Transgender Miss Universe
Replies
-
One good question is what is "normal" from the biological standpoint. Normal could mean "majority", in which case, yep, transgender is "abnormal", since it's such a small population of people relative to everyone else. Another way to think of "normal" is what is the "natural range" of a species' gender expression. We think of humans as male or female. But, intersex people are a constant. Other species have varied genders and gender fluidity. Perhaps, humans are capable of being more than only male or female. That would mean transgendered is another human gender. Not a common one, but another one, nonetheless. That would mean it's not "abnormal", simply "less common". Food for thought.
I really like this paragraph a lot because I believe it introduces a point that hasn't really been discussed: what is gender? You wrote that "other species have varied genders and gender fluidity." But mammals, for the most part, really only have two genders: male and female. How these species (or even humans) interact or what roles they play should be completely relevant to the topic of transgenderism. I'm only referring to the biology here and for mammals that means the "XY sex-determination system." Males have a Y chromosome and females do not.
When we start talking about gender identity concerns, what exactly are we talking about? If we're saying that a man has a strong sense or belief that he is "supposed" to be a woman, well what exactly does that mean? Because if that feeling or belief is based on societal perceptions of male/female roles (which, from everything I've read so far, it absolutely does), I can't possibly see how this isn't at least partly a psychological issue. Homosexuality is independent of societal perception. A homosexual simply feels a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. That feeling is completely independent of gender roles.0 -
I think that is the competition allows plastic surgery then a transgender person should be allowed. I mean, unless it's mandatory that you you're completely 100% natural, how many women in that beauty pageant has had boob jobs or nose jobs or anything else? How about just the fact that for the pageant you do spray tanning and a pound of makeup so you're already half fake anyway...0
-
One good question is what is "normal" from the biological standpoint. Normal could mean "majority", in which case, yep, transgender is "abnormal", since it's such a small population of people relative to everyone else. Another way to think of "normal" is what is the "natural range" of a species' gender expression. We think of humans as male or female. But, intersex people are a constant. Other species have varied genders and gender fluidity. Perhaps, humans are capable of being more than only male or female. That would mean transgendered is another human gender. Not a common one, but another one, nonetheless. That would mean it's not "abnormal", simply "less common". Food for thought.
I really like this paragraph a lot because I believe it introduces a point that hasn't really been discussed: what is gender? You wrote that "other species have varied genders and gender fluidity." But mammals, for the most part, really only have two genders: male and female. How these species (or even humans) interact or what roles they play should be completely relevant to the topic of transgenderism. I'm only referring to the biology here and for mammals that means the "XY sex-determination system." Males have a Y chromosome and females do not.
When we start talking about gender identity concerns, what exactly are we talking about? If we're saying that a man has a strong sense or belief that he is "supposed" to be a woman, well what exactly does that mean? Because if that feeling or belief is based on societal perceptions of male/female roles (which, from everything I've read so far, it absolutely does), I can't possibly see how this isn't at least partly a psychological issue. Homosexuality is independent of societal perception. A homosexual simply feels a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. That feeling is completely independent of gender roles.
The problem is in the linguistics of the conversation. Technically, it would be correct to call the transgendered or even homosexual not "normal" since they are in fact, a small part of the population. But I have heard people go as far as to call homosexuals not natural, which I think is flawed since homosexual behavior is exhibited in the animal kingdom. I have no idea is animals have transgender issues, so I have no opinion on it.
But the difference is saying how the word "normal" is being used and how a person has had it used towards them before. As teenagers or younger, and maybe even as an adult, being called not normal is the equivalent of being called strange or odd and has a negative conatation (sp) to it. That is where I think the friction in conversations like these happen.
As far as homosexuality is or even transgendered people go, just seems to me that since human beings are so complex and have larger brains than any other species on the planet, we would probably have a lot more variety from everything from intelligence to sexual behavior.
