Homophobia - Double Standards?

[TheKnightWho]

Cure is a bad word, but I wouldn't rule out a future situation where you could change sexuality medically. This might actually be helpful for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, and if it exists denying them it would be as bad as refusing to accept the sexuality of someone who is accepting of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not quite sure this could work, though: sexuality and gender are both 'in your head' - i.e. they're things that you desire or feel are part of your identity. Your sex is your body, and is therefore 'outside your head'. A sex change is not a gender change - it's considered to be a realignment so that your sex lines up with your gender. I'm not sure that an equivalent is possible with sexuality.

 

[NSEFAN]

The brain is still physical, though. Change the circuits and chemicals, you change how the person feels and behaves. Maybe in the future it would be possible for people to undergo treatment to change parts of their brain if they so chose?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The brain is still physical, though. Change the circuits and chemicals, you change how the person feels and behaves. Maybe in the future it would be possible for people to undergo treatment to change parts of their brain if they so chose?

Yes, but the experience of the mind is not, which is what we're getting at here. Otherwise there's no meaningful way of saying something is 'mental', which isn't true.

It's the difference between red as a particular wavelength of light, and red as the perception of the mind - which can be different for different people (such as those with red-green colourblindness).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not quite sure this could work, though: sexuality and gender are both 'in your head' - i.e. they're things that you desire or feel are part of your identity. Your sex is your body, and is therefore 'outside your head'. A sex change is not a gender change - it's considered to be a realignment so that your sex lines up with your gender. I'm not sure that an equivalent is possible with sexuality.

I don't know if it is or it isn't - I'm not a medical researcher. But if it is found that it is, I see no reason it should not be available to those whose lives it will improve if they want it. It must, however, not be forced on anyone who does not want it, either legally or morally.

Some people might well have those factors that they do not want as part of their identity. Think things like depression, which can be affected by medication.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't know if it is or it isn't - I'm not a medical researcher. But if it is found that it is, I see no reason it should not be available to those whose lives it will improve if they want it. It must, however, not be forced on anyone who does not want it, either legally or morally.

Some people might well have those factors that they do not want as part of their identity. Think things like depression, which can be affected by medication.

Sure, but the thing about mental illnesses is that they're things that have a profound detriment to the person, not including prejudice or discrimination aimed at that person regarding that particular mental facet. That's why being gay is not a mental illness but depression is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure, but the thing about mental illnesses is that they're things that have a profound detriment to the person, not including prejudice or discrimination aimed at that person regarding that particular mental facet. That's why being gay is not a mental illness but depression is.

Having a sexuality that you (and you as an individual only, not anyone else) cannot accept for whatever reason I think is, FWIW. I would certainly put it on the same level as a physical sex change, which is seen as essential for many peoples' mental health.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Having a sexuality that you (and you as an individual only, not anyone else) cannot accept for whatever reason I think is, FWIW. I would certainly put it on the same level as a physical sex change, which is seen as essential for many peoples' mental health.

But one is unhappiness with your physiology; the other with your mental desires. Having a desire about your desires is always tricky to deal with.

 

[Gutfright]

But one is unhappiness with your physiology; the other with your mental desires. Having a desire about your desires is always tricky to deal with.

Just so I understand what you're saying (seeing as misunderstandings between us take an average of two solid days of arguing to clear up ) do you think that the option of "curing" people's brains of gender dysphoria should not be made available, even if it were possible?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Just so I understand what you're saying (seeing as misunderstandings between us take an average of two solid days of arguing to clear up ) do you think that the option of "curing" people's brains of gender dysphoria should not be made available, even if it were possible?

Well at that point we're "curing" people of their own desires again - when the "cures" have detrimental effects, as they do, then no, they shouldn't be available. The best solution to gender dysphoria is to allow people to make the change of sex if they want to.

 

[Gutfright]

Well at that point we're "curing" people of their own desires again - when the "cures" have detrimental effects, as they do, then no, they shouldn't be available. The best solution to gender dysphoria is to allow people to make the change of sex if they want to.

We were talking about a hypothetical point in the future where mankind possesses the ability to manipulate the human brain in such a way as to be able to "cure" gender dysphoria without detrimental effects. Should this cure be available upon request, or should surgery be the only option?

It also raises the question of whether it would be ok to cure paedophiles of their attraction to children if we possessed the ability to do so (note I'm not saying that being transgender is equivalent to being a nonce-I'm not Vladimir Putin). If you're arguing that human desires are in some way sacrosanct and science should just back the hell off, then surely that means kiddy-diddlers should be exempt from brain-fiddling too?

 

[Darren R]

As for the 'only gay person in the village', you don't have to do this by yourself; there are lots of groups on the Internet based around your opinion on being gay, just like there are groups against gay people. That's the good thing about opinions, you don't have to share it yourself. Just like we all joined this site because we have a positive opinion on trains or train related areas.

