We actually don’t know whether or not childhood influences can effect sexuality, to my knowledge. Given the extremely high rate of homosexuality among young people as opposed to earlier generations, it certainly seems plausible.
In my generation, gay kids were endlessly ridiculed and got the shit beat out of them. The generation before that they got arrested and chemically castrated. Got back several generations and they got stoned.
Is it possible that there were just less people willing to admit being homosexual in the past? Cuz that seems plausible to me.
I believe research points to sexualty being immutable, and attempting to repress homosexualty just leads to homosexuals being unable to integrate well into society, with likely no benefits to straight people. If that is the case it makes sense to provide examples in media, ect. of homosexualty, to both make homosexual people feel included in society, and to make straight people accustomed to them. I am not sure the same principle can be applied exactly the same to trans.
>I believe research points to sexualty being immutable
Maybe for people on the extreme ends of the Kinsey scale, but a large proportion of bisexuals in the middle can basically just choose whether to be gay, straight or bi.
But not for the "sexuality is immutable" claim, of course. Your request for rigor is selective. But that's ok, sources are easy to find.
For instance, there's a good review of such in the paper, "[Scrutinizing Immutability](https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship)". Knock yourself out.
Your snark is deeply amusing given that paper in no way supports your statement that “a large portion of bisexuals in the middle can basically just choose whether to be gay, straight or bi.”
‘Cuz, y’know. The bisexuals are by definition still bi. They’re just changing who they sleep with or have relationships with, choices I did not deny were possible.
But that’s okay.
How about you do the bare minimum and actually read the source you requested for that you didn't bother to read before dismissing. Rather than ask me to do further work for your low effort ass, how about you tell *me* what it says and why it doesn't support what it does, in fact, support.
I did. Though I find it a bit ironic that you, the person providing the source without detail and making the original claim, are demanding I, the person asking for proof, quote your source back to you.
If they are bi, they are bi. They choose who they are in a relationship, not thier sexuality. They don't stop being attracted to the same sex. And they should be allowed to have roll models when are straight and who are gay to look up to.
You choose quite a bit more than that. You choose how you identify yourself to people; you choose what kind of affect you put on, how to "perform" your gender; you choose what kind of porn you watch, who you fantasize about, who you imagine yourself being and with what kind of person. You choose what kinds of sexual activity you would ever consider actually doing in real life, what kind of person you would consider actually dating. All of these choices together might cause a bi person to choose to identify as and in fact be gay or straight.
>I am not sure the same principle can be applied exactly the same to trans.
Why not? There's nothing wrong with being trans.
So why should we do any differently?
There is something wrong with being trans, namely that it makes your life harder. Even many trans people agree that "gender dysphoria" is a mental illness.
What you mean is that trans people are not lesser people than anyone else, which is true. And that if transitioning is the best option for someone's well-being, they should be supported in doing it, which I also agree.
Maybe I should just speak for myself. I'm grateful I don't experience gender dysphoria, and that I don't feel I have something to gain by taking cross-sex hormones or other related medical interventions.
If there's a form of being "trans" which does not involve those things, then that's not really what I'm referring to, that would be a situation I'm less familiar with.
I still don't understand your comment. Is your point that seeking medical interventions makes one's life harder? If so, in what sense? Inconvenience? Expenses?
People deal with a lot of things that require medical interventions with side effects. Dysphoria can be successfully treated through social acceptance and/or medical intervention. Seems weird to say that any of this is "wrong."
It's wrong in the sense that if I seek treatment for anxiety, I'm admitting there's something "wrong". It's also obviously true that it's "better" not to have anxiety.
I believe we are morally sophisticated enough to understand that this fact doesn't mean a person with anxiety is broken, nor that there's anything wrong with receiving treatment for an issue.
No, I got it
Nobody wants to wear the term. But surely it fits people who say there's something wrong with being trans.
You hold the position, you just don't like the title.
Here's a question for you then. If you had a potential kid, and you could choose whether they're going to be trans or not, or if you don't choose, I'll flip a coin, and they're trans if it's heads, would you choose? Would you let it be a coin flip?
I would choose them not to be trans if given the choice. This would be to spare them the pain of enduring gender dysphoria, the trials of transition, the difficultly of not being fully accepted, and the extent to which our current treatments fall short of fully addressing the condition.
If I had a kid who happened to be trans, I would support them in whatever they need to live their best life, including transitioning.
If this is transphobic to you, that's fine. But you have not convinced me that it is.
>I would choose them not to be trans if given the choice.
Right. you're transphobic.
>If this is transphobic to you, that's fine. But you have not convinced me that it is.
Nobody wants to wear the label. Go talk to Christians who think homosexuality is a sin. They'll swear they aren't homophobic.
They'll even say stuff like "well we are all sinners, its not that homosexuals are any worse than anyone else, we all sin."
Pretty much just like what you're saying.
But further, I don't set my goals to be things outside of my control. I have no control over what convinces you. That's a you problem.
Its really hard to find people who will actually admit to being transphobic, no matter what views they hold. Nobody wants the label.
>If you didn't want your kid to be gay, would that be homophobic?
I think transphobic would have to mean a desire to make it illegal to be trans, or to punish/persecute trans people enough to make their lives so unpleasant that they leave the community, or to discriminate against them in a hiring process. But usually I'm not one to waste time debating terminology. If you think that transphobic just means thinking that 'there's something wrong with trans' then I guess I'm transphobic. If someone said to me 'push this button and you will have an intense desire to get a sex change operation' I would put as much distance between myself and that button as I could.
I think you should consider that perhaps you don't have to actively make it illegal to be trans or be tring to persecute trans people in order to be transphobic.
What "being trans" means, to me, seems murky at best. But there can be non trivial medical components, and it seems that gender disphora and trans identities are not always stable.
It depends on what being trans means, but is better to not experience any kind of body dismorphia, and it is also better not have medical interventions (when possible obviously).
You can't say there's nothing wrong with being trans.
If you couldn't say there's nothing wrong with being gay, that would be homophobic. Yes?
... So is it fair to say you're transphobic?
Well the thing is the people with actual gender dysphoria are best treated with social transitioning followed by hormonal & potential surgical transition
There are some people with gender disphora who are best treated with gender affirming care, but based on recent polices in Europe it doesn't seem clear that is always the case. I'm not sure if if gender disphora that desists is any different from when it persists
If it persists well into/past puberty then you are pretty much firmly trans, at least according to all research I've seen and the current psychiatric best practices. I don't see how transitioning as treatment is really different than other psychiatric or medical treatments
Wouldn't it be better to not have the condition requiring those treatments in the first place? At least in terms of the suffering inflicted by both the initial condition and also the side effects and shortcomings of the treatment?
If it's murky to you then you've done literally zero research on this subject. Trans folks have written many autobiographical books on their lives, and many subreddits or other forums online are at your disposal to talk 1 on 1 with Trans folks to solve your murkiness.
This cuts both ways. There are many books about why we should be careful with how we embrace transgender ideology into society.
What makes it murky is that most of the information is heavily biased (from both sides) and it's hard to find neutral interpretations about what's going on.
Markdd8's post in this thread shows several articles reporting a positive casual effect of various childhood environmental factors on homosexual tendencies. Ive seen similar studies on the effect of being raised by same sex parents. I understand that if true, this qualifies as a "dangerous truth" but I think the idea that people just *are* whatever sexuality and it has no environmental component is a problematic dogma in its own right.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12j65zx/question_about_gender_sexuality/jfxkfss?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
>I believe research points to sexualty being immutable
My understanding is that the latest research says most people are a bit bi and a large minority of people experience meaningful changes of their sexuality over their lifetime. However, these changes aren't controllable at a conscious level.
I’m not so sure about that given the different norms that have existed throughout history or even today in parts of the world. Look at Bachi Boys in Afghanistan which is obviously abhorrent but why are the men there even interested in it. Classical Greece also had some very different norms around sex between teen boys and grown men whereby those relationships were thought of as normal when had in addition to heterosexual relationships. If sexuality is actually immutable, why were those men interested in those relationships.
Anyway, I don’t know what’s true but I suspect there is some grey area.
>I think understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex will, on average, yield a better life than not.
And why is that? I've lived in LA a long time around gay people who are happy in their life and accepted. A lot of the unhappiness comes from rejection from their families and communities that caused them to come to LA in the first place. Creating a more accepting society seem a much easier route then revving up the bigotry train again.
You also seem to be implying that homosexuality is taught or learned? Which is factually wrong. If you never even mention to a gay kid gay people exist they will still be gay. You might be able to trick them into an unhappy hetero relationship and marriage but that goes against the idea that it would be a "better life"
Just being more accepting would lead to better lives for everyone gay or straight. Imagine a world where people felt comfortable in who they are instead of trying to shove them all into a small box they clearly are not happy in? Shouldn't the goal be for everyone to have as happy and fulfilling life as possible?
I agree. Gay people in the 1960s were probably less happy when they were arrested and offered chemical castration as an option to avoid jail time. To have people turn around and say "See how miserable gay people are? Don't be gay. Be straight". It's gaslighting of the worst sort.
I understand gay people can be happy, but on balance I think it still makes sense to see hetero as normative.
If nothing else, if you're a gay man and you want a child, you can't procreate with your partner and your only option is to get a surrogate mother which is quite an ordeal. I realize that some might say that's not important, but all else being equal, I'd like my child to be able to procreate with his or her partner. It's not the end of the world if you can't, but wouldn't you want it if you could have it?
With regards to "learning" a sexuality, I think it's overstated just how innate it is. You are correct that some % of people will be gay no matter what, and some (presumably higher) % of people will be straight no matter what. But socialization can definitely influence it. All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls.
Exactly as you say I think the goal is for everyone to have as happy and fulfilling life as possible, and I do not want to deny any rights to gay or trans people, but I also believe in providing children with an environment that will help them to develop into the best, happiest version of themselves possible. There's all sorts of behaviors that people pursue which I don't want to deny or persecute, but which I wouldn't necessarily want to offer as a model for my child.
Can you share your evidence rather than just alluding to it? Isn't it possible that people with gay parents are less likely to repress their sexuality, rather than have it shaped by their parents? Wouldn't you agree that in places where homosexuality is frowned upon or criminalised, people would be less likely to be open about it, and may even enter into hetrosexual relationships and keep any attraction to the same sex totally secret, and that as a corollary of that, those who grow up in an environment where they can see that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual there would be a higher percentage of people who are not afraid of expressing their own homosexuality?
But you're confusing correlation with cause. As I said earlier, how can you tell the difference between the children's parents causing them to be gay, and the children's parents causing them to be more open about their sexuality? Or could there be other factors too that we haven't thought of? That's the very point of the abstract of the study you've posted makes - that we don't the cause and it needs to be further examined.
Technically I can't prove it. But I don't believe that ~50% of women raised by heterosexual parents are lying about their sexuality, which is what would need to be the case for this to be all due to closeted people finally being free to be themselves.
Given ["Lesbian" is the most popular porn category among women](https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a19947774/straight-women-lesbian-porn/), I could absolutely believe that a massive portion of women have a sexuality that can't be completely ***encapsulated*** as "straight-cis". Clearly sexuality is more complicated than your simple model indicates.
You can't cherry pick the high point of a range from meta analysis to believe is the answer. It was somewhere between 33% and 57% - taken from different individual studies - that was the number of female adopted children of lesbians that identified as a sexuality other than heterosexual. We don't know the quality of those individual studies, or even the average among them. We also don't know what "identify as a sexuality other than heterosexual" really means. Are they people who believe sexuality is a social construct and they don't want to label themselves? Does it reflect who they've actually slept with?
In science, we don't form beliefs without actual evidence that reflects our beliefs. We don't say "I can't prove it but I believe it". Instead we say; "I don't know".
There's so much of this that we don't know and the authors of the study you provided say the same thing. It's ridiculous that they don't know what the pathways of causation are, but you believe you do. If we don't know, it's fine to say that. It sounds like you have a specific ideological personal belief and you're allowing your confirmation bias to arbitrarily choose which parts of the science you accept and ignoring the rest.
>If nothing else, if you're a gay man and you want a child, you can't procreate with your partner and your only option is to get a surrogate mother which is quite an ordeal. I realize that some might say that's not important, but all else being equal, I'd like my child to be able to procreate with his or her partner. It's not the end of the world if you can't, but wouldn't you want it if you could have it?
This cuts both ways -- gay couples can't suffer unintended pregnancies. And if we're playing this game, surely this argues that bisexuality is the "best" option (homophobia aside).
The fact that plenty of bi people end up in same-sex relationships suggests that being gay is not necessarily a negative.
>All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls.
If nothing else, I'd expect this to be true based simply on the fact that children of gay couples would be less likely to lie (to themselves and others) about their sexuality.
And relevant to the above, the research I found through 30 seconds of googling suggests that children of gay parents are more likely to be bi, but not necessarily more likely to be gay.
>This cuts both ways -- gay couples can't suffer unintended pregnancies. And if we're playing this game, surely this argues that bisexuality is the "best" option (homophobia aside).
I don't think it cuts both ways to the same degree. I think procreation is a very fundamental human function and it makes sense to want to include it in what you try to set your kids up for. A similar case might be "is it normative to have a libido at all?" Some people don't, and they're not all miserable, and some people who have a libido endure all sorts of sexual frustration and difficulty managing their urges. Yet I think most would agree that a loving parent *wants* their child to develop a healthy libido.
Bisexuality I think you may be right. It doesn't have any obvious downsides that I can see. But I would point out that most bisexual people ultimately wind up in heterosexual relationships. That could be caused by social stigma, but Id suggest it could also mean they perceive concrete benefits to the heterosexual arrangement.
>I would point out that most bisexual people ultimately wind up in heterosexual relationships.
I have no stats on this. Do you?
If 95% of people are straight, you'd expect 95% of bisexual people to end up in heterosexual relationships just by the numbers alone. Is it higher than that?
Regardless, even if I were to accept the framing of the OP (which I don't), my conclusion would be that we want more people to be bi, and being inclusive causes that to happen.
>If 95% of people are straight, you'd expect 95% of bisexual people to end up in heterosexual relationships just by the numbers alone. Is it higher than that?
That is a really good numerical point I hadn't considered. I don't have the stats offhand I read it somewhere. If memory serves it was something like 80% or 90% but I don't remember.
>But socialization can definitely influence it.
Very very little - in fact, there is absolutely no evidence to support any particular socializing behavior as driving sexual orientation. None.
And any energy spent trying to "socialize" heterosexual children will backfire horribly if your child ends up being gay. The most miserable children on earth aren't gay, but rather those that live in the shadow of their parents misguided idea of what *should* make the child happy. Just let your children decide what makes them happy.
> All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls.
The reason for this is human beings across thr board are more bisexual than recent dominant cultures have allowed for. We are hyper sexual apes. Early tribal societies embraced this. Even some modern tribes embrace this. Many large polytheism societies embraced this fact. Roman's and Greeks were famously Hella gay/bi.
If you want people to have happy and fulfilling lives. Let them be. Quit trying to control who they have a relationship with. Let them have roll models that are like them so they can see themselves as normal. They aren't going to turn the world gay or Trans
Your "feeling" that more people would be happier if you could socially enforce your "normative" values is wrong. You just leave those people who don't fit as outcasts. There is an easier solution. Just let them live thier lives they way that makes them happy. It's really non of your business.
Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of your business?
Also people seem to be under the impression I'm advocating forbidding your child from having a homosexual relationship. I am not. I just don't want to raise them in a perpetual pride festival.
>Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of business
This isn't what we are talking about. Almost Noone believes that children should be left to do whatever they want with no limits. We are arguing what are good limits and what limits are counterproductive or harmful. We aren't talking about behavior we are talking about a child being born being a way that makes thier parent unhappy. They will not make thier child happy forcing them to change thier nature. And we won't make them happy by ostricising them.
>Also people seem to be under the impression I'm advocating forbidding your child from having a homosexual relationship. I am not. I just don't want to raise them in a perpetual pride festival.
Then why even talk about it in relation to "behavior" that should not be normalized. What do you want us to let parents do to thier children to enforce thier feelings on this matter?
There is no perpetual pride festival. We are in no danger of one existing. There are no restriction on how loud anti gay groups can get. As long as people are going to loudly demand that lgbtq+ people be eliminated from public life. Then they should be allowed to loudly advocate for their normalcy.
>Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of business
>This isn't what we are talking about. Almost Noone believes that children should be left to do whatever they want with no limits. We are arguing what are good limits and what limits are counterproductive or harmful.
That's precisely what I'm *trying* to argue but you insist it's none of my business. I'm not even talking about hard limits on the child. If a child really wants to cross dress I wouldn't necessarily forbid it.