But transgender the transgender issue is not equal to the homosexual issue. People tend to get bogged down on what and what not is a choice for us as human beings concerning our gender roles and sexuality. If the debate is whether or not any of this is a choice, than we can have that debate, but in matters of liberty or personal freedoms, I could care less is some one, for a variety of reasons was homosexual or transgender by nature, or whether it was a completely a personal choice, because in the end I feel they should be able to do whatever they want with themselves and any other consenting adult.0 -
I can certainly understand people not liking being called "abnormal". Whether it's technically correct or not, you're right about it having a negative connotation. My son has autism and people ask why he isn't normal, so I get that.The problem is in the linguistics of the conversation. Technically, it would be correct to call the transgendered or even homosexual not "normal" since they are in fact, a small part of the population.
There are many natural instincts in the animal kingdom that we as humans do not exhibit. Just because something is natural in the animal kingdom does not mean it should be okay for humans to exhibit.But I have heard people go as far as to call homosexuals not natural, which I think is flawed since homosexual behavior is exhibited in the animal kingdom.0 -
But I have heard people go as far as to call homosexuals not natural, which I think is flawed since homosexual behavior is exhibited in the animal kingdom. I have no idea is animals have transgender issues, so I have no opinion on it.
That was exactly my point on what became "the chimp penis incident." Interestingly enough, when you try to Google for, "do other primates exhibit transgender behavior?" the first three responses are links to examples of homosexual behavior, not transgender behavior. Like you, I do not agree with the two being lumped together.
Here is a dissertation written in 2004 by a transsexual at Marshall:
http://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=etd
The author makes the following statement: "The fact that transgendered behavior occurs in other primates seems to add considerable weight to the argument that this is simply a part of human nature." Unfortunately, the author provides no reference for this claim.
On another note, here is an interesting article about the impending DSM-V:
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5406
I think one of the comments underneath that article perfectly embodies the problem I see with this whole debate. One of the comments reads:
"Calling Intersex people disordered and using pathologizing language is at the heart of the need to further pathologize us when we reject our birth assignments. We not only do not have a gender identity disorder we likewise do not have a condition or a disorder of sexual development. We have anatomical differences that society finds so reprehensible the only acceptable explanation is a disease model."
I love this because it absolutely nails the problem - it's textbook hypocrisy of the highest order. The statement that society finds transsexualism so reprehensible that it has applied a "disease" model is EXTREMELY disparaging of others who suffer from diseases. However, one example of a "disease" listed in the DSM is depression. Should those who suffer from depression be so offended as transsexuals? After all, because depression is listed in the DSM, that can only mean that society finds people who suffer from depression "reprehensible" and "diseased." Right?
In other words, it's as if these transsexuals are saying, "HEY! Don't you DARE say I have a mental illness. I'm NOT sick!!" Would that not imply that having a mental illness is then something really really bad? I wonder how that makes people who do suffer from mental illnesses feel.... hmm....
Here's another post I read somewhere (http://www.gidreform.org/advocate.html)
"As a nurse I deal with life and death. Being a transwoman, and by DSM classification considered mentally ill, I shouldn't be in such a demanding role."
So, again, people who struggle with depression shouldn't be nurses?
By trashing the DSM, these transgenders are committing the very crimes from which they suffer. They are insulting every single person who suffers from any kind of mental illness. The fight should not be about whether or not transsexualism should be classified as a mental illness -- it should be about removing the stigma attached to mental illness itself.
If "acceptance" of abnormality were truly the goal here, it wouldn't include the need to bash others who are simply abnormal in a different way.0 -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/05/24/153285061/can-children-know-at-age-2-they-were-born-the-wrong-sex?sc=fb&cc=fp
From the article:
This framework does not mesh with the "born that way" school of thought — the view that Kathryn was psychologically male right from birth, but trapped in a female's body. "What could it possibly mean," Fausto-Sterling asked during our phone conversation, "to say that a child is 'born that way'? Children aren't born with identity." Furthermore, gender identity may not be fixed throughout life. "I doubt it is a permanent thing at age two," Fausto-Sterling noted.
