Young gays and lesbians can’t help but feel ashamed of being different, and a major part of their journey into adulthood and self-acceptance involves coming to terms with that difference.
I recently posted a video of two women calling themselves "he" showing off their "top surgery" scars and speaking cavalierly that the "right boob wouldn't go out without a fight." Neither of these young women look male in the slightest. One reads more lesbian than the other. This does not make them male.
A long ago roommate put his son on puberty blockers. When I post something like this, he comes at me with the following "argument." How does this touch your life? Do you have any gender non-conforming people in your life?
We lived together in San Francisco in the early 90s. We were ALL "gender non-conforming" (some straight, some not.) This term baffles me, especially coming from ostensibly progressive people. How did they go from 'gender stereotypes are regressive' to 'gender non-conforming' which implies that one must conform to a gender that requires destructive surgery in order to achieve?
In this recent kerfuffle, I said that I disagree with the term "gender-nonconforming." He then goes into how this is none of my business; I have no idea how much this affects families. So I directed him to PITT, which I have already, on several occasions, and which he clearly hasn't looked at because he keeps insisting that I don't know anything about this, even as I post the WPATH FILES, the CASS REPORT, and several PITT essays. In essence, perhaps I know more than he does?
One thing I know about him. He had a gay brother who died. And I deeply suspect that "internalized homophobia" is what is "transing" his son. I also suspect that the son, who was very pretty, was called "girlie" in school. They transed him at about 8 years old, and the mother has as her FB profile picture a trans flag with a candle in the middle. Trans is her RELIGION.
In essence, many people -- straight and gay -- are "gender-non-conforming." This term seems to have crawled out of the woodwork as a means to convincing people to alter their bodies in order to 'conform.' Ironically, my old roommate accused me of "moralizing" rather than "thinking critically." It took a great amount of self-control to keep from saying, "Yeah, one shouldn't think before getting one's breasts lopped off."
In the meantime, I maintain that my interest in this phenomenon does not require it "touching" my life, although I have been frequently labeled "gender non conforming" myself. I suffered all of what the detransitioners say they suffered. I was not like the other girls. Thankfully, this ideology never touched me. I will continue to put the information out there. I will not cede to the bullying of the fools who have fallen for it.
In the meantime, I'm hoping to get this guy to push his son not to get the bottom surgery that's in the works "soon."
I met an older lesbian yesterday at a party who hasn't thought about this at all and called me out for sounding "authoritative" while talking about it. We need to keep educating people about what's going on, however unpleasant it is, and build a supportive community among those of us who have "peaked." People neither know about nor think about the devastating consequences of medical transitioning.
Yes, what is that dynamic where someone doesn't really have a logical disagreement (or agreement) with what one says, but seems to object to the mere fact one has an opinion divergent from the narrative. I can only presume it means that person has become a supporter of the group and narrative, not through some intellectual understanding, but merely an emotional alliance.
Too bad they don't know true empathy requires understanding and commitment to betterment, not blind ratification.
It’s understandable that people equate the vulnerability of being same-sex attracted to that of those who feel like they’re born in the wrong body and need to be rescued from their fate through what the medical profession claims to offer — a magical transformation into the right body. Ultimately it’s the professionals who are to blame for allowing the perpetuation of this mythology that one can switch one’s biological sex.
By the time I came out my defiance of the mundane and my intellectual independence were too deeply-seated to feel any shame over being gay. It was difficult for me to explain it to others but that only lasted a year or so.
But .. "internalized homophobia." This has the same misapplication as "antisemitism." I'd say that, oh. 99% of the times I heard it, the term was applied to people like me who didn't think that striving to be as offensive as possible, working hard to validate the ugliest stereotypes of gays, was such a great idea.
I spoke out against the grotesque lewdness of pride parades. Internalized homophobia. I spoke against telling strangers what aroused us while masturbating. Internalized homophobia. I said we should drop the enclave culture and assimilate into mainstream society. Internalized homophobia. I said I felt no connection to feather boas or eye shadow. Internalized homophobia. I said that promiscuity wasn't a great idea and that we'd be happier in stable relationships. Internalized homophobia.
You get the picture.
I don't understand why now of all times gay kids should be feeling shame; we have same-sex marriage, we have a gay Secretary of Transportation, being gay is about as remarkable as being left-handed.
If anything, I would be ashamed at being connected by the WiFi password to the "trans" crowd and I'd seek to be as unlike them as possible, NOT feel like being gay was just a stop on the way to being turned into a euphoric eunuch.
"It's hard to hate a group when you have some of its members as friends." Or brothers or children or grandchildren or nephews or co-workers or neighbors or .... especially when you see them breaking out with horrible purple lesions or visibility wasting or dying without anyone saying what carried them off or that the doctors had nothing to offer them except palliative care. That's what gave us the extraordinarily fast increase in the favorable public opinion of same-sex marriage. Before 1980, most people could say in perfect good faith, "I don't know any gay people; afterwards, however, almost no one could. Stonewall had nothing to do with it. It hardly made a ripple outside New York, if there. AIDS was a horrible price to pay, but it shoved us kicking and screaming out of our closets. What terrifies me about all this trans horse shit and the deceitful propaganda attaching it as a parasite on the movement for gay equality is that we will be caught in the backlash against the preposterous demands of the radical trans ideologues. The reactionaries who never reconciled to gay equality are all too happy to treat equality as the same as trans "justice" and tear them both down.
You are so exactly right about the "trans" parasitism but the generation gap between HIV and SSM renders that association unlikely. Public opinion on SSM went though a Chaos Theory sort of transition, almost overnight it became absurd to oppose it.
But we have to fight 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 against LGB𝐓 because the spoiled narcissistic creeps will take us down with them and they sure as hell don't care. Except about themselves.
Stonewall is a myth. Some passing Vietnam War protesters uprooted some parking meters while drag queens were yelling at the cops. Gay activists less than 100 miles away hadn't heard of the great pivotal event over ten years later. It was pulled out of the trash can to promote the confrontational belligerence ("in your face") in vogue at the time.
To clarify perhaps, the riots were positioned by the mafia as a way to avoid expensive payoffs to the police to operate the Stonewall inn, according to an old gay friend of mine who had worked for the Mafia since age 14 as a bagman, and was still working exactly at the time (I actually had two gay men I knew who were mafia bagmen, one born into it, one who was recruited into it as a runaway).
Nascent pride parades organized by the Mattachine society which existed already were grafted onto Stonewall much like the Birth of Christ and Pagan solstice grafted onto each other for Christmas. It was merger of convenience, though Christmas was not organized by the mafia to end at the Stonewall Inn, I recall there was another Inn involved.
Riots involving several hundred are not generally ignored, it was covered extensively with an entire 7 inches on page 33 of NYT and resulting parades over years grew through savvy marketing into the full-blown Pagan revival of renaissance allegorical ‘trionfi’ - people think the pride parade is “pride over shame”, but of course it’s an iteration of the Medieval “Trionfi Cupidis”or Triumph of Love. Though I’m a size queen, sometimes 7 inches is just fine - Dave Van Ronk, folksinger, was the named man arrested for throwing a heavy object at the police.
Interestingly transsexuals are imitating Christ both by declaring “if you are not with me you are against me” (pure heresay (not heresy) by Apostle Matt some may say), and by their identification via stunning resurrection of Marsha P. Johnston only 50 years after the fact as the tireless hooker/transvestite/social worker/ stones-thrower the NYT neglected to identify.
Composer Carl Orff wrote three pieces, the first being the unsurpassable 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑎, based on the Trionfi, the triumphal return of Roman armies from successful campaigns. With the publication of the first he asked that all his previous works be withdrawn no longer published.
The first pride parade was five years before my solitary march, I don't imagine they developed much of a distinctive political idiom in a few years, but the tone I have always seen is that same tiresome confrontational belligerence. Maybe you could connect the dots for me but I don't see how this elective confirmation of the worst gay stereotypes entails anything like ... triumph.
<<To my mind, gays and lesbians who support the genderists should feel ashamed of being cowardly conformists, and I hope that one day they will.>>
I'd like to speak to this, because I am a gay man who used to pretend to believe in gender ideology. I did so because there's a TON of pressure from other gay people to believe that trans women are women, and that a trans woman "threw the first brick" and all of that. If you didn't believe, you were a traitor, a bigot, and, frankly, evil. I didn't want to be a bad person, so I figured that I just had to squash my doubts and carry on as if those doubts did not exist.
I finally hit my peak trans moment in 2021, and since then I've been increasingly public about my disagreements with gender ideology. And, yes, I am ashamed that I went along with this nonsense for as long as I did. However, I have a good deal of sympathy with gays, lesbians and bisexuals who feel obligated to bow to that ideology because I was once where they are now. I don't think it's cowardice; it's the desire to be good.
I knew quite a few transsexual people in Virginia and later dated a few of them in Seattle. This was in the late two thousand aughts, and as far as I hear the "trans" thing got started around 2009.
The men I dated were nothing at all like "trans" and the one time I asked one of them about pronouns he could not have been less interested in the topic. "He before surgery, she after, let me know when you're ready to screw me again." Got it.
So when I noticed that I was seeing "they" used as a singular a lot more and found out about "trans" I thought back to my friends and how all this fakery was such a betrayal of what they were going through (both did their qualifying year as women, though not when we met).
Everything about the gender cult annoys me; the demands, the rotten grammar, the neologisms, but most of all the wall-to-wall phoniness. They're in it for attention. and that's all.
