices that paedophiles make impact their brain activity. They confirm what I wrote that all these LGBTQ+ and paedophilia are not innate but caused by nurture.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
One day the tide will turn and this nonsense identity politics will crumble upon the house of cards that it is.
Expecting people to address you by your 'chosen' pronouns, is nothing but validation for narcissists and troubled humans.
One day the tide will turn and this nonsense identity politics will crumble upon the house of cards that it is.
Expecting people to address you by your 'chosen' pronouns, is nothing but validation for narcissists and troubled humans.
More likely the tides will turn and people will realise it costs them nothing to address someone how they prefer, and that it's far better to offer them that basic level of respect.
You can argue them as narcissists and troubled humans all you want, but medical evidence certainly isn't in your favour on that front.
Original post by yudothis
LGB needs to split from T. For its own sake. For one, LGB is a sexual orientation. T is a feeling. No one self IDs into homosexuality, but that is exactly the chief aim of T atm.
Not to mention the blatant homophobia (in particular lesbophobia) underpinning the trans movement. Not a surprise that Iran has one of the highest rates of trans citizens, given that a better alternative to being killed for homosexuality is gay conversion therapy, er transitioning.
Not to mention the blatant homophobia (in particular lesbophobia) underpinning the trans movement. Not a surprise that Iran has one of the highest rates of trans citizens, given that a better alternative to being killed for homosexuality is gay conversion therapy, er transitioning.
No one chooses to be trans in the same way that no one chooses to be gay; the aim isn't that people should be able to choose to fall under T, but that people who already do should be able to freely identify that way. In the same way that you don't need a test to prove you're gay, you shouldn't need one to prove you're trans or otherwise, in terms of identification.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about in terms of homophobia in the trans movement, would you be able to clarify a little?
Original post by shadowdweller
I think that's probably quite sensible - it covers all bases I can think of!
I'm not sure I agree here - the movement, on a broad level, face a lot of the same issues. If nothing else, it's much more sensible to push for things as as a collective than as individual branches, at least as things stand now, or you simply don't have sufficient drive behind it.
I'm not sure I agree here - the movement, on a broad level, face a lot of the same issues. If nothing else, it's much more sensible to push for things as as a collective than as individual branches, at least as things stand now, or you simply don't have sufficient drive behind it.
I don't think so. Look, the movement is defunct. Go and campaign in the middle east: our society is as liberal as you get. Look, even the tories are progressives. The video is restricted, but check out the gay pride month #proudtobe youtube video.
Original post by shadowdweller
More likely the tides will turn and people will realise it costs them nothing to address someone how they prefer, and that it's far better to offer them that basic level of respect.
You can argue them as narcissists and troubled humans all you want, but medical evidence certainly isn't in your favour on that front.
No one chooses to be trans in the same way that no one chooses to be gay; the aim isn't that people should be able to choose to fall under T, but that people who already do should be able to freely identify that way. In the same way that you don't need a test to prove you're gay, you shouldn't need one to prove you're trans or otherwise, in terms of identification.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about in terms of homophobia in the trans movement, would you be able to clarify a little?
You can argue them as narcissists and troubled humans all you want, but medical evidence certainly isn't in your favour on that front.
No one chooses to be trans in the same way that no one chooses to be gay; the aim isn't that people should be able to choose to fall under T, but that people who already do should be able to freely identify that way. In the same way that you don't need a test to prove you're gay, you shouldn't need one to prove you're trans or otherwise, in terms of identification.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about in terms of homophobia in the trans movement, would you be able to clarify a little?
But where do you draw the line? I can just identify as a millionaire and expect millionaires to make it happen. If you push identity onto people but that identity has no factual basis in reality, you are bound for trouble.
I think you will find that to be wrong.
They can identify as whatever they want. But they cannot expect to be accommodated at all levels. Just because someone of male physiology identifies as a woman, is no reason to allow them to compete against physiological women (and please, please, do not bring up the politically driven IOC ruling of "all is fine if their T level is < 10nml". thats triple the level of normal women. That ignores the fact a transition does not lower the higher VO2 of men, the narrower pelvis, the greater bone density, the larger heart).