Also from the article:
One fixed thing about these children, of course, is that they need what we all need: to be loved for who they are, moment by moment.0 -
I can certainly understand people not liking being called "abnormal". Whether it's technically correct or not, you're right about it having a negative connotation. My son has autism and people ask why he isn't normal, so I get that.The problem is in the linguistics of the conversation. Technically, it would be correct to call the transgendered or even homosexual not "normal" since they are in fact, a small part of the population.
There are many natural instincts in the animal kingdom that we as humans do not exhibit. Just because something is natural in the animal kingdom does not mean it should be okay for humans to exhibit.But I have heard people go as far as to call homosexuals not natural, which I think is flawed since homosexual behavior is exhibited in the animal kingdom.
Maybe I should have been more specific when using animal kingdom. Obviously bugs and reptiles nature vary considerably from ours, but the closer we get to our DNA in the mammals, the more things we have in common. I have no idea if a male Praying Mantis would like to have anal sex with another male Mantis. But Bonobos, some chimps, dolphins, they in small numbers exhibit homosexual tendencies, so while it is not normal within their species, it isn't in my mind, unnatural. Then again, unnatural is a slippery word as well because the way I am using it, I could easily see how if something incredibly bizarre happened in the animal kingdom, since it is in nature, does that make it natural? I don't know.
The argument, too me, comes down to what a person indendently feels is natural for them. To me, while I hold no ill will and do not wish to infringe on any homosexual or transgenders liberties, their behavior would not be natural to me. It's only natural to them. When I see two men kissing passionately publicly, while I do not get angry, I do feel uncomfortable. But then again, I don't like over the top affection from heterosexual couples in public either. The difference is what is natural to me in the frame of sexual desire, which two men are not. How much of this is genetics, chemical, or learned is anyones guess. Because I think most american men would think like I do, but some how the idea of two women kissing seems to be acceptable and desireable.
I think that because of our large brains and complex wiring, human sexuality is too complex for any word, whether it's choice, natural, normal, gentic, urge, or any other word to properly describe.0 -
I don't understand the problem with the word "disorder". Do you know how many people have some sort of "disorder"??? I've also granted that some homosexuals and transgenders are "born that way", but I've read articles that suggest it has to do with hormones/chemicals of the mother while she is pregnant. And why do members of the LGBT community find it so horrible to be treated for chemical imbalances (I'm asking this sincerely because I don't know)? Is it because they don't want people thinking that homosexuality and sexual identity issues are "mental problems"? What does that say for their thoughts of people who suffer from depression or anxiety and have to take medication? I wouldn't consider those people "mentally ill"; I'd consider them having a chemical imbalance that causes them to have certain feelings. I also don't think there's anything wrong with having chemical imbalances or having mental illnesses. It's an illness like cancer is.I love this because it absolutely nails the problem - it's textbook hypocrisy of the highest order. The statement that society finds transsexualism so reprehensible that it has applied a "disease" model is EXTREMELY disparaging of others who suffer from diseases. However, one example of a "disease" listed in the DSM is depression. Should those who suffer from depression be so offended as transsexuals? After all, because depression is listed in the DSM, that can only mean that society finds people who suffer from depression "reprehensible" and "diseased." Right?
In other words, it's as if these transsexuals are saying, "HEY! Don't you DARE say I have a mental illness. I'm NOT sick!!" Would that not imply that having a mental illness is then something really really bad? I wonder how that makes people who do suffer from mental illnesses feel.... hmm....0 -
I don't understand the problem with the word "disorder". Do you know how many people have some sort of "disorder"??? I've also granted that some homosexuals and transgenders are "born that way", but I've read articles that suggest it has to do with hormones/chemicals of the mother while she is pregnant. And why do members of the LGBT community find it so horrible to be treated for chemical imbalances (I'm asking this sincerely because I don't know)? Is it because they don't want people thinking that homosexuality and sexual identity issues are "mental problems"? What does that say for their thoughts of people who suffer from depression or anxiety and have to take medication? I wouldn't consider those people "mentally ill"; I'd consider them having a chemical imbalance that causes them to have certain feelings. I also don't think there's anything wrong with having chemical imbalances or having mental illnesses. It's an illness like cancer is.I love this because it absolutely nails the problem - it's textbook hypocrisy of the highest order. The statement that society finds transsexualism so reprehensible that it has applied a "disease" model is EXTREMELY disparaging of others who suffer from diseases. However, one example of a "disease" listed in the DSM is depression. Should those who suffer from depression be so offended as transsexuals? After all, because depression is listed in the DSM, that can only mean that society finds people who suffer from depression "reprehensible" and "diseased." Right?
