News:

New members, please say hello to the forum in the Introductions board!

Main Menu

LGBT+ A Mental Condition?

Started by Augusto, July 05, 2022, 10:21:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Augusto

All right, read carefully...

I was at first under the impression that I was being trolled. This may be because I have little to non contact with people in general, but I do know most people are not used to critical thinking and so forth.

You guys must understand that after reading the replies, I have no interest in discussing the topic anymore on this forum. At least not with you. I wasn't going to reply, but I became curious by a few replies, as I got the impression that some of you, maybe all of you, think that you were right, or that you won the argument, and that there is nothing to worry about. Just so you know, the link provided by 8livesleft does not prove anything. It's basically irrelevant and it has some falacies (lies), which are part of the prevalent discourse. Anyway, like I said, I'm not going to discuss the topic anymore. This is not why I am replying. I am also not trying to insult anyone with this, or to, I don't know, play any games.

See, I read the replies while being offline and tried to understand where you were comming from. Some initial ideas I got were:
1. I was being trolled.
2. There was zero interest in the truth.
3. I was being seen as some sort of enemy and characterized as a religious fundamentalist.
4. Some people here hated me because of similar previous exchanges and gave priority to create a disgusting enviroment, rather than allowing an important topic to be explored.
5. People participating were unable to understand or deal with intellectual arguments.

I am ready to leave the forum at any point, as I have done several times over the years. So, just know that trolling me isn't going to pay off, or at least, it won't give you too much free entertainment.

So, I am gonna go with the last option: You guys aren't used to this. If that is the case, and if you don't mind my poor English that much, I could stay for a bit longer and try to show you how to approach a situation like this. How to examine an argument and how to respond to it in a valid way. We could use this topic as an example, or we can create a different threat with a different argument and examine it.

Hmmm... Let's just say that the approach I mean is something like a more professional/academic approach, where everyone involved is aware of human tendency to bias and some measures are taken to allow the truth, or whatever is closer to it, to prevail. In short, it is a method to think with more clarity.

If you think this proposition is interesting, if you are curious and want to try it, let me know and I'll do my best to show you guys how it's done. I think it's worth it, and it should be a useful tool for you in the future, whenever you encounter similar arguments. As for my motivation here, I am just looking to allow you guys to take something positive out of this, as I have some free time on my hands these days.  ||popcorn||

Shnozzola

Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

8livesleft

Mooby made a comprehensive reply to the article, why don't you read it and get back to us. But if you're not inclined then that's fine. 

Augusto

#33
Thank you, Shnozzola and the two people who liked your post, for the opportunity.

I haven't done this before, but I'll do my best to explain how I do it, how I've seen others do it, and also, I will use examples and offer warnings so that you can learn when truth is being compromised.

It seems to me we should use this very topic as an example. After all, I do think it is a very important subject. So, the first thing one must have clear is our own motivations, our preconceived position on a given topic. I will offer mine here, and give you an idea of what my position was before I came accross with the article:

1. Some years ago I was undecided and my main focus was just male and female gay people. Without too much investigation, I remained esceptic regarding homosexuality being natural or not, but I concluded gay marriage and all kinds of marriages (even multiple men or women marrying another person of either sex) should be allowed, because I thought people should just be free, and we should just stop focusing on what people do in private.
2. A few years ago I started feeling uneasy about Woke representation in Hollywood. I posted about it here looking for people's opinions. I am latino and my grandfather was black, my father was basically black and I'm brown, but I still don't like diversity being forced into my favorite shows. I noticed a lot of people didn't like it either (on YouTube) and started learning about this united movement where blacks, trans, gays and women were seeking for better oportunities. I made an effort to separate my feelings from the situation and thought that this was a social experiment aimed at improving the lifes of a lot of people, and considered I shouldn't be so selfish (pryoritizing the way I like my shows over quality of life). Still, I gave some more consideration to the matter. Something seemed off... Suspicious. Namely, that big companies where suddently so determined to support social causes with such determination, stomping over quality to promote these ideas, when the truth is these companies have always been interested in money.
3. After reading and watching documentaries that questioned the prevailing speech, I stumbled with some rather crazy conclusions: feminism isn't supported by science or logic. Feminists are often ridiculed in debates and they themselves don't try to argue that much. They rather silence discussions. So, yes, I have a mother and a wife. I love women and so forth, but I found something suspicious about them. I also started wondering when was this equality going to be achieved and how. What I found out was that the dynamic between men and women was entirely different and that feminism was something like a religion. It had a strong appeal, but zero logic to support it. Yet, people not used to logical thinking were falling for it in droves all around the world. If you want to learn more about this, you can get a good grasp at the real situation watching the documentary: "THE RED PILL.
4. As far as black people, I found out that while "race" may be a fabrication, an unscientific "social idea", there are differences between human "races" that could be measured. It is not a secret, although most people don't want to talk much about it, that blacks are considerably less intelligent than any other "race" in the world. So, this let me to revisit the idea of discrimination as a natural mechanism humans have to protect their insterests. It does not matter to me where latinos are ranked or that I have A LOT of black within me, because I rather to embrace the truth rather than being fooled by others into believing whatever they want me to believe. I guess it's clear I am an esceptic and an atheist at this point. As far as my position on "race", it could be summed up in this experience: Several years ago, when I started considering myself a freethinker, I read Bertrand Russell and found out he was a racist. I was shocked, because I loved how he reasoned, so I felt sad about him being a racist because I felt that not even him could escape to the views of his times. He was rised on a racist world and thus, he became a racist. I commited that day to do everything within my reach to avoid being trapped by society or nurture into false ideas. Ironically, after learning on the evidence and asking a few knowledgeable people about it, it was ME who was caught in wrong ideas, placed there by society. Not Bertrand Russell! My position on black people is... Intelligence is not THAT important (just look around). Sometimes people want a good dancer or someone who can tell a good joke. You can be a good friend, or a good person in general, without being Einstein, and in the near future, technological enhances will make this situation unimportant because the brain capacity will be artificially improved. Also, even if we were to kill all black people in the world, logic dictates we should not stop there. We should kill everyone except the best race (which isn't white people, btw), and once we reach the singularity and create a Super AI, all remaining humans should also die, because they will be useless. In short, I think we can learn about this "race" thing, but not talk too much about it, so that we won't spread mysery and suffering on those who were born with less opportunities. Plus, because of how biology works, being black doesn't = to being dumb. Estatistics are generalizations and there are plenty examples of smart black people out there.
5 Gay people, they are why I came here. Not looking to "win" an online discussion, but to discuss and maybe get closer to the truth with the help of others. About a couple years ago or so I thought that it was very odd that in Ancient Greece most men were either gay or bisexual, because in nature, homosexuality is very rare, statistically. How could an entire civilisation be like that? Clearly, because of social influence. So, this means that if the woke agenda succeeds, my 9 years old son will eventually have good chances of becoming gay, bisexual or possibly even transexual, and I want to be a grandfather. Plus, discrimination still is a big thing and I don't want my son to be unhappy. Nor do I want him to become something he isn't by nature, out of social pressure. So, as a heterosexual male who also felt to homosexual experimentation (I talked about it here too) I knew that wasn't something I wanted for my son. This is where my rejection to gay increased exposure in Hollywood (plus children cartoons and videogames) was comming from. It seemed to me they wanted to make the world something like Ancient Greece, but without the intelligence part. Yes, this is my bias, this is where it comes from, and we should know and understand our biases in advance.

