LGBT Liberation and the Origin of Personal Sexuality

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the US it is vastly common for gays and allies to argue that sexuality is genetic (or at least unchangeable since birth). Do you believe this to be true or do you believe sexuality is based on other factors such as society or choice (conscious or subconscious)?

Why is the idea that sexuality is determined at birth so widespread?

I believe that it is not genetic or programed from birth since children go through many different periods of sexual exploration and in times when homosexuality was socially accepted, it was much more widespread.

I think the left should argue that it is a choice (again, mostly made subconsciously) that deserves the same rights as the choice of being heterosexual.

[Il Medico]

I don't think it is a choice. My friend (who is gay) is studying to be a psychologist, and is currently do research on a glad in the brain which may be the genetic link to being gay. In a heterosexual man this glad (I can't remember what he called it) is much larger then in a gay man. In women it is similar in size to gay men, while in lesbians it is larger like heterosexual men. He thinks (and I agree) that this would rationally explain why people are attracted to one sex or the other.
As for the assertion that there are more gay people when there is more acceptance faulty. There are more know cases of such, because social acceptance allows it. There is also during these times (like say Roman times) a large spread acceptance of bisexuality. Both Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are exclusive. Therefore, occurrences in the past probably just means that there was more practicing Bisexuals. Bisexuals are probably quite numerous, however, because of the social stigma they choose to only express one side of their sexuality.

EDIT: Here is a link to the above mentioned.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n9_v140/ai_11315232/

[which doctor]

It's really a non-issue. The question relies on the assumption that free will (choice) even exists, which is a questionable assumption at best and from a scientific perspective, a false one. The concept of free will is one that exists as a justification of our own individual consciousness. After all, do we really have any control over what we think? or which neurons are firing at what time?

I think the concept of sexuality being determined from birth is one that's become popular because it contradicts the belief espoused by many conservatives that sexuality is a choice, thus homosexuals can make the decision between the moral (heterosexual) or the immoral (homosexuality).

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess "choice" isn't the word... it's more the question of sexuality being inherent somehow or not.

In same-sex environments there is typically more homosexual activity than in co-ed environments and in general I think sexuality tends to be more fluid than something decided at birth. In fact, the whole concept of gay and straight and bi are kind of social concepts that have changed over time or existed in different forms.

I think you are right when you say that it's a popular concept because it provides the antitheses of the bigot's justification of LGBT oppression: that people "choose to be gay, so why not be straight and stop all this gaying about because somehow it really disturbs me".

However, it dosn't seem like a good place to fight for gay liberation from and frankly I think people put too much emphasis on genetics causing behavior and I don't think it's really scientifically backed up. Why must we counter the right-wing argument to justify gay rights? Shouldn't it be fought for on principle?

[Module]

It's probably partly determined by genetics, and partly by environmental factors. One couldn't even decide which is more important simply because there's not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
It's not a 'choice' in any sense of the word.

[Holden Caulfield]

Partly what Des said, partly 'who cares?'.
The sexuality of an individual doesn't affect anybody else, so it matters not if they were born that way or if they are just giving it a whirl because they are bored of hetrosexuality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's not a 'choice' in any sense of the word.

But is it inherent or not. I think everyone on this website agrees that it shouldn't matter either way, that gay rights must be defended and liberation must be achieved.

I just think it's a weak position to take to try and "prove" that sexuality is inherent just because the right says it isn't. It turns into a abstract debate like a debate with a pro-lifer about when fetus becomes a "real person".

Also why is being "born gay" a prerequisite for LGBT people to deserve rights and equality?

[Glenn Beck]

The poll is poorly worded. Just because homosexuality may be determined by societal/environmental factors rather than genetic ones does not necessarily make it a 'choice'. Even if a series of conditioned choices play a part in the formation of sexual identity this does not make it a 'choice' in the sense usually argued.

Anyhow, my personal view would be "both". Sexual attraction is surely instinctual but sexual identity is socially constructed and mediated. The way people play out their desires and often the desires themselves are shaped by society.

[pastradamus]

I voted since Birth. Though I largely find the Freudian Analysis of homosexuality a good theory I personally believe someone is born Homosexual and I've seen that in some people whom I grew up with.

[pastradamus]

Partly what Des said, partly 'who cares?'.
The sexuality of an individual doesn't affect anybody else, so it matters not if they were born that way or if they are just giving it a whirl because they are bored of hetrosexuality.

I understand your point Holden, Its a good one. Though I believe If we can understand where Homosexuality comes from on a scientific basis we move a step closer to destroying Homophobic spoutings from such idiots as Pat Robinson by scientifically crushing his debate, not that reasonable people take a blind bit of notice towards him anyway.

[EqualityandFreedom]

I understand your point Holden, Its a good one. Though I believe If we can understand where Homosexuality comes from on a scientific basis we move a step closer to destroying Homophobic spoutings from such idiots as Pat Robinson by scientifically crushing his debate, not that reasonable people take a blind bit of notice towards him anyway.

Although I would like to believe what you say I doubt it. For example a firm scientific understanding of evolutionary theory has not got rid of creationists, likewise I doubt that a firm scientific understanding of the origins of homosexuality is going stop bigots claiming it is a choice.

[Bitter Ashes]

Personaly, I hodl the belief that it's determined at birth by hormones in the womb. The finger-length test is shockingly accurate with gay men (although not so much with gay women, which I never understood!) and it's a lttile experiment you can do at home to find out what the hormone levels were like in the womb when you were still a fetus.

[pastradamus]

Although I would like to believe what you say I doubt it. For example a firm scientific understanding of evolutionary theory has not got rid of creationists, likewise I doubt that a firm scientific understanding of the origins of homosexuality is going stop bigots claiming it is a choice.

But its largely only Nutbag christian American's who go around playing down evolution. Even In European Christian schools the evolutionary theory is thought. Though I accept some exceptions largely its denied only in America and other religiously fundamental countries.

[Bitter Ashes]

But its largely only Nutbag christian American's who go around playing down evolution. Even In European Christian schools the evolutionary theory is thought. Though I accept some exceptions largely its denied only in America and other religiously fundamental countries.
I did have a science teacher who was a creationist actualy. The whole thing where it came up was actualy very funny:
"Today, I have to teach you about evolution. I dont agree with teaching you these lies, but the law is the law, but I'm going to quickly run through the truth first before we move onto the blasphemous lies of evolution"
We all thought he was bieng satirical and burst out in laughter. I mean, a bunch of 12 years in a class ROARING with laughter. When he tried to stop us from laughing and pointed out that he was bieng serious it made it even worse. Everything he did to shut us up just made us laugh even more. The whole class was kept back for detention that day, but it really was so funny at the time because we all knew about evolution years before that lesson and had already accepted it as fact. We just couldnt believe that our science teacher was sat there trying to seriously push superstition upon us. You've also got to bear in mind that there's not a strong religous prescense in the UK, so most of us really were not exposed to a "real life Christian" before that day.
A lot of parents complained about the detention afterwards, although from what I understand it's the opposite way around in the US, where it's seen as controversial to endorse evolution. I guess it comes down to cultures and customs bieng different between different places.

