Homosexuality is a Choice(Not!)

[þsy]

Personally, I think people should be able to love whoever they want, and be whoever they want to be

This here is a synopsis of key reading concerning the production of gender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_performativity

Not something I necessarily agree with, but it definitely adds to this discussion

[chrisd]

Actually, "people should be able to love whoever they want, and be whoever they want to be" is a rather weak statement. It sort of confirms that people need others permission to be who they are. The fact is, though, that people ARE, in reality able to love whoever they want, and be whoever they want to be. At least, in the Western world they are. This is one of the huge accomplishments of said world. Sure, there may be consequences, but letting your social circle adjust itself to the person that one really is beats adjusting oneself to what other people expect at any day of the week.

Also, I am not a big fan of this whole post-structuralist/postmodern philosophy movement. It seems to produce quite a lot of meaningless word salad.

[devicat]

This is a video on why religious "tolerance" is condescending, but the same argument can apply to anything, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM

We are all equally free, regardless of our choices, so long as we aren't harming anyone.

[þsy]

Actually, "people should be able to love whoever they want, and be whoever they want to be" is a rather weak statement. It sort of confirms that people need others permission to be who they are. The fact is, though, that people ARE, in reality able to love whoever they want, and be whoever they want to be. At least, in the Western world they are. This is one of the huge accomplishments of said world. Sure, there may be consequences, but letting your social circle adjust itself to the person that one really is beats adjusting oneself to what other people expect at any day of the week.

Also, I am not a big fan of this whole post-structuralist/postmodern philosophy movement. It seems to produce quite a lot of meaningless word salad.

I do love you chrisd, I consider myself a committed chrisdian, but I really have to disagree. There are many 'laws' in Western society that give LGBT relations the OK, (though not always, Russia for example - if you count that), but that doesn't prevent homophobia from thriving in communities throughout the Western world.

Taking that approach is a similar to arguing that feminism isn't important any more, as men and women have equal rights in Western societies. In reality, there are massive differences in gendered identities, which in turn effect equality between men and women

Remember, salad isn't always tasty, but it's good for you!

[Phytotron]

So, Word, I suppose you'd like to convince us all that your anecdote (at least, how you perceived the situation) is representative and typical? You seem determined to make the case that being [L, G, B, or T] is inherently, inevitably, irrevocably miserable or in some other way negative. And that they'd be better off and happier if they would just "choose" to be straight, or at least live that way. Is that it?

And what kind of a statement is "She was boyish since I first saw her, so it wasn't really surprising when she told people that she was lesbian"? Come on, man.

As you can imagine, wishing surgery and massive changes upon myself is a frightening thing.

Well, if that's the case, and you're comfortable with your equipment, then there's no reason to pursue that, eh? I don't really know anyone who has had reassignment therapy, but my understanding is that in almost all instances of those who do, these are people who were unhappy with the genitalia with which they were born, in some cases hating or being disgusted with it, and can't wait to have it changed. After so doing, they feel 'right.' Indeed, apparently less that 8% of people who get reassignment express regret afterward. If that doesn't describe you, then it doesn't, and vice-versa. You are what you is, you is what you am, but if'n you ain't what you is, dere's science t' fixya.

This here is a synopsis of key reading concerning the production of gender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_performativity

Not something I necessarily agree with, but it definitely adds to this discussion

Nope, it really doesn't. Just more postmodernist-related jibber jabber. Just because some "theory" exists doesn't mean it's constructive or insightful, or has any sensible meaning at all. And as far as this specific "theory" is concerned, I would say it's the opposite of any of those things. You may as well proclaim that gender and sexual orientation are completely fictional; people learn or are conditioned to be male or female, gay or straight. That there's no biology or neurology behind it. People are born blank slates and could become anything. And, anyway, science certainly isn't of any use in addressing these questions, or in describing reality/nature in general, because the very idea of science is an artificial construct. Oh wait, that is what it says. And it's nonsense.

You should check out the Postmodernism Generator.

[Lucifer]

I do love you chrisd, I consider myself a committed chrisdian, but I really have to disagree. There are many 'laws' in Western society that give LGBT relations the OK, (though not always, Russia for example - if you count that), but that doesn't prevent homophobia from thriving in communities throughout the Western world.