Is internalized shame the reason for Gay Pride? Is Pride what is to replace shame? I’d venture to say it doesn’t in the sense that proclaiming Pride doesn’t fill the “I’m different” gap. And, they pursue Pride, acceptance and conversion of others, including supporting irreversible medical transition of children because it allows them to feel more normal. I make this observation having a Lesbian/Queer daughter married to a butch woman who identifies as non-binary. I’d like to share this article but I won’t because the blowback would be horrendous. As Mick Jagger pointed out, you don’t always get what you want. I was happy for the marriage and I love my daughter and daughter in law. But, objecting to transing is deemed homophobic.
Pride parades are fascinating historical lessons, 2000-year-old pagan festivals which was transmuted via Medieval allegory into a modern form which combines allegory and militaristic celebration and pagan festival.
Roman military parades ‘triumphus’ celebrated military victory and religious evidence of favor from the gods, ending in the temple of Jupiter with a fairly interesting festival and captive sacrifices at the end. With collapse of the Empire, we saw fragments reconstitue in the art of the late medieval / early renaissance period as ‘trionfi’ and became allegorical, particularly that used on Tarot cards celebrating triumph of virtues over vice. Petrarch, one of the early humanists, has a series of poems on the subject, quite sweet.
Parades in modern western culture are usually either martial (4th of July) or religious (Easter), one is an ancient Roman religious parade (New Year’s celebrating Janus)… Gay pride is uniquely a Renaissance non-militaristic non-religious realization of an allegorical triumph of love over hate “Triumphus Cupidinis“, complete with floats, costumed participants, and a pagan festival at various temples at the conclusion. Traditionally Triumphus Cupidinis is led by a naked young man with wings. The modern version has streamlined the attendance costume without wings.
We don’t permit ritualized human sacrifice of captives anymore, as far as I’m aware, at the end.
I marched once, attended without marching the next year, and never attended again. That first year, before the march started, I signed up to be notified of future marches. After I saw that first one on TV news I was disgusted at the spectacle; not that the news had selected the ugliest displays to put onscreen, I expected nothing else, but that the marchers (and the organizers) were so lacking in clue to provide so much grist for this mill.
I received the notifications the next ten years or so; always the same. Nothing about projecting wholesomeness or dignity, always the opposite: be as lewd as you can manage, go out of your way to be offensive. The cops can't arrest all of us, can they? (titter titter).
I really have no idea how "pride" is supposed to enter into this.
The goal was as clear as it could be: shock and offend the "str8s." Analingus demonstrations on parade floats; bare-breasted crewcut lesbians wearing murderous expressions; leather straps, motorcycle caps, handcuffs and faces like armpits.
And here was I, newly out and looking for someone to form a relationship with.
I'm sure the parades now are mostly "trans" freaks, nose rings, sexual grotesqueness and surgery scars, but the impressions are the same:
𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐃.
Sure, there are the gay cops, firemen, and non-shocking, and there are the funny acts like the Sisters but they're forgotten and they don't make the news. Anyone undecided about "sexual minorities" comes away from these horror shows with their minds made up and probably 100% have renewed determination to suppress us again.
My 50 year old Lesbian sister has said so many times she is glad this trans nonsense wasn't an option when she was younger. In the 70s and 80s we were all pushing non-conformity. Look at the glam rockers, Prince. We women were wearing ties and power suits in the office. I was into an androgenous style for a quick minute. We never thought clothes or hair or makeup determined your sex. Now a guy who lets his hair grow out thinks he is a girl and a tomboy is a boy. How regressive is that? Talk about stereotypes...the trans radical activists perpetuate the most sexist stereotypes.
This was beautifully written. I wish your voice could be amplified, and I'm doing my best via my social media circles. But we all know this is a LONG and uphill fight. I feel the same way as a pro-life advocate, just as I'm sure abolitionists felt in the early 1800s. I acknowledge your bravery and applaud it.
Children are confused on so many levels. We need adults to provide sound guidance and not categorize them. Let them grow up to at least 16 before we put them in a bucket.
Once one disordered lie has been internalized, it becomes inevitable that more will follow. Homosexuality is a disadvantage in life; it is a bad thing; it is deviant behavior in the negative sense of the term. This can be readily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment: If you had a child, and you could choose that they be either heterosexual (i.e. sexually normal) or homosexual, what would you choose? Which choice would be in their best interest? Any honest person knows the answer to this.
This fact has been obfuscated by partisan politics of the type you describe accurately: "Red = bad, blue = good." The red people hold the above viewpoint. This means that, for the blue people, the opposite must be true, no matter what. Homosexuality must therefore be good, not bad. Not because this is reality--but rather because it is the opposite of the what the red people believe. This is made apparent in the popular mythology surrounding "homophobia." In order to demonize the red people, we are fed narratives in which the stupid, evil red people engage in pointless cruelty towards homosexuals, motivated by superstitions and bigotry. "Gay pride" becomes a form of social credit as an expression of opposition to society's villains, the red people, who must always be stopped at all costs.
The most accurate moral model of homosexuality is that, to the extent that it is an inherent trait, it is akin to a propensity for alcoholism or other drug addictions. It is not a moral failing that a person is born with a certain inherent disadvantage in life. At the same time, to deny the reality of that disadvantage, and to instead adopt an enabling mindset in which it is somehow actually a virtue, will obviously lead to some rather unpleasant consequences.
If you had a choice between a Downs Syndrome child and a "normal" child - would you pick a Downs Syndrome child? Stop viewing homosexuality as a "behavior" and start seeing it as a variation of humanity. Albinoism, Downs Syndrome, left-handedness - these are all genetic, as is homosexuality. I don't believe in "Gay Pride" anymore than I believe in Albino Pride or Lefty Pride, etc.
I can't tell if this comment is agreeing with my post or disagreeing. Either way, the jury is most certainly out on the extent to which homosexual tendencies are inherent vs influenced by environment, socialization, etc. As with all complex human behaviors, it is almost certain that the truth is a mix of the two. Also, it is still most definitely true that homosexuality is a behavior.
This is why I compare it to a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism (or other addictions). Alcoholism is a complex behavior influenced both by genetics and environment, and the extent to which any particular individual will indulge in it is not at all pre-determined, even if it is something that runs in their family.
I work with a friend whom I didn't see for over ten years who has become an alcoholic. His personality has completely changed, and he is an incredibly nasty drunk.
I don't drink, I tried it at 17, didn't like it, never drank again. My family has no alcoholism and nobody has married into it, so I really didn't know anything about it until this friend came to visit and drank 24 9-ounce cans of beer every night. He's now 50 and between his drinking and smoking ("grab a smoke") is probably in his last decade.
Knowing now what to look for, I noted several coworkers where I taught ESL to have the same self-escalating temper and the same spontaneous hostility. I have no idea why we've built such a mystique around what is clearly a toxin.
You are wrong. This isn't an opinion, it's a matter of definition.
A homosexual is one who feels attraction to people of the same sex. Whether or not he acts on that attraction (behavior) is completely orthogonal to the definition. People of any sexual orientation might be promiscuous, they might be celibate, but it is the attraction that establishes the definition.
Homosexuality is not a behavior. You don't know what you're talking about.
And it is the same 3-5% across millennia of time and across continents and cultures. This unmistakably represents an equilibrium established by evolution and is therefore as "natural" as anything could be. To call it "deviant" or "unnatural" displays monumental ignorance.
And nobody, and I mean nobody, cares if you approve or not.
>You are wrong. This isn't an opinion, it's a matter of definition.<
Homosexual behavior is obviously a thing that can be observed and accurately described, so this is a pedantic quibble. Feelings, preferences, behavior--the adjective "homosexual" can be properly applied to all of these.
>And it is the same 3-5% across millennia of time and across continents and cultures. This unmistakably represents an equilibrium established by evolution and is therefore as "natural" as anything could be. To call it "deviant" or "unnatural" displays monumental ignorance.<
Since you are fond of definitions:
"Deviant: departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior."
A behavior that occurs in only 3-5% of the population (even if we accept the premise that this percent is some kind of universal constant) obviously qualifies. Now, it is certainly true that a minority trait or behavior does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. But in this case, it is. Reproduction is kind of a big deal, wouldn't you agree? No one would be silly enough to argue that being sterile is somehow not a bad thing or not a deviation from the ideal, and yet homosexuality, which typically includes sterility in effect, is given exactly this pass for whatever reasons.
so you advocate forcing a homosexual person to have sex with the opposite sex and create babies? Surely you don't mean this. Or do you advocate just eliminating homosexuals? If so, how does that help procreation? Your arguments are frankly retarded.
What exactly have I written which suggests forcing people to have sex unwillingly, or "eliminating" anyone? My main point here has been only that homosexuality is an undesirable trait. So is, for example, balding at a young age! Or being extremely short, or having a low IQ, or any number of other things. If I were to point those things out, in opposition to people who are attempting to deny them, why in the world would you jump from there to thinking that I want to "eliminate" the people who are unfortunate enough to have those traits?
Where did you get that? He didn't say anything of the sort. Sounds like you spend a lot of time arguing with the imaginary people in your head. I'm very sorry for you but if you can snap yourself out of this bad habit, you will likely be a lot happier. Best wishes.
"Homosexual behavior is obviously a thing that can be observed and accurately described, so this is a pedantic quibble. Feelings, preferences, behavior--the adjective "homosexual" can be properly applied to all of these."