In other words, it's as if these transsexuals are saying, "HEY! Don't you DARE say I have a mental illness. I'm NOT sick!!" Would that not imply that having a mental illness is then something really really bad? I wonder how that makes people who do suffer from mental illnesses feel.... hmm....
Two possible reasons. First, I think everyone hear is using a reasonable usage of the phrase "mental disorders" and do not see it as a derogatory thing. But in truth, there is still as large stimga about mental disorders, even depression. So when maybe a homosexual would feel offended when their sexual preference or urges are called a disorder?
Secondly, and maybe I am mistaken here, but usually when a person is diagnosed with a disorder, the person is in some way funcitoning in a diminished capacity when compared to the norm of society. Whether it is autism, depression, bi-polar, there is usually a fucntional draw back. So when we say that homosexuality or transgenders behave in a way because of a "disorder", I think it doesn't quite work because besides barriers put up by society, they seem to seem to have no functioning problems.0 -
True. I guess I take issue with the stigma about any disorders. I guess the hypocrisy opus is referring to, though, is when homosexuals or transgenders will say, "I do not have a disorder. I am not mentally sick", as if to say that everyone with a disorder is mentally sick.Two possible reasons. First, I think everyone hear is using a reasonable usage of the phrase "mental disorders" and do not see it as a derogatory thing. But in truth, there is still as large stimga about mental disorders, even depression. So when maybe a homosexual would feel offended when their sexual preference or urges are called a disorder?
Not functioning problems, but their preferences, urges, identity is not "of the norm". Same as my son with autism. He's high functioning academically, but displays social skills "not of the norm".Secondly, and maybe I am mistaken here, but usually when a person is diagnosed with a disorder, the person is in some way funcitoning in a diminished capacity when compared to the norm of society. Whether it is autism, depression, bi-polar, there is usually a fucntional draw back. So when we say that homosexuality or transgenders behave in a way because of a "disorder", I think it doesn't quite work because besides barriers put up by society, they seem to seem to have no functioning problems.0 -
So when we say that homosexuality or transgenders behave in a way because of a "disorder", I think it doesn't quite work because besides barriers put up by society, they seem to seem to have no functioning problems.
Ahh, but here is an interesting (I think) point. Homosexuals experience barriers that are put up by society, true. But transgenders have "built in" barriers... they *do* have functioning problems because they feel like they have the wrong genitalia. This is where the "T" doesn't fit in with the "LB&G."
A homosexual does not require any medical procedure to feel "right." They just need society to leave them alone. And while transgenders also need society to leave them alone, they *do* require medical procedures (such as hormone therapy, gender reassignment therapy, etc) in order to feel "right." I think that speaks volumes to the idea that it makes sense to classify it is a disorder. And I do not understand the stigma attached to calling it so.
For the record, I suffer from depression and take medication for it. I have no problem with depression being referred to as a mental illness because it is. But I do take great offense to the suggestion that a mental illness or disorder is some awful terrible thing that needs to be avoided because it's so awful and terrible. Then again, people suffering from depression are not treated anywhere near as poorly by society as transgenders, so maybe that's unfair comparison. Either way, it still doesn't make it right to ask me if English is my first language :bigsmile:0 -
True. I guess I take issue with the stigma about any disorders. I guess the hypocrisy opus is referring to, though, is when homosexuals or transgenders will say, "I do not have a disorder. I am not mentally sick", as if to say that everyone with a disorder is mentally sick.Two possible reasons. First, I think everyone hear is using a reasonable usage of the phrase "mental disorders" and do not see it as a derogatory thing. But in truth, there is still as large stimga about mental disorders, even depression. So when maybe a homosexual would feel offended when their sexual preference or urges are called a disorder?
