Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Colleague said something homophobic watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Okay, I'm going to clarify definitions for people (especially this [presumably] dude below.)

    genetic means characterised by base sequence
    environmental factors means factors in the surroundings
    epigenetic means characterised by gene expression; the extent to which a gene is on or off
    natural means to occur without human interference; to occur within nature
    psychological means relating to the mind

    Now I'll explain how all of these relate to each other.
    genetic factors would show that something is natural, providing human activity never caused it, like splicing or mutations caused by mutagenic substances from humans. Genetic factors most likely natural.

    epigenetic factors, gene expression is affected by the environment, like hormone levels or nutrition. Can be natural, can be unnatural. Can occur before birth, in womb, and after birth, for the entirety of your life. I'd say in womb largely natural.

    Now for natural, if something occurs in animals, it is likely to be natural because it is unlikely to have been caused by human interference or activity..

    psychological factors can be natural, if there are for example natural biological bases to them.

    Now I'll explain how all of these relate to each other in this context

    Genetic factors: genetic factors of homosexuality in males have been shown to be two genes (which I cannot remember the name of) so far. I'd say these are natural.

    Epigenetic factors: epigenetic factors of homosexuality have been shown to occur in foetal development, due to (I think) variations in some hormone levels, and the mother's reaction to the foetus, a certain type increasing per birth of child (hence likelihood of homosexuality increases for each older sibling you have.)(Don't quote me on the intricacies here, I haven't done much formal research here.)

    I doubt this phenomenon is at least predominantly caused by environmental factors affected by human interference, so I'd also say that's natural.

    Homosexuality occurs within other animals, further supporting the statement that homosexuality is natural.

    By the way, seems genetic, and the epigenetic factors aforementioned, both occur before birth, it is correct to say one is born gay and what not.

    Now, sexual attractions are within the mind, so to speak, and saying psychological factors aren't natural is just as much saying attractions to the opposite sex aren't natural, because heterosexuality is also a sexual attraction (a sole sexual attraction to the opposite sex.)

    Now, also whether something is natural (or not) is entirely separate from morality, or that'd be appealing to nature.

    So, user ,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong (irrelevant),
    conclusively wrong.
    There are several definitions of the word Natural, one of refers to something being innate. You cannot say it's natural for an odd sheep to eat another sheep from the same species just because it has no intervention from humans. When the rest of the species are herbivores.

    Don't use the words "i think" either because your guess is irrelevant. Quote the studies you are referring to.

    You said you would say the genetic factors were natural when there hasn't been any actual evidence suggesting the cause of homosexuality is due to genes.
    In a small sample of only 800 Homosexuals there was a similarity in the genetic markers but nothing suggests otherwise or people of different sexual orientation and due to the unreliability of the study no evidence can be drawn from this as it's not evident that there is any causation when referring to the correlation.

    Your doubts have no weight either, so don't factor that in. Your doubt aren't backed up by any evidence.

    Morality applies when judging whether something is natural or not. We are able to establish our own moral principles. Vegetarians don't eat meat for ethical reasons.
    So if an animal were to be able to establish their own moral principles and decide to do the same thing; you can't call it natural or innate for that animal to not eat meat as it has made the conscious decision not to eat meat.
    Just because any other animal may have homosexual tendencies does not mean we can apply the same principles to humans.

    Psychological factors aren't always natural, one can induce things on itself or be indoctrinated. So one can induce depression for an EXAMPLE independent on genetics, which shows that psychological well-being can be induced by only environmental factors.

    And no it's not correct to say one is Born Gay as the majority of your evidence comes from a very unreliable study.

    So user ,
    Right,
    Right,
    Right,
    Right,
    Right,
    Right,
    Conclusively : Right.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Why do you consistently compare animals to humans? As if it applies to animals then it must apply to humans, no. Also, why would desensitisation be a phenomenon?

    How can you also say that animals aren't over exposed or desensitised?

    Please explain how something which is only due to environmental factors can be natural.
    I think you'd better reread my post to know what point it is I'm actually making. No, how on earth are animals indoctrinated exactly? They can't speak and don't understand concepts of right and wrong, this is just nonsense! And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that people are gay because of desensitisation and indoctrination, because I think you just completely made that up.