An astonishingly weak argument. "I can be observed and described ... the adjective can be applied to all three."
You're not even trying.
Sexual orientation is defined by attraction. If you want to make up your own definitions, you can stand with that steersman guy and his asexual children. Behavior is tangential. A lot of male prostitutes are heterosexual, they have sex with men for money. You would say they're gay, You'd be wrong.
This is not exactly subtle, man.
The Japanese eat a lot of raw fish. A lot of westerners don't like fish at all ("bones"). Suppose you were shipwrecked on an island with nothing to eat, and after a week or two you found yourself eating raw fish, so as not to starve.. Would that mean you'd become piscivorous? Turned Japanese? After all, you're eating raw fish. That's a behavior.
Abnormal - deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
Obviously, the deviation from what is normal [primary thrust of definition] is easier to factually investigate, while being "undesirable or worrying" [secondary connotation] is more inherently subjective.
"undesirable or worrying" seems a lower bar than "pathological".
The benefit/cost ratio of being left handed today is not very concerning. I would argue that in the most liberal western societies today, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is also not very concerning, but I would not argue that's globally true even today. I'm glad to live in the former, but I do not deny the existence of the latter.
"And the tranies claim to 'feel' like a member of the opposite sex."
They aren't "trainees," they're "trannies." Basic rules of English pronunciation. Also, make up your mind how many of them you're talking about.
They lying. We're not. The only ones who actually do feel they are the opposite sex are those with Gender Identity Disorder, and there are only about 5000 of them in the entire USA.
"You've conducted surveys across millennia of time?"
You've already established your buffoonery, I don't need additional evidence.
Forcing a change of handedness causes stuttering and other problems. If you think it's just another "behavior" then your ignorance is of legendary proportions.
Look, I understand having a false identity that you've invested yourself in challenged can be painful, but ultimately you need to develop healthier identities.
What’s hilarious is your inability to determine where society should draw lines. As a Catholic I believe marriage to be a sacrament between one man and one woman. NO DIVORCE. But I live in a civil society where not everyone shares my values. Henry VIII started a new church just to get his way with divorce. So to avoid such upheaval and civil wars, we all agree to the rules of a civil society. So while I would love to outlaw divorce, abortion, the death penalty, etc, I know to apply those to my life and allow civil society to give space to others with differing views.
Is the idea here that reproduction means nothing, and life outcomes are to be measured only in dollars earned? That premise itself displays exactly the kind of disordered thinking that necessarily follows from a failure to recognize homosexuality for what it is. Instead of recognizing that the inability to reproduce is quite an undesirable trait, you claim that reproduction is actually irrelevant and meaningless so that you can pretend not to make that recognition.
Your statement also implies some kind of causal relationship between being a homosexual and having a "professional career," as opposed to all the incompetent heteros who tend not to have jobs or earn money by comparison.
Go a-googling and you will quickly learn that gay people are more intelligent on average, significantly so, than heterosexuals. Intelligence favors success.
I've had a very successful life writing software, despite losing a few jobs because of Christian fundamentalist managers.
Don't take my word for it and don't wet yourself in a reply, just look it up.
Yes, as you yourself state, intelligence is the trait doing the lifting here, not homosexuality. Homosexuality correlates with the trait that is causal of some desirable life outcomes, such as dollars earned or educational attainment, but is not itself causal of these things; meaning that, if we take the same person with the same IQ, there is little or no evidence to suggest that he or she would somehow do worse in these things if they were heterosexual as opposed to homosexual.
I will give you the benefit of assuming that you know and understand this correlation-causation distinction.
That's an infantile evasion. If homosexuality correlates with higher intelligence, and it does, and higher intelligence correlates with greater success, and it does, then the correlation between homosexuality and success is the product of the other two.
You also might be surprised to learn that gay relationships surviving three years are more stable than heterosexual ones. But those first three years are a challenge.
There is also a body of research suggesting that mental illness correlates with higher IQ. Would you try and boast about an anxiety disorder as a praiseworthy trait based on this correlation, too?
I don't know where you're getting all these inferences from, but it's not from anything I wrote.
In a world of eight billion choking on its own waste, I really don't think having kids right now is a good idea. Even before I was certain I was gay, I never planned to.
Besides, with the political and climactic catastrophes both bearing down on us, I think bearing children who will likely die in one kind of flame or another is kinda irresponsible.
It sounds like I was exactly correct in inferring that you believe reproduction is of no consequence, or is even a Bad Thing that should actively be avoided. I would submit such an anti-human viewpoint as Exhibit A in the type of maladaptive thinking that inevitably follows on from adopting a homophilic stance.
Our world can stably support about three billion people. It's closing in on three times that, and environmental systems are breaking down. Last year's summer was the hottest in 2000 years. This year's will be hotter and heatstroke will shortly be a leading cause of death.
So, at this time, reproduction is, yes, absolutely bad idea. We should have a global moratorium on childbearing. You can wring handkerchiefs about how that's "homophilia" or "misanthropy" or whatever gets you attention but unless you're stupid enough to claim that everything's fine, we can support 75 billion people, you're advocating birthing people who will die in flame long before old age.
We could have put on the brakes decades ago, but everyone wants babies and now our survival as a species is at risk.
Of course heterosexuality is a disorder similar to pediaprosocia, karthartavisium, or gratusmyrodia - it is the unique predecessor to familial pedophilia, sometimes ephebophilia, as defined by the 100% lack of sex abuse in lesbian households, and the. 1000-fold reduction of abuse in gay households.
> Gay kids brought up in the most accepting environments can’t help but feel a sense of shame, at least in the beginning, because being homosexual makes them different from the majority;
Is it just that they are different, or is it rather that their sexual instincts have become, quite objectively, distorted? As rational beings we can be aware of the fact that some deep instinct or urge we might have is disgusting. 'Acceptance' is not necessarily the solution. A pedophile -- notwithstanding his urges -- might be a very fine person who refuses to give in to what he clearly, objectively, sees as a defect within himself. In the same way a homosexual might clearly see that the behaviors which he is drawn to are also, objectively disgusting. If some homosexuals 'get used' to what they do, then OK, that makes it easier for them to live with themselves, but if others don't, I salute their good taste, even if it does mean that their lives will be tougher.
I don't understand "objectively disgusting"; it sounds like an oxymoron to combine those two.
I do understand that a humane and rational pedophile might see that practicing their attraction would very likely cause harm to another and so desist. There is a lot of objective evidence for that likelihood of causing harm, within our society.
But I don't see the same issue in regard to homosexuality per se. There is nothing more "objectively" harmful about homosexual versus heterosexual relationships, and I see no moral reason for said person to avoid forming consensual same sex relationships.
Of course, a given person could subjectively and emotionally consider one, both or neither act "disgusting" just because of their societal conditioning or family or whatever. Some people would consider a 40 year old marrying a 23 year old disgusting, others not. Or a tall hairdo.
We can't show objectively whether or not it is disgusting, that's inherently subjective.
> "objectively disgusting"; it sounds like an oxymoron to combine those two.
You have a point there. Yes, it needs rephrasing. ... I wait for the right words and several jostle but none wins. Let me use an example: almost everyone is repelled by the thought of eating feces, yes? That's because that repugnance is hard wired into us for very understandable biological reasons. In exactly the same way, the thought of someone fisting another person and then licking the shit off their hand disgusts me. I dare say it would and should disgust almost everyone.
> There is nothing more "objectively" harmful about homosexual
Homosexuals are, man for man, the most potent disease vector of any nameable sub-population. AIDS was their gift to the world. They are the primary vector of syphilis and several other STDs. Still I take your point -- as a matter of law, what consenting adults do in privacy should be, in principle, their own business.
Still, I think that society both can and should cultivate a sense of what is 'normal', healthy and good. It's a broader topic, but the idea of unlimited freedom is, I think, overspent.
> We can't show objectively whether or not it is disgusting, that's inherently subjective.
Yes, there are tricky issues of balancing desirable principles, when balancing individual rights with statistical probabilities at the group level.
A common example could be DUI laws, which punish somebody for their behavior - not because it HAS caused harm to anybody, but because it is sufficiently likely to do so that society pragmatically has decided to use pre-emptive incentives to reduce the precursors.
Coerced vaccinations are another example within this space, currently way too emotionally charged to be easily discussed.
In general, I tend to favor individual freedom unless the burden on society is too great, but I have no reliable formula for determining that boundary, and I recognize that there can thus be slippery slopes.
Indeed. It is one of my favorite aphorisms that we are always on a slippery slope and the best we can do is to try for the least-worst compromise. I lean towards liberty too. But I don't mistake what is permissible for what is desirable or 'normal'.
"...a visceral disgust at the thought of same sex relationships..."
I'm not so sure that this is abnormal, in that I know gay guys who regard having sex with a vagina as disgusting. And whilst I have not discussed it with a lesbian, I would not be surprised if the thought of being penetrated by a penis was revolting to them. Disgust is something that arises unconsciously, and we have no control over what disgusts us. That goes right to the heart of what sexual orientation is: imagining this feels erotic to me, and imagining that is a turn-off. It's supposed to work that way. What we can do, and should, is to separate that from our intellectual response to the owners of these behaviours. I don't care what my gay friends get up to in the bedroom, even if the details seem unpleasant to me: they surely think the same about what they imagine me getting up to! Anyway, I daresay lots of hetero couples indulge in things that would also be unappealing to me. The point is that none of that is my business, and I put it to one side when I interact with them.
