Philosophy Now Forum

Many people claim that homosexuals can't choose their orientation.

Often the same people claim that children shouldn't be taught stereotypical male-female gender roles, nor should be taught gender roles at all.

It seems that if one is unable to choose or be indoctrinated into his sexual oreintation, then he wouldn't be able to choose or be indoctrinated into his gender role either. So if those people are honest, then it seems that their reason for being against teaching gender roles, is that they may be teaching the wrong roles to the wrong children. But, they would have to admit that despite a child's potential miseducation, the child would still end up acting as the gender that he born to act like. Just as a homosexual raised to be hetero-sexual will still be a homo-sexual. Yet, I'm not sure that people are consistent with this logic.

If all they were trying to do is avoid teaching the wrong roles to the wrong children, then it's understandable that rather than try to figure out which role the child was born to be most suited for, they would simply not teach gender roles at all. Therefore allowing a child to find out for himself what type of gender he wishes to act like in time without being confused by miseducation. But, they would have to admit, that if they did somehow know from testing what gender role a child was most suited for, that he would benefit from being taught it.

So for example, their is the stereotypical western idea of a strong man, meaning one who isn't sensitive, is straight forward and loud with his thoughts, and likes sports and working mechanical or industrial type jobs. We may not know which boys were born with the disposition to become like that, but we must know that some are. So if we simply don't encourage children to act according to a specific gender stereotype, such a boy will not be at a significant disadvantage from not being encouraged to act like the type of man that would be most natural for him. He simply will develop those traits by themselves, just as so many homosexuals, especially in the past, had to find themselves to be homosexual without any encouragement whatsoever.

But, here's where I'm skeptical. It seems to me that when children are supposedly not being encouraged to act according to any gender stereotypes, they're actually being encouraged to act in a way more suited for the majority of girls than boys. As if those implementing these policies have something against the type of man I described above. If this is the case, then then they must be seriously asked whether they truly believe that children were born with a specific inclination to act as a certain gender. If they do, then they must evaluate what they believe gender neutral education really consists of. But, if they don't, if they actually admit that they think that children's minds are blank slate, then while they wouldn't be hypocrites for teaching children to act as they see fit, they would be vile hypocrites if they also still claimed that homosexuals have no choice in their orentation.

It seems that if one is unable to choose or be indoctrinated into his sexual oreintation, then he wouldn't be able to choose or be indoctrinated into his gender role either.

This premise, on which your whole thesis is based, seems highly dubious, Stuart. Why do you believe gender roles to be subject to the same biological and or social constraints as sexual orientations? Are you able to provide any kind of argument to support this idea?

Problem is sometimes the sexual confusion is a passing phase of life, so should we teach something that won't last their entire life?

What about those who feel like both sexes or no sex at all?

I think it's either Norway or Sweden that they have gender neutral education, I haven't heard it has any benefits other than to please some very strange sex-teachers.

Personally I think it's a mad doctrine/ideology, just like communism and feminism.

Stuart;

You have brought up an interesting topic, but I think that you have tried to overly simplify it. Every aspect of gender identity and sexual orientation needs to be considered from the personal perspective and also from the perspective of society, as they relate to both. This is a very complex issue.

From the personal perspective: I remember watching a documentary about babies born with dubious sexuality. There are a lot more than I would have ever guessed, maybe thousands. In this documentary it was stated that at one time, surgery would simply correct the problem creating whatever they thought would be the appropriate sex. Or maybe, "What would you like to have? We can make it a boy or a girl, although we can not guarantee the ability to reproduce." This was back when it was assumed that an infant was born with a "blank slate". They were wrong.

Many years later, after the children had grown, there were lots of complaints that a male had been designated a female, or a female had been designated a male -- through surgery. Opinions were revised and it was decided that surgery should wait until there was clear evidence as to which gender should be selected. But then new problems arrived. Which bathroom was the child allowed to use in kindergarten? How do you dress the child? How do you introduce the child -- my son or my daughter? The social complications became so severe that most families found that they had to move to a new school and neighborhood once the decision was made and gender was established. Of course this move did not help with the difficulties and misunderstandings in the family, siblings, cousins, grandparents, and such.

In another documentary, a man was studying the brains of cadavers of people, who specifically stated in their lifetimes, that they were in the wrong gender body. This study found that there is one small part of the adult brain that seems to be different in men and women. Of course, the study was very limited as to available cadavers that would be acceptable for study, and I don't know if his work was ever confirmed by another source. But it seems clear that both, nature and surgery, can mismatch a body with a self as to gender. The idea of a "blank slate" is simply not true.

Then there are the people, who are male in a male body and simply not attracted to females, or females in a female body, who are simply not attracted to males. For a while psychology had some ideas about this and decided that it was caused by trauma, but most have rethought that issue. The homosexual people that have been psychoanalyzed appear to have more problems with society accepting them, than they have problems with their gender appreciation and attraction.

My thought is that there is such a thing as an alpha male, and there is also such a thing as an alpha female, but there are a whole lot of other letters in the alphabet. There seems to be a sliding scale.

Socially, homosexuality is a problem.