Taking that approach is a similar to arguing that feminism isn't important any more, as men and women have equal rights in Western societies. In reality, there are massive differences in gendered identities, which in turn effect equality between men and women

The laws are there to protect the rights of the people, ALL of the people, and are necessary because there are so many different doctrines in the world that require discriminating against LGBT folks. In many cases, the laws don't specifically grant LGBT people anything, they repeal previous laws the restricted their rights. Remember, it used to be illegal to be gay in every single state of the union. Laws were passed repealing those laws. Many states still have laws on the books outlawing "sodomy" or any sex act with someone of the same sex, but they were all rendered unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

There were once laws that prevented interracial marriage, and THOSE laws had to be passed because without them, ANYBODY could marry, regardless of ethnicity.

Unfortunately for you, your argument drawing a comparison between chrisd's statement and feminism actually seems to ignore the facts. Yes, there are many laws that make men and women equal, legally, but in society it's very different. Married men face a certain amount of discrimination because they often are passed up for promotions in favor of single men who lacked familial commitments. Likewise, when your kid gets sick at school and someone has to take time out of work to take care of the kid, many employers expect the mother to do it (and therefore allow her to do it) while not allowing the father to do it. Feminism, and fighting for gender equality, is still very active. In many cases (like the one I just cited), it is MEN who have to fight for equality. The only way this situation can change is if individual attitudes are changed. Sure, we could pass more laws, but there are already more than enough on the books. It's just a fact that many employers do illegal things, but know that because their pocketbooks are so deep, most people won't risk a lawsuit as long as society as a whole agrees with what they're doing.

Finally, there are actual cases that need to be made illegal, such as bestiality or any other form of non-consensual sex, so we can't have a constitution just grant 100% sexual freedom to everybody. You can't have THAT. You can't have pedophiles, or necrophiles, or any of that. But we can have a constitution grant 100% sexual freedom to any number of consenting adults. As a matter of fact, we previously had such a constitution. Read the 10th amendment. In the absence of any state constitution or federal or state law, LGBT folks are already granted all the same rights that everybody else has. Those rights were taken away by laws, and those laws require new laws to repeal the old laws.

[chrisd]

We are all equally free, regardless of our choices, so long as we aren't harming anyone.

This is factually incorrect in at least two ways.

(1) We are free to the measure that we have something that it is worth to fight for. If we don't have anything that is worth fighting for, what does freedom even mean? Free of what? And not everybody has something to fight for to the same extend.

(2) Many people are actually not free "so long as they are not harming anyone". E.g., police officers and people in the military may in some cases be obliged to harm somebody. And this not even because it is their conviction that it is necessary in a particular case but because some people in parliament passed some law that the particular police officer may not even agree with. There is actually no guarantee whatsoever that we will not at some point in our lives end up in a position where we have to kill another human being. And this is true for each and every person. Humanity has put in place all kinds of structures that help ensuring that there are better ways to solve problems than killing your neighbour but none of these structures are perfect.

[Phytotron]

In the United States, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Rights are considered as existing naturally, inherently, and universally in humanity. This is one of the most fundamental philosophies that differentiates it from other countries, including other so-called Western nations. While not a part of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence makes this point: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Notice, too, that the Bill of Rights is put in terms of negative rights, enumerating what the government cannot do, not what people can do, because they already do can. This concept of natural rights, expressed here and throughout the US Constitution, is derived from the Enlightenment philosophy of Natural Law. (Which is also to say, not from Christianity; the 'Creator' in question isn't Jehovah; this is not a Christian nation).

Government cannot create or grant rights. It can do only one of to things: 1) Enumerate, secure, and protect those rights against others in society who might infringe upon them; 2) Limit the practice and expression of those rights (which it generally isn't supposed to do, but obviously has). (We can also get into conflict of rights and stuff, but let's leave that be.) So, when we speak of equal rights for, say, particular races, women, or LGBT people, we're not talking about creating and granting new rights. We're talking about abolishing the laws that limit(ed) or oppress(ed) those rights, allowing those rights to equalize to their natural state.