Not functioning problems, but their preferences, urges, identity is not "of the norm". Same as my son with autism. He's high functioning academically, but displays social skills "not of the norm".Secondly, and maybe I am mistaken here, but usually when a person is diagnosed with a disorder, the person is in some way funcitoning in a diminished capacity when compared to the norm of society. Whether it is autism, depression, bi-polar, there is usually a fucntional draw back. So when we say that homosexuality or transgenders behave in a way because of a "disorder", I think it doesn't quite work because besides barriers put up by society, they seem to seem to have no functioning problems.
I agree with the "not normal" part because I know you are not meaning it as derogatory, just statistically speaking. Homosexuals are a small percentage of humans, transgendered is even smaller. So I think "not normal" is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not being used just to hurt a person.
But when we speak of disorders, like I said, I do not see how homosexuality could ever be lumped in with autism or mental retardation or any mental disorders. While I believe that there is a case to be made that many, if not the majorty of homosexuals are genetically predisposed, as are, I'm guessing, most transgendered, I can't help wonder if the word "disorder" is being applied because we still unconciously are applying a moral argument that it is wrong. Linguistics can be a real pain in the rear in conversations like this.
For instance, I could easily say, and I think it would be crude, that there is something wrong with a person with down syndrome. When I use the word "wrong", I'm not using it as to gauge a persons morality, but rather stating that this person has some type of malfucntion that has made them less functional as opposed to the norms of humans. But when you say that there is something wrong with a homosexual, do we mean morally or functionally? As far as it being write or wrong in the sense of good vs. evil, piety vs. sin, I can't see how two consenting adults engaging in sex is wrong. But if we say it in a medical way, that there is something wrong with a transgendered or gay person, as we would basically be saying with the word "disorder:, we walk a fine line, because no one wants to be told they were born "wrong".
I for years held true to the belief that all homosexuals were born that way. And I do think the majortiy are, but we also have instances of homosexual behavior that are not as much genetic as results of enviornmental factors, like chemical, society, and in some case, sexual trauma.
Human sexuality is terribly complicated, and we as a society, myself included, concentrate too much on the sexual aspect. Many people can display homosexual urges or even experimentation sexually, but never commit to the gay lifestyle. I think the better question is why homosexuals are not only physically attracted to the same sex, but romatically and lovingly attracted.0 -
So when we say that homosexuality or transgenders behave in a way because of a "disorder", I think it doesn't quite work because besides barriers put up by society, they seem to seem to have no functioning problems.
Ahh, but here is an interesting (I think) point. Homosexuals experience barriers that are put up by society, true. But transgenders have "built in" barriers... they *do* have functioning problems because they feel like they have the wrong genitalia. This is where the "T" doesn't fit in with the "LB&G."
A homosexual does not require any medical procedure to feel "right." They just need society to leave them alone. And while transgenders also need society to leave them alone, they *do* require medical procedures (such as hormone therapy, gender reassignment therapy, etc) in order to feel "right." I think that speaks volumes to the idea that it makes sense to classify it is a disorder. And I do not understand the stigma attached to calling it so.
For the record, I suffer from depression and take medication for it. I have no problem with depression being referred to as a mental illness because it is. But I do take great offense to the suggestion that a mental illness or disorder is some awful terrible thing that needs to be avoided because it's so awful and terrible. Then again, people suffering from depression are not treated anywhere near as poorly by society as transgenders, so maybe that's unfair comparison. Either way, it still doesn't make it right to ask me if English is my first language :bigsmile:
All good points. I have so many "disorders" they are beginnning to cancel each other out.0 -
Good point to bring up. I'm not speaking morally in this discussion at all. I'm speaking about human brains and disorders.I agree with the "not normal" part because I know you are not meaning it as derogatory, just statistically speaking. Homosexuals are a small percentage of humans, transgendered is even smaller. So I think "not normal" is perfectly acceptable as long as it's not being used just to hurt a person.