So, the first thing I would advice you guys is to revisit your biases and learn where they are comming from. Some people say anti-gay people are just afraid their religious ideas are being challenged, or they are gays in disguise. Those are possible, sure, but overall, whenever you start feeling angry and don't have reasons to support your belief, the core of it is FEAR. My fear on this is related to my love toward my son. Anyone have valid reasons to fear any given outcome, but there is some beauty, some virtue, in being able to EMBRACE REASON.

I think I wrote enough by now. This is an introduction, but it's good enough to start by saying that, just because the declassification of homosexuality was made by gay people, doesn't mean it was wrong. Likewise, some of you said the criticism, the paper I submitted, was written by a religious person. Maybe, but even if this person was, I don't know, Benedict XVI, that alone doesn't mean we can throw the argument to the garbage can without looking at it. Just so you know, I've seen lots of videos of transexual people arguying in favor of transexuals being included in sports and explaining why they find the studies performed on them to be biased. I've also listened to lots of debates, read books and articles on why feminism is needed today. I don't just seek validation to my ideas and shut everything else, and whenever I approach to someone who is going to explain me something I disagree with (dislike, because it's something emotional) before hand, I do my best to adopt an open mindset.

Last example: I saw a video of a trans person talking about dozens of studies that said that transgender females (males turned into females) had an advantage over real sportwomen. Case after case, the scientific studies he was trying to disprove pointed at all sorts of differences, and this person, the trans, was using insults and expressions that showed contempt, so it was harder to listen to him. The video wasn't very well done and it would have been very easy to laugh my way out of that video, but I didn't, even when it was incredibly long. In the end, and against all odds, the trans person seemed to have a point and made me keep esceptic about those studies.

Thanks for reading this long post. I hope you found it interesting. Try not to be triggered by some of its content. It is very likely that some of my positions make you want to post something agressive, dismissive or ironic against me, but if you think about it, I am not hating on anyone and I'm just here being honest and trying to help.

Regards!  ||tip hat||

Shnozzola

#34
To start, I think feminism, like BLM, for example, is simply an exaggerated reaction to historical repression.  Groups then look at the exaggeration, and say, no, BLM must understand that people should be treated equally. (The "all lives matter" signs)

That is true.  That is what society should strive for, but concentrating on the exaggerated argument is not understanding where the argument comes from.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

Augusto

8livesleft: I haven't seen Mooby's reply. It doesn't seem to be here.

Shnozzola: There are some very interesting books and debates on feminism, but one expert on this topic I am currently following speaks Spanish. So, I cannot really offer much in English, other than THE RED PILL documentary, which, nevertheless, is a must watch in my opinion.

-----------------------------

Another important advice I could offer to people here is to make an effort to get use to the "unsolved" category. I have seen a lot of people taking stands on things they don't really have much information about as soon as they are introduced to the topic. This makes it harder for them to be persuaded by evidence in the future. Sometimes a subjet can be too complicated, or there could be lack of available evidence, or the person gets tired and decides to do something else. In that sense, one must try to avoid taking a strong position on the matter. For example, on this whole gender stuff, I've spent years, and I've had conversations even with transexuals to get a better understanding on their thought process. Also, regarding homosexuality being a disease, some of you may already think that I believe this to be the case, but the truth is I am still undecided, trying to figure it out. The thing is, to sum it up, there is no need to rush to conclusions.

Also, people should be aware of human tendency to "read between the lines". This happened, for example, to those of you who asumed that I believed homosexuality was a disease, when I did not say that anywhere on this threat. Reading between the lines can be useful, but when you're dealing with delicate topics, and you put the Sherlock Holmes' hat, you need to pay close attention to what is actually being said and place whatever assumption you have on a different place in your memory.

So, enough advices by now. I'll offer some more if I can think of any in future posts. Right now, I think it would be more useful to start disecting the article. I'm going to break it down little by little for you guys:

-----------
THE ARTICLE
-----------

QuoteThe American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder.

QuoteThis article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.

Let's just stop a minute to think what bias and human nature in general can do in actual science! Let's just be open to this daring idea: How much of the knowledge we take for granted, because it comes from a place of authority, could be actually false? I've found quite a lot of foolishness over the years. So, this is why we, humans, try to protect ourselves from our our own biases by following certain parameters and the best tool we've found so far, although it cannot always be applied, is the scientific method.

The scientific method is useless in situations like this. Here we are trying to separate "health" from "disease" and whenever you cannot use the scientific method, you must either choose an aesthetical criteria (what's nice?) or a logical criteria (where does something fit better without going against logic?). So, the thing, to begin with, is that this whole manual is man-made. It is arbitrary, to a certain point, but we are going to examine the quality of the work done by these professionals and the criticism done by the author of this article.

One example will do: Why pregnancy, old age or adolescence aren't considered diseases? No need to answer this, just consider that whatever criteria is developed to exclude these from being considered a disease, must also exclude others that fit such criteria. Otherwise, everyone, every doctor I mean, should be free to make their own classification and pass judgement on others.

But what we are talking about is a tool, a manual, that sets the rules of the game for every doctor around the world:

QuoteThe American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the world's largest psychiatric organization. It is a medical specialty society representing growing membership of more than 35,000 psychiatrists (...) The American Psychiatric Association publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is the handbook used by health care professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders (...) It provides a common language for clinicians to communicate about their patients and establishes consistent and reliable diagnoses that can be used in the research of mental disorders.

Now, we're talking about a manual produced by the best of the best. We're talking about an organization with mover 35.000 experts. This is where most people stop and say "this is good enough for me to trust". However, I think we can just get worried when something like this appears next:

QuoteIt should be noted that the "task force" that produced the second document was chaired by Judith M. Glassgold, Psy.D., who is a lesbian psychologist. She sits on the board of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and is past president of the APA's Gay and Lesbian Division 44. Other members of the task force were Lee Beckstead, Ph.D.; Jack Drescher, M.D.; Beverly Greene, Ph.D.; Robin Lin Miller, Ph.D.; Roger L. Worthington, Ph.D.; and Clinton W. Anderson, Ph.D. According to Joseph Nicolosi, Beckstead, Drescher, and Anderson are all "gay," while Miller is "bisexual" and Greene is lesbian.

Honest question: How is it possible that all of these LGBT+ people get to tell (dictate) the world that, in their own view, they are not sick? I mean, how did this happen? I'm all up for diverse voices being heard but this is ridiculous! This alone, should be enough to put a halt to the whole thing. Still, the author of this article (it does not matter what he believes, because he is not dictating the rules of the game) did us the favor of examining their arguments:

APPEALING TO SIGMUND FREUD: In case you don't know, this guy has no credibility today. His work is interesting, but it's also alien to the scientific method. In other words, it is a pseudo science and his school has offered no results that can validate it either. In any case:

QuoteIt is noteworthy that Freud also suggested that homosexuality is a "variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development" [Herek 2012]. The omission of that line from Freud's work is misleading.