That is probably the most patronising thing I have ever read. I don't have to have my gay opinion all on my lonesome? There are groups out there to help me through this? Aw shucks - thanks for those words of encouragement. I'll be sure to pass them on to my husband.

Now if you gentlemen will excuse me, I'm off to sign up at GayRailUk Forums.

(Poofs and Poofers.Com? Trannies For Trains.Co.UK? Lesbians For Light Rail.Org? Tip your waitress folks - I'm here all week!)

 

[J-2739]

That is probably the most patronising thing I have ever read. I don't have to have my gay opinion all on my lonesome? There are groups out there to help me through this? Aw shucks - thanks for those words of encouragement. I'll be sure to pass them on to my husband.

Now if you gentlemen will excuse me, I'm off to sign up at GayRailUk Forums.

(Poofs and Poofers.Com? Trannies For Trains.Co.UK? Lesbians For Light Rail.Org? Tip your waitress folks - I'm here all week!)

I was offering words of encouragement to join organisations so you could talk about being gay comfortably; looks like you tore that apart with this comment! Fine, don't listen, just like some others on this forum. Don't bring your issue to me anymore. I've lost all sympathy with you after reading this comment. You probably didn't need it though. You'll never stop the homophobic opinions happening in the village of yours though unless you challenge it, which you don't seem to be doing at the moment. I'm not laughing as well, you should read all my previous posts and see how much dislike I get.

MOD note: In case your reading, just take a reflect on how much I've been helping, and yet how much crud I get back for it, or maybe I'm useless. I know I really shouldn't be saying this, but I'm just feeling emotional this night and wanted to let it all out. Sorry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well at that point we're "curing" people of their own desires again - when the "cures" have detrimental effects, as they do, then no, they shouldn't be available. The best solution to gender dysphoria is to allow people to make the change of sex if they want to.

What, if it is solely at the option of the receiver of treatment, is detrimental about it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tetchytyke]

What, if it is solely at the option of the receiver of treatment, is detrimental about it?

Dr Christian Jessen did a documentary about gay cure therapy a year or two back, you should watch it. It's not a pleasant process, it's not talking about your worries with a psychologist in a little room with a cheese plant.

Think more along the lines of the therapy in A Clockwork Orange...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dr Christian Jessen did a documentary about gay cure therapy a year or two back, you should watch it. It's not a pleasant process, it's not talking about your worries with a psychologist in a little room with a cheese plant.

Think more along the lines of the therapy in A Clockwork Orange...

For clarity I'm not thinking of that kind of thing, I'm thinking of a scenario where treatment would be rather smoother e.g. a drug. But even so if someone wishes, unilaterally, to undergo such treatment, who am I or anyone else to say they can't, and why should its existence be hidden if it did exist? It would be very, very wrong to try to influence someone to do so, but then it would be very, very wrong to try to influence someone to have medical treatment to change something physical about their body, too.

 

[Esker-pades]

Cure is a bad word, but I wouldn't rule out a future situation where you could change sexuality medically. This might actually be helpful for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, and if it exists denying them it would be as bad as refusing to accept the sexuality of someone who is accepting of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Changing sexuality medically is rather pointless. The only reason why people can't accept their own sexuality is because they've been taught to hate all sexualities that are not heterosexual before finding out that they are gay or bi or pan or any other sexuality. Sex change is good as it helps people to align with their gender, but sexuality doesn't correlate to anything other than the people who you are attracted to. Being trapped in the wrong body has nothing to do with sexuality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Changing sexuality medically is rather pointless. The only reason why people can't accept their own sexuality is because they've been taught to hate all sexualities that are not heterosexual before finding out that they are gay or bi or pan or any other sexuality.

Wow, how closed-minded. Who are you to say that to a person who is strongly unhappy with their sexuality?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Learned behaviour. Nurture.

discrimination and bigotry are learned behaviours , regardless of what those who attempt to defend it say ...

a heteronormative society with a defined class structure suits warlords and religious leaders as it allows them to exercise control ... and ensures a supply of believers for the future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Changing sexuality medically is rather pointless. The only reason why people can't accept their own sexuality is because they've been taught to hate all sexualities that are not heterosexual before finding out that they are gay or bi or pan or any other sexuality. Sex change is good as it helps people to align with their gender, but sexuality doesn't correlate to anything other than the people who you are attracted to. Being trapped in the wrong body has nothing to do with sexuality.

seems to be a common fallacy that sexuality and gender identity are somehow linked , you will find natal men and women who are gays, bi, pan or straight and you will find trans men and women who are gay, bi , pan or straight ...

I agree that internalised homophobia plays a big part in the disatisifaction of some lesbian, gay and bisexual people - but it's because of societal norms and family pressure in the main ...

the one 'double standard' we've not addressed so far is the consumption of lesbian and 'she-male' porn by men who purport to be straight ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know if it is or it isn't - I'm not a medical researcher. But if it is found that it is, I see no reason it should not be available to those whose lives it will improve if they want it. It must, however, not be forced on anyone who does not want it, either legally or morally.

Some people might well have those factors that they do not want as part of their identity. Think things like depression, which can be affected by medication.

let me clarify this

you have no actual knowledge or the science or clinical issues but are suggesting that money and time be spent 'curing' issues , where the 'cures' you propose are all ready discredited.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just so I understand what you're saying (seeing as misunderstandings between us take an average of two solid days of arguing to clear up ) do you think that the option of "curing" people's brains of gender dysphoria should not be made available, even if it were possible?

Psychological, psychosurgical and pharmaceutical 'cures' have all be tried and discredited in both sexuality and gender identity ...

 

[GatwickDepress]

discrimination and bigotry are learned behaviours , regardless of what those who attempt to defend it say ...

a heteronormative society with a defined class structure suits warlords and religious leaders as it allows them to exercise control ... and ensures a supply of believers for the future.

Uh, it's not exclusive to warlords and religious leaders. Methinks you've been supping the Kool-Aid too much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

you have no actual knowledge or the science or clinical issues but are suggesting that money and time be spent 'curing' issues , where the 'cures' you propose are all ready discredited.

First of all, I strongly oppose the use of the word "cure" in this context, for the record, even in quotes. Homosexuality is not an illness.

I am suggesting that there is no reason to discredit research in this area if it may be of strong psychological benefit to some individuals. It is wrong to suggest homosexuality needs "curing", as it doesn't. But there are people who might choose to benefit from the ability to change their sexuality.

I don't believe that any particular area of medical research (much of which occurs commercially) should be branded heretic just because the concepts to be explored are misused by some. That is the point I am making. What if, for example, someone is unhappy being gay because they wish to have a family by the traditional method? Yes, they can adopt, but so can straight couples who have difficulties having children. Should we also block IVF and similar?

Yes, there is a risk posed of people being pressured into taking treatment when they do not need/wish to - but it's that, and attitudes surrounding it, that need to be fought strongly. Not to hide areas of possible future medical research just because some people don't like them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Psychological, psychosurgical and pharmaceutical 'cures' have all be tried and discredited in both sexuality and gender identity ...

They have - and so have all manners of medical treatment in all those areas for all manners of things. That's why we have medical research. It finds new treatments and new methods, and some of them are found to be successful.

Just because a medical method of changing sexuality doesn't exist now doesn't mean one won't exist in the future. And it certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, if there are individuals who may, for whatever reason, benefit from it as an individual (again, not because of others, because of their choice). And who's to say that some may not choose to become gay, if that is their wish? Or that, for example, a heterosexual transgender male who feels for whatever reason they should actually be a woman decides to also change their sexuality as well as having a physical sex change? Who am I and who is anyone else to tell them they can't, if it becomes possible?

 

[Gutfright]

the one 'double standard' we've not addressed so far is the consumption of lesbian and 'she-male' porn by men who purport to be straight ...

If you're a guy who likes looking at she-male porn then you're not 100% straight.

But I don't see any double standard in men watching lesbian porn and purporting to be straight. Straight men enjoy looking at women with no clothes on. If it's two (or more) women with no clothes on, so much the better!

Men who claim to be opposed to homosexuality but who watch lesbian porn are hypocrites though.

 

[Harbornite]

If you're a guy who likes looking at she-male porn then you're not 100% straight.

But I don't see any double standard in men watching lesbian porn and purporting to be straight. Straight men enjoy looking at women with no clothes on. If it's two (or more) women with no clothes on, so much the better!

Men who claim to be opposed to homosexuality but who watch lesbian porn are hypocrites though.

Agreed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're a guy who likes looking at she-male porn then you're not 100% straight.

It is often said that sexuality is more of a continuum than a specific straight/gay "switch".

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Uh, it's not exclusive to warlords and religious leaders. Methinks you've been supping the Kool-Aid too much.

we are talking about the period 600- 1700 CE in europe and later elsewhere in the world ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First of all, I strongly oppose the use of the word "cure" in this context, for the record, even in quotes. Homosexuality is not an illness.

I am suggesting that there is no reason to discredit research in this area if it may be of strong psychological benefit to some individuals. It is wrong to suggest homosexuality needs "curing", as it doesn't. But there are people who might choose to benefit from the ability to change their sexuality.