Now, one may say this is semantic, that the effect in practice is the same, whether you call it creating and granting rights or enumerating and securing rights. But it's a very particular way of thinking that influences how we act. And this way of thinking of rights applies not only to law, but to society as well. And this is why we have to recognize white, male, straight privilege, because their ubiquity results in people considering it the norm, the default. This in turn results too often in whites, males, or heteros perceiving the equalization of rights as being the granting of new, special rights to people of color, women, or LGBT's, and using that as an argument against it. We hear this all the time. Civil rights laws and affirmative action are special rights. Gay marriage is a special right or privilege for gays.

[T]rue gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.

And if you don't believe me, you've never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my "sexism." My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because "everyone would know who ruled that relationship." Perfect equality - my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.

source

Fixing these kinds of inequalities would not constitute enacting special privileges for women.

Um, I was going somewhere with this but got derailed. In any case, stuff of which to be cognizant.

Married men face a certain amount of discrimination because they often are passed up for promotions in favor of single men who lacked familial commitments.

And assuming you mean "with children" as well (or if you didn't, I'll add it in): Only because we (single, and/or sans children) have to pick up all the slack while you're taking time off. We're the ones always asked or made to stay late or work on holidays. "You don't have kids, you won't mind, right?" Hey, you have the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act—which I totally support, by the way. Of course, part of it applies to me, too—but only because I'm married. Thousands of Federal benefits afforded married people. Which brings us again to the legal significance of gay marriage. And yadda yadda.


Hey, Word or Z-Man or any other Germans of whom I'm not aware, do you ever drink this Hacker-Pschorr Weisse? Is it like Budweiser over there, or what? True story: I found a six-pack of it sitting in the alley behind our place, heh. Some kids must've ditched it or something. Mine now, suckers!

[Word]

I sometimes bought 'Paulaner' before I moved to Cologne, they are part of the same brewery. My favourite beer is Löwenbräu though.

So, Word, I suppose you'd like to convince us all that your anecdote (at least, how you perceived the situation) is representative and typical? You seem determined to make the case that being [L, G, B, or T] is inherently, inevitably, irrevocably miserable or in some other way negative. And that they'd be better off and happier if they would just "choose" to be straight, or at least live that way. Is that it?

No, I'm just trying to explain that while she didn't lose any friends after changing her name and getting a girlfriend, the surgery and the hormones just seemed to harm her, regardless whether their purpose is questionable or not. Perhaps she is happier now and that would be great, but it was quite worrying for her family and friends how she got introverted, thin and pale, because she used to be such a vivid person. I don't know how well she had been informed about the side-effects of such interventions and if she knew what consequences she hazarded and I'd encourage anyone who's planning to undergo such a surgery (devicat) that you get to know what you'll have to deal with. That's all.

And what kind of a statement is "She was boyish since I first saw her, so it wasn't really surprising when she told people that she was lesbian"? Come on, man.

well, she had always short hair, never wore dresses or a blouse, and she often tried to give her voice a low tone it didn't really have. It's just a description of the way she was (and to my knowledge still is).

[Z-Man]

I'm no alcoholic beverages person. Not anti-, mind you, but on the rare occasion I do drink, I drink what's locally common or what's left over and am content with that.

[chrisd]

No, I'm just trying to explain that while she didn't lose any friends after changing her name and getting a girlfriend, the surgery and the hormones just seemed to harm her, regardless whether their purpose is questionable or not. Perhaps she is happier now and that would be great, but it was quite worrying for her family and friends how she got introverted, thin and pale, because she used to be such a vivid person. I don't know how well she had been informed about the side-effects of such interventions and if she knew what consequences she hazarded and I'd encourage anyone who's planning to undergo such a surgery (devicat) that you get to know what you'll have to deal with. That's all.

I am sure that any person undergoing such a drastic step is exercizing self-questioning already. But it is true, one sometimes hears stories like this and I am sure the hormones do cause problem in some cases. Basically, such a huge hormonal change can be compared to a person going through puberty once more as an adult. Surely, one cannot guarantee smooth sailing in that case.... On the other hand there are also many transsexuals who are like "the more like my psychological gender, the merrier". So, YMMV, really... And ultimately the person him/herself is the only one who can decide....

[devicat]

I'm no alcoholic beverages person. Not anti-, mind you, but on the rare occasion I do drink, I drink what's locally common or what's left over and am content with that.

Z-man doesn't drink often, but when he does, he gets crazy ideas about lightcycle based games.

