Acratopotes
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2017
- Posts
- 618
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 832
- Points
- 138
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
Have a look before into the future.
Dr Lisa Diamond was making a very similar point to me on the born this way argument. She examined this in more detail than I, spoke very clearly and has better credentials.
With regard to Robin Dembroff's point about referring to sexual orientation based only on the person attracted to and not the person experiencing the attraction, I can see a point there. As long as everyone is cis-gendered the terms straight, bisexual and gay seem to have a very obvious meaning. As soon as trans-gender people are included it gets a bit more complicated. Until I did some reading I didn't know whether a MTF trans-sexual attracted to me would be called gay or straight. It also invites argument as to how complete the M to F transition needs to be to be considered straight. It is the persons internal identity and no external changes are needed? Does external gender expression need to be involved? Or do we only call that person straight after surgery? With Robin Dembroff's suggestion we ditch that whole thing and say "Here is someone who fancies men". The issue I can see with it, is that "a person who fancies men" has to have a different name than either gay or straight otherwise it would only add to the confusion rather than resolve it.
I didn't really identify with the man presenting the longer video, the one with the cross in the background. I don't agree that somehow the tables have turned so that, rather than being seen as pathological, being LGBT is now seen as trendy and superior and, while I also don't know Dr Lisa Diamond any more than he does, I would be very surprised indeed if she favoured any programme to promote same sex attraction in people for whom it did not naturally occur.
It is also worth pointing out the expression of someone's orientation changing naturally over time is something that happens to some people only. You could reasonably argue that these people are actually a form of bisexual in that the neurological mechanism to support both attractions must be there, but different attractions have been activated at different times in their lives.
And, as I said before, I can see that, especially in the USA, there will always be those trying to make a case as to why hetronormity should be promoted and even enforced but, while that is a reason to be ready to fight against it, it isn't a reason to deny what scientists are saying.
The fundamental, for me, is that a society does not need to be intolerant of people's identity, attractions and their sexual behaviour, as long as it is consenting adults. Americans talk about freedom and about living in the land of the free. This is one important aspect of freedom and that should always be part of the argument.