The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
amusingduck said:
Hmm...
To me that sounds like you need both nature AND nurture to be gay, but I would say it's entirely nature, and that the "nurture" aspect only comes into play because of society's tendency to oppose (until lately) homosexuality. If there was never any opposition, there'd be no "allowing it to come out"?
The hypothalamus of gay men is closer in structure to that of women than it is of straight men. One notable function of the hypothalamus is to regulate the 'pair bonding' hormones like oxytocin and vasopressin.To me that sounds like you need both nature AND nurture to be gay, but I would say it's entirely nature, and that the "nurture" aspect only comes into play because of society's tendency to oppose (until lately) homosexuality. If there was never any opposition, there'd be no "allowing it to come out"?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Androgynous said:
As you say, that's a personal preference which everyone is entitled to. It doesn't make them phobic just selective.
Perhaps. But the *reasons* for their preference may be phobic. Or may not. But, equally, might be. 
Simply having a preference isn't phobic in itself.
otolith said:
Most complex traits have elements of both genetic and environmental influences, but I'm not sure what environmental effects would cause someone to become gay - unless you are considering in utero effects to be nurture, for which there is evidence relating to both homosexuality and sex atypical behaviour link. I think the idea that it is something to do with parenting is discredited.
Where I was thinking is that there are no environmental effects which cause someone to be gay (you are born that way), just environmental influences which would the freedom to come out and be openly gay. Just like the transgender argument, it is a softening of social tolerances which allows somebody to feel comfortable to be openly transgender. Hence, is gender is a social construct as we are led to believe, or is it simply a social freedom.If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
As for the 'phobia' thing,
For me, its an acceptable way to phrase whats happening.
In the vast majority of cases of prejudice, the prime factor behind it is the fear of the unknown, caused by lack of knowledge (ignorance).
Homophobia is less prevalent in the UK today because people know and understand more about Lesbian and Gay people. Homophobia was never a direct fear of LGB people; it was more about the potential wild threats LGB people were accused by some of presenting.
Similarly, trans-phobia is not a direct fear of Trans individuals. It's the "unknown" that is the source of fear. Take the bathroom paranoia; the absurd claims that every transwoman is a sex offender waiting to attack other women in a bathroom. It's all based on ignorance of the facts, and the fear of the worst case scenarios.
The ignorance is a different issue; most people would prefer to not spend any time thinking and learning about these things because it will challenge their own understandings, beliefs or opinions. Which is where the "why do they need to shove it in my face thing" comes from.
For me, its an acceptable way to phrase whats happening.
In the vast majority of cases of prejudice, the prime factor behind it is the fear of the unknown, caused by lack of knowledge (ignorance).
Homophobia is less prevalent in the UK today because people know and understand more about Lesbian and Gay people. Homophobia was never a direct fear of LGB people; it was more about the potential wild threats LGB people were accused by some of presenting.
Similarly, trans-phobia is not a direct fear of Trans individuals. It's the "unknown" that is the source of fear. Take the bathroom paranoia; the absurd claims that every transwoman is a sex offender waiting to attack other women in a bathroom. It's all based on ignorance of the facts, and the fear of the worst case scenarios.
The ignorance is a different issue; most people would prefer to not spend any time thinking and learning about these things because it will challenge their own understandings, beliefs or opinions. Which is where the "why do they need to shove it in my face thing" comes from.
Androgynous said:
And equally might not, we have a perfect looping scenario here
Simply having a preference isn't phobic in itself.
No, correct, it isn't. Simply having a preference isn't phobic in itself.
But as I said, and have said a number of times previously, if the reason for your preference is phobic then it is phobic. And if you express your preference in phobic terms then that is phobic.
However, if the reasons for your preference is are not phobic, then it is just a preference and not phobic.
This seems like a fairly common-sense and non-controversial statement to me.
The Surveyor said:
Where I was thinking is that there are no environmental effects which cause someone to be gay (you are born that way), just environmental influences which would the freedom to come out and be openly gay. Just like the transgender argument, it is a softening of social tolerances which allows somebody to feel comfortable to be openly transgender. Hence, is gender is a social construct as we are led to believe, or is it simply a social freedom.
If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
You need certain social structures to define overt aspects of gender (clothes, makeup...) to exist so that you can signal your belonging to that group, but without some initial innate difference to seed the development of that separation it'd be harder to identify as the other.If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
Edited by j_4m on Thursday 21st February 10:44
j_4m said:
The Surveyor said:
Where I was thinking is that there are no environmental effects which cause someone to be gay (you are born that way), just environmental influences which would the freedom to come out and be openly gay. Just like the transgender argument, it is a softening of social tolerances which allows somebody to feel comfortable to be openly transgender. Hence, is gender is a social construct as we are led to believe, or is it simply a social freedom.
If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
It's a bit chicken and egg, surely? You need certain social structures to define overt aspects of gender (clothes, makeup...) to exist so that you can signal your belonging to that group, but without some initial innate difference to seed the development of that separation it'd be harder to identify as the other.If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
j_4m said:
The Surveyor said:
Where I was thinking is that there are no environmental effects which cause someone to be gay (you are born that way), just environmental influences which would the freedom to come out and be openly gay. Just like the transgender argument, it is a softening of social tolerances which allows somebody to feel comfortable to be openly transgender. Hence, is gender is a social construct as we are led to believe, or is it simply a social freedom.