Misleading is a soft way of putting it. The omision of Freud's actual opinion on the matter can be seen as EVIDENCE of an intellectually dishonest approach by the board.

I am not going to reproduce the whole argument. At least, I think this is a good momment to stop. If you haven't read the whole thing, here is the link again:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/

Personally, I think this says a lot about the American Psychiatric Association as a whole. In my opinion, it just isn't trust worth it. This is one conclusion I think we all can agree on. So much for all those titles and for those 35.000 "experts". Still, the fact that such a big world organization can fail so miserably is also evidence of how vulnerable human beings are to bias, not to mention to being manipulated.

So, speaking about manipulation, let me warn you about it: Once a normal person has fallen for it, it feels natural. It feels like it is them who are "thinking", but the truth is they are just repeating what they accepted to be the truth. And now, imagine we are not talking about gay people. Imagine something like this were commonplace. Imagine a whole lot of your beliefs were actual lies! Moreover, imagine a world with multiple organizations working their agendas around lies, without knowing it, and feeding them to others. In such scenario, the world would be a crazy place to live in. Right? You could have, for example, an old man with glasses and a PHD shutting the only voice of reason in the room using his title as a weapon that would give him the victory (appeal to authority) or maybe a hundred or even thousands of people screaming "their truth" (appeal to the majority). Yet, no voice of authority and no ammount of people sharing a belief should be able to win a discussion without demonstrating the validity of their arguments, and you guys must be aware that whenever you declare someone "the victor" you are giving this person's ideas a free pass to conquest your mind, to conquest YOU.

Kiahanie

#36
Quote from: Augusto on July 09, 2022, 07:51:29 PM••••
Now, we're talking about a manual [DSM] produced by the best of the best. We're talking about an organization with mover 35.000 experts. This is where most people stop and say "this is good enough for me to trust".
••••

By and large, yes, that is the appropriate response. Those 35,000 experts are qualified experts, degreed, published, employed to study these things.

OTOH, Kinney is a pharmacist, untrained, uncertified in medical science (except pharmacology), psychology, cultural anthropology, etc. He raises issues not from knowledge of the field, but from his own psyche, questions that science is unable to resolve for him. He has no credentials to establish credibility and is no more authoritative on the topic than you or I are.

The man is unpublished in serious medical journals, is not used as a resource by scholars, and apparently published only in the Catholic journal Linacre.

All Kinney's objections are old and have been addressed by people who understand the field. even if wrong it may be edifying to examine him if he had something new to say, but he does not.

In the paragraph following the above quote Kinney questions the DSM's credibility because of alleged sexual orientation of some of the board members, an ad hominem argument if ever one was argued.

Kinney thereby establishes the righteousness of an ad hominem attack on himself: If conclusions of professional boards are questionable because they include LGBTQ+ professionals, then his conclusions, as a Catholic non-professional, must also be considered unreliable. Why even bring him up?

Augusto, it may be more productive to stop talking about Kinney and discuss specifically your questions and concerns.



"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Augusto

I think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why...

 ||popcorn||

Mr. Blackwell

Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why...

 ||popcorn||

He is a firm believer in government establishmentarianism. Whatever the government establishes, he follows. The government can do no wrong. His logic fails because every govenrnment system is established by the people. The people are often mislead by those who wish to decieve the people. It's a vicious circle.
At this time the answer is not no. The question is why?

8livesleft

Augusto, 

Mooby's posts are the 27th and 28th of this thread. Highlighted in red (in my browser).

You can see numbers on the top right corner of the posts. 


kevin

they dont show up for me either, although one did a few days ago
dare to know.

Kiahanie

#41
Quote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 10, 2022, 04:33:56 AM
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why...

 ||popcorn||

He is a firm believer in government establishmentarianism. Whatever the government establishes, he follows. The government can do no wrong. His logic fails because every govenrnment system is established by the people. The people are often mislead by those who wish to decieve the people. It's a vicious circle.

Bulls**t. Your first three sentences are untruths unsupported by anything I have ever said. You read too much of your own mind in between the lines, MrB.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Kiahanie

"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Shnozzola

#43
I'm missing this whole point.  8 said something about mooby commenting on this article:

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

But I never see a word here from mooby or a link to his comments on the above article.  In fact, the links you just posted, Kiahanie,  are only to the beginning of this thread.

Where is the original thread with mooby's comments?  I looked back through in several topics concerning lgbt and couldn't find it.
Ironically, the myriad  of "god" beliefs of humanity are proving to be more dangerous than us learning that we are on our own, making the way we treat each other far more important

Augusto

Mr. Blackwell: I'm glad I asked. It seems to me this isn't clear enough yet. By reading your post, one may infer that you think Kiahanie is wrong because he is, paraphrasing you, a fool, and a parrot. But, the thing is, you are not really attacking his arguments. You are addressing HIM. This is perfect for online or real life discussions, whenever you just want to win an argument, but you overlook the possibility that others could play the same game with you, dismissing your arguments by discrediting YOU. Just reverse the situation and you'll see what I mean: "Mr. Blakwell is wrong because he's just a fool. Therefore, we should just ignore him." Furthermore, even if Kiahanie was repeating something he learned from the Government or from someone else, it doesn't follow that was he is saying, couldn't be TRUE. So, how do we approach this? Again, by examining his argument, rather than his persona. Notice that the goal shouldn't be to "destroy" his arguments. We need to move on from that arena if we want to find out the truth. Our fight is not against people, but against those things that make it harder to understand what we want to understand.

Anyway, let me show you guys the problems with Kiahanie's reasonings:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMBy and large, yes, that is the appropriate response. Those 35,000 experts are qualified experts, degreed, published, employed to study these things.

Here Kiahanie is saying that we should blindly follow whatever is said by figures of authority, or by socially recognized experts in any given area. The problem is, however, that it is possible to find countless examples through history where those so called "experts" were wrong. Furthermore, it has also been the case that experts sometimes don't want to be found "wrong", and whenever someone else comes out with different ideas, they do (and have done) everything within their power to silence them. Anyway, if the experts say the Earth is flat, who are we to challenge them, right? This simply doesn't hold any ground.

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMOTOH, Kinney is a pharmacist, untrained, uncertified in medical science (except pharmacology), psychology, cultural anthropology, etc. He raises issues not from knowledge of the field, but from his own psyche, questions that science is unable to resolve for him. He has no credentials to establish credibility and is no more authoritative on the topic than you or I are.

Like I said, credentials have no bearing in the validity of an argument.

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMThe man is unpublished in serious medical journals, is not used as a resource by scholars, and apparently published only in the Catholic journal.

Let's say the author is a catholic fanatic. Let's say that's the case. It's been a long time since I understood religious doesn't have anything to say about any topic that is not religion itself. So, if this person was saying something like "homosexuals are sick because they are possessed by demons", something like that, I wouldn't have bothered to keep reading. Still, I did not find a single line where he invoqued religion as part of his arguments. He was using logic and reasoning. This is something every human being can do. Moreover, he effectively dismantled every argument offered in favor of homosexuality not being a mental condition. Should we silence him because he doesn't have the right credentials?

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMAll Kinney's objections are old and have been addressed by people who understand the field. even if wrong it may be edifying to examine him if he had something new to say, but he does not.