Google Riley Dennis and his attempt to coerce lesbians into enjoying his 'girl ****'. Consider the fact that kids these days rather come out as trans than homosexual. Think about why Iran has one of the highest rates of trans people, and also executes homosexuals.
This is a very long comment. I will understand if you choose not to reply.
Because acting on your examples inherently causes harm;
I could just as easily argue the same thing about your alternate interpretations of sexuality.
they could state otherwise, but that would simply be a falsehood, backed up by no evidence. People who are LGBT+ however, can make the same claim that it doesn't cause harm, but they have the difference of being backed up by both sound logic, and by hard scientific evidence.
Through being biological determined, and the fact that homosexuality is found in nature, it is natural by definition. Also, without putting to fine a point on it, there is an orifice with two males, though granted, not a reproductive one. Regardless, as I started before, biology both causes it, and defines it as natural, so I disagree with the points you made there.
99.9% of scientific research is bias, unreliable and flawed. You can prove anything you want to if you rely on this flawed research and this kind of research is the kind of research that you people use to justify your alternate interpretations. The majority of thinkers and researchers set about proving a forgone conclusion and that conclusion often conforms with the ideology of the the powers that be, which since the 1800s in this part of the world have been a blend of marxism and its offshoots and capitalism.
Much research from the 1800s to the mid 1900s was performed in an effort to prove the forgone conclusion that blacks were inferior to whites and that integration of the blacks into white society was bad for said society…this in an effort to justify the enslavement and exploitation of an entire race of people for the purposes of labour…. and this research was successful in doing just that for many decades. Thinkers like Charles Darwin for example provided the “sound evidence” and “logic” to justify racism through his racial theories. This conformed with the capitalist and marxist needs of the time. Today this part of the world needs justification for perversions that do not conform with reality and researchers have again answered the call of their masters with research "evidence" much like that used to justify the inferiority of blacks. Evidence that is anything but. Your logic and your evidence, I assure you, will all be found bias, invalid, unreliable, flawed, wanting
Paedophiles can argue that their form of perversion does not cause harm either. That it is philosophically, scientifically and ethically sound. In fact they do just that. Many books have been published by paedophiles and leftists in support of the idea that paedophilia is natural and that it does not cause harm and that these accusations of harm against them are the result of unfair discrimination by “heteronormative” folk. Many of these books were written by the pioneers of your ideology, feminism…Bridgett Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome by Simone De Beauvoir is a great example of one such publication. In it the Mother of Feminism describes the patriarchy as having imposed a taboo on people prohibiting them from enjoying paedophilia. This she calls the “Lolita Syndrome”.
The pioneers of your ideology, feminism as well as those of marxism and the early women’s movement promoted, engaged in and supported the legalisation of paedophilia. Their justification? the same justification that you gave for the LGBTQ+. Here’s a letter signed by the "Mother" of your ideology along with around 70 other leading leftist figures to the French government asking them to release three paedophiles. In it she and her feminist, homosexual rights activist, marxist and communist compatriots argue that paedophilia is natural and does not cause any harm to children:
“On January 27, 28, and 29, Bernard Dejager, Jean-Claude Gallien, and Jean Burckardt will by tried before the cour d'assises des Yvelines for lascivious acts with a minor of less than 15 years of age. Arrested in autumn of 1973, it is for more than three years now that they remain in remand. Only Bernard Dejager has recently benefited from the presumption of innocence. Such a long time in remand to investigate a simple `vice' affair, where the children have not been victims of the slightest violence, but have to the contrary testified before the examining magistrates that they consented -- although the law at present denies them their right to consent -- such a long time in remand we do consider scandalous in itself. Today they risk to be sentenced to a long prison term either for having had sexual relations with minors, boys as well as girls, or for having encouraged and taken photographs of their sexual plays. We believe that there is an incongruity between the designation as a `crime' which serves to legitimize such a severity, and the facts themselves; even more so between the antiquitated law and the reality of every day life in a society which tends to know about the sexuality of children and adolescents (thirteen-year olds are given the pill, for what doing?) French law contradicts itself if it recognizes a capacity for discernement in thirteen and fourteen year olds, so as to be able to try and sentence them, but denies them the same capability with respect to their emotional and sexual life. “
This is the logic of your very own icons. You people have a habit of claiming everything that you do to be logical and scientific as if those things matter to you, when most all of what you stand for is driven not by science but by your feelings, desires and political agenda, which you set about justfiying through flawed logic and evidence. When paedophelia suits your desires and political interests you argue that it is natural and causes no harm when it does not it is the contrary.