[Bitter Ashes]

And just to emphasise the point of how accepted evolution is in the UK:
http://www.entangledbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/darwin10poundsmaller.jpg

[-marx-]

Its not a fucking choice, anyone who says being gay is a choice doesn't know what the fuck they are on about. I never chose to be bi, my friends never choice to be gay, its just the way we are naturally inclined. Why would you choose hardship over an easy life? Its not easy being a member of the GLBT community, bigots are still rampant and I've been a victim of discrimination purely because of my sexuality on many occasions.
Tell me, if its such a choice, are you attracted to the same sex just from choosing to be? Of course not, that's just fucking ridiculous!

Its thoughts like this that give the religious bigots power and enable them to keep repressing and degrading us for our sexuality!

No GLBT person EVER chooses to be so, its perfectly natural and is genetic!

Sorry to be harsh but I'm sick and tired of people suggesting we all "chose" to be gay.

[Il Medico]

It is genetics. However, according to the Kinsey report only 4% of the population is a 0 or 6 (completely heterosexual or homosexual). Most people fall in between 1 and 5. Which are considered Bi. The vast majority of these seem to fall in on the straight leaning side. A large number of people fear their feelings for the same sex and thus deny it. The also oppress those who don't, Gay and Bi sexual people. I think the struggle should be one of not only fighting for Gay, Lesbian, and Bi rights, but also helping the rest of the 96% people come to grips with their own feelings. This will ultimately reduce prejudice and create a more understanding community for other sexualities, one more step toward a better world.:D
Love always,
Captain Jack

[Il Medico]

I did have a science teacher who was a creationist actualy. The whole thing where it came up was actualy very funny:
"Today, I have to teach you about evolution. I dont agree with teaching you these lies, but the law is the law, but I'm going to quickly run through the truth first before we move onto the blasphemous lies of evolution"
We all thought he was bieng satirical and burst out in laughter. I mean, a bunch of 12 years in a class ROARING with laughter. When he tried to stop us from laughing and pointed out that he was bieng serious it made it even worse. Everything he did to shut us up just made us laugh even more. The whole class was kept back for detention that day, but it really was so funny at the time because we all knew about evolution years before that lesson and had already accepted it as fact. We just couldnt believe that our science teacher was sat there trying to seriously push superstition upon us. You've also got to bear in mind that there's not a strong religous prescense in the UK, so most of us really were not exposed to a "real life Christian" before that day.
A lot of parents complained about the detention afterwards, although from what I understand it's the opposite way around in the US, where it's seen as controversial to endorse evolution. I guess it comes down to cultures and customs bieng different between different places.
Rational people in America don't question evolution. We learn it discuss and prove it over and over again. The common view of how evolution regarded in the US is one that is held only in certain regions. Mainly the mid west (the famous Kansas School Board case that spawned FSM) and the Deep South. In place like the north, west and north west, these misconceptions are not held. Also, in Florida and major cities in the south you would be laughed out of a job if you tried to tech creationism. However, I agree it is not as widely accepted here as in Europe. this is mainly because of the fundamentalist churches here. It is sad that this is still a debate in America. I mean even the Pope (John Paul II) said that evolution is right, but then again, in christianity, the Catholic church is one of the more liberal ones.

[Agrippa]

What about transexuals and hermaphrodites? You basically have to ignore them entirely in order to conclude that "queer" sexually is wholly social rather than biological.

[Jazzratt]

The question of homosexuality as a "choice" is mainly part of the right attempting to frame the debate in a way they like - it's easier, after all, to argue that behaviour one chooses to indulge in is morally reprehensible. Obviously though, even as a choice it would still be acceptable. It is, however, quite obviously not a matter of choice as anyone who has sat down and tried to be turned on by a gender they are just not attracted to will attest.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personaly, I hodl the belief that it's determined at birth by hormones in the womb. The finger-length test is shockingly accurate with gay men (although not so much with gay women, which I never understood!) and it's a lttile experiment you can do at home to find out what the hormone levels were like in the womb when you were still a fetus.

I'm looking at my fingers, but I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm looking at my fingers, but I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing.
It's supposed to be that if your index finger is longer than your middle finger then you were exposed to less testosterone in the womb, which has shown a trend in men bieng gay. What's your result? ^^

[Rjevan]

Hm, my index finger is smaller than my middle finger, so your "check" seems to be true for me. ;)

I personally think being gay is determined by your genes since birth but even if not and it is a choice, who cares? This doesn't change anything, I'm not against homophobia just because I think gay people were born this way and "can't help it" and as soon as it's official that it's a choice or determined by your social environment I won't become a homophobe asshole because I'm shocked about somebody deciding to be gay. It's their right, it doesn't make them inferior, so who cares if it's because of your genes or if it is a personal choice, everything that matters is that they are leading a happy life and are not forced to live a life after the ideas of some narrow minded, opressive idiots who are disturbed in their bourgeois and patriarchic views.

[Il Medico]

It's supposed to be that if your index finger is longer than your middle finger then you were exposed to less testosterone in the womb, which has shown a trend in men bieng gay. What's your result? ^^
Mine is longer then my index finger. But I don't really think that is valid. One, I am attracted to both sexes, although one more than the other. Two, most of the gay people I know, including a 6 on the Kinsey scale have longer middle fingers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's supposed to be that if your index finger is longer than your middle finger then you were exposed to less testosterone in the womb, which has shown a trend in men bieng gay. What's your result? ^^

My middle fingers are approximately 1.5cm longer than my indexes. I think I would be about a 2 on the Kinsey scale, but I see myself as bisexual.

[Il Medico]

My middle fingers are approximately 1.5cm longer than my indexes. I think I would be about a 2 on the Kinsey scale, but I see myself as bisexual.
Well 2 is bisexual. any thing from 1-5 is Bi. I am also a 2. I see myself as Bi (the straight leaning side though). I have never done anything with a man and I am more attracted women, but still Bi. Most people are Bi.