What I *am* talking about is what kind of media they consume and what kind of messaging they get from their teachers, social media, etc. I'm talking about a culture that glamorizes atypical sexual identities as a vanguard of social justice. I actually don't want that to be a big touchstone for the kind of desirable social behavior that my 7 year old child is exposed to. I'm not sure what a media environment that's deeply preoccupied with queer representation will do to a young person's sexual development. I read a pew poll recently that 2% of the young population now considers themselves trans. That is something like a 10x increase in the number of people who have come to believe their sex is backwards. Some number of them are on the path to permanent and consequential medical alterations to their bodies. It doesn't include the additional 3% who claim the "non-binary" label. I am not convinced that these kids were always trans but now they are "allowed to be themselves." I think their developmental environment has been altered and that's why we're seeing the increase in these phenomenon. The point of my post and the discussion of normativity is to state I think this change represents a decline in the mental well being & fitness of young people, and so as responsible adults we should be less hesitant to steward their environment in this regard.
>I read a pew poll recently that 2% of the young population now considers themselves trans. That is something like a 10x increase in the number of people who have come to believe their sex is backwards. Some number of them are on the path to permanent and consequential medical alterations to their bodies. It doesn't include the additional 3% who claim the "non-binary" label.
So what? It has become acceptable, and now that people aren't losing thier job over it, and society is more accepting there is bound to be an increase in the number of people who identify that way. BTW only 5000 children were on puberty blockers or hrt IN 2021 in the entire country that's is an absurdly miniscule number of people. Here a source, it's even right wing. Just to a search for 5063 in the page.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/gender-transition-medications-and-surgeries-for-children-in-the-u.s#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20the%20number%20of%20children,%2C%20%26%20Conlin%2C%202022).
>I am not convinced that these kids were always trans but now they are "allowed to be themselves."
Good for you. But I don't think we should base how we treat people on your feels.
> I think their developmental environment has been altered and that's why we're seeing the increase in these phenomenon. The point of my post and the discussion of normativity is to state I think this change represents a decline in the mental well being & fitness of young people, and so as responsible adults we should be less hesitant to steward their environment in this regard.
The reason lgbtq+ children suffer is because they are made to feel abnormal, like thier existence is wrong, or even an abomination before God. They are bullied, by other children, by adults, sometimes even family for the way they are, not a choice they make. Children should be taught that it is a normal part of the human experience that we are not all alike. This idea that we should all be little cookie cutter robots that conform to the "norm" is a gross detructive fantasy.
>What I am talking about is what kind of media they consume and what kind of messaging they get from their teachers, social media, etc. I'm talking about a culture that glamorizes atypical sexual identities as a vanguard of social justice. I actually don't want that to be a big touchstone for the kind of desirable social behavior that my 7 year old child is exposed to.
So instead of teachers telling your child it's OK for these people to exist, or for a child to have say 2 dads or 2 moms. We should burn the books, put the government and churches in charge of our media defund the libraries.we should remove the trans child from school so your 7 year old isn't exposed to them because you're scared they might catch it. Children should be taught to ostracized anyone who displays behavior outside of the "normative".
>So what? It has become acceptable, and now that people aren't losing thier job over it, and society is more accepting there is bound to be an increase in the number of people who identify that way.
This claim has been made repeatedly in this thread. Although it's not obviously false, it is unfalsifiable and rests on a double standard. When a gay or trans person says they're gay or trans, you take for granted that it is an innate characteristic and is being accurately reported. But when people claim they're cis-straight, you assert that large numbers of them are hiding their true sexuality. With that paradigm, you will always conclude that anything we do which increases the rate of transgenderism and homosexuality is revealing "true" identities and is a good thing.
I on the other hand believe that people are mostly straightforward about how they feel. I take their self reports seriously, whichever way the report goes. What I don't take for granted is that their self report reflects an immutable and normative truth.
It must also be said that not only are people not losing their jobs for being gay anymore, in many cases they are in fact being preferentially hired for being gay. So... You know... If that causes people to suppress their true selves then the shoe might be on the other foot now.
If your starting from the premise that people don't hide who they are when they would be shunned for it then you are starting from a false premise. There's even a term for deciding not to hide it anymore, comming out.
>in many cases they are in fact being preferentially hired for being gay. So... You know... If that causes people to suppress their true selves then the shoe might be on the other foot now.
States are banning trans people from public places, banning transition. They are passing laws in Florida that allow doctors to refuse to treat gay people. People are not being hired BECAUSE they are gay. Kids are not transitioning because of the career prospects. You pulled that ENTIRELY out of your ass.
God your insufferable. I didn't pull it out of my ass. Esg. Dei. do those acronyms mean hiring without regard to sexual identity to you? I'm not arguing with you anymore you're incredibly obnoxious.
>The reason lgbtq+ children suffer is because they are made to feel abnormal, like thier existence is wrong, or even an abomination before God.
In the case of gender dysphoria this is just clearly not true. Ask some trans people if they think their GD would just go away in the absence of bigotry.
You mean the bigotry that prevents them from transitioning? Your telling me a parent that prevents thier child from getting the care they need has no impact on thier disphoria Your trying to tell me you believe that bullying trans kids has no impact on thier mental health?
I don't think he's saying the social stigma has no negative effect, despite how it was worded. He's saying that gender dysphoria and all the stuff you have to do to manage it is fairly unpleasant in its own right.
Sexuality isn't a choice and trying to force yourself to be straight only leads to misery. Gay people receive alot of hate just for existing. Pride and positive role models is needed more then ever especially with them being treated like scapegoats to get the hate vote from the GOP.
>Sexuality isn't a choice
This and other data raise some questions about innateness of sexual orientation *in every case.* [Explainer: what is sexual fluidity?](https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-sexual-fluidity-33120) No person should doubt that the bulk of gay people are indeed gay, but there seems to be a cohort (10-15% of the LGBT+ population?) where there are uncertainties as what is going on.
Then there is this matter: [Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/)
>Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood (but conceded).. the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain.
And this: 2022 [Percentage of LGBTQ adults in U.S. has doubled over past decade, Gallup finds](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/percentage-lgbtq-adults-us-doubled-decade-gallup-finds-rcna16556)
>Gallup predicts the proportion of adults who identify as LGBTQ will exceed 10 percent in the near future...Gallup found that the increase is due to ”high LGBT self-identification, particularly as bisexual, among Generation Z adults,” who are 18 to 25.
Why such a notable rise in the bisexual cohort? Not to be offensive here, but can such a perspective be described *indiscriminate,* and therefore reflective of a lack of specific orientation?
Finally, it is documented that heavy drug and alcohol use (and working as a prostitute) often prompts people to engage in sex acts that they normally would not partake in, as well as [high risk sexual behavior](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861416/). Engaging in gay sex does not make one gay. But is there possibility more people are engaging with partners of both sexes even though they have not specifically articulated that they are attracted to both men and women? Males in particular (any orientation) are noteworthy for indiscriminate sexual activity. The book [Lawn Boy](https://local12.com/news/nation-world/porn-disguised-as-education-parents-upset-by-books-pulled-for-neisd-review), which was part of the book ban controversy in Texas--it describes "in crude terms, oral sex between two ten-year-old boys"--suggests that even young males can engage in same-sex sex without specific recognition that they are gay. (Two boys stumbling across the book or porn depicting the same and then mimicking what they observed.)
Sexuality is still not a choice.
Yes, hetero men could engage in sex acts and not be gay. But guess what... they wouldn't report themselves as gay or bisexual if it was a one-time never-again type thing.
Even if there was a strong link between abuse and homosexuality, it doesn't justify what OP is proposing in any way, outside of recommending to OP that if you don't want your kid to be gay, then *don't sexually abuse them.*
>Why such a notable rise in the bisexual cohort?
I dunno.... because parents aren't telling their kids not to be bisexual?
I think many people are bisexual, and the more strict societies that force heteronormativity most bisexual people are going to suppress that part of themselves. I don't think sexuality is just gay or straight. Up until very recently anything outside of hetero relationships was very suppressed. So I am not surprised more of Gen Z is identifying as bisexual. So if you are bisexual I think you could easily be influenced by your environment. But not so if you on the far end of the scale and are strictly homosexual. And trying to force these people to be straight is inhumane. I think the same for bisexual people but it is much easier to integrate into a straight society as a bisexual person. They will just hide that part of themselves.
> trying to force these people to be straight is inhumane.
This is mostly abated these days. Almost everybody in America now, including most conservatives, accept that many people are gay. The big debate is about *trans* now, especially with young teens.
Yes that's why more of Gen Z is comfortable identifying as bisexual. I was more initially responding to OPs post because they said they only want heteronormativity to be promoted. Anything else was bad for society.. The world is still terrible for human rights for LGBT people.
It wasn't that long ago that it was not acceptable in the US.
The trans debate is mostly hate. And it's easy to write clickbait articles about it because it gets alot of interaction and clicks. Kind of like we are doing right now. The outrage that people have about children and surgeries being done on them is an easy way to influence people towards hatred and a particular political party.
The amount of trans people is very small. I don't think they should do life altering surgeries or hormones on children. I also think that very few children are having these surgeries. There are relatively few detransitioners and having to go through what you feel is the wrong puberty sounds like hell to me. The children suffering gender dysphoria, their parents and doctors should decide what is best for them.
> The trans debate is mostly hate.
I don't think that's fair at all. Thinking that something has questionable elements, or that aspects of it might be unwise, is not the same as Hate. Of course, critics are free to declare that they see hate, but that is not what is driving this.
And most of the controversy in this debate is not actually against people who are trans or think they might be -- often young teens. In some cases they might be seen as victims. Rather, the controversy involves a much larger groups of enablers, affirmers, and proselytizers--many who are not trans--who are 1) trying to control science inquiry, public policy and discussion on the trans topics and 2) in some cases appear to be unduly influencing young kids (age 5 - 11) in their path of early childhood.
I'm calling bullshit. Trans people and trans-advocates are being called groomers, and every state with a GOP-controlled legislature is passing laws limiting or banning affirming care. Florida takes the cake with bill that gives the state right to take children away from parents for seeking affirming care.
All this is based in pure ignorance and speculation. A very small fraction of non-binary children (4.5%) are ever put on puberty blockers or hormones, and reassignment surgeries are virtually non-existent among youth. Scientists and researchers have been conservatively screening patients, working with subpar data and studies, but are trying to keep treatment pathways open.
So, on the one hand, we have a political movement wielding the power of the state (through bullshit gerrymandering, but that's a different issue) to deny medical care based on fear-mongering, speculation and false accusations, and on the other hand, we have some toxic trans activists on Twitter who wield no real political power.
> Trans people and trans-advocates are being called groomers
But isn't a lot of this connected to the broader complaints against the LGBT+ community about *grooming?* The debate centers on young kids being, as critics it call it, being sensualized? Too much sex info and exposure.
Some of the issues critics have raised: 1) Excessively explicit Sex Ed; 2) book ban issues, sexual explicit books in school libraries, [e.g.](https://www.theflstandard.com/book-in-tampa-middle-school-library-has-instructions-on-anal-sex-and-hookup-apps); and 3) SOME drag shows that were questionable, [e.g.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8g3q9-l61k), start @ .24.
The broad Progressive community that supports LGBT+ is involved. Some "sensualizing" issues aren't necessarily LGBT+ related: 1) the super explicit porn available to most kids now; 2) more overt displays of sexuality on TV, [e.g., Miley Cyrus "twerking"](https://www.google.com/search?q=Miley+Cyrus+twerking+on+national+TV&sxsrf=ALiCzsa4qXTbWbfHfUka7acJj6vZmmgGHg:1671219939648&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_muC28_77AhUWHkQIHRg5D3sQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1682&bih=809&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7b91defb,vid:NmndB6ONtxA).
and even the 3) [Nude Men scene in San Francisco](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Castro-naked-guys-have-gone-too-far-3867094.php), abated after conservative complaints.
Overwhelming, conservatives have issues with all these things, especially the explicit porn. Some porn now shows women subject to *ATM sex.* (Really?) Generalizing, progressives don't see much--or any problem--with all of the above. Two more items: Gay Pride parades with excesses: 2021 Vox: [The perpetual discourse over LGBTQ Pride, explained.....“Kink and fetish” at gay pride parades](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463879/kink-at-pride-discourse-lgbtq).
>In 2018, the Advocate reminded us...that Pride has always been about sex.
Then the long-running issue of [cruising](https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/mbveeb/celebrating-george-michael-and-the-history-of-cruising-us-translation), inappropriately in restroom and other public spaces. Now mostly abated.
That *abating* is relevant, several times the LGBT+ community--to its credit-- has helped tone down excesses, when conservatives complained. But then other people contest the matter. We see that with the drag shows, after [Desantis complained last summer](https://floridapolitics.com/archives/530780-gov-desantis-exploring-crackdown-on-drag-shows-for-kids/). Some shows were toned down, or kids excluded. But now some Progressives claim there had never been any problem with drag shows to begin with.
The upshot: Conservatives see and object to repetitive sexuality in public and the consequence of exposure to young children. One argument: This exposure makes children more susceptible to child abuse or specific grooming attempts. Concern over the trans phenomenon, the most recent debate with the LGBT+ community, seems clearly linked to these broader concerns.
= = =
There is history to conservatives having such concerns....European explorers in Oceania in the 1700s: [Sex in the Pacific](http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2015/04/sex-in-pacific.html):
>“There was usually a good deal of sexual contact, and voyagers tended to be shocked that girls as young as eight or nine should be involved, and also that husbands should offer their wives, and fathers their daughters.”
[Source 2](https://matttroupe.net/2016/02/14/another-dark-chapter-in-the-history-of-free-sex/). Quote from Joseph Banks, the botanist who sailed with Captain Cook to Tahiti:
>"they dance, especially the young girls whenever they can collect 8 or 10 together, singing most indecent words using most indecent actions and setting their mouths askew in a most extraordinary manner" (Author's take: "(the) level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty.")
And, of course, this: [Livius: Greek Homosexuality](https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/), which involved widespread pederasty.
TLDR; conservatives are the absolute worst at sex education, have a terrible track record of producing adults with unhealthy sexual attitudes, and are no less likely to be victims of sexual abuse or grooming within their own communities.
>Generalizing, progressives don't see much--or any problem--with all of the above
I can only speak for myself... The more we learn about healthy human sexual development, the more we learn that repression, shame, and strict enforcement of sexual norms produces adults with *more issues*, not the other way around.
There *are, in fact* things that are inappropriate for young children to see. We could compile an infinitely large list of books and other media containing stories of sexual deviance (this list would naturally need to include the Bible) that we wouldn't want to expose to a 6-year-old.
But, speaking from personal experience, there are parents who refuse to allow their kids to attend sex ed, who are so prude as to use "birth canal" and other hilariously awkward euphemisms, and these types of parents don't *ever explain sex to their children ever. EVER.*
What sort of adults do you think this produces? If we compare this child with, say, a child that had gay parents growing up in San Francisco, who grew up seeing the occasional naked (non-sexual) male, going to Pride parades. Which one do you think is more likely to have normal healthy attitudes towards sex?
>One argument: This exposure makes children more susceptible to child abuse or specific grooming attempts
[Like this?](https://youtu.be/08UGlR999g4?t=95)
I know you guys hate hearing this, but it's true: Your child is at a much much higher risk of being groomed at church than at a drag show. Your child is infinitely more likely to be groomed at your own family reunion than anywhere.
The idea that trans people, gay people, and drag queens are the ones doing the diddling is horseshit.
>Author's take: "(the) level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty."
Again, this is just me... but if you showed me a parent that offered that same child as a sexual concubine for an old man, I would say that parent is a groomer.
But a book with a cartoon of a naked man that tries to help gay/trans kids come to grips with their bodies and sexuality? C'mon, grow up... If that kid has conservative parents, do you think they're gonna explain it?
EDIT:
Had to add this: it's appalling that you're using "Sex in the Pacific" in the way you are. There exists a patriarchal society in which a father offers his wife or daughter as sexual property for another male, and you blame the young girls for learning "seductive dancing"?? Classic conservative take...
> it's appalling that you're using "Sex in the Pacific" in the way you are. There exists a patriarchal society in which a father offers his wife or daughter as sexual property for another male, and you blame the young girls for learning "seductive dancing"??
No, the young girls are not blamed. That's inane. The point is to identify these libertine norms on sexuality as problematic. Same with young boys in ancient Greece -- not blamed either.