But when we speak of disorders, like I said, I do not see how homosexuality could ever be lumped in with autism or mental retardation or any mental disorders. While I believe that there is a case to be made that many, if not the majorty of homosexuals are genetically predisposed, as are, I'm guessing, most transgendered, I can't help wonder if the word "disorder" is being applied because we still unconciously are applying a moral argument that it is wrong. Linguistics can be a real pain in the rear in conversations like this.
For instance, I could easily say, and I think it would be crude, that there is something wrong with a person with down syndrome. When I use the word "wrong", I'm not using it as to gauge a persons morality, but rather stating that this person has some type of malfucntion that has made them less functional as opposed to the norms of humans. But when you say that there is something wrong with a homosexual, do we mean morally or functionally? As far as it being write or wrong in the sense of good vs. evil, piety vs. sin, I can't see how two consenting adults engaging in sex is wrong. But if we say it in a medical way, that there is something wrong with a transgendered or gay person, as we would basically be saying with the word "disorder:, we walk a fine line, because no one wants to be told they were born "wrong".
I believe the same.I for years held true to the belief that all homosexuals were born that way. And I do think the majortiy are, but we also have instances of homosexual behavior that are not as much genetic as results of enviornmental factors, like chemical, society, and in some case, sexual trauma.0 -
Human sexuality is terribly complicated, and we as a society, myself included, concentrate too much on the sexual aspect. Many people can display homosexual urges or even experimentation sexually, but never commit to the gay lifestyle. I think the better question is why homosexuals are not only physically attracted to the same sex, but romantically and lovingly attracted.
I'm a lesbian, but I kinda want to kiss adrian_indy. :laugh:
You've made many excellent points...and your last bit about "romantically and lovingly attracted" is what the definition of sexual orientation should be focused on. Our orientation isn't about our sexual behavior. It's about our feelings and who we fall in love with.
And, it's also why I disagree with the thought that anything post-birth like "enviornmental factors, like chemical, society, and in some case, sexual trauma" affects a person's orientation. It certainly can heavily influence their sexual behavior (see highly religious homosexuals choosing to be chaste), but who we love is set during fetal development. The exact mechanics of that are not fully understood.0 -
I just read an article about a man who went to the hospital with kidney stones and found out he was a woman. There was an ultrasound and he saw that he had female sex organs too. He said it explained a lot. He's decided to live the rest of his life as a woman. His wife of 25 years and all 6 children support him completely and he is staying with his wife. What an awesome story of unconditional love! I would post the link here, but I read it in my phone and can't.0
-
All good points. I have so many "disorders" they are beginnning to cancel each other out.
LOL, nice. :drinker:0 -
I for years held true to the belief that all homosexuals were born that way. And I do think the majortiy are, but we also have instances of homosexual behavior that are not as much genetic as results of enviornmental factors, like chemical, society, and in some case, sexual trauma.
Very interesting perspective. I kinda take issue with the idea of someone "becoming" a homosexual because of sexual trauma. It just seems like that should be in a separate category than someone who is.... I guess for lack of a better phrase, a "standard" homosexual. I mean, if your sexual orientation is affected by emotional trauma, how can you still make the argument for it being completely biochemical? There would *have* to be some level of psychological issue there.
My personal theory is that we're all bisexual but that we feel it manifested in varying ways - that there's no such thing as completely 100% heterosexual or homosexual (I'm sure a lot of people from both sides would probably take issue with that, LOL, but so be it). I think some people experience strong attraction to the opposite sex, some people feel strong attraction to the same sex, and some people feel it anywhere in between. And that theory would certainly fit in with the concept of psychological trauma influencing where we fall on the sliding scale.