Please show those papers where his arguments are being addressed, and let's just remember than addressing an argument doesn't mean the argument was proven to be false or irrelevant.

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMIn the paragraph following the above quote Kinney questions the DSM's credibility because of alleged sexual orientation of some of the board members, an ad hominem argument if ever one was argued.

That was not an ad hominem argument. He did not say we should not listen to them because most of the board was woke. But you must ask yourself: What could be the outcome of a board formed mostly by pedophiles or by people found guilty and sentenced to death if they were asked whether pedophily was an illness or the death penalty was moral? It is very important to actually know who those people were, but sure, not because their identity is being judged, we should dismiss their conclusions without analyzing them, and that's exactly what the author did. He went and examined them one by one, and explained why they were ALL flawed.

More on this later...

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMKinney thereby establishes the righteousness of an ad hominem attack on himself: If conclusions of professional boards are questionable because they include LGBTQ+ professionals, then his conclusions, as a Catholic non-professional, must also be considered unreliable. Why even bring him up?

Nobody can stablish ad hominem a valid approach. He simply let us know some facts, but he did not dismiss the arguments of the board without examining them. Now, I will trust you guys with whatever research you have done on the author. Let's say he is biased towards the topic as well. What we should do is to take that into consideration, but examine his reasonings as well.

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMAugusto, it may be more productive to stop talking about Kinney and discuss specifically your questions and concerns.

I will get to that in due time. Still, it wouldn't be productive to do so if a lot of people here refuse to read whatever they disagree with in advance, are used to address the person before the argument and don't quite understand how truth is being pursued and separated from falacies. Plus, I think what I am trying to do here is also meaningful by itself.

It would be pointless to simply state the facts, only for most/all of you to dismiss them immediately and keep thinking whatever you want to believe. On the other hand, if some of you learn how to approach these kinds of topics, discussions on the forum would be a lot better. So, yes. I am gonna take this slowly, little by little, and see if we end up gaining something out of this in the end.

Here is a quick note I would like you guys to think about: Kiahanie says we shouldn't bother with the author, because the author is this and that. Mr. Blackwell says we shouldn't bother with Kiahanie, because Kiahanie is this and that. How could be choose who are we going to listen, if not by examining what they are actually saying? The answer is pretty simple: The only way to find out is by listening to all sides from an objective standpoint. Then it will be easier to tell what the truth may actually be.

Kiahanie

Quote from: Shnozzola on July 10, 2022, 05:45:52 PMI'm missing this whole point.  8 said something about mooby commenting on this article:

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

But I never see a word here from mooby or a link to his comments on the above article.  In fact, the links you just posted, Kiahanie,  are only to the beginning of this thread.

Where is the original thread with mooby's comments?  I looked back through in several topics concerning lgbt and couldn't find it.

Something is very wrong here. I will copy and paste Moob"s first post here.

Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on July 08, 2022, 02:29:57 AMHi, Augusto!  Welcome back!

I'm actually going to reply to the article and the OP in separate posts, because I have slightly different thoughts on both.

First, the article:

It's bad, and it reflects very poorly on the journal that published it.

To start, the author complains that an LGBTQ task force that gave recommendations to the APA was made up of LGBTQ psychologists, and suggests that these recommendations may be suspect because they could represent a conflict of interest.  However, he is a Catholic non-psychologist, non-psychiatrist publishing in a Catholic journal.  So if we accept his premise that we should take recommendations from a panel of experts made to a parent organization without an ideological stake in the position with a grain of salt because they may themselves have a personal stake, then we most certainly must take the recommendations from a non-expert to a parent organization that has a very clear ideological stake in the position and who himself likely shares their ideological position with an even more massive grain of salt.  So if we fully accept his premise, we should likely stop reading the rest of his article.  Not off to a good start.

He then goes on to cite heavily from the APA Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses
to Sexual Orientation.
  He cites exclusively from the introduction section and the history sections, which are journalistic summaries of what led to the current study of sexual orientation.  He then ignores the following 60 pages of the actual review of evidence.  His argument is essentially, "Hey, they promised to give a scientific review, but this line in the fluff section is clearly fluff!"  Yeah, because he cited only the fluff section.

At two different points in his article he makes a bald assertion and uses "common sense" as his only supporting evidence to back it up, and at 7 points he just says the APA's arguments are absurd without actually providing a counterargument.  So a large portion of his arguments boil down to, "You say reality is x, but I feel like it should be y, so you should agree with me."

Then we get to the part where he tries to tear down the concept of adjustment as a criterion for a large swath of psychiatric disorders, which is pretty self-defeating because he's simultaneously trying to say that the criteria themselves are bad while arguing that homosexuality should meet the criteria.  If it's true that the APA's methods of classifying disorders is bad, then it's self-defeating to try to get them to reclassify a disorder, since if we accept his argument we can't trust the result.

After that, he tries to equivocate psychiatric diagnostic criteria to physical organ dysfunction, and prop up a pretty weak premise about the proper function of organs, only to try and spin it into some sideways argument about the proper function of sperm.  I'm going to ignore the medical aspect because, as a doctor, I'm content to say that it's stupid and he clearly has no idea how my job actually works.  I get to say that because I went to work today and did my job, and it was nothing like he described.  We don't sit around trying to construct logical gotchas to put on the patient's chart: we do real, actual medicine, not the pretend medicine in his head.

Instead, I'll address the logical content of the argument: if we accept his argument as true, we must also consider that fingers clearly did not evolve to type, since the existence of fingers appeared far before the existence of typewriters, and indeed before any known writing.  From this, we must then conclude that if he fully accepted his own premise, then he would not have used his fingers unnaturally to write his article in the first place, and it would therefore not be available for us to read.  Thus, the existence of his article proves that he agrees that at least one valid exception exists to his argument, and if one valid exception exists then other valid exceptions may exist. Thus, he now has the additional onus of proving that the use of semen for purposes other than his claimed intended purpose is not a valid second exception before we can even consider the argument.

Throughout, he tries to compare homosexuality to psychiatric and non-psychiatric disorders, as if there is some sort of gotcha here.  But that's not how disease works.  We don't say, "Oh, we've had too many SARS viruses, that's not fair to polioviruses, so COVID-19 is a poliovirus now."  Things are what they are, regardless of what other things may exist alongside them.  At no point does he offer any real evidence at all that homosexuality itself is a disease.  Even if we somehow disregarded all his other very poor logic and accept his basic premise that the APA hasn't in any way proven homosexuality is not a disease, at no point does that ever prove it is.  The default is not, "Everything is a disease," the default is that you don't call something a disease until you know it is.

Lastly, this whole article smacks of someone complaining about a tool he doesn't use, is not trained to use, and isn't qualified to use to a group that defines the tools they use to do their jobs.  Imagine if someone who has never picked up a tool in their life wrote an impassioned article on why screws should actually be called nails and implored contractors to hit them with hammers.  Would they say, "Wow, you've really given me something to think about, I should really reevaluate what tools I use on this object from now on," or would they say, "No, you're an idiot, this is a screw and the fact that you're suggesting I use anything other than a screwdriver shows you have no idea at all what you're talking about?" 