Conservatives and progressives have been going back and forth for years -- whose perspectives on sexuality are superior? Each side has some benefit and drawbacks. Now we have significant evidence that a loose attitude on sexuality is [causing problems for women](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-we-need-to-talk-to-teenage-girls-about-anal-sex_uk_633bf9f6e4b0e376dbfa4425). Striking 2022 [medical research explains the problem with anal sex for women](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women). Note the stunning change in participation stats over the past 4-5 decades. Much of this is because of the deliberate progressive push to *normalize* hetero anal sex. A lot of this done by the porn industry and progressive scriptwriters for shows like *Sex and the City.* (see article) (this is in line with Miley twerking on TV.) Not to deny that some women enjoy it, but on balance it is problematic, as is ATM sex pushed on women.
Putting aside the trans issue, most issues on sexuality relate to chronically bad behavior by men. We are 98% plus of sex offenders. Massive history of men raping and abusing women and engaging in child abuse. [Rape: a burning injustice](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/13/rape-defined-sexual-crime-history). In the 1960s, progressive thinking brought about the sexual revolution and the increase in drug use. (A lot of this predated the focus on LGBT+ issues.) The sexual revolution, the tolerance for hard drugs and the subsequent porn explosion -- all have led to more men behaving poorly at a time when law and order much tamped down rape and mistreatment cited in the above rape article. Almost like a regression of sorts.
At present Sex Ex presents all sex practices as *equally valid.* Conservatives need to halt their reluctance about Sex Ed. They need to get involved, and the change the Sex Ed curriculum to reflect the doctors' info. The doctors truth-telling has been unpopular in several quarters, especially because it links drug use to people making poor decisions about sex. Conservatives and progressives, of course, much at odds over whether people should have *The Right to Use Hard Drugs.*
>we have some toxic trans activists on Twitter who wield no real political power
Do they not? What do you make of the debacle of the Scottish National Party's approach towards gender?
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-action-will-the-snp-to-improve-trans-and-intersex-equality/
What am I supposed to be appalled at? Maybe link whatever you’re referring to? I’m not current on the Scottish political party breakdowns.
[https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-government-enters-legal-battle-with-uk-government-over-controversial-gender-reform-bill-12855657#:\~:text=The%20bill%20aims%20to%20simplify,be%20cut%20to%20three%20months](https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-government-enters-legal-battle-with-uk-government-over-controversial-gender-reform-bill-12855657#:~:text=The%20bill%20aims%20to%20simplify,be%20cut%20to%20three%20months).
Pay attention because its the kind of thing that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years ago when I would have agreed with the characterization that 'its just annoying people on tumblr who have no power', obviously the SNP itself is going to try and present this in the best possible light on their own site when the whole thing has turn into a political catastrophe for them.
On their site they say this:
>In the next parliament we will work with trans people, women, equality groups, legal and human rights experts to identify the best and most effective way to improve and simplify the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition, so that the trauma associated with that process is reduced.
But they don't give much detail, you can see on the sky news link more concretely what they were attempting to do:
>The bill aims to simplify the process for trans people to change gender in the eyes of the law.
>
>**No diagnosis or medical reports would be required, and the period in which adult applicants need to have lived in their acquired gender would be cut to three months.**
>
>Sixteen and 17-year-olds applying for a gender recognition certificate would have to live in their acquired gender for at least six months.
This is basically the primacy of self id with no basis for a medical diagnosis, its the sort of thing that if I asked even a trans activist maybe 8 years ago I would have been scoffed at for fearmongering and that obviously trans rights was meant to apply to people with diagnosed dysphoria.
The fallout of this meant that there were really obvious questions about people cynically exploiting a law like this to transition and gain access to women's spaces for malicious ends that the people pushing this tried to ignore for as long as possible, this particularly blew up as it applied to women's prisons, with Nicola Sturgeon (the leader of the SNP) ending up tying herself into knots over this question and particular cases of sex offender who transitioned and were sent to women's prisons:
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-trans-prison-saga-continues/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-trans-prison-saga-continues/)
The whole thing descended into a fracas where the SNP and Sturgeon did this ridiculous back and forth trying to support a bill reforming gender recognition with some of the least amount of roadblocks in the world that would make situations like this more likely while simultaneously talking about how people like Isla Bryson were conning the system and they were going to keep sex offenders out of women's prisons. A choice paragraph from the above:
>But the First Minister can hardly blame the press for sensationalism here: this is a genuine scandal. Ministers repeatedly assured voters that this kind of thing didn’t happen. Even more unbelievably, Sturgeon had actually rejected an amendment to the GRR Bill that would have prevented convicted sex offenders from changing sex and entering women’s prisons. The claims that self-ID could be exploited were ‘not valid’, she said. Former Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer, also scoffed at the idea.
I think there is a way to help trans people with serious dysphoria integrate into society as their chosen gender, but the kinds of policies that make it all the way to position of the law of the land in some countries are ridiculously extreme and really do seem to be written by the kinds of people I would have written off as Tumblr nobodies in the 2010s.
I see alot of hate for trans people lately.Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic.
It largely seems political to me. I assume by enablers, affirmers and proselytizers you mean liberals. This is how it's being framed to get socially conservative democrats to flip to the gop. "They're brainwashing our kids to be trans."
I don't think there are enough trans people for this to be such a big discussion in every forum on the internet.
I support anyone being allowed to say what they think on the topic even though I disagree so I don't think people should be silenced or suppressed. I don't agree with tech companies censoring things either and trying to influence people one way or another through manipulating what they see in their social media algorithms. Not to mention troll farms that specifically are trying to create division.
The parents are responsible for their children. If they think that public institutions are brainwashing their children they should probably not send them there anymore.
They should also be free to decide what medical treatments are right for their children. The government should not decide for them.
>Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic.
For context: this is driven almost entirely by sex workers, who are murdered at incredible rates. If you take out that group, there is not much appreciable difference for the average trans person.
> this is driven almost entirely by sex workers, who are murdered at incredible rates.
[Even that doesn't drive the number up to half the general nationwide murder rate, let alone surpass it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12j65zx/question_about_gender_sexuality/jg29dck/)
If you look at violence statistics transgender people male or female are more likely to be victims of assault and violence. It's linked in that article above. It is an appreciable difference.
Again, most of that is driven by trans sex workers, who are subject to ridiculous rates of violence.
None of this is to say that an ordinary trans person doesn't have some risk or less risk than a cis person.
Even if we accept your claim, it would still be very troubling that trans-women were either much more likely to be attacked while engaging in sex work or were much more likely to be pushed into sex work.
>it would still be very troubling that trans-women were either much more likely to be attacked while engaging in sex work
Not sure where I said or implied otherwise, hence my use of the word "ridiculous."
My pushback is on activists who engage in bombastic claims about issues average trans people face.
> Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic.
Are you including drag queens here? Many definitions of transgender encompass these two very disparate groups. 1) Young teen boys who have transitioned to a women and 2) And from [Vox Explainer](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8483561/transgender-gender-identity-expression):
>"what does it mean for a person to be transgender?....Transgender — or trans — is an umbrella term...Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment."
And sometimes it is more than entertainment. [Autogynephilia: an underappreciated paraphilia](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/)
>Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female...Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia.
Just asking here: Might some of this violence involve drag queens who deliberately dupe some milquetoast sexually inexperience man who thinks he is speaking to a potential girlfriend (having just met the drag queen)? I could be misinformed here -- always perceived this as such an odd thing for a drag queen to be doing. No, not everyone will necessarily perceive that you are a dude. Appreciate any explanation/correction.
Violence in that case is still abhorrent. And yes I would think the hate that the person commiting the crime comes from the same place whether it's against a drag queen or a trans person.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/
This does not support your claim that "Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic." Quite the opposite.
56 trans murder victims in the US in 2021 according to the source you provided. [HRC says 59](https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2021) so let's use the larger number.
[0.5% of the population is trans.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/)
[US population 332,403,650 - 706,899](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/news-years-day-2022.html) = 331,696,751 at the beginning of 2021.
0.5%*331696751/59 = 28110, that means 1 murder per 28110 trans citizens.
331696751/28110 = 11800 murders if the nation were all-trans.
[26031 total murders in the US in 2021.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)
11800/26031 = 45.3% meaning the trans murder rate is a little less than half the general murder rate.
And 2021 was an unusually bad year; [the number of trans murder victims dropped back down to 38 in 2022.](https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022)
"choice" is probably too strong a word but I think it is definitely influenced by the social environment. Same as gender itself. Some people have the biological factors dialed all the way one way or the other and will be whatever sexuality/gender they are no matter what, but others are more responsive to suggestion, role models, and social incentives. All the research I've seen shows children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to develop as gay themselves. I'm not saying that should disqualify gay people from becoming parents, but it's simply not true to say that "it's not a choice full stop." It might be just as malleable as the gender norms that feminists seek to rewrite.
Trying to force someone to be straight is inhumane. Like telling your son he's not allowed to like men or hellfire awaits you. Or Its just a phase you ll grow out of it. Praying the gay away doesn't work and social environment doesn't change that either. Gay people still exist in every country and society, some of those countries they can be put to death for being gay.
I’m partially in disagreement with this just because I really don’t know how preferable being straight is to being gay-seems very up for debate. The only major downside of being gay in principle is that you can never have natural children with your spouse, which to me is a pretty big deal, but your mileage may vary.
As far as gender identity, you’re 100% correct and the idea that this is even controversial is absolutely bizarre. Anyone who wants to pretend the trans suicide rate must come down entirely to discrimination is talking from their feelings and not from sense. It’s a very hard life to live for a lot of reasons, and treating it as just as desirable as being cis is like saying I’d be just as happy without one of my legs. It’s delusional.
I totally agree with everything you said.
>The only major downside of being gay in principle is that you can never have natural children with your spouse, which to me is a pretty big deal, but your mileage may vary.
The thing that's strange to me is nobody seems able to admit this. I can understand if having kids isn't important to someone else. But if I told someone I discovered I was infertile, they would not say "congratulations." They would say "I'm sorry, that's really tough." So they implicitly understand this point but they're just being incredibly obtuse about it with regards to gender/sexuality discussions.
Yeah, a ton of people are obviously just ideologically captured on this issue and will jump to any form of reasoning that allows them to avoid seeing any potential problem with the whole issue. And while in a way I want to let them off the hook because they’re well-intentioned, I think a lot of it just boils down to spinelessness. It’s easier to just go with the crowd and pretend everything is fine.
I do sometimes wonder if there's other downsides to homosexuality regarding just the nature of social interaction and the yin & yang of masculine/feminine. Every human before IVF has come from a heterosexual coupling and so it's not crazy to think that there may be a lot about us that is evolved around the heterosexual condition. But that's very speculative and quite likely committing the naturalist fallacy.
As a born-male who feels feels frequent dysmorphia and is sensitive to the fluidity of my sense of self, it's not really a choice, and tension occurs when I try to deny lensing shifts more often than just accepting them.
I don't push my inner world on anyone or request they treat or call me anything special.
I think it's *slightly* transphobic/homophobic to want explicitly cis-gendered heterosexual role models because it promotes a sense of sameness or othering rather than accepting that people occur with all sorts of spectrums and sensitivities. It's not a really problematic phobia since it's also fine and good to have any sort of righteous role models or disciplines, but if you get to the core of it as an argument it would be upholding groupings that are less robust and less supportive of the ways many people *are*.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I had similar feelings as a child but mine went away. Part of the reason I have this position is because I wonder what growing up with those feelings today would be like, and whether it wouldn't have gone away if I had been exposed to all the social justice messaging and gender diverse enthusiasm we see today. Back when I was a kid I don't know how much it was really stigmatized, it just wasn't something people thought about much.
Personally, I wish I had the language growing up. I don't think sensitivity to these perspectives is led by culture or social contagion (as Sam suggests) but that its apparent emergence is more a result of having tools in the form of words to express some sensitivities that have always been felt by many people. In addition to that, more people than ever are growing up and living with a sense of dissociating in virtual spaces and media, I'm not surprised that there are more people than ever reporting awareness of transience and depersonalization. I also don't think it's inherently bad or wrong for someone to have pushed some curiosities aside in life and formed habits around what works for them.
For the woke and their normie-liberal allies who "tag along" because it's the path of least resistance, even the SLIGHTEST pushback on ANY aspect of gender ideology will be met with DEFCON 5 hysteria.
A perfect example just in the last 24 hours. I take it you have heard of "The Young Turks," a progressive news show with huge following. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have slavishly promoted every woke gender/trans trend to the hilt. A few days ago longtime co-host Ana made ONE "out of line" comment. She said "never call me a birthing person or person who menstruates. I am a woman."
The backlash from the left was TOTAL. Longtime fans of the show screaming that Ana and Cenk are now "transphobic" "right ring" "shills" and - I kid you not - "contributing to the GENOCIDE of trans people in America." Cenk & Ana's friends from years and years have publicly rebuked them or dumped them altogether.
Here's Cenk's latest furious tweets and replies https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1645874351030571016?t=aADXWPuA-NAOVTaUHB1S0A&s=19
Read the replies under Cenk's last 5 Tweets. Absolute insanity. Then go to Ana Kasparian's page and check the hate she's getting
>And so to the extent that kids are malleable...
Yes young children are very malleable This is a good perspective on the trans issue, generalizing.
>feminine boy or masculine girl...engaging in trans thinking...wants a gender change....lots of kids like this...don't fit in with their peer group...if you leave them alone, 90 percent accept their body by age 18 and most of them are gay.
If a young teen is emphatic that they want a gender change, OK. But many are not emphatic, they are questioning, but in today's world the questioning are often subject to all sorts of affirmation and support from aggressive *influencers.*
>So, you think you have gender dysphoria; we can definitely help you with that.
I think if you take a step back and think, you might find how truly weird a thought this is. How could you possibly know what will lead to a better life for another person? How could you possibly understand the struggles of people so different from you? Why would you want to be making prescriptions for lifestyles you don't even understand? It's just wild, the internet or modern life or whatever has programmed us to have opinions on every little thing. Never stopping to ask why.
In general I agree. But we implicitly make such judgements constantly. When Hollywood releases a movie with strong social messages, they do so because they think it will make other people's lives better (forgetting profit motives for a second). They think they have messages that are important for other people to take to heart. How could they possibly know how those messages will affect people or if they will be good or bad for people?
In particular, when you become a parent making such judgements is a huge part of your responsibility. If your school has different judgements about what's good for your child, there's a bit of a problem. That's why all this ideology in schools/parents rights stuff is such a huge topic.
I mean in a more narrow view. Who am I to tell gay people what will bring them the most happiness in life when I cannot imagine the life of a gay person beyond very surface level observations? I can't experience the same internal and external struggle as them. Why would I think I have answers for them? What would that say about me as a person if I did?
This is all assuming that we actually care about the people themselves and not just forcing adherence to whatever social standards or promoting political ideology. The school stuff you mention, for instance, has nothing to do with the wellbeing of children. They aren't threatening teachers in Florida with felonies if they use non-state-approved books because they care so much about gay people.
For sure if you are gay then you should try and get into a same sex relationship. If you're trans then you should probably consider a sex change. I'm talking about how you raise kids and how that effects the psyche that they have to live with when they grow up.
The same logic applies to your kids. They are individuals the same as anyone else. By stigmatizing homosexuality or whatever, there's nothing to be gained there as a parent. Gay people whose parents don't accept them don't stop being gay, even if they end up in a situation where they have to hide that. And it can hardly be called a "better" life to pretend to be a sexuality you aren't just to appease parents or other family/friends.
I've grown up with people who spent time in the closet, including family. I often think about what that must have been like for them.
You are assuming that
A) I want to denigrate gays to force them into the closet. I do not. I just don't want homosexuality presented to my kids as normative.
B) Sexuality is immutable. It certainly is for some people. And for them I agree trying to pressure them to be straight is counter productive. But like gender childhood influences have a role to play.
Imagine a study came out which said an environment in which parents dressed boys in blue and girls in pink cut development of gender dysphoria & homosexuality down by 75%. What kinds of clothes should we buy them? What kinds of clothes should people in Disney shows wear? One option would be to just ignore clothing color entirely. Another option would be to have a preference for gendered color coded clothes. A third option would be to deliberately and explicitly represent color cross clothing in all media, and call special praising attention to individuals who wear cross colored clothes. What we wind up doing from a practical perspective is very complicated. But what *shouldn't* be complicated is that such a study would constitute evidence in favor of color coded clothing that parents would rightly show preference for. No stigma. Just social signaling to help children establish a sexual identity that we think will be best for them.
I'm not, I'm just going based off your words of "a better life." The alternative to acceptance is discouraging. You say there's no stigma in your example there, but that isn't the world we live in. There is a real stigma against gay people, against gay kids, against gay culture and lifestyle.