I'm probably wrong... perhaps one day scientists will discover gene X7GS732 is responsible for determining orientation. But I like the idea that we all just feel how we all just feel... and that's ok.0 -
I just read an article about a man who went to the hospital with kidney stones and found out he was a woman. There was an ultrasound and he saw that he had female sex organs too. He said it explained a lot. He's decided to live the rest of his life as a woman. His wife of 25 years and all 6 children support him completely and he is staying with his wife. What an awesome story of unconditional love! I would post the link here, but I read it in my phone and can't.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/25/man-admitted-to-hospital-for-kidney-stone-discovers-hes-a-woman/
From the article:
"Steve, who now goes by 'Stevie,' said his wife and their six children accepted his new identity right away."
Awesome family!!0 -
I for years held true to the belief that all homosexuals were born that way. And I do think the majortiy are, but we also have instances of homosexual behavior that are not as much genetic as results of enviornmental factors, like chemical, society, and in some case, sexual trauma.
Very interesting perspective. I kinda take issue with the idea of someone "becoming" a homosexual because of sexual trauma. It just seems like that should be in a separate category than someone who is.... I guess for lack of a better phrase, a "standard" homosexual. I mean, if your sexual orientation is affected by emotional trauma, how can you still make the argument for it being completely biochemical? There would *have* to be some level of psychological issue there.
My personal theory is that we're all bisexual but that we feel it manifested in varying ways - that there's no such thing as completely 100% heterosexual or homosexual (I'm sure a lot of people from both sides would probably take issue with that, LOL, but so be it). I think some people experience strong attraction to the opposite sex, some people feel strong attraction to the same sex, and some people feel it anywhere in between. And that theory would certainly fit in with the concept of psychological trauma influencing where we fall on the sliding scale.
I'm probably wrong... perhaps one day scientists will discover gene X7GS732 is responsible for determining orientation. But I like the idea that we all just feel how we all just feel... and that's ok.
Yeah, I agree with the bisexual aspect of it. What I meant by the trauma part is that what is that people, especially young people such as adolescence, can be influenced by molestation and rape. Even though a 12 year old is hardwired to be hetero, sometimes when he or she is the victim of pedophilia, I think their software can get mixed up. We will never know for sure because I guess the case could be made that the victim might have turned out gay anyways, but I think that trauma in the younger years can have influence.
And like you said, I believe in the sliding scale as well and is dictated by societal norms. While many macho americans would never admit to any homosexual urges as men, it is only our societies view of what a man is supposed to be that influences their views on homosexual behavior. Ancient Greeks, Spartans, Egyptians and Romans all had a high degree of homosexual behavior. Maybe not the majority, but they had their fair share. To them, there was nothing unmanly about it. As a matter of fact, what Kevin Sorbo and Disney as well of every other western story teller has left out of their portrayal of Herakles was the fact that he was not only admired for his immense strength, but for his sexual prowess/appetite with woman......and men.0 -
I really love how this thread turned out. It gives me a warm fuzzy. Thanks you guys.
0 -
I really love how this thread turned out. It gives me a warm fuzzy. Thanks you guys.
I'll wager it doesn't give many LGBT people a warm fuzzy feeling.0 -
I'll wager it doesn't give many LGBT people a warm fuzzy feeling.
Because of all of the positive statements about how people should feel free to live their lives as they see fit without getting dumped on by society? :huh: If you can't take away from this thread the realization that there are people who are intellectually curious and interested in discussing the subject with the basic understanding that everyone should have the right to live how they want to live... well... that's disappointing.0 -
Yeah, I agree with the bisexual aspect of it. What I meant by the trauma part is that what is that people, especially young people such as adolescence, can be influenced by molestation and rape. Even though a 12 year old is hardwired to be hetero, sometimes when he or she is the victim of pedophilia, I think their software can get mixed up. We will never know for sure because I guess the case could be made that the victim might have turned out gay anyways, but I think that trauma in the younger years can have influence.