    (Original post by )
    The study which concluded that many homosexual people had similar markers on these genes provided a small test sample. Bad controls and no tests for Bisexual or Heterosexual. So that study is relatively irrelevant and you can definitely suggest that its false that it isn't genetic.
    Rubbish, those surveys had ample test samples and several tests have been done showing the exact same thing. You're trying to wriggle out of it by these empty statements. And there were controls, they did these tests on heterosexual brothers and saw a much lower link to Xq28 than for gay men. So we can conclude there is a genetic link despite you claiming there wasn't. It's natural, suck it up. If you disagree then provide evidence to the contrary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I think you'd better reread my post to know what point it is I'm actually making. No, how on earth are animals indoctrinated exactly? They can't speak and don't understand concepts of right and wrong, this is just nonsense! And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that people are gay because of desensitisation and indoctrination, because I think you just completely made that up.



    Rubbish, those surveys had ample test samples and several tests have been done showing the exact same thing. You're trying to wriggle out of it by these empty statements. And there were controls, they did these tests on heterosexual brothers and saw a much lower link to Xq28 than for gay men. So we can conclude there is a genetic link despite you claiming there wasn't. It's natural, suck it up. If you disagree then provide evidence to the contrary.
    Still waiting for you to reference the study......
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Still waiting for you to reference the study......
    If you didn't look up the study then how were you commenting on the supposedly small sample size!

    The article on the gene:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

    The studies:

    Hamer, D.; Hu, S; Magnuson, V.; Hu, N; Pattatucci, A. (1993). "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science 261 (5119): 321–7. Bibcode:1993Sci...261..321H. doi:10.1126/science.8332896. PMID 8332896.

    Hu, Stella; Pattatucci, Angela M. L.; Patterson, Chavis; Li, Lin; Fulker, David W.; Cherny, Stacey S.; Kruglyak, Leonid; Hamer, Dean H. (1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nature Genetics 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.

    Pool R. Evidence for homosexuality gene. Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):291-2. PubMed PMID 8332894.

    King MC. Human genetics. Sexual orientation and the X. Nature. 1993 Jul22;364(6435):288-9. PubMed PMID 8332183.

    Byne, William (May 1994). "The Biological Evidence Challenged". Scientific American.

    Hamer, Dean; Simon LeVay (May 1994). "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality". Scientific American.


    Rice et al., 1999. Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, 665-667.

    "Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation". Sciencemag.org. 1999-08-06. doi:10.1126/science.285.5429.803a.

    More recent studies:


    Genome-wide linkage scan of male sexual orientation. A. R. Sanders, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, S. Guo, G. W. Beecham, E. R. Martin, J.M. Bailey8, Abstract 1957T

    Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation". Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181.

    Sanders,A. R. and Martin,E. R. and Beecham,G. W. and Guo,S. and Dawood,K. and Rieger,G. and Badner,J. A. and Gershon,E. S. and Krishnappa,R. S. and Kolundzija,A. B. and Duan,J. and Gejman,P. V. and Bailey,J. M. (November 2014). "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation". Psychological Medicine. FirstView: 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0033291714002451.

    Mintz, Zoe (14 February 2014). "Does A ‘Gay Gene’ Exist? New Study Says ‘Xq28’ May Influence Male Sexual Orientation".


    Your turn. Where are the studies saying it's due to desensitisation and indoctrination?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just casually bring it up to your boss instead of going straight to reporting. See what your boss thinks. They might just get rid of her without you officially reporting her.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackien1)
    Just casually bring it up to your boss instead of going straight to reporting. See what your boss thinks. They might just get rid of her without you officially reporting her.
    What's the difference? I'm not sure what you mean.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    What's the difference? I'm not sure what you mean.
    I guess the difference would be..

    Casually:

    Bring it up in casual conversation. Start with a topic LGBT related and slowly segue into 'oh did you know? the other day i came out to - - and she commented that it was wrong.' Then see how your boss reacts.

    As opposed to
    Report:

    Hey boss, the other day - - said something really homohobic and I hope that you will do something about it. (Or something, I don't really know how reports go..)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You deserve the smack for not accepting that others have a right to an opinion. And stop lying about her behind her back she never told you that you were disgusting = thats phobic; she told you that the concept made no sense to her = thats skepticism ( I know that might be too much of a big word for you to handle) its a different position from 'phobic'.