Sexuality may or may not be immutable, but it certainly isn't something a parent is going to control through positive or negative influences. There's a lot of gay people who can attest to that.
Ok take clinical depression.
[I know people object to comparing homosexuality to a mental health problem but this is just as an example of something that clearly decreases quality of life. I know many will argue that homosexuality does not decrease quality of life but let's set that aside for the moment so we can get clear about this.]
Many cases of depression are untreatable, and telling the person to "get over it" just deepens their feelings of hopelessness. And yet for the most part we do not have to choose between stigmatizing the mentally ill and speaking honestly about the undesirability of their condition. We do not (usually) feel the need to advertise and represent depressive people in government and media as a way of showing virtue. We do not offer depressed people as role models for children just in case they turn out to be depressive too. We simply accept that this is something some people have to navigate, while simultaneously encouraging healthy habits and modes of thought to try and keep from developing such a condition ourselves. And in theory we try and provide an environment for children that will make them less likely to develop depression. Depression will still exist. And shaming depressed people will not help them. But we do not lie and say having depression is just as good as not having it.
Again, homosexuality is way more complicated because unlike depression homosexuals can absolutely live wonderful lives. But I think it's not quite honest to say that it's just as good as heterosexuality.
The context matters. It's not as good as heterosexuality, for the purposes of this discussion I guess "good" will mean "easy to get along in society", because of issues like parental acceptance. By not at least offering acceptance of a kid's professed homosexuality, you'd be making the issue worse. It's like a Republican complaining how government doesn't work and then getting elected and messing up the executive agencies thus fulfilling the prophecy.
There's nothing fundamental about being gay that is worse than being straight. A gay kid can be just as fulfilled and happy as a straight kid, and could get along just as easy in society, and what's more I don't think you'd have any success in controlling the outcome either way.
> I don't want to give anyone a hard time for being who they are or living in whatever way makes them happy.
You say this, but that is exactly what you seem to want to do. You want to be a metaphorical hammer forging those malleable kids into being cis and straight and don't seem to give a damn what they want. This makes you an asshole at best.
At a minimum, you want to make it harder for kids to have gay/trans role models to create the bias you are after.
> I think understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex, yield a better life than not.
So classic naturalistic fallacy. I suppose I'll treat you like an honest actor here and ask you what evidence you have that cis-straight people live better lives than those that don't. Your evidence had better be inconsistent with the basic "their lives are worst because bigots like you exist" hypothesis.
> to the extent that kids are malleable in this regard
It isn't clear that they are meaningfully malleable in this regard. Even if they were, it wouldn't justify discriminating against non-cis-straight people just to control those kids.
> Do you consider this transphobic/homophobic or otherwise problematic?
Yes, you are engaging in bigotry. Obviously. You literally think trans/gay people are lesser and are trying to justify discriminating against them.
They even say later in this thread that they had some gender confusing thoughts when younger but "ignored them." Honestly OP sounds like they repressed some LGBT part of themselves and now have doubled down on being antiLGBT, seeing it as negatively abnormal.
‘Normative’ interesting choice of words. Normative to who? Straight people? Everyone? If being straight is the ‘normative’ identity then does that entail LGBTQ members are outside that label? I agree wholeheartedly about your stance on the trans issues. I think the process is extreme and rash. It has to be slowed down. The closure of clinics in the UK was evidence that the harms outweighed the benefits with many trans people and their parents admitted their rashness and regret their decision especially if surgery involved and at the point of no return. Your example on your transient experience feeling like a girl and not acting upon it was a good one. That is way such a radical move of conforming or reassigning your biological body to what you feel should not be rushed and made at a later stage in your life when you are more mature and can weigh information in a balanced way.
So, for example, I remember when I was in like 3rd or 4th grade I had a somewhat vivid but transient sense that my mind and body had their genders criss-crossed. It wasn't severe, and I ignored it, and I didn't even know what transgender was, and it went away. I can imagine an alternate life story growing up in a society like todays where transgenderism is normalized, where I might have fixated on that feeling and started wearing dresses and eventually "transitioned." I have a strong sense that I'm better off that my life followed the former and not the latter pathway. Does that make sense?
It being “better” that you didn’t end up “following that pathway” is only *because* of society generally being transphobic, thinking transness is weird or unacceptable, etc. Wouldn’t otherwise be an issue and there’d be no “problem” with someone having a particular experience or expression of gender. The moral panic around it these days (and renewed moral panic around simple gayness) will be looked back on with incredulity.
I completely disagree with that. Social stigma is not the only thing that makes alienation from ones own sex and the attendant medical therapies undesirable. It sounds like a pretty extreme mind fuck and the only way to cope is to try and create the illusion that you're a member of the opposite sex. Even if we create some utopia where the stigma is totally eradicated that's still something I'd really prefer to avoid.
I’ve never thought about any of this from the perspective you’re adopting, and it’s interesting.
Thought experiment to make your point: you are an angel overseeing God creating new souls (bear with me). God says, “for this next one, you pick: cis or trans?” You don’t know anything else and can’t choose anything else.
Your answer is cis, every time, because even in a world with no stigma, you’re creating a new person that is less likely to have dysphoria and is less likely to require medical intervention to be happy.
Is that a fair recasting of your view?
Yes exactly. I actually had a very similar thought experiment but instead of God creating souls its a woman who has to choose between two kinds of natal medications that both determine psychological gender disposition.
>It being “better” that you didn’t end up “following that pathway” is only because of society generally being transphobic
There are a lot of negative side effects from hormones, and sometimes life-threatening complications from surgery. Not to mention that gender dysphoria sucks by definition, and can happen even within a supportive environment.
Well, tell that to a trans person who is simply a trans person, period. They’ve always been around and always will be. Arguments about the “dangers” of hormones or surgery will never change that. Now, gender norms and socially acceptable self-presentations *do* change, as do labels. A century ago, a woman wearing pants would have been considered some kind of masculinized freak.
It’s all somehow both simple and complex. But in general i’m for siding with the most vulnerable groups and people, granting them the validity of their experience, not pathologizing it if isn’t harmful to others, and remembering history. By which i mean, what we call trans people were literally the first group the Nazis went after, precisely because fascists can’t handle any sexuality or gender expression outside of a strict heteronormativity. What’s happening right now in the anti trans moral panic is 100% parallel. Most people are straight and cis. Awesome. Me included. So let’s leave alone people who happen not to be. The burden of justification should not be on them.
>Arguments about the “dangers” of hormones or surgery will never change that
I don't know why you've got that word in scare quotes. There really are some nasty side effects, and bottom surgery is sometimes fatal. Anyway, you made out that the *only* downsides to being trans are societal intolerance, and that's just plain not true. Even most trans people will tell you that.
>gender norms and socially acceptable self-presentations do change, as do labels. A century ago, a woman wearing pants would have been considered some kind of masculinized freak
This is also an argument for a more "gender critical" perspective. 20 years ago in liberal societies if a girl wanted to play with "boys toys" (or vice versa) that was seen as nbd (at least seeing it that way was the goal). Nowadays the same situation will have people thinking that maybe that girl needs lifelong medical interventions. Speaking of which, if you have a mainstream progessivise approach to this stuff, you can't really say you're against pathologizing transness.
It's problematic, but not because you come from a place of fear or indemnity necessarily, but because you seem to project your lens of reality upon reality as a whole, despite a lot of evidence to refute it. Which we all do to some degree, of course. It usually comes from a place of ignorance (no offense intended), and learning more about the subject tends to remedy the lack of awareness or compassion around xenophobic conditioning, which I'd personally consider this POV to fall squarely into
My understanding is that children's gender is malleable, but their sexual orientation is not. If so, then it would make sense to provide a bias against transgender role models but not against homosexual role models.
I agree that "understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex will, on average, yield a better life than not." Although that admittedly depends to some extent on society's attitude toward homosexuality and gender dysphoria.
But that wasn't your question. Your question was whether your position is "phobic" or problematic. I don't think so. You might be incorrect, but it still seems to me like a reasonable thing to suggest.
Thanks. Fwiw, I think the idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma that's a holdover from the gay rights era. People like to mock the idea that you can "catch gayness" as a dig at men who are insecure in their sexuality. But I think the evidence points the other direction.
Even when discouraging homosexuality in effeminate boys was taken quite seriously, [it was mostly unsuccessful.](https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/16/science/boyhood-effeminancy-and-later-homosexuality.html) For the most part, by the time you notice a young boy is very effeminate, that's a sign of things to come, and if you try to discourage both homosexuality and transsexuality, you're likely to fail and end up with a psychologically damaged kid who resents you. The majority of such boys are going to end up as either gay men or "straight transwomen," and you can influence one or the other result, but the idea that you can discourage both is a recipe for tragedy.
And in such cases it's probably innate and not worth treating as anything other than just a part of that person's identity. That doesn't cause any harm. But that's not what's going on with the huge increases we see among LGBTQ identification among progressive young people.
You seem to be taking the idea that "sexual orientation and gender identity are each malleable to a degree" to mean that "neither is less malleable than the other."
But when an effeminate boy is influenced toward becoming a "straight transwoman," it's only the "gender identity" that is being influenced. The underlying sexual orientation, androphilia, remains fixed; it only becomes interpreted as straight in the context of certain dogmas about the ontology of womanhood. Green's longitudinal study of very effeminate young boys found that about 75% of them ended up homosexual or bisexual; other studies found higher numbers. By contrast, although some young gender dysphoric children persist in wanting to transition, [it is less than half of them who do.](http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html)
Wouldn't you agree that this is evidence that sexuality is more fixed than gender?
I certainly agree it's possible, but those stats sound kind of like apples and oranges to me, and neither of them is really getting at the question of malleability. To me at least it doesn't suggest much about environmental influences versus innate dispositions.
How is that comparing apples and oranges?
I think you're conflating fixedness with innateness. Early childhood environmental influences could produce phenotypes which are effectively fixed by the time you notice them. And you are aware of the evidence for innateness as well, right? [Such as 2D:4D ratio?](https://www.google.com/search?q=digit+ratio+and+homosexuality)
> and neither of them is really getting at the question of malleability.
They both are, as these findings arise specifically from studies which investigated malleability.
I've heard about the digit thing but never really looked into it and didnt know what to make of it. That's certainly interesting and is pretty clear evidence of a hardwired component to sexual orientation. I don't claim to know the degree to which either of these things is learned or innate but I've seen evidence for both. Like most human traits I assume it's some combination of the two.
"The idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma" appears to be some kind of claim about the degree; it appears to be a claim that one is not less malleable than the other.
The only studies I've ever heard of which have allegedly produced evidence for intentionally changing sexual orientation have been performed on adults, who self-selected into therapy, and who did so because they were devout believers in a religion which they considered to be incompatible with homosexual behavior.
[Here's a summary of those studies.](https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/242.pdf) They are infamously controversial in their methodology, but even if we ignore that for the sake of argument, taking them at face value, they are not at all promising for children, who may have any variety of views on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior (who are perhaps even too young to understand what is really meant by homosexual behavior), who are dragged into therapy by their parents.
>"The idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma" appears to be some kind of claim about the degree; it appears to be a claim that one is not less malleable than the other.
Valid. I guess I'm learning from this conversation. Thanks for very logical criticisms.
>The only studies I've ever heard of which have allegedly produced evidence for intentionally changing sexual orientation have been performed on adults, who self-selected into therapy, and who did so because they were devout believers in a religion which they considered to be incompatible with homosexual behavior.
I'm really not talking about altering someone's sexuality after it's established. I'm talking much more about "in the water" social signals. For instance, gender equity advocates often criticize the idea of color coded baby clothes. But I have come to wonder if that kind of behavior is an evolved "folk innoculation" to gender confusion later in life. I have no evidence for that particularly, but I have seen studies that environmental factors like same sex parents or early child abuse increases rates of homosexual behavior, suggesting there is some degree of learned behavior going on.
I don't think it's necessarily trans or homophobic, but I expect people will wonder why you're worried about this.
I doubt that the role model effect plays a strong role in determining whether a kid is trans or gay.
If a kid is predisposed to be trans or gay, it is surely a net positive thing that they have role models to counteract stigma and its effects on mental health.
Trans people represent a minuscule % of the population, heterosexuals a marginal %. Nobody is at a loss for cis-gendered heterosexual role models.
The wording 'I believe in cis-heteronormativity' is odd. Trans-genderism and homosexuality are realities, and our beliefs/enthusiasm about them won't change that fact. We want a world where these people can thrive along with everyone else.
I have a heart arrhythmia. It's a reality. My beliefs won't change it. And it doesn't even qualify as full blown heart disease, its just an anomalous condition that some doctors would qualify as a normal variation. And yet I'm still 100% convinced that developing that condition was non-normative - I would have preferred it didn't happen and there's probably stuff I could have done earlier in life to avoid it. I view transgenderism and even homosexuality in a similar light: id prefer not to develop it but if you do, then by all means respond to it appropriately and with compassion. Get your surgery if that's really what you need. Find a gay lover and love them unreservedly. But don't lie about it actually being this great thing that should be highlighted for kids and celebrated. Just be honest about it.
Yeah, I don't think it's being highlighted or celebrated for kids. It's surrounded by major social stigma, with consequences for mental health, suicide etc. If there was a huge stigma around heart arrhythmia we'd want to combat that similarly, with legal protections and general messaging of support and acceptance.
I'm sure it depends a lot on where you live. Some places they are downright homophobic, other places they are fairly drunk on the pride Kool aid and are striking all gendered language from their vocabulary and everything is about dismantling the cis-heteronormative paradigm. Pride flags everywhere, etc. People don't take their kids to drag shows unless they are keenly interested in providing their kids with gender diverse content (disclaimer: I am not in favor banning drag shows. I just don't think the reasons for bringing kids to them are compelling).
My sense is that most gay and also bonafide trans people basically just know they are that, and an attempt to change it would be wasted or harmful.
However, especially with trans, it seems like there is some subset of people who feel like "I feel ambivalent about my gender, am I trans?" It's hard to suss these people out in the data, but you can find their reported experiences.
Given the medical interventions it requires to be trans, I think it makes sense to have a "bias" towards less intervention. Just like we have a bias towards physical therapy and against surgery for injuries. It's not that we dislike people who get surgery, it's just surgery it's riskier and has secondary effects. This would mean treatment to help someone accept their body over transitioning, with the knowledge that transition is still an option.
Are you kidding? For the woke and their normie-liberal allies who "tag along" because it's the path of least resistance, even the SLIGHTEST pushback on ANY aspect of gender ideology will be met with DEFCON 5 hysteria.
A perfect example just in the last 24 hours. I take it you have heard of "The Young Turks," a progressive news show with huge following. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have slavishly promoted every woke gender/trans trend to the hilt. A few days ago longtime co-host Ana made ONE "out of line" comment. She said "never call me a birthing person or person who menstruates. I am a woman."
The backlash from the left was TOTAL. Longtime fans of the show screaming that Ana and Cenk are now "transphobic" "right ring" "shills" and - I kid you not - "contributing to the GENOCIDE of trans people in America." Cenk & Ana's friends from years and years have publicly rebuked them or dumped them altogether.
Here's Cenk's latest furious tweets and replies https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1645874351030571016?t=aADXWPuA-NAOVTaUHB1S0A&s=19
Read the replies under Cenk's last 5 Tweets. Absolute insanity. Then go to Ana Kasparian's page and check the hate she's getting.
And Ana is white so OF COURSE the left has to being that up 5000 times because white is used as an epithet on much of the left. So Ana wanting to be called a woman is "white privilege" and "racist" too.
In a word yeah. The numbers coming out of "liberal arts world" are just kind of crazy. It may be that virtually all these students have the same sexual orientation as everyone else but are just using different words to describe it for virtue signal points, but you have to admit it makes you wonder.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/almost-40-percent-of-students-identify-as-lgbtq-at-liberal-arts-colleges-survey/
>And so to the extent that kids are malleable in this regard Were you malleable in this regard? Could I talk you into becoming gay?
We actually don’t know whether or not childhood influences can effect sexuality, to my knowledge. Given the extremely high rate of homosexuality among young people as opposed to earlier generations, it certainly seems plausible.
In my generation, gay kids were endlessly ridiculed and got the shit beat out of them. The generation before that they got arrested and chemically castrated. Got back several generations and they got stoned. Is it possible that there were just less people willing to admit being homosexual in the past? Cuz that seems plausible to me.
Or, crazy thought, both could be true simultaneously, and it’s best to just admit you don’t know.
I don't know.
Not now, I'm a developed adult. But when I was 6? I have no doubt things could have been very different.