Now to your claim that LGTBTQ+ are natural. A man who feels that they are a woman, has all the anatomical and physiological components of a male. As in, his biology (his anatomy and physiology) does not conform with his feelings rendering them clearly not natural. ….how can you claim otherwise? How can you claim something to be natural when it does not conform with nature? How can you claim that homosexuality is natural when nature does not accommodate for it in our biology? That other orifice that you refer to is an orifice, with all due respect, designed for defecation. You cannot compare it to that in a woman and the same applies to female homosexuals who are equally biologically incompatible with each other. How can you claim them to be natural when nature is not compatible with their feelings?
but hang on a second...Lets define that word “natural”…I’m going to copy paste the definition from google. I have no time for a better source.
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind. "
Is this definition agreeable with transsexuality? A transsexual’s feelings do not conform with their anatomy nor physiology. Transexuals resort to human intervention in pursuit of their desired sex. To change their anatomy they undergo procedures that remove body parts given to them by nature and replace them with synthetic ones. To change their physiology to conform with their feelings…they take drugs that inhibit the release of certain hormones whilst stimulating the release of others. Now apply the definition given above to transsexuality. You will most certainly come to the conclusion that it is not derived from nature but made or caused by humankind. As in, it is not natural.
These alternate interpretations of sexuality are not natural as you claimed. They are unnatural. They are motivated entirely by feelings and me and you both agree that feelings can be wrong. These feelings are the result of nurture (the way we are raised, cultural influences, abuse, perversions etc.). Feelings are wrong when they do not conform with our reality!!!! If I feel that I’m a space rocket but I lack all the components of one that renders my feeling false and in need of change and all feelings are malleable and subject to change.
Now, I have no doubt you'll try and claim otherwise, but unless you can provide sound and unbiased evidence to support that, then you can't perpetuate the idea that your examples don't cause harm, nor that LGBT+ people do.
They all cause harm paedophilia, homosexuality, transsexuality etc etc etc…and I have already given you examples as to how…they do not conform with our reality. They are unnatural. They go against nature. Promoting them is promoting psychological disorders. Promoting them is promoting the influences in society that leads people to these outcomes, sexual abuse, pornography etc.
You also claim that animals practice these traits. Animals also eat their excrement and offspring and cannibalise each other too. Animal behaviour is not a guide for what is natural and unnatural, right or wrong. Environmental pressures on animals can influence the way they behave leading them to erroneous behaviour in the same way that environmental pressures influence the way we behave leading us to develop warped feelings such as those that lead to lgbtq+.
The feeling themselves are inherent in the person, in my view, but that's not the same as them being okay.
We agree.
Again, the emphasis being on natural and not causing harm. Homosexuality isn't purely okay because it's natural, as I've outlined above. Extending this, it will only pave the way for other sexualities that don't cause harm. By which logic, it's not really an issue if they're justified, assuming they follow the same pattern. Again, this isn't going to lead to every sexuality being acceptable, as you state.
They are disagreeable with our anatomy and physiology. They are incompatible with our biology. Our biology does not accommodate for them. Hence, they are not natural. What causes these behaviours? feelings resultant from nurture. since these are feelings and feelings are not constant, they are subject to change. So contrary to what you wrote in your first comment in this thread, these LGBTQ+ are traits that can change.