The article is bad and accomplishes nothing other than exposing the author's own ignorance.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Kiahanie

Here is Mooby's second post:

Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on July 08, 2022, 03:15:18 AMNow my reply to the OP:

500 years ago, it was generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around the Earth (geocentric model.)  Then, Copernicus and Galileo came along, and proposed an alternate model that the Earth actually revolves around the sun (heliocentric model.)  This caused a huge fuss because the new science conflicted with established theological ideology, which caused a huge pushback from the Catholic Church.  Who was right?

Ultimately, both were. As it turns out, the sun and the Earth's positions are relative.  You can set your reference point on the sun, and model out the solar system based on that.  Or you can set your reference point on the Earth, and model everything out as it rotates around that point on the Earth.  Or you can set your reference point on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, and work out all the equations that way.  You may have to account for a few more things in your math, but they are all equally valid because they are all models.  The universe doesn't have an ultimate "right" or "wrong" answer: the sun and the Earth just move according to the laws of motion and gravity.  Models are our way of categorizing them.

That being said, not all models are created equal.  While you could set up that model for Earth's rotation on Titan or Pluto, why would you?  Such a model would have loads of extra unnecessary math, be very hard to diagram, and have very little explanatory power.  Whereas, a heliocentric model where objects in the solar system all rotate around a center of mass very close to the sun has simpler math, is very easy to diagram, and very good explanatory power.

Which brings me to disease.  Disease is not an objective thing.  There isn't a measurable diseasiness in nature.  Disease is a concept that humans defined to help them explain the world, just like our models of the solar system do.

So in one sense, what we consider normal variation and disease is somewhat arbitrary.  In nature, these things just exist.  Nature doesn't make such classifications, nature is just nature.  Disease is meaningful to us as humans because we can use disease models to change things we don't like about nature to achieve our goals for good health, which are also human-defined.

However, as above, not all models are created equal.  Even though they are human-defined, we can see the results of different models in the real world:

For example, if we include "not dying" as part of our model for good health, then we can see that classifying heart attacks as a disease and working to prevent and treat them can decrease death, while classifying them as normal and doing nothing does not decrease death.  Thus, we can say that a disease model for heart attacks is a better model than classifying heart attacks as normal, because doing so guides our actions to achieve desirable goals (less death.)  We can even go a step further and say that any model that does not include heart attacks as a disease is a bad model, and reclassifying it as a disease will make any given model better.

As a real world example, take drug use.  Many countries around the world wish to reduce drug use among their citizens.  Some have tried to use a criminal model to achieve this, which has led to criminalization of drug use.  Others have tried to use a disease model to achieve this, which tends to lead to decriminalization of drug use.  And as it turns out, the latter approach achieves the goal of reducing drug use better.  Growing evidence shows that a disease model for addiction is simply better than a criminal model for addiction.

In other words, models are tools.  If doctors find that classifying something as a disease makes things better, then we model that thing as a disease and use our disease tools to address it.  If doctors find that classifying something as a disease accomplishes nothing and makes things worse, then we find another model that suits it better. 

As I mentioned in my last post, if you hand a contractor a screw and tell them it's a nail, they're going to reach for their screwdriver because regardless of whether you call it a "screw," "nail," or "gumfilbafub," they know the screwdriver is the best tool for the job.  And they're going to continue to call it a screw, because that's the best and clearest classification they can use to inform other contractors of what tools they should be using for the best result.  The name itself doesn't change the physical object on the table, but some terms are better than others when giving tool users a sense of what tools they should be using.  Calling a screw a nail doesn't magically morph the screw into a nail: it just demonstrates that you are using a bad classification model that is not helping anyone, and anyone who knows what they're talking about is going to disregard it and use the superior "screw" model.

Which leads us to homosexuality.  We've tried the criminal model for literally thousands of years.  It didn't work.  It's a bad model.  We tried the disease model for over a century.  It didn't work.  It's a bad model.  We tried the observational model that these sexual orientation is a spectrum that naturally exists in normal human sexuality, and it worked.  It's a good model.  You want to go back to an old model we know it's bad.  We're not going to go back to that model, because it's old and we know it's bad.  Saying, "We should try it, and maybe it'll work?" just demonstrates that you're not aware that we already tried it and it didn't work.  The disease model of homosexuality a bad model, so we've rejected it.  Thus, homosexuality is not a disease.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Kiahanie

#47
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 06:40:00 PM••••
Here is a quick note I would like you guys to think about: Kiahanie says we shouldn't bother with the author, because the author is this and that. Mr. Blackwell says we shouldn't bother with Kiahanie, because Kiahanie is this and that. How could be choose who are we going to listen, if not by examining what they are actually saying? The answer is pretty simple: The only way to find out is by listening to all sides from an objective standpoint. Then it will be easier to tell what the truth may actually be.

The only reason I see to read old opinions by a non-expert is because it was referenced in the OP.I have already studied on and listened to everything he apparently has to say, which have been said by many people as qualified as he is, and by many more who are less qualified. There does not seem to be anything to learn from him, or from discussion about his misunderstandings.

I understand you are seeking clarity on these issues. My suggestion is to use Wikipedia (and especially the references provided) as a foundation for understanding. That should provide a basis for evaluating fringe opinions.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Augusto

I think it is a good thing that Mooby's posts weren't visible for most people until now. They would have rushed the discussion too much and now I can see a lot of forum members didn't have the tools to approach the subject in a meaningful way.

With that being said, I believe it is fair to offer some kind of an answer to these two posts. But there is a risk here. Namely, that the discussion goes in several different directions at once, making it very hard to follow for most people. Because of this, it may be a good idea to start talking about it little by little, and avoid moving forward unless some consensus have been achieved on some areas.

I wonder if some of these points can be accepted:

1. It does not matter who wrote the article, but the article itself.
EXPLANATION: Ad hominem is a falacy and it doesn't address the argument.

2. It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition.
EXPLANATION: It describes a potential conflict of interests on the part who dictated the sentence.

3. Just because there is a flaw in an argument, it doesn't mean everything is wrong.
EXPLANATION: Galileo made some errors, but his main premise was accurate.

4. The author successfully proved bias and bad faith.
EXPLANATION: The task force ommited Freud's actual opinion, making him look like he was on their side.

5. The article does break appart every argument it quoted in favor of the normalization of homosexuality.
EXPLANATION: You need to read it if you haven't and say what you think of this.

If any of these four points is still being questioned, we will have to stop developing the subject until some consensus is being achieved. The last point hasn't been discussed by anyone here other than Mooby. But it is my impression that he does acknowledges they are logically faulty.

Mooby's defense of homosexuality as a normal manifestation of human sexuality is interesting, but it isn't related to the point 5 (Homosexuality can be normal and not a condition, and at the same time, the arguments offered can also be logically incompetent). I don't know if we can skip the arguments in the article and move to Mooby's defense. Maybe we need to examine them all individually, but in that case, we shouldn't move forward until that is done.

Guys, I ask you all a little bit of patience. Please resist the urge to find out "what happens" at the end. Enjoy the ride, appreciate how truth is being pursued in this excercise and try to learn from this. Personally, I find it very exciting, and I think you should too!

And no, this is not Augusto vs Mooby, or vs anyone else. At least, IT SHOULDN'T.