I think a lot of this is more related to an identity crutch than an authentic reaction. A lot of gay men put on a most tiresome recitation, with much fluttering of hands and rolling of eyes, about how they could NEVER under ANY circumstances be attracted to a women, and blah blah blah.
As with those bigots who never shut up about how much they hate gay men, one truly needs to wonder why both are thinking about their respective loathings at all. Heterosexual men should be thinking about how to get women into bed, not what gay men are doing there.
I'm gay, I've had sex with women a few times, I enjoyed it and I didn't feel unclean afterward, not even to the point of an urgent need to shower. Not a big deal.
I'm sure a lot of people react to certain physical attributes with disgust; I would never want to have sex with any man with facial hair. I have no idea why, but it is out of the question. I'm much more interested in men outside my own race, but not disgusted with white men, just less interested.
The point is that we have no control over what we find attractive, so those "trans" people who say that gay men who don't like "trans men" (women) are bigots are just looking for attention, whoa, quelle surprise.
I’m increasingly experiencing homophobia from friends and acquaintances who consider themselves super progressive. They suggest that I see the person and not the genitalia. They support the rape and murder of Jews. They support male rapists in wigs rights over the rights of their victims. There’s no enlightening them to old fashioned regressive enlightenment values. They are correct and their rules MUST be adhered to and anyone who resists is a totalitarian Nazi. You really can’t make this up.
I am about to make a comparison some will not like, but from my observation, there is a certain degree of truthfulness and appropriateness.
Your comment:
"They readily accepted my resignation and have since persistently ignored my emails, almost as if I no longer exist."
has a quasi-religious and cult- like feel to it.
Until recently, I was a traditionalist member of the PC(USA), a mainline Protestant denomination. Prior to that a member of a very nationally prominent SBC congregation. During my membership of said denomination, my wife moved more to the left on social issues, I remained largely on the right.
As her views came to the fore, certain of our more conservative friends shunned her. Our church in the PC(USA) was a very moderate congregation with a traditionalist pastor, who left once certain constitutional changes occured in 2014, and became effective in 2015. I was okay with that, but our new pastor was a more liberal than the prior, yet like the seemed okay charting a middle course.
Then 2020 hit. Like many an organization that became institutionally capture towards one of the two major political parties, the PC(USA) doubled-down on spouting left-wing talking points without reservation, including the medicalization of so-called trans children, even as it condemned the then President of the US. (Of course, the great irony is that the PC(USA) responded in the right manner over child sex abuse, yet apparently, its leadership fails to hold a more clearly reserved position on medicalization of children over gender, treating it as a red vs. blue issue, even though its a cross-spectrum of peoples who are opposing this.)
Anywsy, I complained, politely, about the blantant partisanship towards one political party over the other. I complained about clear violations of historic doctrines not dealing with the socials issues. Once it became clear that I would not just be a good little go along-get along traditionalists, who would write checks even as national and geographic leadership bullied, badgered, and misrepresented well-supported, mainstream views on things that I and millions other held, my pastor, who didn't exhibit those activist characteristics, but in retrospect, clearly agrees with those positions began shunning me, by ignoring texts, emails, etc. unless it was a prayer request concerning my wife's health.
So sir, while there are points on which we probably do disagree, I understand what you have gone through.
I might add that the shunning, even extended to contact that had NOTHING to do with church politics, but on one of our shared favorite topics, church history.
Just like with lockdowns and mandates, I don't buy the "we didn't know." I see the distancing that goes on as soon as someone speaks openly about both these topics, and I also know how in whispered conversations in the hallway and the staircase more people have like views than it seems. It was this "transing away the gay" that helped me reach peak trans, but my gay friends do not support my questioning. It is maddening. They are addicted to the solidarity of their movement and have sunk their cost in the fallacy.
Heterosexuals have no memory of choosing to be straight. They're born with predisposition to attraction to the opposite sex, and of course nobody questions this since their attraction is "according to nature." What people like our troll feign to misunderstand is that homosexuals are born and mature the same way: predisposed to attraction to the same sex. Since this is not "according to nature," there are conflicting beliefs about the authenticity of their attraction; the troll calls it a "feeling" and many believe it's elective, as though homosexuality is a temptation, an allure that stronger people resist.
All evidence points to the contrary, but bigots don't care about evidence.
Homosexuals comprise 3-5% of every human population across millennia of time and continents of space. This is clearly an equilibrium established by evolution, analogous to left-handedness and with about the same prevalence.
And it is the attraction that forms the basis of definition; whether people of any orientation are celibate or promiscuous, their sexual orientation is fixed long before they can carry out sexual behavior, which the unlettered believe is what defines sexual orientation. This is, simply, wrong.
One of the arguments the bigots make is that "trans" is no different. In a stunning turn of events, they are wrong about this too. Candidly, there is such a thing as Gender Identity Disorder, which was part of the DSM until activists objected to that third word and demanded that the "transgendered" can be defined by mere declaration. By self-reports.
GID had strict diagnostic criteria and most claiming it were denied any kind of medical treatment, as they were just unhappy people who wanted to change their lives, akin to those who change their names, end all contact with family and friends, and relocate. GID appears early, typically age 4-6, and is lifelong. It is in no way elective. It is a medical condition and it's extremely rare, one in 30,000 boys and one in 100,000 girls. To qualify for hormones and surgery they needed to not only pass stringent psychological review, but live for a year as the opposite sex, a requirement that a lot of people believe to still be in force.
It isn't. A disturbed teen girl, in a state of misery because, oh, she didn't make the cheerleading squad, can show up at a McGender clinic and simply intone "I think I'm 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠"and walk out, after a single brief and perfunctory interview, with her first hormones. She could not get haloperidol by simply claiming to be schizophrenic. American healthcare bends over backward to expand the ranks of the "trans," most of whom will outgrow their elective condition in a few years and likely be gay but many are now in compromised health and are eunuchs.
The point is that while homosexuality is inborn, "trans" is clearly elective. Where GID appears early in childhood, "trans" comes mostly from recruitment, by peers, by activists on social media, by encouragement in elementary school with the lie that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.
Since the "trans" cult began around 2009 there has been an increase of over 4000% in self-reports of trangenderism, almost all of it in girls. GID was 3:1 boys. The condition is fake, it is false, to honor it is harmful, it entails permanent psychological and physical harm. The surgeries are grotesque in every way, the hormones are harmful, and regret is very high. A decade after "affirmation" there is a suicide surge among the "transitioned" at a rate almost 20 times the demographic average.
Homosexuality and "trans" are unrelated in every way. Aside from about 5000 actual transsexuals, "trans" is an elective condition that should be addressed with the same gravity as a declaration to commit murder or suicide. Homosexuality is a state of normal human variation that is no more elective than having blue eyes. Nor any more remarkable.
"A troubling number of men and women, even psychotherapists working with gender-confused children, have a visceral disgust at the thought of same sex relationships..."
Yes. This is biology, not homophobia.
You do you...and this goes for a lot of stuff people do, not just who they choose to sleep with. Don't expect others to like it.
I agree about revulsion or disgust biological origin - it is due to a simultaneous failure of “theory of mind” (inability to perceive) and inchoate feeling that someone is born subhuman, normally a problem with sociopaths (human perception), it may also evidence a state similar to a complex version of prosopagnosia.
While sociopaths can be trained to mask their deficiency, failure to adapt theory of mind is a defect that emerges in early childhood, and can be part of autism spectrum, schizophrenia, or neurogenerative
I recently posted a video of two women calling themselves "he" showing off their "top surgery" scars and speaking cavalierly that the "right boob wouldn't go out without a fight." Neither of these young women look male in the slightest. One reads more lesbian than the other. This does not make them male.
A long ago roommate put his son on puberty blockers. When I post something like this, he comes at me with the following "argument." How does this touch your life? Do you have any gender non-conforming people in your life?
We lived together in San Francisco in the early 90s. We were ALL "gender non-conforming" (some straight, some not.) This term baffles me, especially coming from ostensibly progressive people. How did they go from 'gender stereotypes are regressive' to 'gender non-conforming' which implies that one must conform to a gender that requires destructive surgery in order to achieve?
In this recent kerfuffle, I said that I disagree with the term "gender-nonconforming." He then goes into how this is none of my business; I have no idea how much this affects families. So I directed him to PITT, which I have already, on several occasions, and which he clearly hasn't looked at because he keeps insisting that I don't know anything about this, even as I post the WPATH FILES, the CASS REPORT, and several PITT essays. In essence, perhaps I know more than he does?
One thing I know about him. He had a gay brother who died. And I deeply suspect that "internalized homophobia" is what is "transing" his son. I also suspect that the son, who was very pretty, was called "girlie" in school. They transed him at about 8 years old, and the mother has as her FB profile picture a trans flag with a candle in the middle. Trans is her RELIGION.
In essence, many people -- straight and gay -- are "gender-non-conforming." This term seems to have crawled out of the woodwork as a means to convincing people to alter their bodies in order to 'conform.' Ironically, my old roommate accused me of "moralizing" rather than "thinking critically." It took a great amount of self-control to keep from saying, "Yeah, one shouldn't think before getting one's breasts lopped off."
In the meantime, I maintain that my interest in this phenomenon does not require it "touching" my life, although I have been frequently labeled "gender non conforming" myself. I suffered all of what the detransitioners say they suffered. I was not like the other girls. Thankfully, this ideology never touched me. I will continue to put the information out there. I will not cede to the bullying of the fools who have fallen for it.