I don't believe that any particular area of medical research (much of which occurs commercially) should be branded heretic just because the concepts to be explored are misused by some. That is the point I am making. What if, for example, someone is unhappy being gay because they wish to have a family by the traditional method? Yes, they can adopt, but so can straight couples who have difficulties having children. Should we also block IVF and similar?

Yes, there is a risk posed of people being pressured into taking treatment when they do not need/wish to - but it's that, and attitudes surrounding it, that need to be fought strongly. Not to hide areas of possible future medical research just because some people don't like them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They have - and so have all manners of medical treatment in all those areas for all manners of things. That's why we have medical research. It finds new treatments and new methods, and some of them are found to be successful.

Just because a medical method of changing sexuality doesn't exist now doesn't mean one won't exist in the future. And it certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, if there are individuals who may, for whatever reason, benefit from it as an individual (again, not because of others, because of their choice). And who's to say that some may not choose to become gay, if that is their wish? Or that, for example, a heterosexual transgender male who feels for whatever reason they should actually be a woman decides to also change their sexuality as well as having a physical sex change? Who am I and who is anyone else to tell them they can't, if it becomes possible?

i suggest you desist Neil , lest your claimed ignorance be confused for bigotry and hate speech ...

it is also interesting that you have a heteronormative view of transgender sexuality ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

i suggest you desist Neil , lest your claimed ignorance be confused for bigotry and hate speech ...

I fail to see any way in which it could. Perhaps you would give a reasoned argument as to why you think it does, and we can debate it? If you do, please quote specific parts of my postings to explain your view.

it is also interesting that you have a heteronormative view of transgender sexuality ...

Give over, it was an example.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GatwickDepress]

we are talking about the period 600- 1700 CE in europe and later elsewhere in the world ...
.

You were. Your post was so disjointed I could barely make heads nor tails of parts!

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I fail to see any way in which it could. Perhaps you would give a reasoned argument as to why you think it does, and we can debate it? If you do, please quote specific parts of my postings to explain your view.

you have consistently advocated a heteronormative and cisgender normative position with regard to the 'treatment' and 'cure' aof ' being LGBT' and view it as a pathology ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

you have consistently advocated a heteronormative and cisgender normative position with regard to the 'treatment' and 'cure' aof ' being LGBT' and view it as a pathology ...

Er, no I don't[1]. Perhaps you would read my posting again, particularly the first bit where I strongly oppose the use of the word "cure" in this context, which you still continue to attempt, unsuccessfully, to put in my mouth. As I requested, please, if you wish to debate this, quote specific parts of my postings to which you would like to apply your arguments, then we can have a discussion.

Even if I did, though, that would not be hate speech. I suggest you may wish to acquaint yourself with the legal definition of that in particular.

[1] Mostly not. It is a fact, however, that the majority, numerically, of people are heterosexual and cisgender. That does not mean it is acceptable to look down on anyone who is not, but it is the "norm" in that statistical sense, and nobody is going to change that. Isn't that why some advocate what may be termed "positive discrimination"[2] in favour of numerical minorities in order to try to tip the balance back to a fairer situation for all?

[2] Example: you have two people going for a job, one has a disability, the other does not, they are otherwise the same. Job goes automatically to the disabled person.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Er, no I don't[1]. Perhaps you would read my posting again, particularly the first bit where I strongly oppose the use of the word "cure" in this context, which you still continue to attempt, unsuccessfully, to put in my mouth. As I requested, please, if you wish to debate this, quote specific parts of my postings to which you would like to apply your arguments, then we can have a discussion.

Even if I did, though, that would not be hate speech. I suggest you may wish to acquaint yourself with the legal definition of that in particular.

[1] Mostly not. It is a fact, however, that the majority, numerically, of people are heterosexual and cisgender. That does not mean it is acceptable to look down on anyone who is not, but it is the "norm" in that statistical sense, and nobody is going to change that. Isn't that why some advocate what may be termed "positive discrimination"[2] in favour of numerical minorities in order to try to tip the balance back to a fairer situation for all?

[2] Example: you have two people going for a job, one has a disability, the other does not, they are otherwise the same. Job goes automatically to the disabled person.

you are clutching at a fast running out collection of Straws , and your reference to positive discrimination is irrelevant to structural discrimination and the imposition of 'curss' and the like ( and regardless of your protests that is what you are suggesting, despite the evidence that cures do not work )...

 

[Bletchleyite]

you are clutching at a fast running out collection of Straws , and your reference to positive discrimination is irrelevant to structural discrimination and the imposition of 'curss' and the like ( and regardless of your protests that is what you are suggesting, despite the evidence that cures do not work )...

I see you have no argument, as you appear to be referring to the phrase "cure" which I have roundly rejected, and you will also note above that I have similarly strongly rejected the imposition of anything at all. If you aren't willing and able to quote selected parts of my argument and refute them with your own sensible argument I suggest we must leave the discussion here.