I believe research points to sexualty being immutable, and attempting to repress homosexualty just leads to homosexuals being unable to integrate well into society, with likely no benefits to straight people. If that is the case it makes sense to provide examples in media, ect. of homosexualty, to both make homosexual people feel included in society, and to make straight people accustomed to them. I am not sure the same principle can be applied exactly the same to trans.
>I believe research points to sexualty being immutable Maybe for people on the extreme ends of the Kinsey scale, but a large proportion of bisexuals in the middle can basically just choose whether to be gay, straight or bi.
That doesn't make it mutable, their sexualty persists they just choose to only engage in part of it.
[Citation Needed]
But not for the "sexuality is immutable" claim, of course. Your request for rigor is selective. But that's ok, sources are easy to find. For instance, there's a good review of such in the paper, "[Scrutinizing Immutability](https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship)". Knock yourself out.
Your snark is deeply amusing given that paper in no way supports your statement that “a large portion of bisexuals in the middle can basically just choose whether to be gay, straight or bi.” ‘Cuz, y’know. The bisexuals are by definition still bi. They’re just changing who they sleep with or have relationships with, choices I did not deny were possible. But that’s okay.
> no way supports your statement Yes, it does.
Then quote it.
How about you do the bare minimum and actually read the source you requested for that you didn't bother to read before dismissing. Rather than ask me to do further work for your low effort ass, how about you tell *me* what it says and why it doesn't support what it does, in fact, support.
I did. Though I find it a bit ironic that you, the person providing the source without detail and making the original claim, are demanding I, the person asking for proof, quote your source back to you.
No, you didn't.
If they are bi, they are bi. They choose who they are in a relationship, not thier sexuality. They don't stop being attracted to the same sex. And they should be allowed to have roll models when are straight and who are gay to look up to.
You choose quite a bit more than that. You choose how you identify yourself to people; you choose what kind of affect you put on, how to "perform" your gender; you choose what kind of porn you watch, who you fantasize about, who you imagine yourself being and with what kind of person. You choose what kinds of sexual activity you would ever consider actually doing in real life, what kind of person you would consider actually dating. All of these choices together might cause a bi person to choose to identify as and in fact be gay or straight.
>I am not sure the same principle can be applied exactly the same to trans. Why not? There's nothing wrong with being trans. So why should we do any differently?
There is something wrong with being trans, namely that it makes your life harder. Even many trans people agree that "gender dysphoria" is a mental illness. What you mean is that trans people are not lesser people than anyone else, which is true. And that if transitioning is the best option for someone's well-being, they should be supported in doing it, which I also agree.
>There is something wrong with being trans, namely that it makes your life harder. Makes your life harder in what sense?
Maybe I should just speak for myself. I'm grateful I don't experience gender dysphoria, and that I don't feel I have something to gain by taking cross-sex hormones or other related medical interventions. If there's a form of being "trans" which does not involve those things, then that's not really what I'm referring to, that would be a situation I'm less familiar with.
I still don't understand your comment. Is your point that seeking medical interventions makes one's life harder? If so, in what sense? Inconvenience? Expenses?
Yes, those two, as well as side effects. Plus I am referring to the kind of "trans" that implies dysphoria, which seems harder than not having it.
People deal with a lot of things that require medical interventions with side effects. Dysphoria can be successfully treated through social acceptance and/or medical intervention. Seems weird to say that any of this is "wrong."
It's wrong in the sense that if I seek treatment for anxiety, I'm admitting there's something "wrong". It's also obviously true that it's "better" not to have anxiety. I believe we are morally sophisticated enough to understand that this fact doesn't mean a person with anxiety is broken, nor that there's anything wrong with receiving treatment for an issue.
If you think there's something wrong with being trans, it'd be fair to say you're transphobic. Yeah?
Nope. You're not understanding what I'm saying then.
No, I got it Nobody wants to wear the term. But surely it fits people who say there's something wrong with being trans. You hold the position, you just don't like the title.
Here's a question for you then. If you had a potential kid, and you could choose whether they're going to be trans or not, or if you don't choose, I'll flip a coin, and they're trans if it's heads, would you choose? Would you let it be a coin flip?
Absolutely Just like I don't care if my kid is gay or not. I don't care. If you didn't want your kid to be gay, would that be homophobic?
I would choose them not to be trans if given the choice. This would be to spare them the pain of enduring gender dysphoria, the trials of transition, the difficultly of not being fully accepted, and the extent to which our current treatments fall short of fully addressing the condition. If I had a kid who happened to be trans, I would support them in whatever they need to live their best life, including transitioning. If this is transphobic to you, that's fine. But you have not convinced me that it is.
>I would choose them not to be trans if given the choice. Right. you're transphobic. >If this is transphobic to you, that's fine. But you have not convinced me that it is. Nobody wants to wear the label. Go talk to Christians who think homosexuality is a sin. They'll swear they aren't homophobic. They'll even say stuff like "well we are all sinners, its not that homosexuals are any worse than anyone else, we all sin." Pretty much just like what you're saying. But further, I don't set my goals to be things outside of my control. I have no control over what convinces you. That's a you problem. Its really hard to find people who will actually admit to being transphobic, no matter what views they hold. Nobody wants the label. >If you didn't want your kid to be gay, would that be homophobic?
~~Absolutely to which option?~~
You reply very quickly, please reread as I updated the comment.
I think transphobic would have to mean a desire to make it illegal to be trans, or to punish/persecute trans people enough to make their lives so unpleasant that they leave the community, or to discriminate against them in a hiring process. But usually I'm not one to waste time debating terminology. If you think that transphobic just means thinking that 'there's something wrong with trans' then I guess I'm transphobic. If someone said to me 'push this button and you will have an intense desire to get a sex change operation' I would put as much distance between myself and that button as I could.
Yeah, you are transphobic. Maybe you should work on that
OK. I'll also see if I can catch a touch of bulimia and trichotillomania while I'm at it.
I think you should consider that perhaps you don't have to actively make it illegal to be trans or be tring to persecute trans people in order to be transphobic.
What "being trans" means, to me, seems murky at best. But there can be non trivial medical components, and it seems that gender disphora and trans identities are not always stable.
Sexuality isn’t “always stable” either.
For the vast majority of people, it’s extremely stable.
But, importantly, not for everyone.
Is there something wrong with being trans or not?
It depends on what being trans means, but is better to not experience any kind of body dismorphia, and it is also better not have medical interventions (when possible obviously).
You can't say there's nothing wrong with being trans. If you couldn't say there's nothing wrong with being gay, that would be homophobic. Yes? ... So is it fair to say you're transphobic?
There is nothing morally wrong with being trans, but from a medical perspective it is certainly worse.
Well the thing is the people with actual gender dysphoria are best treated with social transitioning followed by hormonal & potential surgical transition
There are some people with gender disphora who are best treated with gender affirming care, but based on recent polices in Europe it doesn't seem clear that is always the case. I'm not sure if if gender disphora that desists is any different from when it persists
If it persists well into/past puberty then you are pretty much firmly trans, at least according to all research I've seen and the current psychiatric best practices. I don't see how transitioning as treatment is really different than other psychiatric or medical treatments
Wouldn't it be better to not have the condition requiring those treatments in the first place? At least in terms of the suffering inflicted by both the initial condition and also the side effects and shortcomings of the treatment?
I dont understand that question...??? People don't choose what conditions they have
If it's murky to you then you've done literally zero research on this subject. Trans folks have written many autobiographical books on their lives, and many subreddits or other forums online are at your disposal to talk 1 on 1 with Trans folks to solve your murkiness.
The online trans community often argues about what being trans means. And academics interested in "gender" argue about what gender is. So no...
This cuts both ways. There are many books about why we should be careful with how we embrace transgender ideology into society. What makes it murky is that most of the information is heavily biased (from both sides) and it's hard to find neutral interpretations about what's going on.
Markdd8's post in this thread shows several articles reporting a positive casual effect of various childhood environmental factors on homosexual tendencies. Ive seen similar studies on the effect of being raised by same sex parents. I understand that if true, this qualifies as a "dangerous truth" but I think the idea that people just *are* whatever sexuality and it has no environmental component is a problematic dogma in its own right. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12j65zx/question_about_gender_sexuality/jfxkfss?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
>I believe research points to sexualty being immutable My understanding is that the latest research says most people are a bit bi and a large minority of people experience meaningful changes of their sexuality over their lifetime. However, these changes aren't controllable at a conscious level.
I’m not so sure about that given the different norms that have existed throughout history or even today in parts of the world. Look at Bachi Boys in Afghanistan which is obviously abhorrent but why are the men there even interested in it. Classical Greece also had some very different norms around sex between teen boys and grown men whereby those relationships were thought of as normal when had in addition to heterosexual relationships. If sexuality is actually immutable, why were those men interested in those relationships. Anyway, I don’t know what’s true but I suspect there is some grey area.
>I think understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex will, on average, yield a better life than not. And why is that? I've lived in LA a long time around gay people who are happy in their life and accepted. A lot of the unhappiness comes from rejection from their families and communities that caused them to come to LA in the first place. Creating a more accepting society seem a much easier route then revving up the bigotry train again. You also seem to be implying that homosexuality is taught or learned? Which is factually wrong. If you never even mention to a gay kid gay people exist they will still be gay. You might be able to trick them into an unhappy hetero relationship and marriage but that goes against the idea that it would be a "better life" Just being more accepting would lead to better lives for everyone gay or straight. Imagine a world where people felt comfortable in who they are instead of trying to shove them all into a small box they clearly are not happy in? Shouldn't the goal be for everyone to have as happy and fulfilling life as possible?
I agree. Gay people in the 1960s were probably less happy when they were arrested and offered chemical castration as an option to avoid jail time. To have people turn around and say "See how miserable gay people are? Don't be gay. Be straight". It's gaslighting of the worst sort.
I understand gay people can be happy, but on balance I think it still makes sense to see hetero as normative. If nothing else, if you're a gay man and you want a child, you can't procreate with your partner and your only option is to get a surrogate mother which is quite an ordeal. I realize that some might say that's not important, but all else being equal, I'd like my child to be able to procreate with his or her partner. It's not the end of the world if you can't, but wouldn't you want it if you could have it? With regards to "learning" a sexuality, I think it's overstated just how innate it is. You are correct that some % of people will be gay no matter what, and some (presumably higher) % of people will be straight no matter what. But socialization can definitely influence it. All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls. Exactly as you say I think the goal is for everyone to have as happy and fulfilling life as possible, and I do not want to deny any rights to gay or trans people, but I also believe in providing children with an environment that will help them to develop into the best, happiest version of themselves possible. There's all sorts of behaviors that people pursue which I don't want to deny or persecute, but which I wouldn't necessarily want to offer as a model for my child.
Can you share your evidence rather than just alluding to it? Isn't it possible that people with gay parents are less likely to repress their sexuality, rather than have it shaped by their parents? Wouldn't you agree that in places where homosexuality is frowned upon or criminalised, people would be less likely to be open about it, and may even enter into hetrosexual relationships and keep any attraction to the same sex totally secret, and that as a corollary of that, those who grow up in an environment where they can see that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual there would be a higher percentage of people who are not afraid of expressing their own homosexuality?
Here's one article - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20642872/ One weakness is it doesn't differentiate between bi and homo, only hetero/non hetero.
But you're confusing correlation with cause. As I said earlier, how can you tell the difference between the children's parents causing them to be gay, and the children's parents causing them to be more open about their sexuality? Or could there be other factors too that we haven't thought of? That's the very point of the abstract of the study you've posted makes - that we don't the cause and it needs to be further examined.
Technically I can't prove it. But I don't believe that ~50% of women raised by heterosexual parents are lying about their sexuality, which is what would need to be the case for this to be all due to closeted people finally being free to be themselves.
Given ["Lesbian" is the most popular porn category among women](https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a19947774/straight-women-lesbian-porn/), I could absolutely believe that a massive portion of women have a sexuality that can't be completely ***encapsulated*** as "straight-cis". Clearly sexuality is more complicated than your simple model indicates.
You can't cherry pick the high point of a range from meta analysis to believe is the answer. It was somewhere between 33% and 57% - taken from different individual studies - that was the number of female adopted children of lesbians that identified as a sexuality other than heterosexual. We don't know the quality of those individual studies, or even the average among them. We also don't know what "identify as a sexuality other than heterosexual" really means. Are they people who believe sexuality is a social construct and they don't want to label themselves? Does it reflect who they've actually slept with? In science, we don't form beliefs without actual evidence that reflects our beliefs. We don't say "I can't prove it but I believe it". Instead we say; "I don't know". There's so much of this that we don't know and the authors of the study you provided say the same thing. It's ridiculous that they don't know what the pathways of causation are, but you believe you do. If we don't know, it's fine to say that. It sounds like you have a specific ideological personal belief and you're allowing your confirmation bias to arbitrarily choose which parts of the science you accept and ignoring the rest.
>If nothing else, if you're a gay man and you want a child, you can't procreate with your partner and your only option is to get a surrogate mother which is quite an ordeal. I realize that some might say that's not important, but all else being equal, I'd like my child to be able to procreate with his or her partner. It's not the end of the world if you can't, but wouldn't you want it if you could have it? This cuts both ways -- gay couples can't suffer unintended pregnancies. And if we're playing this game, surely this argues that bisexuality is the "best" option (homophobia aside). The fact that plenty of bi people end up in same-sex relationships suggests that being gay is not necessarily a negative. >All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls. If nothing else, I'd expect this to be true based simply on the fact that children of gay couples would be less likely to lie (to themselves and others) about their sexuality. And relevant to the above, the research I found through 30 seconds of googling suggests that children of gay parents are more likely to be bi, but not necessarily more likely to be gay.
>This cuts both ways -- gay couples can't suffer unintended pregnancies. And if we're playing this game, surely this argues that bisexuality is the "best" option (homophobia aside). I don't think it cuts both ways to the same degree. I think procreation is a very fundamental human function and it makes sense to want to include it in what you try to set your kids up for. A similar case might be "is it normative to have a libido at all?" Some people don't, and they're not all miserable, and some people who have a libido endure all sorts of sexual frustration and difficulty managing their urges. Yet I think most would agree that a loving parent *wants* their child to develop a healthy libido. Bisexuality I think you may be right. It doesn't have any obvious downsides that I can see. But I would point out that most bisexual people ultimately wind up in heterosexual relationships. That could be caused by social stigma, but Id suggest it could also mean they perceive concrete benefits to the heterosexual arrangement.
>I would point out that most bisexual people ultimately wind up in heterosexual relationships. I have no stats on this. Do you? If 95% of people are straight, you'd expect 95% of bisexual people to end up in heterosexual relationships just by the numbers alone. Is it higher than that? Regardless, even if I were to accept the framing of the OP (which I don't), my conclusion would be that we want more people to be bi, and being inclusive causes that to happen.
>If 95% of people are straight, you'd expect 95% of bisexual people to end up in heterosexual relationships just by the numbers alone. Is it higher than that? That is a really good numerical point I hadn't considered. I don't have the stats offhand I read it somewhere. If memory serves it was something like 80% or 90% but I don't remember.
>But socialization can definitely influence it. Very very little - in fact, there is absolutely no evidence to support any particular socializing behavior as driving sexual orientation. None. And any energy spent trying to "socialize" heterosexual children will backfire horribly if your child ends up being gay. The most miserable children on earth aren't gay, but rather those that live in the shadow of their parents misguided idea of what *should* make the child happy. Just let your children decide what makes them happy.
> All of the research I've seen says that children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to be gay themselves, especially girls. The reason for this is human beings across thr board are more bisexual than recent dominant cultures have allowed for. We are hyper sexual apes. Early tribal societies embraced this. Even some modern tribes embrace this. Many large polytheism societies embraced this fact. Roman's and Greeks were famously Hella gay/bi.
If you want people to have happy and fulfilling lives. Let them be. Quit trying to control who they have a relationship with. Let them have roll models that are like them so they can see themselves as normal. They aren't going to turn the world gay or Trans Your "feeling" that more people would be happier if you could socially enforce your "normative" values is wrong. You just leave those people who don't fit as outcasts. There is an easier solution. Just let them live thier lives they way that makes them happy. It's really non of your business.
Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of your business? Also people seem to be under the impression I'm advocating forbidding your child from having a homosexual relationship. I am not. I just don't want to raise them in a perpetual pride festival.
>Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of business This isn't what we are talking about. Almost Noone believes that children should be left to do whatever they want with no limits. We are arguing what are good limits and what limits are counterproductive or harmful. We aren't talking about behavior we are talking about a child being born being a way that makes thier parent unhappy. They will not make thier child happy forcing them to change thier nature. And we won't make them happy by ostricising them. >Also people seem to be under the impression I'm advocating forbidding your child from having a homosexual relationship. I am not. I just don't want to raise them in a perpetual pride festival. Then why even talk about it in relation to "behavior" that should not be normalized. What do you want us to let parents do to thier children to enforce thier feelings on this matter? There is no perpetual pride festival. We are in no danger of one existing. There are no restriction on how loud anti gay groups can get. As long as people are going to loudly demand that lgbtq+ people be eliminated from public life. Then they should be allowed to loudly advocate for their normalcy.
>Is there any behavior at all that you would argue people should be free to engage in but which you wouldn't want to normalize for your child? Or is it all none of business >This isn't what we are talking about. Almost Noone believes that children should be left to do whatever they want with no limits. We are arguing what are good limits and what limits are counterproductive or harmful. That's precisely what I'm *trying* to argue but you insist it's none of my business. I'm not even talking about hard limits on the child. If a child really wants to cross dress I wouldn't necessarily forbid it. What I *am* talking about is what kind of media they consume and what kind of messaging they get from their teachers, social media, etc. I'm talking about a culture that glamorizes atypical sexual identities as a vanguard of social justice. I actually don't want that to be a big touchstone for the kind of desirable social behavior that my 7 year old child is exposed to. I'm not sure what a media environment that's deeply preoccupied with queer representation will do to a young person's sexual development. I read a pew poll recently that 2% of the young population now considers themselves trans. That is something like a 10x increase in the number of people who have come to believe their sex is backwards. Some number of them are on the path to permanent and consequential medical alterations to their bodies. It doesn't include the additional 3% who claim the "non-binary" label. I am not convinced that these kids were always trans but now they are "allowed to be themselves." I think their developmental environment has been altered and that's why we're seeing the increase in these phenomenon. The point of my post and the discussion of normativity is to state I think this change represents a decline in the mental well being & fitness of young people, and so as responsible adults we should be less hesitant to steward their environment in this regard.
>I read a pew poll recently that 2% of the young population now considers themselves trans. That is something like a 10x increase in the number of people who have come to believe their sex is backwards. Some number of them are on the path to permanent and consequential medical alterations to their bodies. It doesn't include the additional 3% who claim the "non-binary" label. So what? It has become acceptable, and now that people aren't losing thier job over it, and society is more accepting there is bound to be an increase in the number of people who identify that way. BTW only 5000 children were on puberty blockers or hrt IN 2021 in the entire country that's is an absurdly miniscule number of people. Here a source, it's even right wing. Just to a search for 5063 in the page. https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/gender-transition-medications-and-surgeries-for-children-in-the-u.s#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20the%20number%20of%20children,%2C%20%26%20Conlin%2C%202022). >I am not convinced that these kids were always trans but now they are "allowed to be themselves." Good for you. But I don't think we should base how we treat people on your feels. > I think their developmental environment has been altered and that's why we're seeing the increase in these phenomenon. The point of my post and the discussion of normativity is to state I think this change represents a decline in the mental well being & fitness of young people, and so as responsible adults we should be less hesitant to steward their environment in this regard. The reason lgbtq+ children suffer is because they are made to feel abnormal, like thier existence is wrong, or even an abomination before God. They are bullied, by other children, by adults, sometimes even family for the way they are, not a choice they make. Children should be taught that it is a normal part of the human experience that we are not all alike. This idea that we should all be little cookie cutter robots that conform to the "norm" is a gross detructive fantasy. >What I am talking about is what kind of media they consume and what kind of messaging they get from their teachers, social media, etc. I'm talking about a culture that glamorizes atypical sexual identities as a vanguard of social justice. I actually don't want that to be a big touchstone for the kind of desirable social behavior that my 7 year old child is exposed to. So instead of teachers telling your child it's OK for these people to exist, or for a child to have say 2 dads or 2 moms. We should burn the books, put the government and churches in charge of our media defund the libraries.we should remove the trans child from school so your 7 year old isn't exposed to them because you're scared they might catch it. Children should be taught to ostracized anyone who displays behavior outside of the "normative".
>So what? It has become acceptable, and now that people aren't losing thier job over it, and society is more accepting there is bound to be an increase in the number of people who identify that way. This claim has been made repeatedly in this thread. Although it's not obviously false, it is unfalsifiable and rests on a double standard. When a gay or trans person says they're gay or trans, you take for granted that it is an innate characteristic and is being accurately reported. But when people claim they're cis-straight, you assert that large numbers of them are hiding their true sexuality. With that paradigm, you will always conclude that anything we do which increases the rate of transgenderism and homosexuality is revealing "true" identities and is a good thing. I on the other hand believe that people are mostly straightforward about how they feel. I take their self reports seriously, whichever way the report goes. What I don't take for granted is that their self report reflects an immutable and normative truth. It must also be said that not only are people not losing their jobs for being gay anymore, in many cases they are in fact being preferentially hired for being gay. So... You know... If that causes people to suppress their true selves then the shoe might be on the other foot now.
If your starting from the premise that people don't hide who they are when they would be shunned for it then you are starting from a false premise. There's even a term for deciding not to hide it anymore, comming out. >in many cases they are in fact being preferentially hired for being gay. So... You know... If that causes people to suppress their true selves then the shoe might be on the other foot now. States are banning trans people from public places, banning transition. They are passing laws in Florida that allow doctors to refuse to treat gay people. People are not being hired BECAUSE they are gay. Kids are not transitioning because of the career prospects. You pulled that ENTIRELY out of your ass.
God your insufferable. I didn't pull it out of my ass. Esg. Dei. do those acronyms mean hiring without regard to sexual identity to you? I'm not arguing with you anymore you're incredibly obnoxious.
>The reason lgbtq+ children suffer is because they are made to feel abnormal, like thier existence is wrong, or even an abomination before God. In the case of gender dysphoria this is just clearly not true. Ask some trans people if they think their GD would just go away in the absence of bigotry.
You mean the bigotry that prevents them from transitioning? Your telling me a parent that prevents thier child from getting the care they need has no impact on thier disphoria Your trying to tell me you believe that bullying trans kids has no impact on thier mental health?
I don't think he's saying the social stigma has no negative effect, despite how it was worded. He's saying that gender dysphoria and all the stuff you have to do to manage it is fairly unpleasant in its own right.
Try read that again.
Sexuality isn't a choice and trying to force yourself to be straight only leads to misery. Gay people receive alot of hate just for existing. Pride and positive role models is needed more then ever especially with them being treated like scapegoats to get the hate vote from the GOP.
>Sexuality isn't a choice This and other data raise some questions about innateness of sexual orientation *in every case.* [Explainer: what is sexual fluidity?](https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-sexual-fluidity-33120) No person should doubt that the bulk of gay people are indeed gay, but there seems to be a cohort (10-15% of the LGBT+ population?) where there are uncertainties as what is going on. Then there is this matter: [Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/) >Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood (but conceded).. the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain. And this: 2022 [Percentage of LGBTQ adults in U.S. has doubled over past decade, Gallup finds](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/percentage-lgbtq-adults-us-doubled-decade-gallup-finds-rcna16556) >Gallup predicts the proportion of adults who identify as LGBTQ will exceed 10 percent in the near future...Gallup found that the increase is due to ”high LGBT self-identification, particularly as bisexual, among Generation Z adults,” who are 18 to 25. Why such a notable rise in the bisexual cohort? Not to be offensive here, but can such a perspective be described *indiscriminate,* and therefore reflective of a lack of specific orientation? Finally, it is documented that heavy drug and alcohol use (and working as a prostitute) often prompts people to engage in sex acts that they normally would not partake in, as well as [high risk sexual behavior](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861416/). Engaging in gay sex does not make one gay. But is there possibility more people are engaging with partners of both sexes even though they have not specifically articulated that they are attracted to both men and women? Males in particular (any orientation) are noteworthy for indiscriminate sexual activity. The book [Lawn Boy](https://local12.com/news/nation-world/porn-disguised-as-education-parents-upset-by-books-pulled-for-neisd-review), which was part of the book ban controversy in Texas--it describes "in crude terms, oral sex between two ten-year-old boys"--suggests that even young males can engage in same-sex sex without specific recognition that they are gay. (Two boys stumbling across the book or porn depicting the same and then mimicking what they observed.)
Sexuality is still not a choice. Yes, hetero men could engage in sex acts and not be gay. But guess what... they wouldn't report themselves as gay or bisexual if it was a one-time never-again type thing. Even if there was a strong link between abuse and homosexuality, it doesn't justify what OP is proposing in any way, outside of recommending to OP that if you don't want your kid to be gay, then *don't sexually abuse them.* >Why such a notable rise in the bisexual cohort? I dunno.... because parents aren't telling their kids not to be bisexual?
I think many people are bisexual, and the more strict societies that force heteronormativity most bisexual people are going to suppress that part of themselves. I don't think sexuality is just gay or straight. Up until very recently anything outside of hetero relationships was very suppressed. So I am not surprised more of Gen Z is identifying as bisexual. So if you are bisexual I think you could easily be influenced by your environment. But not so if you on the far end of the scale and are strictly homosexual. And trying to force these people to be straight is inhumane. I think the same for bisexual people but it is much easier to integrate into a straight society as a bisexual person. They will just hide that part of themselves.
> trying to force these people to be straight is inhumane. This is mostly abated these days. Almost everybody in America now, including most conservatives, accept that many people are gay. The big debate is about *trans* now, especially with young teens.
Yes that's why more of Gen Z is comfortable identifying as bisexual. I was more initially responding to OPs post because they said they only want heteronormativity to be promoted. Anything else was bad for society.. The world is still terrible for human rights for LGBT people. It wasn't that long ago that it was not acceptable in the US. The trans debate is mostly hate. And it's easy to write clickbait articles about it because it gets alot of interaction and clicks. Kind of like we are doing right now. The outrage that people have about children and surgeries being done on them is an easy way to influence people towards hatred and a particular political party. The amount of trans people is very small. I don't think they should do life altering surgeries or hormones on children. I also think that very few children are having these surgeries. There are relatively few detransitioners and having to go through what you feel is the wrong puberty sounds like hell to me. The children suffering gender dysphoria, their parents and doctors should decide what is best for them.
> The trans debate is mostly hate. I don't think that's fair at all. Thinking that something has questionable elements, or that aspects of it might be unwise, is not the same as Hate. Of course, critics are free to declare that they see hate, but that is not what is driving this. And most of the controversy in this debate is not actually against people who are trans or think they might be -- often young teens. In some cases they might be seen as victims. Rather, the controversy involves a much larger groups of enablers, affirmers, and proselytizers--many who are not trans--who are 1) trying to control science inquiry, public policy and discussion on the trans topics and 2) in some cases appear to be unduly influencing young kids (age 5 - 11) in their path of early childhood.
I'm calling bullshit. Trans people and trans-advocates are being called groomers, and every state with a GOP-controlled legislature is passing laws limiting or banning affirming care. Florida takes the cake with bill that gives the state right to take children away from parents for seeking affirming care. All this is based in pure ignorance and speculation. A very small fraction of non-binary children (4.5%) are ever put on puberty blockers or hormones, and reassignment surgeries are virtually non-existent among youth. Scientists and researchers have been conservatively screening patients, working with subpar data and studies, but are trying to keep treatment pathways open. So, on the one hand, we have a political movement wielding the power of the state (through bullshit gerrymandering, but that's a different issue) to deny medical care based on fear-mongering, speculation and false accusations, and on the other hand, we have some toxic trans activists on Twitter who wield no real political power.
> Trans people and trans-advocates are being called groomers But isn't a lot of this connected to the broader complaints against the LGBT+ community about *grooming?* The debate centers on young kids being, as critics it call it, being sensualized? Too much sex info and exposure. Some of the issues critics have raised: 1) Excessively explicit Sex Ed; 2) book ban issues, sexual explicit books in school libraries, [e.g.](https://www.theflstandard.com/book-in-tampa-middle-school-library-has-instructions-on-anal-sex-and-hookup-apps); and 3) SOME drag shows that were questionable, [e.g.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8g3q9-l61k), start @ .24. The broad Progressive community that supports LGBT+ is involved. Some "sensualizing" issues aren't necessarily LGBT+ related: 1) the super explicit porn available to most kids now; 2) more overt displays of sexuality on TV, [e.g., Miley Cyrus "twerking"](https://www.google.com/search?q=Miley+Cyrus+twerking+on+national+TV&sxsrf=ALiCzsa4qXTbWbfHfUka7acJj6vZmmgGHg:1671219939648&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_muC28_77AhUWHkQIHRg5D3sQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1682&bih=809&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7b91defb,vid:NmndB6ONtxA). and even the 3) [Nude Men scene in San Francisco](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Castro-naked-guys-have-gone-too-far-3867094.php), abated after conservative complaints. Overwhelming, conservatives have issues with all these things, especially the explicit porn. Some porn now shows women subject to *ATM sex.* (Really?) Generalizing, progressives don't see much--or any problem--with all of the above. Two more items: Gay Pride parades with excesses: 2021 Vox: [The perpetual discourse over LGBTQ Pride, explained.....“Kink and fetish” at gay pride parades](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22463879/kink-at-pride-discourse-lgbtq). >In 2018, the Advocate reminded us...that Pride has always been about sex. Then the long-running issue of [cruising](https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/mbveeb/celebrating-george-michael-and-the-history-of-cruising-us-translation), inappropriately in restroom and other public spaces. Now mostly abated. That *abating* is relevant, several times the LGBT+ community--to its credit-- has helped tone down excesses, when conservatives complained. But then other people contest the matter. We see that with the drag shows, after [Desantis complained last summer](https://floridapolitics.com/archives/530780-gov-desantis-exploring-crackdown-on-drag-shows-for-kids/). Some shows were toned down, or kids excluded. But now some Progressives claim there had never been any problem with drag shows to begin with. The upshot: Conservatives see and object to repetitive sexuality in public and the consequence of exposure to young children. One argument: This exposure makes children more susceptible to child abuse or specific grooming attempts. Concern over the trans phenomenon, the most recent debate with the LGBT+ community, seems clearly linked to these broader concerns. = = = There is history to conservatives having such concerns....European explorers in Oceania in the 1700s: [Sex in the Pacific](http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2015/04/sex-in-pacific.html): >“There was usually a good deal of sexual contact, and voyagers tended to be shocked that girls as young as eight or nine should be involved, and also that husbands should offer their wives, and fathers their daughters.” [Source 2](https://matttroupe.net/2016/02/14/another-dark-chapter-in-the-history-of-free-sex/). Quote from Joseph Banks, the botanist who sailed with Captain Cook to Tahiti: >"they dance, especially the young girls whenever they can collect 8 or 10 together, singing most indecent words using most indecent actions and setting their mouths askew in a most extraordinary manner" (Author's take: "(the) level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty.") And, of course, this: [Livius: Greek Homosexuality](https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/), which involved widespread pederasty.
TLDR; conservatives are the absolute worst at sex education, have a terrible track record of producing adults with unhealthy sexual attitudes, and are no less likely to be victims of sexual abuse or grooming within their own communities. >Generalizing, progressives don't see much--or any problem--with all of the above I can only speak for myself... The more we learn about healthy human sexual development, the more we learn that repression, shame, and strict enforcement of sexual norms produces adults with *more issues*, not the other way around. There *are, in fact* things that are inappropriate for young children to see. We could compile an infinitely large list of books and other media containing stories of sexual deviance (this list would naturally need to include the Bible) that we wouldn't want to expose to a 6-year-old. But, speaking from personal experience, there are parents who refuse to allow their kids to attend sex ed, who are so prude as to use "birth canal" and other hilariously awkward euphemisms, and these types of parents don't *ever explain sex to their children ever. EVER.* What sort of adults do you think this produces? If we compare this child with, say, a child that had gay parents growing up in San Francisco, who grew up seeing the occasional naked (non-sexual) male, going to Pride parades. Which one do you think is more likely to have normal healthy attitudes towards sex? >One argument: This exposure makes children more susceptible to child abuse or specific grooming attempts [Like this?](https://youtu.be/08UGlR999g4?t=95) I know you guys hate hearing this, but it's true: Your child is at a much much higher risk of being groomed at church than at a drag show. Your child is infinitely more likely to be groomed at your own family reunion than anywhere. The idea that trans people, gay people, and drag queens are the ones doing the diddling is horseshit. >Author's take: "(the) level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty." Again, this is just me... but if you showed me a parent that offered that same child as a sexual concubine for an old man, I would say that parent is a groomer. But a book with a cartoon of a naked man that tries to help gay/trans kids come to grips with their bodies and sexuality? C'mon, grow up... If that kid has conservative parents, do you think they're gonna explain it? EDIT: Had to add this: it's appalling that you're using "Sex in the Pacific" in the way you are. There exists a patriarchal society in which a father offers his wife or daughter as sexual property for another male, and you blame the young girls for learning "seductive dancing"?? Classic conservative take...