Kiahanie: I asked you to share those documents you mentioned, where the topic was being addressed, and you haven't. Not doing so and instead, keep offering suggestions like those are a sabotage to this whole threat. If you are not capable, if you don't have access to the documents you claim to have read, at least you should stop interferring.

||popcorn||

kevin

i read th
Quote from: Shnozzola on July 10, 2022, 05:45:52 PMI'm missing this whole point.  8 said something about mooby commenting on this article:

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

But I never see a word here from mooby or a link to his comments on the above article.  In fact, the links you just posted, Kiahanie,  are only to the beginning of this thread.

Where is the original thread with mooby's comments?  I looked back through in several topics concerning lgbt and couldn't find it.

i read one post maybe two when he posted them.

either its a software  glitch or he's re-thinking the text.
dare to know.

Kiahanie

Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 07:38:28 PM••••
Kiahanie: I asked you to share those documents you mentioned, where the topic was being addressed, and you haven't. Not doing so and instead, keep offering suggestions like those are a sabotage to this whole threat. If you are not capable, if you don't have access to the documents you claim to have read, at least you should stop interferring.
••••

Kinney's article is just recycling arguments made when these issues were being discussed in the 70s and 80s. He seems to have been born too late to benefit from that discussion, and is trying to re-enter it half a century later with nothing new to offer. I have nothing but a few books from that long ago.

Actually, I rather think I am contributing to the conversation, not interfering.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

#51
Quote from: Shnozzola on July 10, 2022, 05:45:52 PMI'm missing this whole point.  8 said something about mooby commenting on this article:

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

But I never see a word here from mooby or a link to his comments on the above article.  In fact, the links you just posted, Kiahanie,  are only to the beginning of this thread.

Where is the original thread with mooby's comments?  I looked back through in several topics concerning lgbt and couldn't find it.

Mooby commented on Kinney's article, not that one

Weird that it's not showing up for you guys. But then it is highlighted in red for me so maybe there's something odd with the posts...

Kiahanie

#52
Replies # 47 & 46 should have my reprints of Mooby's posts.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Kiahanie

Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 07:38:28 PM••••
I wonder if some of these points can be accepted:

1. It does not matter who wrote the article, but the article itself.
EXPLANATION: Ad hominem is a falacy and it doesn't address the argument.

2. It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition.
EXPLANATION: It describes a potential conflict of interests on the part who dictated the sentence.

3. Just because there is a flaw in an argument, it doesn't mean everything is wrong.
EXPLANATION: Galileo made some errors, but his main premise was accurate.

4. The author successfully proved bias and bad faith.
EXPLANATION: The task force ommited Freud's actual opinion, making him look like he was on their side.

5. The article does break appart every argument it quoted in favor of the normalization of homosexuality.
EXPLANATION: You need to read it if you haven't and say what you think of this.

If any of these four points is still being questioned, we will have to stop developing the subject until some consensus is being achieved. The last point hasn't been discussed by anyone here other than Mooby. But it is my impression that he does acknowledges they are logically faulty.
••••
1. Nope. That might be true in an ideal world, and was probably truer when only credible authors got published. Nowadays readers need to be jealous of their time, so an author's credentials are a valid criteria when deciding to invest time.

But more fundamentally, "the article itself" is not an independent entity, but an extension of the author, their training, their knowledge, their intellectual capability. Who wrote the article is often a good indication of the value of their contribution.

2. Absolutely correct. One would want the people making that determination to be educated, trained and experienced in the relevant fields.

It also matters who says it is not a condition. One would want the people making that determination also to be educated, trained and experienced in the relevant fields.

3. Maybe if this were phrased different I could go along with it. A flaw in a logical argument invalidates the conclusion as a logical result, but does not disqualify the conclusion from being a statement of fsct. Maybe clarify what you mean by "wrong."

Bad logic often results from trying to logically prove a real fact.

4. Nope. Not on the part of DSM anyway.

5. Maybe. If "break apart" = "analyze" then he did address quoted arguments. If, on the other hand, "break apart" = "refute" then he did no such thing.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

Quote1. It does not matter who wrote the article, but the article itself.
EXPLANATION: Ad hominem is a falacy and it doesn't address the argument.


Ideally. However, it was Kinney himself who wrongly attacked the writer of the article he was critiquing.

Quote2. It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition.
EXPLANATION: It describes a potential conflict of interests on the part who dictated the sentence.


It should also matter who's still declaring that it is a psychological condition. And in this case, if we're comparing a traditional church group vs actual experts in the field, I think it should be very clear who has the upper hand in these discussions.

Quote3. Just because there is a flaw in an argument, it doesn't mean everything is wrong.
EXPLANATION: Galileo made some errors, but his main premise was accurate.


Precisely.

Kinney made some critiques on some specific points which had already been addressed as well. As Mooby said, it's possible Kinney didn't read the articles all the way through.

Quote  4. The author successfully proved bias and bad faith.
EXPLANATION: The task force ommited Freud's actual opinion, making him look like he was on their side.


I don't think Freud's opinion matters anymore in this case as I doubt he had any inkling of the biological or evolutionary arguments being made today.

Quote  5. The article does break appart every argument it quoted in favor of the normalization of homosexuality.
EXPLANATION: You need to read it if you haven't and say what you think of this.

Possibly, but again, some of the points being discussed don't really matter - such as the writer's gender preference or Freud's opinion - which is the weakest argument in this case. The strongest argument is the biological/evolutionary basis in my opinion.


8livesleft

#55
The way I see it, what should be the focus in the discussion of gender issues is the distress the individuals go through in dealing with possible depression, anxiety, etc...which could lead to suicide.

And if the Psychological/Psychiatric community decides to treat it as a trait, rather than as a condition, then I'm inclined to agree.

There is a very practical reason for this.

Imagine talking to someone from the LGBTQ community who is in distress and you tell them that they're born sick or mentally ill - how do you think would that go?

Now, if you take the position of it being at trait and instead tackling the specific things causing the distress like, for example, a lack of self-acceptance or a lack of a healthy support group, then progress will be more likely.

And again, what is the Church's solution to all this? Assuming they win and homosexuality is again declared a disorder, now what? Go to confession, and pray 2,000 hail mary's if you're gay so maybe God will "poof" the gayness away?

Mr. Blackwell

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 10, 2022, 04:33:56 AM
Quote from: Augusto on July 10, 2022, 03:39:23 AMI think Kianahie's post can be a good excercise for people here. I wonder if anyone following this threat can explain him where his logic is failing and why...

 ||popcorn||

He is a firm believer in government establishmentarianism. Whatever the government establishes, he follows. The government can do no wrong. His logic fails because every govenrnment system is established by the people. The people are often mislead by those who wish to decieve the people. It's a vicious circle.

Bulls**t. Your first three sentences are untruths unsupported by anything I have ever said. You read too much of your own mind in between the lines, MrB.

Happens that way sometimes. You tried your level best to explain your views but that's what I got out of it.
At this time the answer is not no. The question is why?

Kiahanie

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell on July 11, 2022, 01:22:22 AM
Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 05:14:55 PM•••€

Happens that way sometimes. You tried your level best to explain your views but that's what I got out of it.

I guess I have to work harder at clarity.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

Augusto

Here is another useful tip: Don't allow people to distract you from your goal by playing games with you.

You may have noticed something odd about Kiahanie's posts. So far, he presented his own opinions as statements:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 05, 2022, 10:22:16 PMThe major mental condition affecting the LGBTQ+ community is the mental condition that causes so many people to think "normal" means exclusionary.

He started a game of likes, encouraging others to play by the same rules with some success, as if this was a contest of popularity:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 06, 2022, 04:44:03 AMYup.+1

Showed he was willing to go the extra mile to impose his opinions:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 09, 2022, 08:39:47 PMKinney thereby establishes the righteousness of an ad hominem attack on himself

Tried to make it personal by indirectly disqualifying me:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 07:22:29 PMI understand you are seeking clarity on these issues. My suggestion is to use Wikipedia (and especially the references provided) as a foundation for understanding. That should provide a basis for evaluating fringe opinions.

And said this, while repeatedly refusing to provide evidence to support anything he said:

Quote from: Kiahanie on July 10, 2022, 10:29:14 PMActually, I rather think I am contributing to the conversation, not interfering.

Sure, this is the internet and you are going to find all sorts of people that no matter what you say, will still try to drag you into their mud. In such cases, you can ask yourself:
1. Is this person defending any argument that need further consideration?
2. Is there a real chance for me to turn this particular exchange into something productive?
3. Is my search for truth being positively affected by this particular individual?

If the answer to these questions is no, you should remember it is not your goal to convince anyone, and by allowing others to play games with you, it is more likely that you end up with nothing. So, the best thing to do is to ignore them, as I am doing with Kiahanie from now on.

Personally, I find it hard that some people think so little of themselves that choose to embrace such self-sabotaging behaviors, earning comments like that made my Mr. Blackwell a short while ago and getting their self-steem lowered as a result. The human brain is arguably the most wonderful, fascinating and powerful tool in the universe, but many have made the choice of not using it properly.

Anyway... Moving on!

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMIdeally. However, it was Kinney himself who wrongly attacked the writer of the article he was critiquing.

Ideally, YES. Remember we are not here to defend any position, but to examine them both. As for the "attack", it was not such thing. It was also not "wrongly". See the second point and give it some thought.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMIt should also matter who's still declaring that it is a psychological condition. And in this case, if we're comparing a traditional church group vs actual experts in the field, I think it should be very clear who has the upper hand in these discussions.

I recommend you to examine each premise individually. The second one says: "It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition". By what you're saying, I think you agree with this. Surely, if the board was composed mostly by religious fundamentalists, and they had found it to be a "perversion", you would be right to, at the very least, suspect its legitimacy.

Clearly, you are concerned by the position and motivations behind those who wrote the article. But the thing is, you shouldn't be, because we are NOT choosing a political candidate. We are just meant to listen to both of them, from an esceptic position, and build OUR OWN conclusions. In the end, neither the ruling board, nor the writer will win this. We are going to pass them and see beyond all these things, but NOT BEFORE carefully considering what have been said by both sides.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMKinney made some critiques on some specific points which had already been addressed as well. As Mooby said, it's possible Kinney didn't read the articles all the way through.

We need to address these first. Do you think the author showed their logic to be flawed on those points? If yes, we could consider getting a copy of the whole thing and see if there were more points that were conveniently left out by the author. Sure, it is possible, but we don't know that. And if we cannot overcome our own prejudices to examine these few cases, which have been presented to us, what hope do we have that would make us try to investigate any further. I suggest you:

1. Asume there are no more points or arguments developed by the board for the time being.
2. Imagine this is a discussion between two AIs and figure out which one has the better case.
3. Limit the scope of the case, at this point, not to see if homosexuality is a disease, but rather, to see if there are logical flaws to support the premise that it isn't.

Like Mooby rightfully said, even if all the reasons offered were faulty/incoherent, that does NOT mean homosexuality is a disease.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMI don't think Freud's opinion matters anymore in this case as I doubt he had any inkling of the biological or evolutionary arguments being made today.

Correct, Freud does not matter at all. To the board, however, it did. Freud was important enough for them to quote him. So, while it is not important what Freud thinks, the fact that this mostly LGBT+ board quoted him in such a way that they made him sound as if he was supporting their conclusions, by cutting out the very line that showed he thought the exact opposite should be seen as a definitive proof of bias and bad faith.

Likewise, if we were to find that there were several arguments made by the board that were left out, and if we see these arguments, or even ommited lines, and find the author of the paper to be miss representing the board, we should rightfully consider this person a hack. I do not know this is the case, but we can investigate it. Nevertheless, it does not matter, at this point, whether the author of the paper did or didn't do this or that, or Freud's relevance to the topic. What matters is the omission of a key line. Does it clearly show bias and bad faith? I seriously think the only possible answer is yes, if we are being honest here. If someone argues against this, then we have a case of someone who is taking sides and preventing us from moving forward on this inquiry.

Quote from: 8livesleft on July 10, 2022, 11:04:29 PMPossibly, but again, some of the points being discussed don't really matter - such as the writer's gender preference or Freud's opinion - which is the weakest argument in this case. The strongest argument is the biological/evolutionary basis in my opinion.

They matter because, if they were solid, there would be nothing to discuss. If they are weak, or plain absurd, then we can overcome that stigma of "not being good enough" or "not being qualified". That misticism embedded within our minds that invites us to worship figures of authority must be left behind. Because, if they are as intellectually dishonest and simpleminded as they guy from the grocery store, which is exactly what the author is telling us at this point, what makes it right for them to literally SHAPE THE WORLD, which is what is happening right now?

Now, 8livesleft, you made some comments on the author's argument. Biology, anal sex being a perversion of the "intended" biological function... This is the author trying to offer a case. It makes sense to try, because just exposing the board as "hacks" is not enough. Perhaps, as some have pointed out, this person have an agenda, and this is where is seems more evident. There is some logic behind it, but Mooby did a wonderful job breaking it apart with his example of the function of the hand.

I don't know. I think it is possible or even likely that anal sex has always been universal. I thought about it, I think most women don't enjoy it. I considered the biological facts pointed out, the harm done and so forth, but I still think this is too ambiguous, too hard to swallow, and, perhaps more importantly, it may not even be directly related to homosexuality. It is possible that one thing is being attracted to anal sex, and a very different thing, is being attracted to the same sex. I mean, I know some gay people who claim zero interest in playing an active role during sex. So, from the article, I am only interested in the legitimazy of the reasons presented by the board.

Finally, you seem to be interested in the outcome. Mooby too offered his thoughts on this. So, I'll share mine now:

1. At this point, we all should agree with the notion that this manual is pretty much "man-made", subjective and even foolish. Separating what is healthy from what is a disease is tricky, we are using words and nature does not work like that. This much can be said, without rising any eyebrowns.

2. It seems sufficient to me the fact that homosexuality can be linked to autism and suicidal thoughts and behaviors to consider it "something mental", "something else", "something out of the ordinary". Such link with autism may also explain why we see so many homosexuals on creative areas of all sorts.