I gave this example previously in this thread. I’ve copied and pasted it here because its relevant to the reply. I recently watched this programme about Aleister Crowley. He was this huge liberal pervert that lived in Britain in the 19th century. He felt that our sexuality should have no limits and that we should loose all our sexual taboos in society. A priest in this programme summed up Crowley very beautifully. He said that Crowley was an individual who did so much sex that he became desensitised to normalcy in sex. He could no longer become aroused by normal sexual acts. He therefore felt the need to pursue more extreme forms of sex to be able to become aroused. Crowley wrote of this change in his diaries and his books. Two of those extremes were paedophilia and homosexuality. So, yes paedophiles and homosexuals do indeed through their choices and experiences in life, respectively develop interests in children and the same sex. As in, they learn to become paeodphiles. They learn to become homosexuals and they can change these learned traits which are wrong.
Homosexuality isn't purely okay because it's natural, as I've outlined above. Extending this, it will only pave the way for other sexualities that don't cause harm. By which logic, it's not really an issue if they're justified, assuming they follow the same pattern. Again, this isn't going to lead to every sexuality being acceptable, as you state.
Its not natural as I explained above. it will pave the way for more destructive interpretations of sexuality…This is in fact already happening. In the US the American Psychological Association (the body that represents psychologists in the US) recently changed the classification of paedophilia from a mental illness to a sexual orientation. Another “sexual orientation” that used to be listed as a mental illness by the APA was homosexuality. Leftists have long campaigned for the legalisation of paedophilia and the right, particularly of women to engage in sexual relationships with minors. They are actively involved in promoting the sexualisation of children as young as 2 and 3, encouraging schools and parents to provide these children with education in and encouragement to engage in sexual behaviour e.g. masturbation etc.
The problem is that the moment you justify paedophilia as being natural you open the door to permitting it as an act on the condition that both consent is obtained and harm is not done to the child.
I think I addressed all the points that you raised. If I haven’t please let me know.
Original post by shadowdweller
I could just as easily argue the same thing about your alternate interpretations of sexuality.
Original post by shadowdweller
Original post by shadowdweller
99.9% of scientific research is bias, unreliable and flawed. You can prove anything you want to if you rely on this flawed research and this kind of research is the kind of research that you people use to justify your alternate interpretations. The majority of thinkers and researchers set about proving a forgone conclusion and that conclusion often conforms with the ideology of the the powers that be, which since the 1800s in this part of the world have been a blend of marxism and its offshoots and capitalism.
Much research from the 1800s to the mid 1900s was performed in an effort to prove the forgone conclusion that blacks were inferior to whites and that integration of the blacks into white society was bad for said society…this in an effort to justify the enslavement and exploitation of an entire race of people for the purposes of labour…. and this research was successful in doing just that for many decades. Thinkers like Charles Darwin for example provided the “sound evidence” and “logic” to justify racism through his racial theories. This conformed with the capitalist and marxist needs of the time. Today this part of the world needs justification for perversions that do not conform with reality and researchers have again answered the call of their masters with research "evidence" much like that used to justify the inferiority of blacks. Evidence that is anything but. Your logic and your evidence, I assure you, will all be found bias, invalid, unreliable, flawed, wanting
Paedophiles can argue that their form of perversion does not cause harm either. That it is philosophically, scientifically and ethically sound. In fact they do just that. Many books have been published by paedophiles and leftists in support of the idea that paedophilia is natural and that it does not cause harm and that these accusations of harm against them are the result of unfair discrimination by “heteronormative” folk. Many of these books were written by the pioneers of your ideology, feminism…Bridgett Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome by Simone De Beauvoir is a great example of one such publication. In it the Mother of Feminism describes the patriarchy as having imposed a taboo on people prohibiting them from enjoying paedophilia. This she calls the “Lolita Syndrome”.