In the meantime, I'm hoping to get this guy to push his son not to get the bottom surgery that's in the works "soon."
But nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is more rigidly conforming than the "gender-nonconforming" cult.
I pray you are successful. Your post really made me think. Thank you for sharing.
I met an older lesbian yesterday at a party who hasn't thought about this at all and called me out for sounding "authoritative" while talking about it. We need to keep educating people about what's going on, however unpleasant it is, and build a supportive community among those of us who have "peaked." People neither know about nor think about the devastating consequences of medical transitioning.
Yes, what is that dynamic where someone doesn't really have a logical disagreement (or agreement) with what one says, but seems to object to the mere fact one has an opinion divergent from the narrative. I can only presume it means that person has become a supporter of the group and narrative, not through some intellectual understanding, but merely an emotional alliance.
Too bad they don't know true empathy requires understanding and commitment to betterment, not blind ratification.
It’s understandable that people equate the vulnerability of being same-sex attracted to that of those who feel like they’re born in the wrong body and need to be rescued from their fate through what the medical profession claims to offer — a magical transformation into the right body. Ultimately it’s the professionals who are to blame for allowing the perpetuation of this mythology that one can switch one’s biological sex.
By the time I came out my defiance of the mundane and my intellectual independence were too deeply-seated to feel any shame over being gay. It was difficult for me to explain it to others but that only lasted a year or so.
But .. "internalized homophobia." This has the same misapplication as "antisemitism." I'd say that, oh. 99% of the times I heard it, the term was applied to people like me who didn't think that striving to be as offensive as possible, working hard to validate the ugliest stereotypes of gays, was such a great idea.
I spoke out against the grotesque lewdness of pride parades. Internalized homophobia. I spoke against telling strangers what aroused us while masturbating. Internalized homophobia. I said we should drop the enclave culture and assimilate into mainstream society. Internalized homophobia. I said I felt no connection to feather boas or eye shadow. Internalized homophobia. I said that promiscuity wasn't a great idea and that we'd be happier in stable relationships. Internalized homophobia.
You get the picture.
I don't understand why now of all times gay kids should be feeling shame; we have same-sex marriage, we have a gay Secretary of Transportation, being gay is about as remarkable as being left-handed.
If anything, I would be ashamed at being connected by the WiFi password to the "trans" crowd and I'd seek to be as unlike them as possible, NOT feel like being gay was just a stop on the way to being turned into a euphoric eunuch.
"It's hard to hate a group when you have some of its members as friends." Or brothers or children or grandchildren or nephews or co-workers or neighbors or .... especially when you see them breaking out with horrible purple lesions or visibility wasting or dying without anyone saying what carried them off or that the doctors had nothing to offer them except palliative care. That's what gave us the extraordinarily fast increase in the favorable public opinion of same-sex marriage. Before 1980, most people could say in perfect good faith, "I don't know any gay people; afterwards, however, almost no one could. Stonewall had nothing to do with it. It hardly made a ripple outside New York, if there. AIDS was a horrible price to pay, but it shoved us kicking and screaming out of our closets. What terrifies me about all this trans horse shit and the deceitful propaganda attaching it as a parasite on the movement for gay equality is that we will be caught in the backlash against the preposterous demands of the radical trans ideologues. The reactionaries who never reconciled to gay equality are all too happy to treat equality as the same as trans "justice" and tear them both down.
You are so exactly right about the "trans" parasitism but the generation gap between HIV and SSM renders that association unlikely. Public opinion on SSM went though a Chaos Theory sort of transition, almost overnight it became absurd to oppose it.
But we have to fight 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 against LGB𝐓 because the spoiled narcissistic creeps will take us down with them and they sure as hell don't care. Except about themselves.
Stonewall is a myth. Some passing Vietnam War protesters uprooted some parking meters while drag queens were yelling at the cops. Gay activists less than 100 miles away hadn't heard of the great pivotal event over ten years later. It was pulled out of the trash can to promote the confrontational belligerence ("in your face") in vogue at the time.
Stonewall
To clarify perhaps, the riots were positioned by the mafia as a way to avoid expensive payoffs to the police to operate the Stonewall inn, according to an old gay friend of mine who had worked for the Mafia since age 14 as a bagman, and was still working exactly at the time (I actually had two gay men I knew who were mafia bagmen, one born into it, one who was recruited into it as a runaway).
Nascent pride parades organized by the Mattachine society which existed already were grafted onto Stonewall much like the Birth of Christ and Pagan solstice grafted onto each other for Christmas. It was merger of convenience, though Christmas was not organized by the mafia to end at the Stonewall Inn, I recall there was another Inn involved.
Riots involving several hundred are not generally ignored, it was covered extensively with an entire 7 inches on page 33 of NYT and resulting parades over years grew through savvy marketing into the full-blown Pagan revival of renaissance allegorical ‘trionfi’ - people think the pride parade is “pride over shame”, but of course it’s an iteration of the Medieval “Trionfi Cupidis”or Triumph of Love. Though I’m a size queen, sometimes 7 inches is just fine - Dave Van Ronk, folksinger, was the named man arrested for throwing a heavy object at the police.
Interestingly transsexuals are imitating Christ both by declaring “if you are not with me you are against me” (pure heresay (not heresy) by Apostle Matt some may say), and by their identification via stunning resurrection of Marsha P. Johnston only 50 years after the fact as the tireless hooker/transvestite/social worker/ stones-thrower the NYT neglected to identify.
Composer Carl Orff wrote three pieces, the first being the unsurpassable 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑎, based on the Trionfi, the triumphal return of Roman armies from successful campaigns. With the publication of the first he asked that all his previous works be withdrawn no longer published.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qATbf5-D8bU
𝑂 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑎
𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑎
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠
It's hard to keep your seat while listening.
The first pride parade was five years before my solitary march, I don't imagine they developed much of a distinctive political idiom in a few years, but the tone I have always seen is that same tiresome confrontational belligerence. Maybe you could connect the dots for me but I don't see how this elective confirmation of the worst gay stereotypes entails anything like ... triumph.
Or pride.
The best message that can come from a whimpering assertion pride is “we’re nearly as worthy as you are.”
But the message is usually more like “yes, we really are compulsive deviants.”
Belligerence may be cathartic for those too far out of the closet to ever be accepted, but the rest of us should be suppressing it.
And in complete sequitar to the original post.
<<To my mind, gays and lesbians who support the genderists should feel ashamed of being cowardly conformists, and I hope that one day they will.>>
I'd like to speak to this, because I am a gay man who used to pretend to believe in gender ideology. I did so because there's a TON of pressure from other gay people to believe that trans women are women, and that a trans woman "threw the first brick" and all of that. If you didn't believe, you were a traitor, a bigot, and, frankly, evil. I didn't want to be a bad person, so I figured that I just had to squash my doubts and carry on as if those doubts did not exist.
I finally hit my peak trans moment in 2021, and since then I've been increasingly public about my disagreements with gender ideology. And, yes, I am ashamed that I went along with this nonsense for as long as I did. However, I have a good deal of sympathy with gays, lesbians and bisexuals who feel obligated to bow to that ideology because I was once where they are now. I don't think it's cowardice; it's the desire to be good.
I knew quite a few transsexual people in Virginia and later dated a few of them in Seattle. This was in the late two thousand aughts, and as far as I hear the "trans" thing got started around 2009.
The men I dated were nothing at all like "trans" and the one time I asked one of them about pronouns he could not have been less interested in the topic. "He before surgery, she after, let me know when you're ready to screw me again." Got it.
So when I noticed that I was seeing "they" used as a singular a lot more and found out about "trans" I thought back to my friends and how all this fakery was such a betrayal of what they were going through (both did their qualifying year as women, though not when we met).
Everything about the gender cult annoys me; the demands, the rotten grammar, the neologisms, but most of all the wall-to-wall phoniness. They're in it for attention. and that's all.
Is internalized shame the reason for Gay Pride? Is Pride what is to replace shame? I’d venture to say it doesn’t in the sense that proclaiming Pride doesn’t fill the “I’m different” gap. And, they pursue Pride, acceptance and conversion of others, including supporting irreversible medical transition of children because it allows them to feel more normal. I make this observation having a Lesbian/Queer daughter married to a butch woman who identifies as non-binary. I’d like to share this article but I won’t because the blowback would be horrendous. As Mick Jagger pointed out, you don’t always get what you want. I was happy for the marriage and I love my daughter and daughter in law. But, objecting to transing is deemed homophobic.
Triumph
Pride parades are fascinating historical lessons, 2000-year-old pagan festivals which was transmuted via Medieval allegory into a modern form which combines allegory and militaristic celebration and pagan festival.
Roman military parades ‘triumphus’ celebrated military victory and religious evidence of favor from the gods, ending in the temple of Jupiter with a fairly interesting festival and captive sacrifices at the end. With collapse of the Empire, we saw fragments reconstitue in the art of the late medieval / early renaissance period as ‘trionfi’ and became allegorical, particularly that used on Tarot cards celebrating triumph of virtues over vice. Petrarch, one of the early humanists, has a series of poems on the subject, quite sweet.
Parades in modern western culture are usually either martial (4th of July) or religious (Easter), one is an ancient Roman religious parade (New Year’s celebrating Janus)… Gay pride is uniquely a Renaissance non-militaristic non-religious realization of an allegorical triumph of love over hate “Triumphus Cupidinis“, complete with floats, costumed participants, and a pagan festival at various temples at the conclusion. Traditionally Triumphus Cupidinis is led by a naked young man with wings. The modern version has streamlined the attendance costume without wings.