Again, I don't think it affects orientation, just behavior (understandably). I don't want to derail this thread, and it's totally another subject, but trauma hasn't been shown to change one's orientation. It's a bit of a myth and was simply one of the early beliefs on what made people "gay". Sexual trauma effects a person's sexuality, but not their orientation.0 -
Sexual trauma effects a person's sexuality, but not their orientation.
Can you explain the difference between sexuality and orientation? I tried teh Google but nothing really definitive is coming up and I'd like to understand this.0 -
Yeah, I agree with the bisexual aspect of it. What I meant by the trauma part is that what is that people, especially young people such as adolescence, can be influenced by molestation and rape. Even though a 12 year old is hardwired to be hetero, sometimes when he or she is the victim of pedophilia, I think their software can get mixed up. We will never know for sure because I guess the case could be made that the victim might have turned out gay anyways, but I think that trauma in the younger years can have influence.
Again, I don't think it affects orientation, just behavior (understandably). I don't want to derail this thread, and it's totally another subject, but trauma hasn't been shown to change one's orientation. It's a bit of a myth and was simply one of the early beliefs on what made people "gay". Sexual trauma effects a person's sexuality, but not their orientation.
I think I understand what you are saying, and I think that is what I was getting at with the whole hardware vs. software argument. But just in case I am getting wrong, what would you say the difference between sexuality and orientation?0 -
Yeah, I agree with the bisexual aspect of it. What I meant by the trauma part is that what is that people, especially young people such as adolescence, can be influenced by molestation and rape. Even though a 12 year old is hardwired to be hetero, sometimes when he or she is the victim of pedophilia, I think their software can get mixed up. We will never know for sure because I guess the case could be made that the victim might have turned out gay anyways, but I think that trauma in the younger years can have influence.
Again, I don't think it affects orientation, just behavior (understandably). I don't want to derail this thread, and it's totally another subject, but trauma hasn't been shown to change one's orientation. It's a bit of a myth and was simply one of the early beliefs on what made people "gay". Sexual trauma effects a person's sexuality, but not their orientation.
I think I understand what you are saying, and I think that is what I was getting at with the whole hardware vs. software argument. But just in case I am getting wrong, what would you say the difference between sexuality and orientation?
To answer both of you: Sexuality as effected by sexual trauma would be things like: having a negative attitude about sex, difficulty with intimacy (getting aroused, trusting someone enough to be intimate), obsessive sexual thoughts/feelings and compulsive sexual behavior, upsetting sexual fantasies related to the abuse, negative body image, etc. So, sexuality as in your own expression of your sexual side.0 -
I really love how this thread turned out. It gives me a warm fuzzy. Thanks you guys.
Why not? We're having a civil discussion that is educating people. Not sure who your friends in the LGBT community are, but mine think the discussion is going well- even if they don't agree with everything said.I'll wager it doesn't give many LGBT people a warm fuzzy feeling.0 -
To answer both of you: Sexuality as effected by sexual trauma would be things like: having a negative attitude about sex, difficulty with intimacy (getting aroused, trusting someone enough to be intimate), obsessive sexual thoughts/feelings and compulsive sexual behavior, upsetting sexual fantasies related to the abuse, negative body image, etc. So, sexuality as in your own expression of your sexual side.
Would you say that sexuality is an individual's outward manifestation of their innate orientation?0 -
To answer both of you: Sexuality as effected by sexual trauma would be things like: having a negative attitude about sex, difficulty with intimacy (getting aroused, trusting someone enough to be intimate), obsessive sexual thoughts/feelings and compulsive sexual behavior, upsetting sexual fantasies related to the abuse, negative body image, etc. So, sexuality as in your own expression of your sexual side.
Would you say that sexuality is an individual's outward manifestation of their innate orientation?
I admit I don't understand the question. :laugh:
Sexuality covers every aspect of one's sexual self. Orientation is one small thing; what gender(s) are you attracted to.0
This discussion has been closed.