[Il Medico]

. I see myself as Bi .
Feels weird saying that. You guys are the first people to know, feel honored. :)

[-marx-]

It is genetics. However, according to the Kinsey report only 4% of the population is a 0 or 6 (completely heterosexual or homosexual). Most people fall in between 1 and 5. Which are considered Bi. The vast majority of these seem to fall in on the straight leaning side. A large number of people fear their feelings for the same sex and thus deny it. The also oppress those who don't, Gay and Bi sexual people. I think the struggle should be one of not only fighting for Gay, Lesbian, and Bi rights, but also helping the rest of the 96% people come to grips with their own feelings. This will ultimately reduce prejudice and create a more understanding community for other sexualities, one more step toward a better world.:D
Love always,
Captain Jack

Although bi, I haven't slept with a woman in years and I basically identify as being gay most of the time because that's the way I lean most of the time. I still find women very attractive but I get along better with other guys than I do girls.
I agree with you post though!:D

[Il Medico]

Although bi, I haven't slept with a woman in years and I basically identify as being gay most of the time because that's the way I lean most of the time. I still find women very attractive but I get along better with other guys than I do girls.
I agree with you post though!:D
Most guys get on with guys better. Women who have more guy like personality, are the ones I usually go for. As my friend Camille described herself and others like her, a guy-minded girl thing! :lol:

[Bitter Ashes]

oh wait wait. I got it wrong.
It's RING finger longer than your index finger, not middle finger longer than your index finger. Sorry sorry sorry.

[Il Medico]

oh wait wait. I got it wrong.
It's RING finger longer than your index finger, not middle finger longer than your index finger. Sorry sorry sorry.
My ring finger is slightly shorter. However, as I said above, though I am Bi, I prefer women. Thus it is invalidated still.

[-marx-]

Most guys get on with guys better. Women who have more guy like personality, are the ones I usually go for. As my friend Camille described herself and others like her, a guy-minded girl thing! :lol:
Yeah, I always liked the tomboy kinda girls.:D

[Jack]

Being gay/bi is perfectly natural, but "transgenders" I don't see in the same light. If I feel like a duck on the inside, does that mean I really am a duck? It's the same thing with transsexuals, you're born what you are and it needs to be accepted.

Most trans I've encountered have been emo/goth teenagers that look for attention, to be totally honest.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I used to think it was primarily genetic. I still hold that view, but I've become more skeptical lately. It seems like sexual attraction is just a way to get you aroused. You can also be aroused by the same sex simply by physical stimulation and other means. I'm not sure what sexual attraction is.

For instance, I can get aroused by the "thought" of pleasure. I am straight, but if I'm already aroused, I'd probably have sex with women I find to be sexuality "unattractive."

[EqualityandFreedom]

I used to think it was primarily genetic. I still hold that view, but I've become more skeptical lately. It seems like sexual attraction is just a way to get you aroused. You can also be aroused by the same sex simply by physical stimulation and other means. I'm not sure what sexual attraction is.

For instance, I can get aroused by the "thought" of pleasure. I am straight, but if I'm already aroused, I'd probably have sex with women I find to be sexuality "unattractive."

Sexual orientation is a lot more than simple sexual arousal but also includes aesthetic attraction and emotional attraction. For example there are some gay men who can have sex with a woman but could never have a relationship as the emotional attraction just isn't there.

[Bitter Ashes]

Being gay/bi is perfectly natural, but "transgenders" I don't see in the same light. If I feel like a duck on the inside, does that mean I really am a duck? It's the same thing with transsexuals, you're born what you are and it needs to be accepted.

Most trans I've encountered have been emo/goth teenagers that look for attention, to be totally honest.
Again, it may be hormones to blame. The theory is that all fetuses start female. They then recieve a testosterone shot at a certain point in development which brings about male physical characteristics. There's supposed to be another one after that which is to do with gender, but if that one is disrupted either naturaly, or through excessive drinking or something, then it'll leave the developing mind coded as female. It works the other way around with the female to male ones. i.e. they miss the 1st hormone shot, but get the second.

There was a study done on transsexual cadavars where the brains were dissected and it was found that male to female transsexuals actualy had brains that were physically more female in shape than male.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

oh wait wait. I got it wrong.
It's RING finger longer than your index finger, not middle finger longer than your index finger. Sorry sorry sorry.

Now that is interesting. My ring fingers are slightly longer than my indexes.

[Il Medico]

I used to think it was primarily genetic. I still hold that view, but I've become more skeptical lately. It seems like sexual attraction is just a way to get you aroused. You can also be aroused by the same sex simply by physical stimulation and other means. I'm not sure what sexual attraction is.

For instance, I can get aroused by the "thought" of pleasure. I am straight, but if I'm already aroused, I'd probably have sex with women I find to be sexuality "unattractive."
Most people as I have said before, are in some degree Bi. So if you feel some sexual arousal toward the same sex, then it is more than you just being horny. There are vary few completely straight men. You are probably a one. It is natural. However, I don't see how having sex with ugly women equates to having sex with a man, comparing apples and oranges.

[Bitter Ashes]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/

That's the article about the finger length thing, relating to the study done by Doctor Strangelove... I mean Doctor Breedlove (i couldnt resist it! XD). Intrestingly, my index finger is substantially shorter than my ring finger. ^^

[khad]

oh wait wait. I got it wrong.
It's RING finger longer than your index finger, not middle finger longer than your index finger. Sorry sorry sorry.
Isn't that an urban legend?

[blackstone]

Last research i read, and i think it was posted on the board, was that their is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Anyone have any more information regarding that?

[Jazzratt]

Being gay/bi is perfectly natural, but "transgenders" I don't see in the same light. If I feel like a duck on the inside, does that mean I really am a duck? It's the same thing with transsexuals, you're born what you are and it needs to be accepted.

Most trans I've encountered have been emo/goth teenagers that look for attention, to be totally honest.

Loving the dismissive quotation marks, dude :glare:. The duck comparison is really stupid and reminds me of that fucking South Park episode. Here's the deal, okay, people are fully capable of being born either male or female there is no third "duck" option. No one is trans-duck. As for this shit:

you're born what you are and it needs to be accepted.That's the whole bloody point. No one just up and decides they are born with a sex-gender disparity, that is how they are born. An MtF trans person is born a woman, psychologically and so on. You might find it difficult to wrap your head around this as someone with the luxury of being cisgendered (I know like buggery that I had trouble with the idea at first) but not even trying to understand that it is how people are born is just fucking insulting.

As for the asinine "they're all emos or goths" do you not think you're confusing cause and effect? Society finds something about them unacceptable, alienates them and you find it grounds to dismiss them when they get involved in a social scene based on the feeling alienation? As for the "attention seeking" bollocks the consvervatives already use that one for gay people do you think you're being all that different just because the minority you're attacking is smaller?

[Rjevan]

oh wait wait. I got it wrong.
It's RING finger longer than your index finger, not middle finger longer than your index finger.
Exactly equally long... lol, I wonder what this means. :D
I'm straight, simply because I never ever saw a man I regarded as attractive or sexy (besides myself, of course ;)). Of course some guys are good looking but simply good looking is something different than being attractive.