The pioneers of your ideology, feminism as well as those of marxism and the early women’s movement promoted, engaged in and supported the legalisation of paedophilia. Their justification? the same justification that you gave for the LGBTQ+. Here’s a letter signed by the "Mother" of your ideology along with around 70 other leading leftist figures to the French government asking them to release three paedophiles. In it she and her feminist, homosexual rights activist, marxist and communist compatriots argue that paedophilia is natural and does not cause any harm to children:
“On January 27, 28, and 29, Bernard Dejager, Jean-Claude Gallien, and Jean Burckardt will by tried before the cour d'assises des Yvelines for lascivious acts with a minor of less than 15 years of age. Arrested in autumn of 1973, it is for more than three years now that they remain in remand. Only Bernard Dejager has recently benefited from the presumption of innocence. Such a long time in remand to investigate a simple `vice' affair, where the children have not been victims of the slightest violence, but have to the contrary testified before the examining magistrates that they consented -- although the law at present denies them their right to consent -- such a long time in remand we do consider scandalous in itself. Today they risk to be sentenced to a long prison term either for having had sexual relations with minors, boys as well as girls, or for having encouraged and taken photographs of their sexual plays. We believe that there is an incongruity between the designation as a `crime' which serves to legitimize such a severity, and the facts themselves; even more so between the antiquitated law and the reality of every day life in a society which tends to know about the sexuality of children and adolescents (thirteen-year olds are given the pill, for what doing?) French law contradicts itself if it recognizes a capacity for discernement in thirteen and fourteen year olds, so as to be able to try and sentence them, but denies them the same capability with respect to their emotional and sexual life. “
This is the logic of your very own icons. You people have a habit of claiming everything that you do to be logical and scientific as if those things matter to you, when most all of what you stand for is driven not by science but by your feelings, desires and political agenda, which you set about justfiying through flawed logic and evidence. When paedophelia suits your desires and political interests you argue that it is natural and causes no harm when it does not it is the contrary.
Now to your claim that LGTBTQ+ are natural. A man who feels that they are a woman, has all the anatomical and physiological components of a male. As in, his biology (his anatomy and physiology) does not conform with his feelings rendering them clearly not natural. ….how can you claim otherwise? How can you claim something to be natural when it does not conform with nature? How can you claim that homosexuality is natural when nature does not accommodate for it in our biology? That other orifice that you refer to is an orifice, with all due respect, designed for defecation. You cannot compare it to that in a woman and the same applies to female homosexuals who are equally biologically incompatible with each other. How can you claim them to be natural when nature is not compatible with their feelings?
but hang on a second...Lets define that word “natural”…I’m going to copy paste the definition from google. I have no time for a better source.
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind. "
Is this definition agreeable with transsexuality? A transsexual’s feelings do not conform with their anatomy nor physiology. Transexuals resort to human intervention in pursuit of their desired sex. To change their anatomy they undergo procedures that remove body parts given to them by nature and replace them with synthetic ones. To change their physiology to conform with their feelings…they take drugs that inhibit the release of certain hormones whilst stimulating the release of others. Now apply the definition given above to transsexuality. You will most certainly come to the conclusion that it is not derived from nature but made or caused by humankind. As in, it is not natural.
These alternate interpretations of sexuality are not natural as you claimed. They are unnatural. They are motivated entirely by feelings and me and you both agree that feelings can be wrong. These feelings are the result of nurture (the way we are raised, cultural influences, abuse, perversions etc.). Feelings are wrong when they do not conform with our reality!!!! If I feel that I’m a space rocket but I lack all the components of one that renders my feeling false and in need of change and all feelings are malleable and subject to change.
Original post by shadowdweller
They all cause harm paedophilia, homosexuality, transsexuality etc etc etc…and I have already given you examples as to how…they do not conform with our reality. They are unnatural. They go against nature. Promoting them is promoting psychological disorders. Promoting them is promoting the influences in society that leads people to these outcomes, sexual abuse, pornography etc.
You also claim that animals practice these traits. Animals also eat their excrement and offspring and cannibalise each other too. Animal behaviour is not a guide for what is natural and unnatural, right or wrong. Environmental pressures on animals can influence the way they behave leading them to erroneous behaviour in the same way that environmental pressures influence the way we behave leading us to develop warped feelings such as those that lead to lgbtq+.