    Your probably soft so getting into a fight with an old granny wont be a good idea for you (because you'd lose).
    Keyboard warrior is more your thing.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Dunno why you're running off to your boss. You may not like what she said and feel offended by it, but she simply shared her opinion in a non violent or threatening way. If she stated that gay people deserved to be killed or something, or if she treated you differently because of your sexuality, then yes you should absolutely report her. Homophobia is defined as a 'dislike or prejudice against gay people', her saying that homosexuality is not right doesn't necessarily mean that she hates gay people, and the fact that she knew you were gay(correct me if I'm wrong) and was having a conversation with you about hot celebrities implies that she doesn't feel prejudiced or an aversion towards gay people(unless she's a great actress), so it's not really accurate to label her as homophobic based on that alone.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skeptique)
    You deserve the smack for not accepting that others have a right to an opinion. And stop lying about her behind her back she never told you that you were disgusting = thats phobic; she told you that the concept made no sense to her = thats skepticism ( I know that might be too much of a big word for you to handle) its a different position from 'phobic'.

    Your probably soft so getting into a fight with an old granny wont be a good idea for you (because you'd lose).
    Keyboard warrior is more your thing.
    Skeptique, honest question, what's changed? You're writing differently, and and you're usually very vicious and cruel. Different person using account, or is it the same?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    There are several definitions of the word Natural, one of refers to something being innate.
    Eine Moment, you say "innate".

    Google Definitions says that innate means inborn; natural.
    or (in philosophy) originating in the mind.

    If homosexuality has so far been shown to be caused by prenatal, or genetic factors, that means homosexuality has existed since birth, so is inborn; natural. Sexual attractions do manifest themselves in the mind (though arousal, a product I would say, is physical of course.) So homosexuality is innate by these definitions.

    Von mir
    Oxford Dictionaries also uses the same definition as the first one provided.
    dictionary.reference.com uses slightly different definitions, but my arguments also supports these.
    So does The Free Dictionary support me.
    So does Merriam-Webster support me.

    You cannot say it's natural for an odd sheep to eat another sheep from the same species just because it has no intervention from humans. When the rest of the species are herbivores.
    Yes I can say it's natural for one sheep to each another sheep of the same species, and I will. That cannibalism or that sheep then would just be called abnormal, and abnormality, as normal is mostly dictated by majority.

    So in summary, as it occurs without human intervention and occurs within nature, it's natural, but as it deviates from the norm, it is an abnormality. So perhaps a natural abnormality.

    Don't use the words "i think" either because your guess is irrelevant. Quote the studies you are referring to.
    I don't commit studies to memory, nor have I researched this fully. But Plantagenet Crown has done a lot of that for me, which is appreciated.


    You said you would say the genetic factors were natural when there hasn't been any actual evidence suggesting the cause of homosexuality is due to genes.
    Look at Planta's post.

    In a small sample of only 800 Homosexuals there was a similarity in the genetic markers but nothing suggests otherwise or people of different sexual orientation and due to the unreliability of the study no evidence can be drawn from this as it's not evident that there is any causation when referring to the correlation.
    There needs not be a causation. Have you ever considered it can be multi-factorial? More than one factor involved here determining homosexuality? Considering sexual orientation is like a spectrum, sexual orientations are implied to be multi-factorial.

    And of course, correlation is called correlation and causation is called causation for a reason.

    Your doubts have no weight either, so don't factor that in. Your doubt aren't backed up by any evidence.
    My doubts?

    Morality applies when judging whether something is natural or not.
    No, you should judge whether something is natural or not in a very clinical manner, as it is merely a quality, an attribute to give to something.

    Since when should morality dictate whether something is natural, and if so, why are you appealing to nature? Why should whether something is natural or not affect whether it is moral (or not)?

    P.S. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

    We are able to establish our own moral principles. Vegetarians don't eat meat for ethical reasons.
    Yes, we are able to establish our own moral principles.
    You're conflating conservation of the environment with the quality of being natural. i.e. you're confusing caring for the environment with the quality of natural.

    Also, on a side note, vegetarians don't always eat meat for ethical reasons. I know a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because the person just doesn't like the taste of meat, meaning ethical reasons has lost its exclusivity to the reasons for becoming vegetarian.

    So if an animal were to be able to establish their own moral principles and decide to do the same thing; you can't call it natural or innate for that animal to not eat meat as it has made the conscious decision not to eat meat.
    Why are you bringing the ability (or inability thereof) of animals to determine morality?!?!?!

    Secondly you can call it natural, and thirdly, and lastly, animals don't hold the same cognitive levels as we do.

    Just because any other animal may have homosexual tendencies does not mean we can apply the same principles to humans.
    We're not! Stop appealing to nature ffs! Whether something is natural or not is very clinical, and even if it is natural, doesn't mean we should listen to it in determining morality.