I'm not sure about transgenders, but as always, it's their right if they feel that's the ways they want to live, they don't harm me, so what's the problem? As long as they're happy there is none.

[Jack]

Loving the dismissive quotation marks, dude :glare:. The duck comparison is really stupid and reminds me of that fucking South Park episode. Here's the deal, okay, people are fully capable of being born either male or female there is no third "duck" option. No one is trans-duck.

Right, everyone is born male or female and there can be no third option because you can't alter how you are physically born because that's who you are. Changing sex does not truly change the sex, just like changing into a duck doesn't truly make you a duck, and you can never be.


[/QUOTE]As for this shit:
That's the whole bloody point. No one just up and decides they are born with a sex-gender disparity, that is how they are born. An MtF trans person is born a woman, psychologically and so on. You might find it difficult to wrap your head around this as someone with the luxury of being cisgendered (I know like buggery that I had trouble with the idea at first) but not even trying to understand that it is how people are born is just fucking insulting.[/QUOTE]

I know how people are born, as males or females, not female in a male's body anymore than this guy is a tiger in a mans body:
http://www.wedoourownstunts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cat-man.jpg

[/QUOTE]As for the asinine "they're all emos or goths" do you not think you're confusing cause and effect? Society finds something about them unacceptable, alienates them and you find it grounds to dismiss them when they get involved in a social scene based on the feeling alienation? As for the "attention seeking" bollocks the consvervatives already use that one for gay people do you think you're being all that different just because the minority you're attacking is smaller?[/QUOTE]

How does dressing in all black make them more accepted? I've seen one "transgendered" person wearing a skirt and a blue strapon dildo, sounds like attention seeking to me.

Sure, because not accepting someone wanting to be something they're not is the equivalent of homophobia :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Right, everyone is born male or female and there can be no third option because you can't alter how you are physically born because that's who you are.

That's exactly the fucking point. You can't change if you're born female, even if you happen to have a cock.


Changing sex does not truly change the sex, just like changing into a duck doesn't truly make you a duck, and you can never be.

The only reason changing sex isn't complete is a shortfall in technology, not in the people getting sex changes.


I know how people are born, as males or females, not female in a male's body anymore than this guy is a tiger in a mans body:
http://www.wedoourownstunts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cat-man.jpg

That guy was changed to a tiger looking person in order to earn money as a freakshow. Hew now lives on an island near scotland shunning publicity. It's not the same in any fucking way.


How does dressing in all black make them more accepted?

It doesn't. Do you know anything about goth or emo cultur at all?


I've seen one "transgendered" person wearing a skirt and a blue strapon dildo, sounds like attention seeking to me.

Try to think why they want attention... Is it conceivable that, to most people, trans guys/girls are invisible?!


Sure, because not accepting someone wanting to be something they're not is the equivalent of homophobia :rolleyes:

Why is it something their "not"?

[Bitter Ashes]

Jack. Has it occurred to you that the majority of the transgender population you may not even realise are transgender? I mean, unless they're wearing a skirt and strapon dildo is it really so obvious, especially with the younger MtFs and FtMs of any age (those testosterone injections the FtMs have VERY good results). If a MtF woman walks past you and she's been on hormones since her teens, is dressed like any other woman and hasnt actualy gone up to you and said "I'm trans!", how would you know?

And what's the big deal about what subculture they belong to? Thier gender identity doesnt dominate thier whole lives any more than it does yours, at least when they've dealt with the issues. If they're trans and goth, or trans and emo, or trans and chav what's the difference between that and somebody bieng cis and goth/emo/chav?

It's be a bit like saying that all gay women are bull with short haircuts, men's clothes and no makeup simply because those are the gay women who are most visable to you. So, what am I, as I sit here in my hipster jeans, vest top and long hair? I'm sick of this whole attitude where I feel like I've got to out myself to everyone for no reason other than to try break down thier sterotypes.

[Jack]

That's exactly the fucking point. You can't change if you're born female, even if you happen to have a cock.

They are born what they physically are, that's what I was saying. Obviously I'm not a woman on the outside, so I am not a woman on the inside, it's that simple.




The only reason changing sex isn't complete is a shortfall in technology, not in the people getting sex changes.

Yeah, sounds perfectly natural, they "feel this way", but it coming into reality is entirely dependent on artificial means, because they were not naturally born what they try to be.




That guy was changed to a tiger looking person in order to earn money as a freakshow. Hew now lives on an island near scotland shunning publicity. It's not the same in any fucking way.

Actually, he lives in Nevada, and insists that he was born a cat on the inside. He lives on an entirely raw meat diet.: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Catman.html




Try to think why they want attention... Is it conceivable that, to most people, trans guys/girls are invisible?!

That just proves my point, they are trying to get noticed. You would think that being invisible wouldn't bother them because it would mean they wouldn't be ridiculed, hell, most people are invisible to other people. Do they want to be like everyone else, or try to be different like emos/punks/goths etc.




Why is it something their "not"?

Because they weren't physically born as whatever gender they pretend to be.

[Jack]

Jack. Has it occurred to you that the majority of the transgender population you may not even realise are transgender? I mean, unless they're wearing a skirt and strapon dildo is it really so obvious, especially with the younger MtFs and FtMs of any age (those testosterone injections the FtMs have VERY good results). If a MtF woman walks past you and she's been on hormones since her teens, is dressed like any other woman and hasnt actualy gone up to you and said "I'm trans!", how would you know?

And what's the big deal about what subculture they belong to? Thier gender identity doesnt dominate thier whole lives any more than it does yours, at least when they've dealt with the issues. If they're trans and goth, or trans and emo, or trans and chav what's the difference between that and somebody bieng cis and goth/emo/chav?

It's be a bit like saying that all gay women are bull with short haircuts, men's clothes and no makeup simply because those are the gay women who are most visable to you. So, what am I, as I sit here in my hipster jeans, vest top and long hair? I'm sick of this whole attitude where I feel like I've got to out myself to everyone for no reason other than to try break down thier sterotypes.

Okay, so they can look like the other gender on the outside with massive hormone treatments and surgeries starting from their teenage years? Sounds reeeeaaaal natural. Even then, they are still their real gender physically on the inside. In M2F, the penis is just pushed back in, and they will never be able to bear children like actual women. F2M still have ovaries and the associated body structure of a woman, i.e the "pregnant man".

[Bitter Ashes]

They are born what they physically are, that's what I was saying. Obviously I'm not a woman on the outside, so I am not a woman on the inside, it's that simple.
The World Health Organisation disagrees...

"GID (Gender Identity Disorder) was first included in the DSM-IV in 1980. In addition to the DSM, other standard medical texts like the American Medical Association Encyclopedia, the Merck Manual, and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) all include the disorder."