Original post by shadowdweller
We agree.
Original post by shadowdweller
They are disagreeable with our anatomy and physiology. They are incompatible with our biology. Our biology does not accommodate for them. Hence, they are not natural. What causes these behaviours? feelings resultant from nurture. since these are feelings and feelings are not constant, they are subject to change. So contrary to what you wrote in your first comment in this thread, these LGBTQ+ are traits that can change.
I gave this example previously in this thread. I’ve copied and pasted it here because its relevant to the reply. I recently watched this programme about Aleister Crowley. He was this huge liberal pervert that lived in Britain in the 19th century. He felt that our sexuality should have no limits and that we should loose all our sexual taboos in society. A priest in this programme summed up Crowley very beautifully. He said that Crowley was an individual who did so much sex that he became desensitised to normalcy in sex. He could no longer become aroused by normal sexual acts. He therefore felt the need to pursue more extreme forms of sex to be able to become aroused. Crowley wrote of this change in his diaries and his books. Two of those extremes were paedophilia and homosexuality. So, yes paedophiles and homosexuals do indeed through their choices and experiences in life, respectively develop interests in children and the same sex. As in, they learn to become paeodphiles. They learn to become homosexuals and they can change these learned traits which are wrong.
Original post by shadowdweller
Its not natural as I explained above. it will pave the way for more destructive interpretations of sexuality…This is in fact already happening. In the US the American Psychological Association (the body that represents psychologists in the US) recently changed the classification of paedophilia from a mental illness to a sexual orientation. Another “sexual orientation” that used to be listed as a mental illness by the APA was homosexuality. Leftists have long campaigned for the legalisation of paedophilia and the right, particularly of women to engage in sexual relationships with minors. They are actively involved in promoting the sexualisation of children as young as 2 and 3, encouraging schools and parents to provide these children with education in and encouragement to engage in sexual behaviour e.g. masturbation etc.
The problem is that the moment you justify paedophilia as being natural you open the door to permitting it as an act on the condition that both consent is obtained and harm is not done to the child.
I think I addressed all the points that you raised. If I haven’t please let me know.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
I'm not sure 'chosen' is the right term for sexuality; people certainly don't make a decision in that regard. Personally I don't see any kind of issue with the number of terms increasing, as long as people are willing to offer an explanation about what their particular term means if they're asked.
Yep, especially since queer people tend to simplify it down when describing our identity to cishet people! For example, I just tell people I'm bisexual even though I'm technically biromantic asexual. There's nothing wrong with being able to pinpoint your identity exactly
Original post by Napp
What on earth is GLBTI?
A marxist/communist/feminist acronym that promotes feelings and desires that are incompatible and disagreeable with our biological reality.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Unkilled
I don't think so. Look, the movement is defunct. Go and campaign in the middle east: our society is as liberal as you get. Look, even the tories are progressives. The video is restricted, but check out the gay pride month #proudtobe youtube video.
The movement isn't defunct whilst there's still enough homophobia around that people are afraid to come out, and there's still enough discrimination that most, if not all, LGBT+ people have experienced at least some amount of it. Yes, we should also be campaigning elsewhere, but it's not an either or situation.
Original post by CookieButter
A marxist/communist/feminist acronym that promotes feelings and desires that are incompatible and disagreeable with our biological reality.
Sounds terribly vulgar right now, whats the acronym stand for?
Original post by Napp
Sounds terribly vulgar right now, whats the acronym stand for?
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transexual, Intersex.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)Last reply 3 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Last reply 3 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 4 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 4 minutes ago
Best Accommodation for Med Students at University of Plymouth?Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official University of Warwick Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
Bae systems accommodation barrowLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
University of Liverpool veterinary work experience form.Last reply 13 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 13 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 14 minutes ago
Degree Apprenticeship at Accenture (assessment centre)Last reply 14 minutes ago
emmanuella's study discussions #1: motivation and disciplineLast reply 17 minutes ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 ThreadTrending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