We don’t permit ritualized human sacrifice of captives anymore, as far as I’m aware, at the end.
I marched once, attended without marching the next year, and never attended again. That first year, before the march started, I signed up to be notified of future marches. After I saw that first one on TV news I was disgusted at the spectacle; not that the news had selected the ugliest displays to put onscreen, I expected nothing else, but that the marchers (and the organizers) were so lacking in clue to provide so much grist for this mill.
I received the notifications the next ten years or so; always the same. Nothing about projecting wholesomeness or dignity, always the opposite: be as lewd as you can manage, go out of your way to be offensive. The cops can't arrest all of us, can they? (titter titter).
I really have no idea how "pride" is supposed to enter into this.
The goal was as clear as it could be: shock and offend the "str8s." Analingus demonstrations on parade floats; bare-breasted crewcut lesbians wearing murderous expressions; leather straps, motorcycle caps, handcuffs and faces like armpits.
And here was I, newly out and looking for someone to form a relationship with.
I'm sure the parades now are mostly "trans" freaks, nose rings, sexual grotesqueness and surgery scars, but the impressions are the same:
𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐃.
Sure, there are the gay cops, firemen, and non-shocking, and there are the funny acts like the Sisters but they're forgotten and they don't make the news. Anyone undecided about "sexual minorities" comes away from these horror shows with their minds made up and probably 100% have renewed determination to suppress us again.
My 50 year old Lesbian sister has said so many times she is glad this trans nonsense wasn't an option when she was younger. In the 70s and 80s we were all pushing non-conformity. Look at the glam rockers, Prince. We women were wearing ties and power suits in the office. I was into an androgenous style for a quick minute. We never thought clothes or hair or makeup determined your sex. Now a guy who lets his hair grow out thinks he is a girl and a tomboy is a boy. How regressive is that? Talk about stereotypes...the trans radical activists perpetuate the most sexist stereotypes.
This was beautifully written. I wish your voice could be amplified, and I'm doing my best via my social media circles. But we all know this is a LONG and uphill fight. I feel the same way as a pro-life advocate, just as I'm sure abolitionists felt in the early 1800s. I acknowledge your bravery and applaud it.
Children are confused on so many levels. We need adults to provide sound guidance and not categorize them. Let them grow up to at least 16 before we put them in a bucket.
Once one disordered lie has been internalized, it becomes inevitable that more will follow. Homosexuality is a disadvantage in life; it is a bad thing; it is deviant behavior in the negative sense of the term. This can be readily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment: If you had a child, and you could choose that they be either heterosexual (i.e. sexually normal) or homosexual, what would you choose? Which choice would be in their best interest? Any honest person knows the answer to this.
This fact has been obfuscated by partisan politics of the type you describe accurately: "Red = bad, blue = good." The red people hold the above viewpoint. This means that, for the blue people, the opposite must be true, no matter what. Homosexuality must therefore be good, not bad. Not because this is reality--but rather because it is the opposite of the what the red people believe. This is made apparent in the popular mythology surrounding "homophobia." In order to demonize the red people, we are fed narratives in which the stupid, evil red people engage in pointless cruelty towards homosexuals, motivated by superstitions and bigotry. "Gay pride" becomes a form of social credit as an expression of opposition to society's villains, the red people, who must always be stopped at all costs.
The most accurate moral model of homosexuality is that, to the extent that it is an inherent trait, it is akin to a propensity for alcoholism or other drug addictions. It is not a moral failing that a person is born with a certain inherent disadvantage in life. At the same time, to deny the reality of that disadvantage, and to instead adopt an enabling mindset in which it is somehow actually a virtue, will obviously lead to some rather unpleasant consequences.
If you had a choice between a Downs Syndrome child and a "normal" child - would you pick a Downs Syndrome child? Stop viewing homosexuality as a "behavior" and start seeing it as a variation of humanity. Albinoism, Downs Syndrome, left-handedness - these are all genetic, as is homosexuality. I don't believe in "Gay Pride" anymore than I believe in Albino Pride or Lefty Pride, etc.
I can't tell if this comment is agreeing with my post or disagreeing. Either way, the jury is most certainly out on the extent to which homosexual tendencies are inherent vs influenced by environment, socialization, etc. As with all complex human behaviors, it is almost certain that the truth is a mix of the two. Also, it is still most definitely true that homosexuality is a behavior.
This is why I compare it to a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism (or other addictions). Alcoholism is a complex behavior influenced both by genetics and environment, and the extent to which any particular individual will indulge in it is not at all pre-determined, even if it is something that runs in their family.
I work with a friend whom I didn't see for over ten years who has become an alcoholic. His personality has completely changed, and he is an incredibly nasty drunk.
I don't drink, I tried it at 17, didn't like it, never drank again. My family has no alcoholism and nobody has married into it, so I really didn't know anything about it until this friend came to visit and drank 24 9-ounce cans of beer every night. He's now 50 and between his drinking and smoking ("grab a smoke") is probably in his last decade.
Knowing now what to look for, I noted several coworkers where I taught ESL to have the same self-escalating temper and the same spontaneous hostility. I have no idea why we've built such a mystique around what is clearly a toxin.
“ I don't believe in "Gay Pride" anymore than I believe in Albino Pride or Lefty Pride, etc.”
And I don’t believe in patriotism any more than I believe in white supremacy.
> And I don’t believe in patriotism any more than I believe in white supremacy.
I already knew you were an idiot, but thanks for confirming it.
OK, Einstein, let’s hear you explain the qualitative distinctIon between the dirt one was born over and the color of one’s skin.
> Stop viewing homosexuality as a "behavior"
Fundamentally homosexuality is a behavior. How much it's influenced by genetics is still an open question, but it's certainly less than 100%.
You are wrong. This isn't an opinion, it's a matter of definition.
A homosexual is one who feels attraction to people of the same sex. Whether or not he acts on that attraction (behavior) is completely orthogonal to the definition. People of any sexual orientation might be promiscuous, they might be celibate, but it is the attraction that establishes the definition.
Homosexuality is not a behavior. You don't know what you're talking about.
And it is the same 3-5% across millennia of time and across continents and cultures. This unmistakably represents an equilibrium established by evolution and is therefore as "natural" as anything could be. To call it "deviant" or "unnatural" displays monumental ignorance.
And nobody, and I mean nobody, cares if you approve or not.
>You are wrong. This isn't an opinion, it's a matter of definition.<
Homosexual behavior is obviously a thing that can be observed and accurately described, so this is a pedantic quibble. Feelings, preferences, behavior--the adjective "homosexual" can be properly applied to all of these.
>And it is the same 3-5% across millennia of time and across continents and cultures. This unmistakably represents an equilibrium established by evolution and is therefore as "natural" as anything could be. To call it "deviant" or "unnatural" displays monumental ignorance.<
Since you are fond of definitions:
"Deviant: departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior."
A behavior that occurs in only 3-5% of the population (even if we accept the premise that this percent is some kind of universal constant) obviously qualifies. Now, it is certainly true that a minority trait or behavior does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. But in this case, it is. Reproduction is kind of a big deal, wouldn't you agree? No one would be silly enough to argue that being sterile is somehow not a bad thing or not a deviation from the ideal, and yet homosexuality, which typically includes sterility in effect, is given exactly this pass for whatever reasons.
so you advocate forcing a homosexual person to have sex with the opposite sex and create babies? Surely you don't mean this. Or do you advocate just eliminating homosexuals? If so, how does that help procreation? Your arguments are frankly retarded.
What exactly have I written which suggests forcing people to have sex unwillingly, or "eliminating" anyone? My main point here has been only that homosexuality is an undesirable trait. So is, for example, balding at a young age! Or being extremely short, or having a low IQ, or any number of other things. If I were to point those things out, in opposition to people who are attempting to deny them, why in the world would you jump from there to thinking that I want to "eliminate" the people who are unfortunate enough to have those traits?
An utterly bizarre comment.
Where did you get that? He didn't say anything of the sort. Sounds like you spend a lot of time arguing with the imaginary people in your head. I'm very sorry for you but if you can snap yourself out of this bad habit, you will likely be a lot happier. Best wishes.
> so you advocate forcing a homosexual person to have sex with the opposite sex and create babies?
"Homosexual person" is a BS concept. No, I don't approve of sodomy if that's what you mean.
"Homosexual behavior is obviously a thing that can be observed and accurately described, so this is a pedantic quibble. Feelings, preferences, behavior--the adjective "homosexual" can be properly applied to all of these."
An astonishingly weak argument. "I can be observed and described ... the adjective can be applied to all three."
You're not even trying.
Sexual orientation is defined by attraction. If you want to make up your own definitions, you can stand with that steersman guy and his asexual children. Behavior is tangential. A lot of male prostitutes are heterosexual, they have sex with men for money. You would say they're gay, You'd be wrong.
This is not exactly subtle, man.
The Japanese eat a lot of raw fish. A lot of westerners don't like fish at all ("bones"). Suppose you were shipwrecked on an island with nothing to eat, and after a week or two you found yourself eating raw fish, so as not to starve.. Would that mean you'd become piscivorous? Turned Japanese? After all, you're eating raw fish. That's a behavior.
Oh, what's the use. You're hopeless.