Yeah, sounds perfectly natural, they "feel this way", but it coming into reality is entirely dependent on artificial means, because they were not naturally born what they try to be.
It's no different to anyone else bieng treated when they are born with a disabilitiy then surely? If you give a deaf person a hearing aid then isnt that artificial means too.



That just proves my point, they are trying to get noticed. You would think that being invisible wouldn't bother them because it would mean they wouldn't be ridiculed, hell, most people are invisible to other people. Do they want to be like everyone else, or try to be different like emos/punks/goths etc.
*groans*
Just read my last post. You're looking at a very slim part of the trans community.



Because they weren't physically born as whatever gender they pretend to be.
Hang on now. That's really not on and you know it.

[Bitter Ashes]

Okay, so they can look like the other gender on the outside with massive hormone treatments and surgeries starting from their teenage years? Sounds reeeeaaaal natural. Even then, they are still their real gender physically on the inside. In M2F, the penis is just pushed back in, and they will never be able to bear children like actual women. F2M still have ovaries and the associated body structure of a woman, i.e the "pregnant man".
The hormone treatments they have are actualy exactly the same as what's prescribed to post menopausal women.
As for surgerys, I doubt you go around groping every woman's crotch you see in the street, so how would you know what's down there?
Lots of women cant bear children for various reasons. Not bieng able to bear children does not mean they're not female.
And it's not just "pushed up" there. It's removed. The skin is available then for a skin graft for inside, although it could just as well be from a leg or arm or wherever, but seeing as though the skin's already there and going spare, why shouldnt they use it? After all, all a penis is, is an enlarged clitoris and a scrotum is the leftovers of the labia afterall.
FtM's have hysterectomies usualy. Beattie was an exception rather than the rule, hence why the story was picked up. Several millions of FtM transsexuals and you heard of ONE has a baby. This is how you make your mind up about all those millions? One has a baby, so they all have?

[Jack]

The World Health Organisation disagrees...

"GID (Gender Identity Disorder) was first included in the DSM-IV in 1980. In addition to the DSM, other standard medical texts like the American Medical Association Encyclopedia, the Merck Manual, and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) all include the disorder."

It's classified as a disorder, go figuire. Something like half of all trans die, mostly by suicide, before age 30. Sure you can argue it's "social exclusion" but there is obviously something wrong with them and they are trans because they want attention and/or are having an identity crisis.



It's no different to anyone else bieng treated when they are born with a disabilitiy then surely? If you give a deaf person a hearing aid then isnt that artificial means too.

Deaf people don't claim not to be naturally deaf if they get a hearing aid, because they are still deaf like trans are still the gender they were born as.

[Jack]

I'll respond to your other post tommorow, I have SATs tommorow and need rest.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'll respond to your other post tommorow, I have SATs tommorow and need rest.
Yikes! They make you go into school on a Saturday to do tests? Oh well. Good luck and when you get back try to think a bit more lateraly on this subject. What the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes... even when it's not fully informed.

[Jazzratt]

They are born what they physically are, that's what I was saying. Obviously I'm not a woman on the outside, so I am not a woman on the inside, it's that simple.

It's that simple for you because you are fucking cisgendered. I'm not entirely sure what you are actually finding difficult.To comprehend.


Yeah, sounds perfectly natural, they "feel this way", but it coming into reality is entirely dependent on artificial means, because they were not naturally born what they try to be.

What the fuck are you talking about?Physically they are not what they are emotionally and mentally - the only way to change this is through technology. It's a shame chauvanist ****s like you are still arguing that they are "what they are" from birth, but frankly that's your problem to deal with not theirs.


That just proves my point, they are trying to get noticed.

And that is wrong because...


You would think that being invisible wouldn't bother them because it would mean they wouldn't be ridiculed,

Oh fucking joy. "YOu can be different, as long as you don't distub us 'normals'. If you do we'll take the piss". What kind of fucking leftist are you?


hell, most people are invisible to other people. Do they want to be like everyone else, or try to be different like emos/punks/goths etc.

Do you even understand what I'm treying to drive into your thick fucking skull?


Because they weren't physically born as whatever gender they pretend to be.

Welcome to the right wing. Enjoy your stay.

[illan]

Being gay/bi is perfectly natural, but "transgenders" I don't see in the same light. If I feel like a duck on the inside, does that mean I really am a duck? It's the same thing with transsexuals, you're born what you are and it needs to be accepted. Most trans I've encountered have been emo/goth teenagers that look for attention, to be totally honest.
That just proves my point, they are trying to get noticed. You would think that being invisible wouldn't bother them because it would mean they wouldn't be ridiculed, hell, most people are invisible to other people. Do they want to be like everyone else, or try to be different like emos/punks/goths etc. You're a pathetic joke, and its even a bigger joke that you haven't been restricted. Go the CC! *Big fucking eye roll*

[Il Medico]

Again illian, insulting people that disagree with you is not necessary or helpful. A cohesive argument refuting the things Jack said would be more appropriate. I advise you to stop insulting people,or you might end up restricted yourself.

[Andrensath]

It's classified as a disorder, go figuire.
You mean like how homosexuality *used* to be classified as a disorder? Go figure.

[Module]

Again illian, insulting people that disagree with you is not necessary or helpful. A cohesive argument refuting the things Jack said would be more appropriate. I advise you to stop insulting people,or you might end up restricted yourself.
Nope.


It's classified as a disorder, go figuire. Something like half of all trans die, mostly by suicide, before age 30. Sure you can argue it's "social exclusion" but there is obviously something wrong with them and they are trans because they want attention and/or are having an identity crisis.Yeah, there is something wrong with them. They have the wrong physical sex. Given that sex and gender make up largely the core of people's identity in this day and age, that's a pretty big thing to have wrong with you. I don't think anybody should be claiming that being transgendered isn't having something wrong with you, because although it seems like the 'tolerant' thing to say, it isn't true. Transgendered people don't want to be transgendered. FtM's want to be male, and MtF's want to be female. The issue here is that Jack is claiming that the wants of theirs are misguided.
Sure, they might feel totally and utterly unhappy in their physical body. Sure, they might've been feeling that sense of complete dissatisfaction from birth and outside of any kind of need for acceptance or attention, but simply individual, personal wellbeing that they lack within their physical body, as a male or a female. But damn it, they should just live with it (like all the rest of us do! ...?)! I mean, don't you get it? It's not natural! They should just learn to be happy as god intended.
Because obviously transgendered people aren't really trying to be happy. Specific feelings of not wanting to be one particular sex over another are obviously all just something else entirely. Like symptoms of general freakishness, or just attention whorishness! Including those transgendered people have lived way back in the 19th century and beyond, who risked death and persecution because of their gender identity? What attention seeking morons! But look how many more people identify as transgendered nowadays than they would've 200 years ago! They're all just jumping on the bandwagon, now! God, how weak and unnatural.