[Phytotron]

Besides what chrisd said, which I'm sure is totally valid, did you also consider that some of those changes may have had some other cause besides the hormones? It's a significant social change as well.

she had always short hair, never wore dresses or a blouse

In case the point wasn't clear the first time around, which it apparently wasn't, don't buy and perpetuate these stereotypes. Not all lesbians are "boyish," and not all hetero women are "girly." So-called tomboys are not eventual lesbians. A lot of hetero women have short hair and never wear dresses or blouses (don't you get out?)—or conform to other traditional, patriarchal gender roles. And a lot of lesbians are incredibly "feminine" in dress and such (ever heard of "lipstick lesbians?"). Of course, now that she's altered her gender, don't really think she'd be classified as a lesbian anymore, unless she wanted to be for some reason.



Yeah, Löwenbräu used to be more well-known over here, kinda like Heineken (blech) is now. I was asking more about the popularity of Hacker-Pschorr; is it considered pedestrian, etc? Like, Budweiser is really popular and common, but it's awful beer. This Hacker-Pschorr Weiss is OK for what it is, I guess, but it's too light for my tastes, usually. It went well with stir-fry I made, though. Heavier beers just don't match with most Asian cuisine.

Also, we were recently at a market in the specialty/international section and there was this shaker container, all of the words on which were in German so neither of us knew what it said. Noted the name, Fondor, and looked it up. Learned about this Maggi brand and its apparent international commonality. No one I've asked has ever heard of it. How do you pronounced that, anyway, using American-English phonics?

“I’m not ashamed to dress ‘like a woman’ because I don’t think it’s shameful to be a woman.” -Iggy Pop

[þsy]

Lucifer, I feel you've made a lot of assumptions concerning my post, and I think we're actually arguing the same thing. I fully understand that gender equality doesn't just mean improving things for women, and that there are many instances where men are unfairly discriminated against. Feminism attempts to identify gender performativity, recognising that we ascribe to gendered identities and that it's not 'natural' behaviour. And as you say, these identities are learnt and performed in society, through cultural practices - not dictated by laws.

A lot of your points - about interracial marriage, and bestiality - come down to questions of morality - where again I feel you've made certain assumptions about my open-ended 'love and let live'-esque statement. I'm a human being, and consider morality of utmost importance, so once again I have to agree that some things need to be made legal, and other things illegal.

And phyto, I have no time for someone who disregards an entire philosophical paradigm - especially one so fundamental to contemporary academia - as 'jibber-jabber'. My comment was designed to stimulate more discussion over this interest thread. If you don't feel it does, then fair enough, but that doesn't mean everyone else does...

Sorry for ranting, gender studies is a big part of my degree (as is postmodernism...) and I really enjoy it

[Lucifer]

Lucifer, I feel you've made a lot of assumptions concerning my post, and I think we're actually arguing the same thing.

I don't see how we can be arguing the same things if we're saying the opposite things....

A lot of your points - about interracial marriage, and bestiality - come down to questions of morality

Um, no, they don't, because government can't regulate based on morality. That's how gays ended up unable to marry in the first place. Government has to regulate based on a different standard, that when people have rights, those rights do not infringe on other people's rights. Simple as that. Gays marrying will not infringe upon anybody else's rights, therefore government has no business preventing it. As Phyto so elegantly pointed out, that is the founding principle of the US and is expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and even more detailed discussions appear in the Federalist Papers.

On the other hand, certain behaviors would obviously infringe upon someone else's rights. That would be things like bestiality (animals have rights too), pedophilia (kids have rights, and without being able to offer consent, it amounts to rape), rape (obviously), etc. There's a reason you have a right to speak your mind, but not the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

- where again I feel you've made certain assumptions about my open-ended 'love and let live'-esque statement. I'm a human being, and consider morality of utmost importance, so once again I have to agree that some things need to be made legal, and other things illegal.

But not based on YOUR morality, because mine can easily be very different. Therefore, making laws based on your morality would oppress me. The foundation of law must be that nobody's rights are infringed, otherwise you will always have one or more groups oppressing other groups.

The US didn't invent the idea of the constitution, a contract by which the government is empowered by the people to govern. The Dutch had it long before we had it. What was unique and interesting is the US created a constitution based on the idea that people already possess the right to do whatever they want, and government's sole role was to prevent anybody's rights from being infringed.