So would you say that being left handed is “deviant?”
It’s “abnormal” in the sense of being uncommon, but not in the sense of being pathological. Neither is homosexuality.
You’re committing the Fallacy of Polysemy. Maybe this forum is over your head.
Abnormal - deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
Obviously, the deviation from what is normal [primary thrust of definition] is easier to factually investigate, while being "undesirable or worrying" [secondary connotation] is more inherently subjective.
"undesirable or worrying" seems a lower bar than "pathological".
The benefit/cost ratio of being left handed today is not very concerning. I would argue that in the most liberal western societies today, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is also not very concerning, but I would not argue that's globally true even today. I'm glad to live in the former, but I do not deny the existence of the latter.
> A homosexual is one who feels attraction to people of the same sex.
And the trannies claim to "feel" like a member of the opposite sex.
> And it is the same 3-5% across millennia of time
You've conducted surveys across millennia of time?
"And the tranies claim to 'feel' like a member of the opposite sex."
They aren't "trainees," they're "trannies." Basic rules of English pronunciation. Also, make up your mind how many of them you're talking about.
They lying. We're not. The only ones who actually do feel they are the opposite sex are those with Gender Identity Disorder, and there are only about 5000 of them in the entire USA.
"You've conducted surveys across millennia of time?"
You've already established your buffoonery, I don't need additional evidence.
> They lying. We're not.
Why should anyone believe you?
Ok, Einstein, riddle me this.
A penitentiary prisoner, "deprived of the society of women," rapes vulnerable male inmates. Is he homosexual?
Mind you, if he gets out, he will never have sex with men again. But he gets what satisfaction he can by dominance games with weaker men.
Come on, say it, his "behavior" means he's gay.
Tell him that sometime. He'll cut your throat.
He committed sodomy.
So being left-handed is also a behavior. Do you advocate a return to the dark ages where they were forced to be right-handed?
> So being left-handed is also a behavior.
Mostly definitionally so.
> Do you advocate a return to the dark ages where they were forced to be right-handed?
The most hilarious thing about the above question is that you apparently didn't intend it to be parody.
You are an astonishingly ignorant person.
Forcing a change of handedness causes stuttering and other problems. If you think it's just another "behavior" then your ignorance is of legendary proportions.
Not even bothering with an argument I see.
Look, I understand having a false identity that you've invested yourself in challenged can be painful, but ultimately you need to develop healthier identities.
What’s hilarious is your inability to determine where society should draw lines. As a Catholic I believe marriage to be a sacrament between one man and one woman. NO DIVORCE. But I live in a civil society where not everyone shares my values. Henry VIII started a new church just to get his way with divorce. So to avoid such upheaval and civil wars, we all agree to the rules of a civil society. So while I would love to outlaw divorce, abortion, the death penalty, etc, I know to apply those to my life and allow civil society to give space to others with differing views.
Why not apply the same logic to transing kids? Or pedophilia for that matter?
"Homosexuality is a disadvantage in life"
Two people with professional careers and no children have an enormous advantage.
>no children
Is the idea here that reproduction means nothing, and life outcomes are to be measured only in dollars earned? That premise itself displays exactly the kind of disordered thinking that necessarily follows from a failure to recognize homosexuality for what it is. Instead of recognizing that the inability to reproduce is quite an undesirable trait, you claim that reproduction is actually irrelevant and meaningless so that you can pretend not to make that recognition.
Your statement also implies some kind of causal relationship between being a homosexual and having a "professional career," as opposed to all the incompetent heteros who tend not to have jobs or earn money by comparison.
Go a-googling and you will quickly learn that gay people are more intelligent on average, significantly so, than heterosexuals. Intelligence favors success.
I've had a very successful life writing software, despite losing a few jobs because of Christian fundamentalist managers.
Don't take my word for it and don't wet yourself in a reply, just look it up.
Yes, as you yourself state, intelligence is the trait doing the lifting here, not homosexuality. Homosexuality correlates with the trait that is causal of some desirable life outcomes, such as dollars earned or educational attainment, but is not itself causal of these things; meaning that, if we take the same person with the same IQ, there is little or no evidence to suggest that he or she would somehow do worse in these things if they were heterosexual as opposed to homosexual.
I will give you the benefit of assuming that you know and understand this correlation-causation distinction.
That's an infantile evasion. If homosexuality correlates with higher intelligence, and it does, and higher intelligence correlates with greater success, and it does, then the correlation between homosexuality and success is the product of the other two.
You also might be surprised to learn that gay relationships surviving three years are more stable than heterosexual ones. But those first three years are a challenge.
Okay, I see that I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Follow the link. Read. Educate yourself.
There is also a body of research suggesting that mental illness correlates with higher IQ. Would you try and boast about an anxiety disorder as a praiseworthy trait based on this correlation, too?
I don't know where you're getting all these inferences from, but it's not from anything I wrote.
In a world of eight billion choking on its own waste, I really don't think having kids right now is a good idea. Even before I was certain I was gay, I never planned to.
Besides, with the political and climactic catastrophes both bearing down on us, I think bearing children who will likely die in one kind of flame or another is kinda irresponsible.
> In a world of eight billion choking on its own waste,
Wow, you really hate humanity.
That's the first and only indication you've shown that you aren't completely hopeless.
I wear my misanthropy like a medal of honor.
It sounds like I was exactly correct in inferring that you believe reproduction is of no consequence, or is even a Bad Thing that should actively be avoided. I would submit such an anti-human viewpoint as Exhibit A in the type of maladaptive thinking that inevitably follows on from adopting a homophilic stance.
Our world can stably support about three billion people. It's closing in on three times that, and environmental systems are breaking down. Last year's summer was the hottest in 2000 years. This year's will be hotter and heatstroke will shortly be a leading cause of death.
So, at this time, reproduction is, yes, absolutely bad idea. We should have a global moratorium on childbearing. You can wring handkerchiefs about how that's "homophilia" or "misanthropy" or whatever gets you attention but unless you're stupid enough to claim that everything's fine, we can support 75 billion people, you're advocating birthing people who will die in flame long before old age.
We could have put on the brakes decades ago, but everyone wants babies and now our survival as a species is at risk.
You and Eugine aren't playing with full decks.
I think I'll just let your belief that reproduction needs to be banned speak for itself.
Of course heterosexuality is a disorder similar to pediaprosocia, karthartavisium, or gratusmyrodia - it is the unique predecessor to familial pedophilia, sometimes ephebophilia, as defined by the 100% lack of sex abuse in lesbian households, and the. 1000-fold reduction of abuse in gay households.
Heterosexuality is the only reason any of us exist.
BTW, was your rhetoric actually meant to fool anyone?
If you're being paid to troll this Substack, you're going to be unemployed soon. You really suck at it.
I've known several gay men who were married to women, and vice versa. Most of them had children. You are ,,, astonishingly simpleminded. Keep digging.
> I've known several gay men who were married to women, and vice versa.
Wow, you've refuted your own argument that homosexuality is immutable.
I never said homosexuality is immutable.
That was the basis of the whole push for "gay rights".
I'd ask you to explain that but it would be mean.
Your willful blindness is your problem.
> Gay kids brought up in the most accepting environments can’t help but feel a sense of shame, at least in the beginning, because being homosexual makes them different from the majority;
Is it just that they are different, or is it rather that their sexual instincts have become, quite objectively, distorted? As rational beings we can be aware of the fact that some deep instinct or urge we might have is disgusting. 'Acceptance' is not necessarily the solution. A pedophile -- notwithstanding his urges -- might be a very fine person who refuses to give in to what he clearly, objectively, sees as a defect within himself. In the same way a homosexual might clearly see that the behaviors which he is drawn to are also, objectively disgusting. If some homosexuals 'get used' to what they do, then OK, that makes it easier for them to live with themselves, but if others don't, I salute their good taste, even if it does mean that their lives will be tougher.
I don't understand "objectively disgusting"; it sounds like an oxymoron to combine those two.
I do understand that a humane and rational pedophile might see that practicing their attraction would very likely cause harm to another and so desist. There is a lot of objective evidence for that likelihood of causing harm, within our society.
But I don't see the same issue in regard to homosexuality per se. There is nothing more "objectively" harmful about homosexual versus heterosexual relationships, and I see no moral reason for said person to avoid forming consensual same sex relationships.
Of course, a given person could subjectively and emotionally consider one, both or neither act "disgusting" just because of their societal conditioning or family or whatever. Some people would consider a 40 year old marrying a 23 year old disgusting, others not. Or a tall hairdo.
We can't show objectively whether or not it is disgusting, that's inherently subjective.
> "objectively disgusting"; it sounds like an oxymoron to combine those two.
You have a point there. Yes, it needs rephrasing. ... I wait for the right words and several jostle but none wins. Let me use an example: almost everyone is repelled by the thought of eating feces, yes? That's because that repugnance is hard wired into us for very understandable biological reasons. In exactly the same way, the thought of someone fisting another person and then licking the shit off their hand disgusts me. I dare say it would and should disgust almost everyone.
> There is nothing more "objectively" harmful about homosexual
Homosexuals are, man for man, the most potent disease vector of any nameable sub-population. AIDS was their gift to the world. They are the primary vector of syphilis and several other STDs. Still I take your point -- as a matter of law, what consenting adults do in privacy should be, in principle, their own business.
Still, I think that society both can and should cultivate a sense of what is 'normal', healthy and good. It's a broader topic, but the idea of unlimited freedom is, I think, overspent.