People don't become 'goths' or 'emos' because they want attention, you moron, they do it because they want acceptance. Not from all the people who ridicule and exclude them, but from a different and potentially more accepting crowd.
As Jazzratt said, those who are doing overty attention-whorish things probably do so because of the lack of positive attention they receive passively.
You say the only transgendered people you've met have been emos/goths. Well personally I've only ever probably met one transgendered person that I really remember. They looked very different, yeah, and while we walked through town after the event we had been to, some old men made some rude comments to her. She brushed it off and ignored them, you could tell that she got that a lot. Frankly you also couldn't imagine her dressing as a man. She dressed the way that she did, outside of dressing in a 'feminine' way, because within the crowd she hung out with she was free to be herself, as a transgendered woman. She didn't do it to get attention from people outside of the crowd she hung out with, she dressed that way because she liked dressing that way, and dressing differently within a crowd of people whose difference was defined by their dressing differently and being different gave her a sense of freedom with her own personal difference. When we were having dinner (which she bought for us, how nice) I can't remember why but we were asking what you wanted to be when you were older and her answer was 'I want to be female', and there was not a hint of pretense there. She didn't feel right, or look right, in her male body.
But really, I think you need a sliver of empathy to understand that, and maybe that's too much to ask from you. You have, after all, had plenty of time to demonstrate that so far.
You say that it's unnatural for them to feel like that - they should learn to accept it. But why is the natural thing to do to try to change how their brains work and not instead change their physical body? Why one way but not the other way around?
It's your mind that defines who you are as an individual - what should define what is 'natural' for you and what isn't - not your body.

Seriously though, I expect you'll be getting restricted and hopefully it won't be too long before you understand why that is.

[bcbm]

everyone is born male or female and there can be no third option

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Learn at least the basics of how the world works, eh?

[MarxSchmarx]

This whole nature-nurture thing is a false dichotomy.

Why not both birth and conditioning? For instance, people who have "the gay gene OMG" might be accultured to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and "choose" to be indistignuishable from other heterosexuals. This doesn't mean they don't have a genetic proclivity, nor does it mean that social factors dont influence their sexuality.

I just don't understand why we keep insisting it be either/or. Can someone please explain it to me???

[Il Medico]

This whole nature-nurture thing is a false dichotomy.

Why not both birth and conditioning? For instance, people who have "the gay gene OMG" might be accultured to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and "choose" to be indistignuishable from other heterosexuals. This doesn't mean they don't have a genetic proclivity, nor does it mean that social factors dont influence their sexuality.

I just don't understand why we keep insisting it be either/or. Can someone please explain it to me???
Societal influenced repression of homosexual feelings is not the same as choosing to have homosexual feelings. There are lots of people who are 'in the closet' about their sexuality. This does not mean that people choose to be either homo, hetero, or bisexual. They are born that way. Culture has nothing to do with whether people have these sexual attractions. It only has to do with if people express them. Also, the whole labeling thing is silly. What exactly is a 'heterosexual lifestyle'? People's sexuality is what it is. Most people (96% according to the Kinsey report) are is some way Bi. The degree to which varies from person to person. So labeling people as 'gay' or 'straight' is silly and saying it is a choice is even sillier.

[Salabra]

...Why is the idea that sexuality is determined at birth so widespread?

I believe that it is not genetic or programmed from birth since children go through many different periods of sexual exploration and in times when homosexuality was socially accepted, it was much more widespread.

I wrote about this over in the “Queers” group — if I’d put it here, I’d have an extra digit in my “post count” (lol) — but I have had it suggested to me that social conservatives can allow themselves to “feel sympathy” for gay women and men if they can convince themselves that homosexuality is “genetically” determined. Moreover, god-botherers of all persuasions — at least those who have caught up to the Eighteenth Century and the idea of “Free Will” — can convince themselves that “Original Sin” is less damning than “sin” that is chosen.

As I argued in that post, I think that an explanation of why people are gay or straight based exclusively on grounds of biological determinism in not only wrongheaded and reactionary per se (on my to-do list is an article about this), but strategically disastrous. If I had to analyse the “question” at all, I would see my homosexuality as an interaction between three factors — Biology/Psychology, Environment and the Productive Relations pertaining in Australia in the late C20/early C21 (see the other post for specifics).

As to your point about other times and cultures, let me fly a kite for your consideration — could it be possible that the “question” arises because, ever since Freud, we have been convinced that sexuality is an aspect of personality? A reading of history and literature — and I will be the first to admit that I am NO expert on history — might lead one to the assumption that people saw themselves and others as entities who performed acts that were homosexual or heterosexual, but that this did not affect the way they perceived their identity. This would especially be the case in pre- or non-abrahamic cultures (by “abrahamic” I mean “based on judaism, christianity or islam”), but could also be applied to the intense same-sex friendships that we find, for example, in C18 UK or C19 USA — before Freud, the boundaries between homosociality and homosexuality seem to have been differently calibrated, and in some circumstances the one might easily flow into the other with no more than passing notice. One could then go on, in good Marxist fashion, to characterize Freud as a product of the rising bourgeoisie’s panicky attempts to give a “scientific” basis to its desire to exert ideological control over the notoriously chaotic area of human sexuality (true, IMO).

Please note that I am not going to the gallows averring the “truth” of the idea outlined in the preceding paragraph — it’s merely an interesting observation that someone may or may not wish to carry forward (and yes, in many respects, contradictory to the views I stated in the antepenultimate paragraph).

[MarxSchmarx]

So labeling people as 'gay' or 'straight' is silly and saying it is a choice is even sillier.

OK I get your point about labels, but the broader question still stands.



Societal influenced repression of homosexual feelings is not the same as choosing to have homosexual feelings. There are lots of people who are 'in the closet' about their sexuality. This does not mean that people choose to be either homo, hetero, or bisexual.

It seems to me that to the extent taht they allow social pressure to control their expressed feelings, they do in fact "choose" one orientation over another.



They are born that way. Culture has nothing to do with whether people have these sexual attractions.

Again, I dispute this. If one grows up being told time and time again that a certain gestalt is the ideal of human sexuality and that this, and this alone, is considered "sexually desirable", then to say this has no influence on one's psyche seems too much of a stretch.



It only has to do with if people express them. Also, the whole labeling thing is silly. What exactly is a 'heterosexual lifestyle'? People's sexuality is what it is.

Sure, but if that were the case, the question of whether one were "born" a homosexual or otherwise would be irrelevant...

Again, look, I don't dispute that there is a genetic component to people's attraction. I just don't think it operates independently of social forces, that's all.