If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
You need certain social structures to define overt aspects of gender (clothes, makeup...) to exist so that you can signal your belonging to that group, but without some initial innate difference to seed the development of that separation it'd be harder to identify as the other.If you are openly transgender, is it society that has defined you as transgender or has society simply provided the platform for you to be open about who you are?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
amusingduck said:
and saying "I will never have sexual relations with a man" is homophobic?
Not homophobic per se but certainly closed-minded. You never know if you might meet a guy who totally rocks your world and makes you reappraise your sexuality. Or, at least, say "I'm not gay but..."The chances may be incredibly small, for sure. But to acknowledge there is an infinitesimal chance is the difference between an open mind and a closed one.
The Surveyor said:
Which is fine, but ignores any biological factors. "I've always known I was different", "I always preferred playing with my sisters toys", "I've always been a bit of a tom-boy" etc type statements are often used to explain individuals transgender journey. So whilst the 'sisters toys' and other traditional gender specific social influences are certainly present, the underlying tendency of being different (if that the right word) came well before that rather than being a product of it.
That's what I'm getting at 
That there is some underlying biological drive for homosexuals to pursue same sex relationships, just as their is for transgender people to identify as the opposite sex. The social stuff is just a manifestation of this, but in turn feeds back into the process and reinforces it.
xjay1337 said:
You really are deluded.
And you really are utterly closed-minded. I think the chance of a huge asteroid landing on my house and killing me are infinitesimally small. However, I can't categorically state it will never happen.
Certainly my preference is for it not to happen! I'd be silly to say that it was impossible for it to happen though.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 21st February 11:15
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Not homophobic per se but certainly closed-minded. You never know if you might meet a guy who totally rocks your world and makes you reappraise your sexuality. Or, at least, say "I'm not gay but..."
The chances may be incredibly small, for sure. But to acknowledge there is an infinitesimal chance is the difference between an open mind and a closed one.
Now that argument makes sense to me in the case of transgender people, but it doesn't for cis males. For me, how open minded I am makes zero difference to that. I don't find men attractive, and there is no romantic spark - not even a whiff of one. I don't like that, nor do I dislike it, it's simply what it is.The chances may be incredibly small, for sure. But to acknowledge there is an infinitesimal chance is the difference between an open mind and a closed one.
It is of course possible that I could be attracted to a cis man, and find that romantic spark, but based on my experiences to date it's so unlikely that I'm happy to categorise it as "never". TG I wouldn't categorise as "never".
I don't think who you find attractive/who you want to be in a relationship with should play any part in the definition of -phobic. It only works under the assumption that there is one right way of thinking about things, but this topic is entirely personal IMO. Plus, you can be homophobic and sleep with men, and you can be not homophobic at all despite describing the idea of being with a man as "never".
amusingduck said:
It is of course possible that I could be attracted to a cis man, and find that romantic spark, but based on my experiences to date it's so unlikely that I'm happy to categorise it as "never".
For sure. But the fact that you acknowledge it is possible, albeit incredibly unlikely, is the difference. That's what I was trying to convey. Your preference isn't based on homophobia therefore your preference isn't homophobic.
Ergo, a preference isn't phobic, unless the reason for the preference is phobic.
It's kind of like
"Does this dress make my bum look fat?"
"No, your fat arse is what makes your arse look fat"
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 21st February 11:20
Clockwork Cupcake said:
amusingduck said:
It is of course possible that I could be attracted to a cis man, and find that romantic spark, but based on my experiences to date it's so unlikely that I'm happy to categorise it as "never".
For sure. But the fact that you acknowledge it is possible, albeit incredibly unlikely, is the difference. That's what I was trying to convey. Your preference isn't based on homophobia therefore your preference isn't homophobic.
Ergo, a preference isn't phobic, unless the reason for the preference is phobic.
Androgynous said:
Rivenink said:
Anyone who says "I will never have sexual relations with a Trans person" is transphobic. It's prejudice in the same way I described above.
That does a disservice to the word transphobic, it's just an expression of preference not a phobia.So many dismiss their racism as a 'preference'.
When one has the concept of "never" in their mind, it is a prejudice. One has decided that based on one characteristic, everyone who has that characteristic is unacceptable; and that affects how one looks at those people. You will never look to see the unique beauty (or lack thereof) in a person, because you take that one characteristic and decide "no".
amusingduck said:
Rivenink said:
and saying "I will never have sexual relations with a man" is homophobic?
A surprising number of straight men have had, or do have, sexual relations with other men. Similar for women too.
The use of "never" indicates the difference between prejudice and preference.
I think I need to make clear, that in my mind at least, one can do or say homophobic things, or racist things out of ignorance, and its not right for them to be labelled a racist or a homophobe. However, once that ignorance is challenged, and an attempt to raise their consciousness on the issue is made, and they continue doing or saying that thing, then they do become a racist or a homophobe.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff