Saturday, July 25, 2015

LGB…T. One of these things is not like the others….

I've always found it interesting that the LGBT community is made up of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people. The first three groups in this community are all made up of people who have an attraction to people of their own gender (or in the case of bisexuals, any gender.) But transexuals actually believe they are a different gender. This is not the same, by a long shot.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe this is a conversation that you should have with a transgendered person. I'll let you tell them why you believe that they don't belong with LGB's.

The only way you can't understand what I'm saying is to choose to not understand. Let me dumb down the argument (even though I believe you are just trying to stay safe in your politically-correct peer group, and do understand). Saying that I like dogs as a pet is not the same as saying that I am a dog. See how those two are different?

Those two things seem pretty different.

So, let's try an experiment. Suppose I sincerely believed that I was the Jackie Kennedy-Onassis. I dressed like her, and I insist that I am her. I would be found to be suffering from a delusional thought disorder, and could be forced into psychiatric treatment if I was found to be unable to recognize that I am not really Jackie O.  However, If I believe that I am not the Jackie O, but still a woman named Jaqkuie Kennedy-Onassis, then I'm protected by law from discrimination.   How would you rectify this?

Oh, I see where you get lost. It is sorta like: if you are a boy and you like boys, then we might call you gay. If you are a man, but you like being a woman, then we might call you transgender. Those sound pretty similar to me. Every psychologist, sociologist, and psychiatrist that I know tells me that gender is a social construct. It seems reasonable to me that one's biology might not match their social construct.

But even if you didn't want to let transgendered people into the group for that reason, it seems that they could still warrant a membership card because society treats them all very similarly. But then they would have to let in atheists (as a similarly hated group by society).

Every biologist, chemist, and geneticist I know would tell you that gender is, well, genetic. Psychology, sociology, and even psychiatry deal with how you feel about the world around you, and how you deal with your feelings. As mentioned in an earlier blog, this is why these are "soft" sciences. The rules can change based on societal influences. "Hard" sciences, like biology, physics, chemistry, and genetics have laws that are constants. So, if you are male, and have a preference for sex with men, we would call you gay. If you are a male, and wish you were a female, that does not make it so. You are still a male. (It's this whole complicated chromosome thing. X's and Y's and all this DNA science stuff that is found in every cell of your body. Apparently you skipped those classes in school.)

Atheist are a hated group? Hmm, if you feel that's true, then you should probably have an introspective chat with yourself to understand why you are generating that feeling. Maybe you should talk to a psychologist to help you understand yourself better. Perhaps you are a Christian trapped in an atheist's body….

One doesn't have to look too far to find evidence that atheists are not well regarded in the US. For example, most Americans would vote for a gay person, or a muslim before they would vote for an atheist. Maybe "hated" is too strong a word. In any event, I don't feel persecuted. Even better, my kids (who also are either atheist or agnostic) hardly think about it. For example, no one in their schools make a big deal about it. I think the younger generation is much more accepting of different kinds of people than our generation, and older, were.

Most scientists that I know make a distinction between "sex" and "gender". Sex is genetic and biological, whereas gender is psychological and behavioral, which can of course be genetic. But even the biology of sex is not purely binary. As a medical doctor, you may have seen cases of "ambiguous genitalia."

You may well be right that gender is genetic, but not because of the expression of sex organs, but because of the expression of behaviors. So, I find the T in LGBT to make a perfectly fine grouping.

Perhaps you are arguing that "gender roles" are societal constructs? I can believe that is the case. Women should have no barriers to achieving their goals, whether staying at home, or becoming the bread winner. Men should also have the ability to choose their role in society, or within the home. But surely you are not arguing that a woman who becomes a CEO looses her identity as a woman?

With transgenders, you have been using the term "gender" to also refer to their sexual composition. It can only be one or the other, as "gender roles" are distinct from "gender". You need to decide which terms you are going to use to describe each topic. And whether it makes any sense or not, I agree with you that the T is likely to stay where it is. And depending on the antics of the Decathlete-formerly-known-as-Bruce, having Ms. Jenner as their spokesperson will likely hurt the entire grouping's public standing.

I think we both want these people to find happiness in their lives, and I think we both feel they need outside help to make that happen. We disagree, however, on what it means to get them to the point they are happy with who they are. Because the question is "who are they...really". You never did answer the question asked earlier about why some are considered delusional, and some are protected, for essentially the same condition. Society has not answered that question either, but we need to.

No wonder your answers are often confused; you are asking the wrong questions!

As for Atheists, and their intolerant streak,  I'll start working on that blog right now.

1 comment:

  1. Math: 2+1=3.

    Claim: A 1 can be a 2, even though it is in fact a 1. Thus,
    Anti-Math: 2+1=4.

    Science: It has been shown that the biological condition of Female is distinct from the biological condition of Male.

    Claim by Liberals: A person can be a female even though they are a biological male. (and various other permutations)

    Anti-Science: Biology does not determine one's gender.

    Conservatives acknowledge the climate is changing. Conservatives question the degree to which humans are responsible for rising temperatures. Liberals claim the science is settled, and they know for a fact that humans will cause catastrophic global warming. Liberals marginalize, ridicule and vilify scientists whose research shows otherwise. Yet, liberals call conservatives "anti-science".


Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!