    I'll repeat, stop appealing to nature. That's the premise for every argument given in like the last 5 points at least.

    natural =/= good
    unnatural/artifical =/= bad

    Psychological factors aren't always natural, one can induce things on itself or be indoctrinated. So one can induce depression for an EXAMPLE independent on genetics, which shows that psychological well-being can be induced by only environmental factors.
    I never once said that psychological factors are always natural. they're natural if they occur without human interference, they're not if they don't.

    What has given you the impression that homosexuals have been indoctrinated? Quote studies please. You criticise me for not quoting studies, yet you have no basis for your own arguments, studies or logic either wise.

    And no it's not correct to say one is Born Gay as the majority of your evidence comes from a very unreliable study.
    So yes, it is more correct than not to say one is born gay. Go have a quickie with those studies Planta quoted.

    And it's a multiplicity of studies, please.


    So user ,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    (No conclusion even, albeit still) wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    If you didn't look up the study then how were you commenting on the supposedly small sample size!

    The article on the gene:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

    The studies:

    Hamer, D.; Hu, S; Magnuson, V.; Hu, N; Pattatucci, A. (1993). "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science 261 (5119): 321–7. Bibcode:1993Sci...261..321H. doi:10.1126/science.8332896. PMID 8332896.

    Hu, Stella; Pattatucci, Angela M. L.; Patterson, Chavis; Li, Lin; Fulker, David W.; Cherny, Stacey S.; Kruglyak, Leonid; Hamer, Dean H. (1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nature Genetics 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447.

    Pool R. Evidence for homosexuality gene. Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):291-2. PubMed PMID 8332894.

    King MC. Human genetics. Sexual orientation and the X. Nature. 1993 Jul22;364(6435):288-9. PubMed PMID 8332183.

    Byne, William (May 1994). "The Biological Evidence Challenged". Scientific American.

    Hamer, Dean; Simon LeVay (May 1994). "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality". Scientific American.


    Rice et al., 1999. Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, 665-667.

    "Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation". Sciencemag.org. 1999-08-06. doi:10.1126/science.285.5429.803a.

    More recent studies:


    Genome-wide linkage scan of male sexual orientation. A. R. Sanders, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, S. Guo, G. W. Beecham, E. R. Martin, J.M. Bailey8, Abstract 1957T

    Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation". Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181.

    Sanders,A. R. and Martin,E. R. and Beecham,G. W. and Guo,S. and Dawood,K. and Rieger,G. and Badner,J. A. and Gershon,E. S. and Krishnappa,R. S. and Kolundzija,A. B. and Duan,J. and Gejman,P. V. and Bailey,J. M. (November 2014). "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation". Psychological Medicine. FirstView: 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0033291714002451.

    Mintz, Zoe (14 February 2014). "Does A ‘Gay Gene’ Exist? New Study Says ‘Xq28’ May Influence Male Sexual Orientation".


    Your turn. Where are the studies saying it's due to desensitisation and indoctrination?
    Thanks for doing this; it is appreciated.

    Ugh that last post in reply to that other guy at least took an hour (or at least feels like it afterwards.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Thanks for doing this; it is appreciated.

    Ugh that last post in reply to that other guy at least took an hour (or at least feels like it afterwards.)
    Yeah it was a good post, tried to rep but PRSOM
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Yeah it was a good post, tried to rep but PRSOM
    Oh yeah, I was supposed to rep you, thx for the reminder.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Morality applies when judging whether something is natural or not. We are able to establish our own moral principles.
    This is a statement of absurdity of the highest order.

    Something is natural if it occurs in nature without the forced intervention of any other force or being, full stop. Morality has absolutely no relevance to whether or not something is natural.

    Also, your posts appear to be conflating the words natural and normal, they're not the same thing. Where humans are concerned, it's usually when we're not trying to be be normal that we're being natural!
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    At work today, we have a woman who is in our store every saturday morning, we pay her to make balloons and facepaint for customers with little kids. I talked to her for the first time today and she said something homophobic to me ("it's just wrong to be gay" I wanted to smack her... I do not tolerate homophobia at all and especially not at work.

    What should I do? She is not a normal employee she is almost like a 'contractor' person I guess.
    How about chill the **** out? Someone expressed their opinion (which wasn't homophobic, rather that they found homosexuality distasteful).

    Someone like you got me in trouble a few years ago when I was doing work experience. She asked me what my opinion was, and when I gave it ('I don't agree with it,' I said at the time), she had me hauled before a senior manager.

    There is a difference between homophobia and an opinion which finds homosexuality distasteful. You have, likewise, no right whatsoever to act on a person expressing their pivate opinion in a verbal, harmless way.

    Get over yourself and move on with your life; it's too short to ***** about people thinking different things to you.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.