> We can't show objectively whether or not it is disgusting, that's inherently subjective.
True. You win the point.
Yes, there are tricky issues of balancing desirable principles, when balancing individual rights with statistical probabilities at the group level.
A common example could be DUI laws, which punish somebody for their behavior - not because it HAS caused harm to anybody, but because it is sufficiently likely to do so that society pragmatically has decided to use pre-emptive incentives to reduce the precursors.
Coerced vaccinations are another example within this space, currently way too emotionally charged to be easily discussed.
In general, I tend to favor individual freedom unless the burden on society is too great, but I have no reliable formula for determining that boundary, and I recognize that there can thus be slippery slopes.
Indeed. It is one of my favorite aphorisms that we are always on a slippery slope and the best we can do is to try for the least-worst compromise. I lean towards liberty too. But I don't mistake what is permissible for what is desirable or 'normal'.
"...a visceral disgust at the thought of same sex relationships..."
I'm not so sure that this is abnormal, in that I know gay guys who regard having sex with a vagina as disgusting. And whilst I have not discussed it with a lesbian, I would not be surprised if the thought of being penetrated by a penis was revolting to them. Disgust is something that arises unconsciously, and we have no control over what disgusts us. That goes right to the heart of what sexual orientation is: imagining this feels erotic to me, and imagining that is a turn-off. It's supposed to work that way. What we can do, and should, is to separate that from our intellectual response to the owners of these behaviours. I don't care what my gay friends get up to in the bedroom, even if the details seem unpleasant to me: they surely think the same about what they imagine me getting up to! Anyway, I daresay lots of hetero couples indulge in things that would also be unappealing to me. The point is that none of that is my business, and I put it to one side when I interact with them.
I think a lot of this is more related to an identity crutch than an authentic reaction. A lot of gay men put on a most tiresome recitation, with much fluttering of hands and rolling of eyes, about how they could NEVER under ANY circumstances be attracted to a women, and blah blah blah.
As with those bigots who never shut up about how much they hate gay men, one truly needs to wonder why both are thinking about their respective loathings at all. Heterosexual men should be thinking about how to get women into bed, not what gay men are doing there.
I'm gay, I've had sex with women a few times, I enjoyed it and I didn't feel unclean afterward, not even to the point of an urgent need to shower. Not a big deal.
I'm sure a lot of people react to certain physical attributes with disgust; I would never want to have sex with any man with facial hair. I have no idea why, but it is out of the question. I'm much more interested in men outside my own race, but not disgusted with white men, just less interested.
The point is that we have no control over what we find attractive, so those "trans" people who say that gay men who don't like "trans men" (women) are bigots are just looking for attention, whoa, quelle surprise.
I’m increasingly experiencing homophobia from friends and acquaintances who consider themselves super progressive. They suggest that I see the person and not the genitalia. They support the rape and murder of Jews. They support male rapists in wigs rights over the rights of their victims. There’s no enlightening them to old fashioned regressive enlightenment values. They are correct and their rules MUST be adhered to and anyone who resists is a totalitarian Nazi. You really can’t make this up.
I am about to make a comparison some will not like, but from my observation, there is a certain degree of truthfulness and appropriateness.
Your comment:
"They readily accepted my resignation and have since persistently ignored my emails, almost as if I no longer exist."
has a quasi-religious and cult- like feel to it.
Until recently, I was a traditionalist member of the PC(USA), a mainline Protestant denomination. Prior to that a member of a very nationally prominent SBC congregation. During my membership of said denomination, my wife moved more to the left on social issues, I remained largely on the right.
As her views came to the fore, certain of our more conservative friends shunned her. Our church in the PC(USA) was a very moderate congregation with a traditionalist pastor, who left once certain constitutional changes occured in 2014, and became effective in 2015. I was okay with that, but our new pastor was a more liberal than the prior, yet like the seemed okay charting a middle course.
Then 2020 hit. Like many an organization that became institutionally capture towards one of the two major political parties, the PC(USA) doubled-down on spouting left-wing talking points without reservation, including the medicalization of so-called trans children, even as it condemned the then President of the US. (Of course, the great irony is that the PC(USA) responded in the right manner over child sex abuse, yet apparently, its leadership fails to hold a more clearly reserved position on medicalization of children over gender, treating it as a red vs. blue issue, even though its a cross-spectrum of peoples who are opposing this.)
Anywsy, I complained, politely, about the blantant partisanship towards one political party over the other. I complained about clear violations of historic doctrines not dealing with the socials issues. Once it became clear that I would not just be a good little go along-get along traditionalists, who would write checks even as national and geographic leadership bullied, badgered, and misrepresented well-supported, mainstream views on things that I and millions other held, my pastor, who didn't exhibit those activist characteristics, but in retrospect, clearly agrees with those positions began shunning me, by ignoring texts, emails, etc. unless it was a prayer request concerning my wife's health.
So sir, while there are points on which we probably do disagree, I understand what you have gone through.
I might add that the shunning, even extended to contact that had NOTHING to do with church politics, but on one of our shared favorite topics, church history.
Just like with lockdowns and mandates, I don't buy the "we didn't know." I see the distancing that goes on as soon as someone speaks openly about both these topics, and I also know how in whispered conversations in the hallway and the staircase more people have like views than it seems. It was this "transing away the gay" that helped me reach peak trans, but my gay friends do not support my questioning. It is maddening. They are addicted to the solidarity of their movement and have sunk their cost in the fallacy.
Heterosexuals have no memory of choosing to be straight. They're born with predisposition to attraction to the opposite sex, and of course nobody questions this since their attraction is "according to nature." What people like our troll feign to misunderstand is that homosexuals are born and mature the same way: predisposed to attraction to the same sex. Since this is not "according to nature," there are conflicting beliefs about the authenticity of their attraction; the troll calls it a "feeling" and many believe it's elective, as though homosexuality is a temptation, an allure that stronger people resist.
All evidence points to the contrary, but bigots don't care about evidence.
Homosexuals comprise 3-5% of every human population across millennia of time and continents of space. This is clearly an equilibrium established by evolution, analogous to left-handedness and with about the same prevalence.
And it is the attraction that forms the basis of definition; whether people of any orientation are celibate or promiscuous, their sexual orientation is fixed long before they can carry out sexual behavior, which the unlettered believe is what defines sexual orientation. This is, simply, wrong.
One of the arguments the bigots make is that "trans" is no different. In a stunning turn of events, they are wrong about this too. Candidly, there is such a thing as Gender Identity Disorder, which was part of the DSM until activists objected to that third word and demanded that the "transgendered" can be defined by mere declaration. By self-reports.
GID had strict diagnostic criteria and most claiming it were denied any kind of medical treatment, as they were just unhappy people who wanted to change their lives, akin to those who change their names, end all contact with family and friends, and relocate. GID appears early, typically age 4-6, and is lifelong. It is in no way elective. It is a medical condition and it's extremely rare, one in 30,000 boys and one in 100,000 girls. To qualify for hormones and surgery they needed to not only pass stringent psychological review, but live for a year as the opposite sex, a requirement that a lot of people believe to still be in force.
It isn't. A disturbed teen girl, in a state of misery because, oh, she didn't make the cheerleading squad, can show up at a McGender clinic and simply intone "I think I'm 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠"and walk out, after a single brief and perfunctory interview, with her first hormones. She could not get haloperidol by simply claiming to be schizophrenic. American healthcare bends over backward to expand the ranks of the "trans," most of whom will outgrow their elective condition in a few years and likely be gay but many are now in compromised health and are eunuchs.
The point is that while homosexuality is inborn, "trans" is clearly elective. Where GID appears early in childhood, "trans" comes mostly from recruitment, by peers, by activists on social media, by encouragement in elementary school with the lie that boys can become girls and girls can become boys.
Since the "trans" cult began around 2009 there has been an increase of over 4000% in self-reports of trangenderism, almost all of it in girls. GID was 3:1 boys. The condition is fake, it is false, to honor it is harmful, it entails permanent psychological and physical harm. The surgeries are grotesque in every way, the hormones are harmful, and regret is very high. A decade after "affirmation" there is a suicide surge among the "transitioned" at a rate almost 20 times the demographic average.
Homosexuality and "trans" are unrelated in every way. Aside from about 5000 actual transsexuals, "trans" is an elective condition that should be addressed with the same gravity as a declaration to commit murder or suicide. Homosexuality is a state of normal human variation that is no more elective than having blue eyes. Nor any more remarkable.
"A troubling number of men and women, even psychotherapists working with gender-confused children, have a visceral disgust at the thought of same sex relationships..."
Yes. This is biology, not homophobia.
You do you...and this goes for a lot of stuff people do, not just who they choose to sleep with. Don't expect others to like it.
"You do you" is the most annoying phrase since "reach out."
Better suggestion?
“Be yourself” works.
Fair enough. I will reach out when all good. ;-)
I agree about revulsion or disgust biological origin - it is due to a simultaneous failure of “theory of mind” (inability to perceive) and inchoate feeling that someone is born subhuman, normally a problem with sociopaths (human perception), it may also evidence a state similar to a complex version of prosopagnosia.
While sociopaths can be trained to mask their deficiency, failure to adapt theory of mind is a defect that emerges in early childhood, and can be part of autism spectrum, schizophrenia, or neurogenerative
Disease; remediation may never be overcome.
Apparently.
LOL...I guess about 98.8% of the population is absolutely fucking insane, then.
No.