[Il Medico]

It seems to me that to the extent taht they allow social pressure to control their expressed feelings, they do in fact "choose" one orientation over another.
umm...yeah, no. You can not choose to have an orientation, you can only choose if you express it. Unlike other things which people are born as (like gender, or race) you can hide sexual attraction and orientation. Doing this or being in "the closet' does not mean you don't have these feelings.




Again, I dispute this. If one grows up being told time and time again that a certain gestalt is the ideal of human sexuality and that this, and this alone, is considered "sexually desirable", then to say this has no influence on one's psyche seems too much of a stretch. Then they are more likely to hide their feelings. As I said most people actually have some homosexual feelings. The majority ignore them or don't express them. This is directly because of society. However, society can not give you your preference.



Sure, but if that were the case, the question of whether one were "born" a homosexual or otherwise would be irrelevant...

Again, look, I don't dispute that there is a genetic component to people's attraction. I just don't think it operates independently of social forces, that's all.The attraction itself operates independently. The action on this attraction does not. Your are who you are, social forces can't change that.

[BabylonHoruv]

I don't think the opening poll gives enough options. However i think that treating it as something determined at birth is a more appropriate way of looking at it than as something that is chosen.

I've done my best to choose to be bi, it didn't work for me, and I am pretty well stuck on Hetero, so i know that for me my sexual orientation is not a choice. This may not be the case for everyone, but as far as I can tell from scientific literature it is. Some of the determination may occur during our childhood rather than in the womb, but that is fairly irrelevent.

[Bitter Ashes]

Again, look, I don't dispute that there is a genetic component to people's attraction. I just don't think it operates independently of social forces, that's all.
I guess, in that case, you must really be scratching your head as to why, with all the conditioning and propaganda accumulated over centuries being tried, in one form or another, in ex-gay camps and the mental hospitals of the past, that they havent been able to prove that they've turned a single person straight yet.

Either the legendary gay-conspiricy-agendaists have a far more powerful secret knowledge of psychology and sociology than the cumulation of all other science, or maybe, just maybe, it's determined at birth and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Personaly, I'm not a big fan of the gay-Illuminati idea.

Seriously though, if passing large electrical currents through somebody isnt enough to change somebody's sexuality, I dont think anything is.

[BabylonHoruv]

You mean like how homosexuality *used* to be classified as a disorder? Go figure.


Except that in the case of trans there really is something wrong. They are the wrong gender. Unlike homosexuality transexuality is not something that can simply be accepted. Accepting that someone is a male in a female body, or vice versa, means trying to do something about it, to get their body in line with their mind. So trans will always be a disorder. The debate is whether it is a mental or a physical disorder.

[RedAnarchist]

Except that in the case of trans there really is something wrong. They are the wrong gender. Unlike homosexuality transexuality is not something that can simply be accepted. Accepting that someone is a male in a female body, or vice versa, means trying to do something about it, to get their body in line with their mind. So trans will always be a disorder. The debate is whether it is a mental or a physical disorder.

How could it be physical? Having male or female sexual organs isn't a disorder. It can only be mental in my opinion - a person believes that they are a man/woman trapped in a womans/mans body.

[BabylonHoruv]

How could it be physical? Having male or female sexual organs isn't a disorder. It can only be mental in my opinion - a person believes that they are a man/woman trapped in a womans/mans body.


One has to first assume that there is a physical difference between male and female brains. So far as we can tell this is true.

Now, if you put a female brain in a male body, or a male brain in a female body, you have a physical disorder. It's not the sex organs that don't match the rest of the body, it is the brains.

[Il Medico]

I am not super well versed in Transsexual issues, but here is what I know. The leading theory on why people are born male/female but think and feel female/male has to do with the development of the fetus. In the womb, all fetuses start out female. There are two shots of hormones that first makes one physically male. The second makes them think like a male. If they get the first shot, but not the second one, they end up a man with a woman's brain. If they miss the first shot but get the second, then it is the reverse. So people are born transsexual, I would hesitate to call it a disorder though. It should be considered in the same way homosexuality and Bisexuality are, natural state of sexuality. If anyone can add to this, or knows of other explanations, that would be great!

[Module]

I am not super well versed in Transsexual issues, but here is what I know. The leading theory on why people are born male/female but think and feel female/male has to do with the development of the fetus. In the womb, all fetuses start out female. There are two shots of hormones that first makes one physically male. The second makes them think like a male. If they get the first shot, but not the second one, they end up a man with a woman's brain. If they miss the first shot but get the second, then it is the reverse. So people are born transsexual, I would hesitate to call it a disorder though. It should be considered in the same way homosexuality and Bisexuality are, natural state of sexuality. If anyone can add to this, or knows of other explanations, that would be great!
Or if anybody could link to some credible sources to back this up...

[Il Medico]

Or if anybody could link to some credible sources to back this up...
I learned this in my psychology I and then again in II class and we also briefly covered it in sociology. This was the main proposed genetic cause. The rest of the causes we discussed were Behaviorist ones, which focused on nurture. If anyone had a link to this theory, that would be great.

[Andrensath]

Except that in the case of trans there really is something wrong. They are the wrong gender. Unlike homosexuality transexuality is not something that can simply be accepted. Accepting that someone is a male in a female body, or vice versa, means trying to do something about it, to get their body in line with their mind. So trans will always be a disorder. The debate is whether it is a mental or a physical disorder.
Yes, BUT I find that those who consider being queer in any form a disorder tend not to be particularly friendly towards queers.

[BabylonHoruv]

I am not super well versed in Transsexual issues, but here is what I know. The leading theory on why people are born male/female but think and feel female/male has to do with the development of the fetus. In the womb, all fetuses start out female. There are two shots of hormones that first makes one physically male. The second makes them think like a male. If they get the first shot, but not the second one, they end up a man with a woman's brain. If they miss the first shot but get the second, then it is the reverse. So people are born transsexual, I would hesitate to call it a disorder though. It should be considered in the same way homosexuality and Bisexuality are, natural state of sexuality. If anyone can add to this, or knows of other explanations, that would be great!


If you ask Trans folks it is a disorder. Also, if you look at the biology of it is a problem, it's not just something we can accept. To take a F2M (that is a woman in a man's body) as an example. her brain has receptors for estrogen that are not getting the estrogen they need, instead she is getting testosterone, which she doesn't need. This is a biological problem. It's not a state of sexuality at all, there are straight, gay, bi and asexual trans folks. It is a state of gender. And unlike homosexuality and bisexuality it is a disorder.

If your brain is getting the wrong hormones you are not going to be mentally in a good space. It leads to depression, confusion, and other negative mental effects.

http://transsexual.org/What.html

[BabylonHoruv]

Yes, BUT I find that those who consider being queer in any form a disorder tend not to be particularly friendly towards queers.