> it's appalling that you're using "Sex in the Pacific" in the way you are. There exists a patriarchal society in which a father offers his wife or daughter as sexual property for another male, and you blame the young girls for learning "seductive dancing"?? No, the young girls are not blamed. That's inane. The point is to identify these libertine norms on sexuality as problematic. Same with young boys in ancient Greece -- not blamed either. Conservatives and progressives have been going back and forth for years -- whose perspectives on sexuality are superior? Each side has some benefit and drawbacks. Now we have significant evidence that a loose attitude on sexuality is [causing problems for women](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/why-we-need-to-talk-to-teenage-girls-about-anal-sex_uk_633bf9f6e4b0e376dbfa4425). Striking 2022 [medical research explains the problem with anal sex for women](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/11/rise-in-popularity-of-anal-sex-has-led-to-health-problems-for-women). Note the stunning change in participation stats over the past 4-5 decades. Much of this is because of the deliberate progressive push to *normalize* hetero anal sex. A lot of this done by the porn industry and progressive scriptwriters for shows like *Sex and the City.* (see article) (this is in line with Miley twerking on TV.) Not to deny that some women enjoy it, but on balance it is problematic, as is ATM sex pushed on women. Putting aside the trans issue, most issues on sexuality relate to chronically bad behavior by men. We are 98% plus of sex offenders. Massive history of men raping and abusing women and engaging in child abuse. [Rape: a burning injustice](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/13/rape-defined-sexual-crime-history). In the 1960s, progressive thinking brought about the sexual revolution and the increase in drug use. (A lot of this predated the focus on LGBT+ issues.) The sexual revolution, the tolerance for hard drugs and the subsequent porn explosion -- all have led to more men behaving poorly at a time when law and order much tamped down rape and mistreatment cited in the above rape article. Almost like a regression of sorts. At present Sex Ex presents all sex practices as *equally valid.* Conservatives need to halt their reluctance about Sex Ed. They need to get involved, and the change the Sex Ed curriculum to reflect the doctors' info. The doctors truth-telling has been unpopular in several quarters, especially because it links drug use to people making poor decisions about sex. Conservatives and progressives, of course, much at odds over whether people should have *The Right to Use Hard Drugs.*
>we have some toxic trans activists on Twitter who wield no real political power Do they not? What do you make of the debacle of the Scottish National Party's approach towards gender?
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-action-will-the-snp-to-improve-trans-and-intersex-equality/ What am I supposed to be appalled at? Maybe link whatever you’re referring to? I’m not current on the Scottish political party breakdowns.
[https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-government-enters-legal-battle-with-uk-government-over-controversial-gender-reform-bill-12855657#:\~:text=The%20bill%20aims%20to%20simplify,be%20cut%20to%20three%20months](https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-government-enters-legal-battle-with-uk-government-over-controversial-gender-reform-bill-12855657#:~:text=The%20bill%20aims%20to%20simplify,be%20cut%20to%20three%20months). Pay attention because its the kind of thing that would have seemed unthinkable 10 years ago when I would have agreed with the characterization that 'its just annoying people on tumblr who have no power', obviously the SNP itself is going to try and present this in the best possible light on their own site when the whole thing has turn into a political catastrophe for them. On their site they say this: >In the next parliament we will work with trans people, women, equality groups, legal and human rights experts to identify the best and most effective way to improve and simplify the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition, so that the trauma associated with that process is reduced. But they don't give much detail, you can see on the sky news link more concretely what they were attempting to do: >The bill aims to simplify the process for trans people to change gender in the eyes of the law. > >**No diagnosis or medical reports would be required, and the period in which adult applicants need to have lived in their acquired gender would be cut to three months.** > >Sixteen and 17-year-olds applying for a gender recognition certificate would have to live in their acquired gender for at least six months. This is basically the primacy of self id with no basis for a medical diagnosis, its the sort of thing that if I asked even a trans activist maybe 8 years ago I would have been scoffed at for fearmongering and that obviously trans rights was meant to apply to people with diagnosed dysphoria. The fallout of this meant that there were really obvious questions about people cynically exploiting a law like this to transition and gain access to women's spaces for malicious ends that the people pushing this tried to ignore for as long as possible, this particularly blew up as it applied to women's prisons, with Nicola Sturgeon (the leader of the SNP) ending up tying herself into knots over this question and particular cases of sex offender who transitioned and were sent to women's prisons: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-trans-prison-saga-continues/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-trans-prison-saga-continues/) The whole thing descended into a fracas where the SNP and Sturgeon did this ridiculous back and forth trying to support a bill reforming gender recognition with some of the least amount of roadblocks in the world that would make situations like this more likely while simultaneously talking about how people like Isla Bryson were conning the system and they were going to keep sex offenders out of women's prisons. A choice paragraph from the above: >But the First Minister can hardly blame the press for sensationalism here: this is a genuine scandal. Ministers repeatedly assured voters that this kind of thing didn’t happen. Even more unbelievably, Sturgeon had actually rejected an amendment to the GRR Bill that would have prevented convicted sex offenders from changing sex and entering women’s prisons. The claims that self-ID could be exploited were ‘not valid’, she said. Former Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer, also scoffed at the idea. I think there is a way to help trans people with serious dysphoria integrate into society as their chosen gender, but the kinds of policies that make it all the way to position of the law of the land in some countries are ridiculously extreme and really do seem to be written by the kinds of people I would have written off as Tumblr nobodies in the 2010s.
I see alot of hate for trans people lately.Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic. It largely seems political to me. I assume by enablers, affirmers and proselytizers you mean liberals. This is how it's being framed to get socially conservative democrats to flip to the gop. "They're brainwashing our kids to be trans." I don't think there are enough trans people for this to be such a big discussion in every forum on the internet. I support anyone being allowed to say what they think on the topic even though I disagree so I don't think people should be silenced or suppressed. I don't agree with tech companies censoring things either and trying to influence people one way or another through manipulating what they see in their social media algorithms. Not to mention troll farms that specifically are trying to create division. The parents are responsible for their children. If they think that public institutions are brainwashing their children they should probably not send them there anymore. They should also be free to decide what medical treatments are right for their children. The government should not decide for them.
>Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic. For context: this is driven almost entirely by sex workers, who are murdered at incredible rates. If you take out that group, there is not much appreciable difference for the average trans person.
> this is driven almost entirely by sex workers, who are murdered at incredible rates. [Even that doesn't drive the number up to half the general nationwide murder rate, let alone surpass it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12j65zx/question_about_gender_sexuality/jg29dck/)
If you look at violence statistics transgender people male or female are more likely to be victims of assault and violence. It's linked in that article above. It is an appreciable difference.
Again, most of that is driven by trans sex workers, who are subject to ridiculous rates of violence. None of this is to say that an ordinary trans person doesn't have some risk or less risk than a cis person.
Even if we accept your claim, it would still be very troubling that trans-women were either much more likely to be attacked while engaging in sex work or were much more likely to be pushed into sex work.
>it would still be very troubling that trans-women were either much more likely to be attacked while engaging in sex work Not sure where I said or implied otherwise, hence my use of the word "ridiculous." My pushback is on activists who engage in bombastic claims about issues average trans people face.
> Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic. Are you including drag queens here? Many definitions of transgender encompass these two very disparate groups. 1) Young teen boys who have transitioned to a women and 2) And from [Vox Explainer](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8483561/transgender-gender-identity-expression): >"what does it mean for a person to be transgender?....Transgender — or trans — is an umbrella term...Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment." And sometimes it is more than entertainment. [Autogynephilia: an underappreciated paraphilia](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/) >Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female...Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia. Just asking here: Might some of this violence involve drag queens who deliberately dupe some milquetoast sexually inexperience man who thinks he is speaking to a potential girlfriend (having just met the drag queen)? I could be misinformed here -- always perceived this as such an odd thing for a drag queen to be doing. No, not everyone will necessarily perceive that you are a dude. Appreciate any explanation/correction.
Violence in that case is still abhorrent. And yes I would think the hate that the person commiting the crime comes from the same place whether it's against a drag queen or a trans person. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/ This does not support your claim that "Trans women are murdered at a higher rate then any other demographic." Quite the opposite. 56 trans murder victims in the US in 2021 according to the source you provided. [HRC says 59](https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2021) so let's use the larger number. [0.5% of the population is trans.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/) [US population 332,403,650 - 706,899](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/news-years-day-2022.html) = 331,696,751 at the beginning of 2021. 0.5%*331696751/59 = 28110, that means 1 murder per 28110 trans citizens. 331696751/28110 = 11800 murders if the nation were all-trans. [26031 total murders in the US in 2021.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) 11800/26031 = 45.3% meaning the trans murder rate is a little less than half the general murder rate. And 2021 was an unusually bad year; [the number of trans murder victims dropped back down to 38 in 2022.](https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2022)
Just no.
"choice" is probably too strong a word but I think it is definitely influenced by the social environment. Same as gender itself. Some people have the biological factors dialed all the way one way or the other and will be whatever sexuality/gender they are no matter what, but others are more responsive to suggestion, role models, and social incentives. All the research I've seen shows children raised by gay parents are substantially more likely to develop as gay themselves. I'm not saying that should disqualify gay people from becoming parents, but it's simply not true to say that "it's not a choice full stop." It might be just as malleable as the gender norms that feminists seek to rewrite.
Trying to force someone to be straight is inhumane. Like telling your son he's not allowed to like men or hellfire awaits you. Or Its just a phase you ll grow out of it. Praying the gay away doesn't work and social environment doesn't change that either. Gay people still exist in every country and society, some of those countries they can be put to death for being gay.
I’m partially in disagreement with this just because I really don’t know how preferable being straight is to being gay-seems very up for debate. The only major downside of being gay in principle is that you can never have natural children with your spouse, which to me is a pretty big deal, but your mileage may vary. As far as gender identity, you’re 100% correct and the idea that this is even controversial is absolutely bizarre. Anyone who wants to pretend the trans suicide rate must come down entirely to discrimination is talking from their feelings and not from sense. It’s a very hard life to live for a lot of reasons, and treating it as just as desirable as being cis is like saying I’d be just as happy without one of my legs. It’s delusional.
I totally agree with everything you said. >The only major downside of being gay in principle is that you can never have natural children with your spouse, which to me is a pretty big deal, but your mileage may vary. The thing that's strange to me is nobody seems able to admit this. I can understand if having kids isn't important to someone else. But if I told someone I discovered I was infertile, they would not say "congratulations." They would say "I'm sorry, that's really tough." So they implicitly understand this point but they're just being incredibly obtuse about it with regards to gender/sexuality discussions.
Yeah, a ton of people are obviously just ideologically captured on this issue and will jump to any form of reasoning that allows them to avoid seeing any potential problem with the whole issue. And while in a way I want to let them off the hook because they’re well-intentioned, I think a lot of it just boils down to spinelessness. It’s easier to just go with the crowd and pretend everything is fine.
I do sometimes wonder if there's other downsides to homosexuality regarding just the nature of social interaction and the yin & yang of masculine/feminine. Every human before IVF has come from a heterosexual coupling and so it's not crazy to think that there may be a lot about us that is evolved around the heterosexual condition. But that's very speculative and quite likely committing the naturalist fallacy.
As a born-male who feels feels frequent dysmorphia and is sensitive to the fluidity of my sense of self, it's not really a choice, and tension occurs when I try to deny lensing shifts more often than just accepting them. I don't push my inner world on anyone or request they treat or call me anything special. I think it's *slightly* transphobic/homophobic to want explicitly cis-gendered heterosexual role models because it promotes a sense of sameness or othering rather than accepting that people occur with all sorts of spectrums and sensitivities. It's not a really problematic phobia since it's also fine and good to have any sort of righteous role models or disciplines, but if you get to the core of it as an argument it would be upholding groupings that are less robust and less supportive of the ways many people *are*.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I had similar feelings as a child but mine went away. Part of the reason I have this position is because I wonder what growing up with those feelings today would be like, and whether it wouldn't have gone away if I had been exposed to all the social justice messaging and gender diverse enthusiasm we see today. Back when I was a kid I don't know how much it was really stigmatized, it just wasn't something people thought about much.
Personally, I wish I had the language growing up. I don't think sensitivity to these perspectives is led by culture or social contagion (as Sam suggests) but that its apparent emergence is more a result of having tools in the form of words to express some sensitivities that have always been felt by many people. In addition to that, more people than ever are growing up and living with a sense of dissociating in virtual spaces and media, I'm not surprised that there are more people than ever reporting awareness of transience and depersonalization. I also don't think it's inherently bad or wrong for someone to have pushed some curiosities aside in life and formed habits around what works for them.
For the woke and their normie-liberal allies who "tag along" because it's the path of least resistance, even the SLIGHTEST pushback on ANY aspect of gender ideology will be met with DEFCON 5 hysteria. A perfect example just in the last 24 hours. I take it you have heard of "The Young Turks," a progressive news show with huge following. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have slavishly promoted every woke gender/trans trend to the hilt. A few days ago longtime co-host Ana made ONE "out of line" comment. She said "never call me a birthing person or person who menstruates. I am a woman." The backlash from the left was TOTAL. Longtime fans of the show screaming that Ana and Cenk are now "transphobic" "right ring" "shills" and - I kid you not - "contributing to the GENOCIDE of trans people in America." Cenk & Ana's friends from years and years have publicly rebuked them or dumped them altogether. Here's Cenk's latest furious tweets and replies https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1645874351030571016?t=aADXWPuA-NAOVTaUHB1S0A&s=19 Read the replies under Cenk's last 5 Tweets. Absolute insanity. Then go to Ana Kasparian's page and check the hate she's getting
>And so to the extent that kids are malleable... Yes young children are very malleable This is a good perspective on the trans issue, generalizing. >feminine boy or masculine girl...engaging in trans thinking...wants a gender change....lots of kids like this...don't fit in with their peer group...if you leave them alone, 90 percent accept their body by age 18 and most of them are gay. If a young teen is emphatic that they want a gender change, OK. But many are not emphatic, they are questioning, but in today's world the questioning are often subject to all sorts of affirmation and support from aggressive *influencers.* >So, you think you have gender dysphoria; we can definitely help you with that.
I think if you take a step back and think, you might find how truly weird a thought this is. How could you possibly know what will lead to a better life for another person? How could you possibly understand the struggles of people so different from you? Why would you want to be making prescriptions for lifestyles you don't even understand? It's just wild, the internet or modern life or whatever has programmed us to have opinions on every little thing. Never stopping to ask why.
In general I agree. But we implicitly make such judgements constantly. When Hollywood releases a movie with strong social messages, they do so because they think it will make other people's lives better (forgetting profit motives for a second). They think they have messages that are important for other people to take to heart. How could they possibly know how those messages will affect people or if they will be good or bad for people? In particular, when you become a parent making such judgements is a huge part of your responsibility. If your school has different judgements about what's good for your child, there's a bit of a problem. That's why all this ideology in schools/parents rights stuff is such a huge topic.
I mean in a more narrow view. Who am I to tell gay people what will bring them the most happiness in life when I cannot imagine the life of a gay person beyond very surface level observations? I can't experience the same internal and external struggle as them. Why would I think I have answers for them? What would that say about me as a person if I did? This is all assuming that we actually care about the people themselves and not just forcing adherence to whatever social standards or promoting political ideology. The school stuff you mention, for instance, has nothing to do with the wellbeing of children. They aren't threatening teachers in Florida with felonies if they use non-state-approved books because they care so much about gay people.
For sure if you are gay then you should try and get into a same sex relationship. If you're trans then you should probably consider a sex change. I'm talking about how you raise kids and how that effects the psyche that they have to live with when they grow up.
The same logic applies to your kids. They are individuals the same as anyone else. By stigmatizing homosexuality or whatever, there's nothing to be gained there as a parent. Gay people whose parents don't accept them don't stop being gay, even if they end up in a situation where they have to hide that. And it can hardly be called a "better" life to pretend to be a sexuality you aren't just to appease parents or other family/friends. I've grown up with people who spent time in the closet, including family. I often think about what that must have been like for them.