3. So, what is autism? Is it considered a mental illness? Well, actually it is considered a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how you see the world and how you interact with it but it's NOT a mental health problem. This possibly means the manual is not so useless after all. Certain traits often associated with autism are harmful/problematic tho, and there is some progression, some hard to define line that goes from almost unexistent autism to very severe autism. I'm simplifying here, but the thing is, you could argue something similar also happens with homosexuality. There are, in the case of men, masculine homosexuals, feminine homosexuals, travesties and finally transexuals. One may even argue that bisexuals also fit somewhere in this model, in a similar way to autism. So, in short, I believe it to be more logical to consider homosexuality a neurological and developmental disorder, but not a mental problem.

4. Why considering homosexuality a disorder helps? It's fairly simple: Something most of you may have overlooked is that several other conditions, such as PEDOPHILY, were labeled "normal" for consistency reasons. And right now we are getting pedophiles organizing and trying to prove children also want to have sex. They are pushing for their rights, and they want to be called "intergenerational lovers" or something like that. At the same time, the normalization of homosexuality is taking a tool on people's lives. Homosexuals keep suffering and thinking about killing themselves, and doing it. Transexuals are on a even worst situation, and no ammount of power or social acknowledgement is changing this.

Please, before saying that the suicide rates are most likely related to social stigmatization, read what I said about that, and carefully consider what is currently known about it.

Also, don't stigmatize autism by trying to put homosexuality "on top" of it. Consider everything I have said so far, from pedophily to the actual well being of homosexuals, and then offer your thoughts.

||popcorn||

8livesleft

QuoteI recommend you to examine each premise individually. The second one says: "It does matter who declared homosexuality not being a condition". By what you're saying, I think you agree with this. Surely, if the board was composed mostly by religious fundamentalists, and they had found it to be a "perversion", you would be right to, at the very least, suspect its legitimacy.

Clearly, you are concerned by the position and motivations behind those who wrote the article. But the thing is, you shouldn't be, because we are NOT choosing a political candidate. We are just meant to listen to both of them, from an esceptic position, and build OUR OWN conclusions. In the end, neither the ruling board, nor the writer will win this. We are going to pass them and see beyond all these things, but NOT BEFORE carefully considering what have been said by both sides.


Right. This is not politics. I'm actually saying the reason of the APA to declassify it is practical as I explained in post #55. 

I'm not quite sure what the reasons of the church might be in wanting it to be treated as some kind of sinful illness though. 

Their position is the one that seems arbitrary to me. 

QuoteWe need to address these first. Do you think the author showed their logic to be flawed on those points?


I think so. Kinney mentions other possibly hereditary conditions and likens them to homosexuality when the fact is, the only thing similar would be heredity. 

Kinney mentions self-harm or amputation as being hereditary and also mentions things like serial killing and things of that nature which is nothing like gender preference which is not inherently harmful. 

Tendencies for self-harm, or harming others may be hereditary and that's why they're rightfully categorized as disorders. Gender preference is not inherently harmful.

It is ilogical to call it similar to those other disorders. 

QuoteCorrect, Freud does not matter at all. To the board, however, it did. Freud was important enough for them to quote him. So, while it is not important what Freud thinks, the fact that this mostly LGBT+ board quoted him in such a way that they made him sound as if he was supporting their conclusions, by cutting out the very line that showed he thought the exact opposite should be seen as a definitive proof of bias and bad faith.


Well, again, it should be obvious that the LGBTQ community wants the negativity to be diminished or eliminated. What's unfortunate here is their use of freud  

Personally, I think they should've stuck to the practical and biological reasons and not bring up other distractions or fluff.

QuoteI don't know. I think it is possible or even likely that anal sex has always been universal. I thought about it, I think most women don't enjoy it. I considered the biological facts pointed out, the harm done and so forth, but I still think this is too ambiguous, too hard to swallow, and, perhaps more importantly, it may not even be directly related to homosexuality. It is possible that one thing is being attracted to anal sex, and a very different thing, is being attracted to the same sex. I mean, I know some gay people who claim zero interest in playing an active role during sex. So, from the article, I am only interested in the legitimazy of the reasons presented by the board.


Regarding "naturalness" I'm inclined to think it is since I see my dogs sometimes trying to hump each other (both male). And we know of roman soldiers, current prisoners doing it - but it could be about asserting dominance or a "love who you're with" kinda thing. 

I think it's also some kind of fetish. I don't know, you'll have to interview proponents to understand why they like it. 

Quote1. At this point, we all should agree with the notion that this manual is pretty much "man-made", subjective and even foolish. Separating what is healthy from what is a disease is tricky, we are using words and nature does not work like that. This much can be said, without rising any eyebrowns.


Yes it is obviously manmade as are all books and documents but it is hardly "foolish." Ammending anything in the DSM is a laborious process. Every side presents their data-based arguments and panels decide on their passing, much like how laws are passed in governments. 

Quote2. It seems sufficient to me the fact that homosexuality can be linked to autism and suicidal thoughts and behaviors to consider it "something mental", "something else", "something out of the ordinary". Such link with autism may also explain why we see so many homosexuals on creative areas of all sorts.


Though of course it is possible for some homosexuals to be autistic and vice versa, I still need to see more studies worldwide to confirm if there is indeed a strong relationship and what exactly this relationship is. Because I've met quite a few homosexuals and none of them show any autism whatsoever. 

So, if there is indeed a relationship, it appears to be one way.

For suicide and depression, I'm of the opinion that it is dependent on the support system or lack there of. 

Quote3. So, what is autism? Is it considered a mental illness? Well, actually it is considered a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how you see the world and how you interact with it but it's NOT a mental health problem. This possibly means the manual is not so useless after all. Certain traits often associated with autism are harmful/problematic tho, and there is some progression, some hard to define line that goes from almost unexistent autism to very severe autism. I'm simplifying here, but the thing is, you could argue something similar also happens with homosexuality. There are, in the case of men, masculine homosexuals, feminine homosexuals, travesties and finally transexuals. One may even argue that bisexuals also fit somewhere in this model, in a similar way to autism. So, in short, I believe it to be more logical to consider homosexuality a neurological and developmental disorder, but not a mental problem.


Again, the difference between autism and homosexuality is that autism is more likely to require a lot of treatment and support right from the get go as the kids, their families will likely be experiencing some kind of distress, and even danger from the start. Not so with homosexuality.

Disorders can indirectly emerge from homosexuality like depression, suicide, anxiety, gender dysphoria, body dysmorphic disorder and all of these things are treatable specifically and separately from the homosexuality itself. 

Think of it more in terms of an asian feeling depression/anxiety from being discriminated. The LGBTQ community deals with something very similar to that. 

Quote4. Why considering homosexuality a disorder helps? It's fairly simple: Something most of you may have overlooked is that several other conditions, such as PEDOPHILY, were labeled "normal" for consistency reasons. And right now we are getting pedophiles organizing and trying to prove children also want to have sex. They are pushing for their rights, and they want to be called "intergenerational lovers" or something like that. At the same time, the normalization of homosexuality is taking a tool on people's lives. Homosexuals keep suffering and thinking about killing themselves, and doing it. Transexuals are on a even worst situation, and no ammount of power or social acknowledgement is changing this.


Again, the difference here is homosexuality is not inherently harmful, distressing or dangerous. Large populations of the LGBTQ are living perfectly normal lives especially in cultures that are more accepting of them.

Pedophilia is clearly harmful. It is traumatic for the children and is again illogical to be considered as being the same as homosexuality.