You'd be classifying trans folks as anti-queer then. Every one I have spoken with has classified transexuality as a disorder. Admittedly that is not a huge amount (5 at the moment) but enough to give me a pretty strong impression.

[MarxSchmarx]

It seems to me that to the extent taht they allow social pressure to control their expressed feelings, they do in fact "choose" one orientation over another.umm...yeah, no. You can not choose to have an orientation, you can only choose if you express it. Unlike other things which people are born as (like gender, or race) you can hide sexual attraction and orientation. Doing this or being in "the closet' does not mean you don't have these feelings.


Ahh...

How do we know somebody has an orientation a certain way?

Only if they express it in one for or another ;)

And actually people hide gender (and even race) all the time. For instance, many people are "born" female but live their entire life in a man's body. Even at a morphological level they are not expressing their "true" gender.



Again, I dispute this. If one grows up being told time and time again that a certain gestalt is the ideal of human sexuality and that this, and this alone, is considered "sexually desirable", then to say this has no influence on one's psyche seems too much of a stretch.Then they are more likely to hide their feelings. As I said most people actually have some homosexual feelings. The majority ignore them or don't express them. This is directly because of society. However, society can not give you your preference.

At what point do "feeling" become preference? This is precisely my contention: at that grey area, social mores play a role.




Sure, but if that were the case, the question of whether one were "born" a homosexual or otherwise would be irrelevant...

Again, look, I don't dispute that there is a genetic component to people's attraction. I just don't think it operates independently of social forces, that's all.The attraction itself operates independently. The action on this attraction does not. Your are who you are, social forces can't change that.

Two points.

First, the epistemological conundrum raised above. We can only draw conclusions about people's attractions based on how that is communicated to either others or people themselves.

Second, the idea that attraction doesn't experience a feedback from social norms is untenable. Again, if this were the case you have no way to explain why, for example, standards of beauty and attractiveness to the opposite mate differ so dramatically between human societies both geographically and historically.


I guess, in that case, you must really be scratching your head as to why, with all the conditioning and propaganda accumulated over centuries being tried, in one form or another, in ex-gay camps and the mental hospitals of the past, that they havent been able to prove that they've turned a single person straight yet...Seriously though, if passing large electrical currents through somebody isnt enough to change somebody's sexuality, I dont think anything is.


Well, that's your reading of the evidence. Think of all the people that haven't "had to" go through "treatment" precisely because they're so brainwashed, i.e., for all intents and purposes, whatever "gay gene" they had is countered by social forces. Are these the people that show up to such "treatment" centers? Largely, no.



Either the legendary gay-conspiricy-agendaists have a far more powerful secret knowledge of psychology and sociology than the cumulation of all other science, or maybe, just maybe, it's determined at birth and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Personaly, I'm not a big fan of the gay-Illuminati idea.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's saying there's a conspiracy. Only that human beings aren't defined at their moment of birth just by their chemical composition.

[Andrensath]

You'd be classifying trans folks as anti-queer then. Every one I have spoken with has classified transexuality as a disorder. Admittedly that is not a huge amount (5 at the moment) but enough to give me a pretty strong impression.Okay, I admit my statement could have been qualified better. Unfortunately, the polytech I attend isn't particularly progressive, and the secondaries were even worse, which cuts down on my chances of meeting openly trans* people.

[Il Medico]

Ahh...

How do we know somebody has an orientation a certain way?
We don't, only they can truly know what their sexuality is.


Only if they express it in one for or another ;)
I am not going to try to guess at your point because this does not make sense. I am guessing this is because of a typo.


And actually people hide gender (and even race) all the time. For instance, many people are "born" female but live their entire life in a man's body. Even at a morphological level they are not expressing their "true" gender.
You are talking about transsexuals, which is entirely different from homosexuality or Bisexuality. They are not hiding their gender, they were born with the wrong gender (for reasons see posts above).




At what point do "feeling" become preference? This is precisely my contention: at that grey area, social mores play a role.
Preference is what you are more attracted to. I, although Bi, have a slight preference for women. This is not because of social mores, as the gay community is (for the most part) more accepting of my sexuality. But rather based on my attraction to the genders respectively. Whether I openly express that does not change the fact that it is what it is.





Two points.

First, the epistemological conundrum raised above. We can only draw conclusions about people's attractions based on how that is communicated to either others or people themselves.
Once again, it is not or place to draw conclusions on others sexuality.


Second, the idea that attraction doesn't experience a feedback from social norms is untenable. Again, if this were the case you have no way to explain why, for example, standards of beauty and attractiveness to the opposite mate differ so dramatically between human societies both geographically and historically.

This is really non-consequential. People's sexual feelings and attractions to genders do not change with pop culture. Standards of attractiveness are merely a 'fetish' that has media and culture endorsement. To avoid social ridicule more people are likely to profess that they like that appearance, whether they truly do or not.

[fiddlesticks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but life is easier when your straight, therefore I don't think sexuality is a choice. That, and the proof that a gay man's brain looks more similar to a straight woman's than a straight man's.

I think that people are born with a stronger attraction to a specific gender but they only express this sexuality or not depending on their nurturing.

Some gay men are married and have families but still live a double life as a gay man, secretly going to gay bars and fulfilling their sexual needs because they may have been brought up in a family that raised him to be straight.

[Pinko Panther]

Does it matter? Who cares if it's a choice or not? You live your life and I'll live mine. I don't care if you chose your sexuality or if you were born that way.

[Salabra]

Does it matter? Who cares if it's a choice or not? You live your life and I'll live mine. I don't care if you chose your sexuality or if you were born that way.

Well said, and none here would disagree - sadly, we are constantly being pushed onto the defensive by conservatives asking us to "justify" who we are.

[Outinleftfield]

I'm bisexual but personally I don't know if it is a choice. I know its not a choice people just make. If it is a choice its one that happens slowly over time. If its a choice its a choice the way a persons music tastes is a choice. Nobody just suddenly decides "I'm going to like this kind of music", but our choices do influence how our music tastes develop.

I don't think it matters. People should have the freedom to love who they want.

There is a lot of evidence of physical causes. However we have to remember the mind-body connection. What we think about does cause chemical changes such as the study showing chemical changes when subjects were told to think about sad things and then told to think about happy things so chemical differences don't prove genetics. However, I think there are probably genetic factors but I don't know how much they influence sexual orientation.

[Kukulofori]

As a lesbian I have to say that among women it tends to be a bit of a sliding scale, and a pretty malleable one at that.

I'd also hazard a guess that "I'm gay and YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT" is a response to people who try to do just that. People typically cling to things that people try to opress them into changing and I don't imagine this is an exception.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Since birth (though some may not completely understand their sexuality right away and some may hide it)