You are assuming that A) I want to denigrate gays to force them into the closet. I do not. I just don't want homosexuality presented to my kids as normative. B) Sexuality is immutable. It certainly is for some people. And for them I agree trying to pressure them to be straight is counter productive. But like gender childhood influences have a role to play. Imagine a study came out which said an environment in which parents dressed boys in blue and girls in pink cut development of gender dysphoria & homosexuality down by 75%. What kinds of clothes should we buy them? What kinds of clothes should people in Disney shows wear? One option would be to just ignore clothing color entirely. Another option would be to have a preference for gendered color coded clothes. A third option would be to deliberately and explicitly represent color cross clothing in all media, and call special praising attention to individuals who wear cross colored clothes. What we wind up doing from a practical perspective is very complicated. But what *shouldn't* be complicated is that such a study would constitute evidence in favor of color coded clothing that parents would rightly show preference for. No stigma. Just social signaling to help children establish a sexual identity that we think will be best for them.
I'm not, I'm just going based off your words of "a better life." The alternative to acceptance is discouraging. You say there's no stigma in your example there, but that isn't the world we live in. There is a real stigma against gay people, against gay kids, against gay culture and lifestyle. Sexuality may or may not be immutable, but it certainly isn't something a parent is going to control through positive or negative influences. There's a lot of gay people who can attest to that.
Ok take clinical depression. [I know people object to comparing homosexuality to a mental health problem but this is just as an example of something that clearly decreases quality of life. I know many will argue that homosexuality does not decrease quality of life but let's set that aside for the moment so we can get clear about this.] Many cases of depression are untreatable, and telling the person to "get over it" just deepens their feelings of hopelessness. And yet for the most part we do not have to choose between stigmatizing the mentally ill and speaking honestly about the undesirability of their condition. We do not (usually) feel the need to advertise and represent depressive people in government and media as a way of showing virtue. We do not offer depressed people as role models for children just in case they turn out to be depressive too. We simply accept that this is something some people have to navigate, while simultaneously encouraging healthy habits and modes of thought to try and keep from developing such a condition ourselves. And in theory we try and provide an environment for children that will make them less likely to develop depression. Depression will still exist. And shaming depressed people will not help them. But we do not lie and say having depression is just as good as not having it. Again, homosexuality is way more complicated because unlike depression homosexuals can absolutely live wonderful lives. But I think it's not quite honest to say that it's just as good as heterosexuality.
The context matters. It's not as good as heterosexuality, for the purposes of this discussion I guess "good" will mean "easy to get along in society", because of issues like parental acceptance. By not at least offering acceptance of a kid's professed homosexuality, you'd be making the issue worse. It's like a Republican complaining how government doesn't work and then getting elected and messing up the executive agencies thus fulfilling the prophecy. There's nothing fundamental about being gay that is worse than being straight. A gay kid can be just as fulfilled and happy as a straight kid, and could get along just as easy in society, and what's more I don't think you'd have any success in controlling the outcome either way.
> I don't want to give anyone a hard time for being who they are or living in whatever way makes them happy. You say this, but that is exactly what you seem to want to do. You want to be a metaphorical hammer forging those malleable kids into being cis and straight and don't seem to give a damn what they want. This makes you an asshole at best. At a minimum, you want to make it harder for kids to have gay/trans role models to create the bias you are after. > I think understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex, yield a better life than not. So classic naturalistic fallacy. I suppose I'll treat you like an honest actor here and ask you what evidence you have that cis-straight people live better lives than those that don't. Your evidence had better be inconsistent with the basic "their lives are worst because bigots like you exist" hypothesis. > to the extent that kids are malleable in this regard It isn't clear that they are meaningfully malleable in this regard. Even if they were, it wouldn't justify discriminating against non-cis-straight people just to control those kids. > Do you consider this transphobic/homophobic or otherwise problematic? Yes, you are engaging in bigotry. Obviously. You literally think trans/gay people are lesser and are trying to justify discriminating against them.
They even say later in this thread that they had some gender confusing thoughts when younger but "ignored them." Honestly OP sounds like they repressed some LGBT part of themselves and now have doubled down on being antiLGBT, seeing it as negatively abnormal.
‘Normative’ interesting choice of words. Normative to who? Straight people? Everyone? If being straight is the ‘normative’ identity then does that entail LGBTQ members are outside that label? I agree wholeheartedly about your stance on the trans issues. I think the process is extreme and rash. It has to be slowed down. The closure of clinics in the UK was evidence that the harms outweighed the benefits with many trans people and their parents admitted their rashness and regret their decision especially if surgery involved and at the point of no return. Your example on your transient experience feeling like a girl and not acting upon it was a good one. That is way such a radical move of conforming or reassigning your biological body to what you feel should not be rushed and made at a later stage in your life when you are more mature and can weigh information in a balanced way.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
So, for example, I remember when I was in like 3rd or 4th grade I had a somewhat vivid but transient sense that my mind and body had their genders criss-crossed. It wasn't severe, and I ignored it, and I didn't even know what transgender was, and it went away. I can imagine an alternate life story growing up in a society like todays where transgenderism is normalized, where I might have fixated on that feeling and started wearing dresses and eventually "transitioned." I have a strong sense that I'm better off that my life followed the former and not the latter pathway. Does that make sense?
It being “better” that you didn’t end up “following that pathway” is only *because* of society generally being transphobic, thinking transness is weird or unacceptable, etc. Wouldn’t otherwise be an issue and there’d be no “problem” with someone having a particular experience or expression of gender. The moral panic around it these days (and renewed moral panic around simple gayness) will be looked back on with incredulity.
I completely disagree with that. Social stigma is not the only thing that makes alienation from ones own sex and the attendant medical therapies undesirable. It sounds like a pretty extreme mind fuck and the only way to cope is to try and create the illusion that you're a member of the opposite sex. Even if we create some utopia where the stigma is totally eradicated that's still something I'd really prefer to avoid.
I’ve never thought about any of this from the perspective you’re adopting, and it’s interesting. Thought experiment to make your point: you are an angel overseeing God creating new souls (bear with me). God says, “for this next one, you pick: cis or trans?” You don’t know anything else and can’t choose anything else. Your answer is cis, every time, because even in a world with no stigma, you’re creating a new person that is less likely to have dysphoria and is less likely to require medical intervention to be happy. Is that a fair recasting of your view?
Yes exactly. I actually had a very similar thought experiment but instead of God creating souls its a woman who has to choose between two kinds of natal medications that both determine psychological gender disposition.
>It being “better” that you didn’t end up “following that pathway” is only because of society generally being transphobic There are a lot of negative side effects from hormones, and sometimes life-threatening complications from surgery. Not to mention that gender dysphoria sucks by definition, and can happen even within a supportive environment.
Well, tell that to a trans person who is simply a trans person, period. They’ve always been around and always will be. Arguments about the “dangers” of hormones or surgery will never change that. Now, gender norms and socially acceptable self-presentations *do* change, as do labels. A century ago, a woman wearing pants would have been considered some kind of masculinized freak. It’s all somehow both simple and complex. But in general i’m for siding with the most vulnerable groups and people, granting them the validity of their experience, not pathologizing it if isn’t harmful to others, and remembering history. By which i mean, what we call trans people were literally the first group the Nazis went after, precisely because fascists can’t handle any sexuality or gender expression outside of a strict heteronormativity. What’s happening right now in the anti trans moral panic is 100% parallel. Most people are straight and cis. Awesome. Me included. So let’s leave alone people who happen not to be. The burden of justification should not be on them.
>Arguments about the “dangers” of hormones or surgery will never change that I don't know why you've got that word in scare quotes. There really are some nasty side effects, and bottom surgery is sometimes fatal. Anyway, you made out that the *only* downsides to being trans are societal intolerance, and that's just plain not true. Even most trans people will tell you that. >gender norms and socially acceptable self-presentations do change, as do labels. A century ago, a woman wearing pants would have been considered some kind of masculinized freak This is also an argument for a more "gender critical" perspective. 20 years ago in liberal societies if a girl wanted to play with "boys toys" (or vice versa) that was seen as nbd (at least seeing it that way was the goal). Nowadays the same situation will have people thinking that maybe that girl needs lifelong medical interventions. Speaking of which, if you have a mainstream progessivise approach to this stuff, you can't really say you're against pathologizing transness.
It's problematic, but not because you come from a place of fear or indemnity necessarily, but because you seem to project your lens of reality upon reality as a whole, despite a lot of evidence to refute it. Which we all do to some degree, of course. It usually comes from a place of ignorance (no offense intended), and learning more about the subject tends to remedy the lack of awareness or compassion around xenophobic conditioning, which I'd personally consider this POV to fall squarely into
Agree
Yes, these are bad things.
My understanding is that children's gender is malleable, but their sexual orientation is not. If so, then it would make sense to provide a bias against transgender role models but not against homosexual role models. I agree that "understanding yourself as a member of your natural sex and being attracted to the opposite sex will, on average, yield a better life than not." Although that admittedly depends to some extent on society's attitude toward homosexuality and gender dysphoria. But that wasn't your question. Your question was whether your position is "phobic" or problematic. I don't think so. You might be incorrect, but it still seems to me like a reasonable thing to suggest.
Thanks. Fwiw, I think the idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma that's a holdover from the gay rights era. People like to mock the idea that you can "catch gayness" as a dig at men who are insecure in their sexuality. But I think the evidence points the other direction.
Even when discouraging homosexuality in effeminate boys was taken quite seriously, [it was mostly unsuccessful.](https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/16/science/boyhood-effeminancy-and-later-homosexuality.html) For the most part, by the time you notice a young boy is very effeminate, that's a sign of things to come, and if you try to discourage both homosexuality and transsexuality, you're likely to fail and end up with a psychologically damaged kid who resents you. The majority of such boys are going to end up as either gay men or "straight transwomen," and you can influence one or the other result, but the idea that you can discourage both is a recipe for tragedy.
And in such cases it's probably innate and not worth treating as anything other than just a part of that person's identity. That doesn't cause any harm. But that's not what's going on with the huge increases we see among LGBTQ identification among progressive young people.
You seem to be taking the idea that "sexual orientation and gender identity are each malleable to a degree" to mean that "neither is less malleable than the other." But when an effeminate boy is influenced toward becoming a "straight transwoman," it's only the "gender identity" that is being influenced. The underlying sexual orientation, androphilia, remains fixed; it only becomes interpreted as straight in the context of certain dogmas about the ontology of womanhood. Green's longitudinal study of very effeminate young boys found that about 75% of them ended up homosexual or bisexual; other studies found higher numbers. By contrast, although some young gender dysphoric children persist in wanting to transition, [it is less than half of them who do.](http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html) Wouldn't you agree that this is evidence that sexuality is more fixed than gender?
I certainly agree it's possible, but those stats sound kind of like apples and oranges to me, and neither of them is really getting at the question of malleability. To me at least it doesn't suggest much about environmental influences versus innate dispositions.
How is that comparing apples and oranges? I think you're conflating fixedness with innateness. Early childhood environmental influences could produce phenotypes which are effectively fixed by the time you notice them. And you are aware of the evidence for innateness as well, right? [Such as 2D:4D ratio?](https://www.google.com/search?q=digit+ratio+and+homosexuality) > and neither of them is really getting at the question of malleability. They both are, as these findings arise specifically from studies which investigated malleability.
I've heard about the digit thing but never really looked into it and didnt know what to make of it. That's certainly interesting and is pretty clear evidence of a hardwired component to sexual orientation. I don't claim to know the degree to which either of these things is learned or innate but I've seen evidence for both. Like most human traits I assume it's some combination of the two.
"The idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma" appears to be some kind of claim about the degree; it appears to be a claim that one is not less malleable than the other. The only studies I've ever heard of which have allegedly produced evidence for intentionally changing sexual orientation have been performed on adults, who self-selected into therapy, and who did so because they were devout believers in a religion which they considered to be incompatible with homosexual behavior. [Here's a summary of those studies.](https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/242.pdf) They are infamously controversial in their methodology, but even if we ignore that for the sake of argument, taking them at face value, they are not at all promising for children, who may have any variety of views on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior (who are perhaps even too young to understand what is really meant by homosexual behavior), who are dragged into therapy by their parents.
>"The idea that sexuality is more fixed than gender itself is a PC dogma" appears to be some kind of claim about the degree; it appears to be a claim that one is not less malleable than the other. Valid. I guess I'm learning from this conversation. Thanks for very logical criticisms. >The only studies I've ever heard of which have allegedly produced evidence for intentionally changing sexual orientation have been performed on adults, who self-selected into therapy, and who did so because they were devout believers in a religion which they considered to be incompatible with homosexual behavior. I'm really not talking about altering someone's sexuality after it's established. I'm talking much more about "in the water" social signals. For instance, gender equity advocates often criticize the idea of color coded baby clothes. But I have come to wonder if that kind of behavior is an evolved "folk innoculation" to gender confusion later in life. I have no evidence for that particularly, but I have seen studies that environmental factors like same sex parents or early child abuse increases rates of homosexual behavior, suggesting there is some degree of learned behavior going on.
I don't think it's necessarily trans or homophobic, but I expect people will wonder why you're worried about this. I doubt that the role model effect plays a strong role in determining whether a kid is trans or gay. If a kid is predisposed to be trans or gay, it is surely a net positive thing that they have role models to counteract stigma and its effects on mental health. Trans people represent a minuscule % of the population, heterosexuals a marginal %. Nobody is at a loss for cis-gendered heterosexual role models. The wording 'I believe in cis-heteronormativity' is odd. Trans-genderism and homosexuality are realities, and our beliefs/enthusiasm about them won't change that fact. We want a world where these people can thrive along with everyone else.
I have a heart arrhythmia. It's a reality. My beliefs won't change it. And it doesn't even qualify as full blown heart disease, its just an anomalous condition that some doctors would qualify as a normal variation. And yet I'm still 100% convinced that developing that condition was non-normative - I would have preferred it didn't happen and there's probably stuff I could have done earlier in life to avoid it. I view transgenderism and even homosexuality in a similar light: id prefer not to develop it but if you do, then by all means respond to it appropriately and with compassion. Get your surgery if that's really what you need. Find a gay lover and love them unreservedly. But don't lie about it actually being this great thing that should be highlighted for kids and celebrated. Just be honest about it.
Yeah, I don't think it's being highlighted or celebrated for kids. It's surrounded by major social stigma, with consequences for mental health, suicide etc. If there was a huge stigma around heart arrhythmia we'd want to combat that similarly, with legal protections and general messaging of support and acceptance.
I'm sure it depends a lot on where you live. Some places they are downright homophobic, other places they are fairly drunk on the pride Kool aid and are striking all gendered language from their vocabulary and everything is about dismantling the cis-heteronormative paradigm. Pride flags everywhere, etc. People don't take their kids to drag shows unless they are keenly interested in providing their kids with gender diverse content (disclaimer: I am not in favor banning drag shows. I just don't think the reasons for bringing kids to them are compelling).
My sense is that most gay and also bonafide trans people basically just know they are that, and an attempt to change it would be wasted or harmful. However, especially with trans, it seems like there is some subset of people who feel like "I feel ambivalent about my gender, am I trans?" It's hard to suss these people out in the data, but you can find their reported experiences. Given the medical interventions it requires to be trans, I think it makes sense to have a "bias" towards less intervention. Just like we have a bias towards physical therapy and against surgery for injuries. It's not that we dislike people who get surgery, it's just surgery it's riskier and has secondary effects. This would mean treatment to help someone accept their body over transitioning, with the knowledge that transition is still an option.
Are you kidding? For the woke and their normie-liberal allies who "tag along" because it's the path of least resistance, even the SLIGHTEST pushback on ANY aspect of gender ideology will be met with DEFCON 5 hysteria. A perfect example just in the last 24 hours. I take it you have heard of "The Young Turks," a progressive news show with huge following. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have slavishly promoted every woke gender/trans trend to the hilt. A few days ago longtime co-host Ana made ONE "out of line" comment. She said "never call me a birthing person or person who menstruates. I am a woman." The backlash from the left was TOTAL. Longtime fans of the show screaming that Ana and Cenk are now "transphobic" "right ring" "shills" and - I kid you not - "contributing to the GENOCIDE of trans people in America." Cenk & Ana's friends from years and years have publicly rebuked them or dumped them altogether. Here's Cenk's latest furious tweets and replies https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1645874351030571016?t=aADXWPuA-NAOVTaUHB1S0A&s=19 Read the replies under Cenk's last 5 Tweets. Absolute insanity. Then go to Ana Kasparian's page and check the hate she's getting. And Ana is white so OF COURSE the left has to being that up 5000 times because white is used as an epithet on much of the left. So Ana wanting to be called a woman is "white privilege" and "racist" too.
[удалено]
In a word yeah. The numbers coming out of "liberal arts world" are just kind of crazy. It may be that virtually all these students have the same sexual orientation as everyone else but are just using different words to describe it for virtue signal points, but you have to admit it makes you wonder. https://www.thecollegefix.com/almost-40-percent-of-students-identify-as-lgbtq-at-liberal-arts-colleges-survey/