I know a woman, who was married, had three children, then her husband announced that he was leaving her for another man. She was devastated. The first thing that occurred to her was, if he was homosexual, then what did that say about her femininity? It took her more than twenty years to finally get over that issue and trust marriage again. In the meantime, her children lived without a father -- her family was broken.

Another woman I know well, told me that she was getting divorced. When I asked why, she stated that she had always known that she was homosexual, but tried to deny it and wanted children. She said it was time, so she was moving her husband out, and moving her girlfriend in. She also stated that her lawyer told her that she could get alimony, as her husband made good money, and she had never worked much. I told her that her husband had spent ten years of his life buying a home, filling it with the comforts of life, and building a family, only to have it all ripped away -- because she had lied to him. If she added the insult of asking for alimony, I would never speak to her again.

No one wants to deal with the problems that are mentioned above, nor do we want our children to have to deal with them, so it is not surprising that society takes a dim view of homosexuality. It is not so much that it is right or wrong, it is more that we don't know how to address this issue, so creating and enforcing gender roles, would be one way to address it.

Dave Berry used to have a column in the newspaper, and I always read it because he was a fun writer. One article, in the 70's, addressed the idea of enforced gender programming. He wanted to be a good Dad, so he bought his daughter cars and trucks, and bought his son dolls. He said that his daughter named all of the cars and trucks and grouped them into families, and his son found interesting ways to incorporate the dolls into his army maneuvers and killed them off.

Gee

I like to be flippant but this really would never of happened under Hitler. Which is ironically a little deeper than you would imagine.

That said I think people aren't born gay any more than they are born straight, I think that sort of thinking is old fashioned. These days I think they have a likelihood of being either, and nurture not nature will out. And of course, that's no one's fault not even the Romans. But some people are as said in the gamet quite literally of Alpha to omega to be straight or gay. where does the letter come in for bisexual I wonder. All broad topics for another hundred years at least.

I agree too complicated and the evidence is not in, as for being wrong that is a social convention that has not a single place in a modern world. The evidence says sexual orientation is not a disease, and I am inclined to agree, wouldn't of minded catching bisexuality, but I am not that greedy, and I was not "made" that way.

Suffice to say no one is 100% straight or gay, except ironically your mum.

mickthinks wrote:It seems that if one is unable to choose or be indoctrinated into his sexual oreintation, then he wouldn't be able to choose or be indoctrinated into his gender role either.

This premise, on which your whole thesis is based, seems highly dubious, Stuart. Why do you believe gender roles to be subject to the same biological and or social constraints as sexual orientations? Are you able to provide any kind of argument to support this idea?

No. The fact is that while I may not have substantiated my argument with evidence, it simply stands to reason. It's logical for anyone whose observed reality objectively. But, unlike others, I'm not making an unsubstantiated argument to push a social cause that would otherwise have to catch the general public favor on it's own honest highly substantiated and logically consistent merits, should their be any. If homosexuals and their supporters want to viciously shame those against their so-called "civil rights movement" by saying homosexuals have no choice in the matter, then it would be reasonable to expect them to explain what it is that makes sexual orientation so clearly not a choice compared to other matters, gender roles specifically, being that they are highly related.

HexHammer wrote:Problem is sometimes the sexual confusion is a passing phase of life, so should we teach something that won't last their entire life?

What about those who feel like both sexes or no sex at all?

We could try to teach nothing whatsoever on the matter, specifically, and instead simply list options. I'm just saying two things here; one, if people wish to avoid duplicity then they ought to make sure that a gender neutral education is actual what it claims, and two, if they take the stance of the homosexual community, that not only were people born with a disposition towards a a specific sexual orientation, but that their exact orientation was in-born and completely beyond change, then they should recognize, that by all reason, like orientation, the disposition to need to act according to a certain gender role, is equally born-in and unchangeable, therefore, whatever people are taught concerning gender roles, they will still end up with the gender role they were born to have.

In other words, if a boy who would be athletic, interested in mechanics, etc., was taught to act in an opposing way, he would still end up the same type of man, only having to had deal with initial confusion due to his miseducation.

I think it's either Norway or Sweden that they have gender neutral education, I haven't heard it has any benefits other than to please some very strange sex-teachers.

Personally I think it's a mad doctrine/ideology, just like communism and feminism.

I've heard about Sweden where they took an axe to their language and contrived a gender neutral term to replace their equivalents of "him/he" and "her/she". It's like a futuristic horror movie.

Stuart when /i eventually get your point I am sure I will agree. It is not possibly going to happen in my life time.

I think ironically given the thread title you are confused.

Personally I was never confused about gender at least I always wanted to be a man, an honest one if I may.

If homosexuals and their supporters want to viciously shame those against their so-called "civil rights movement" ...

Ah, I see you have an emotional hostility to calls for gay rights, Stuart.

... it would be reasonable to expect them to explain what it is that makes sexual orientation so clearly not a choice compared to other matters, gender roles specifically, being that they are highly related.

That orientation and gender seem to be "related" doesn't mean we can just assume they work the same way, Stuart! What grounds or evidence do you have for believing that gay people are lying to us about their inner worlds? (I'm guessing, none.)

mickthinks wrote:If homosexuals and their supporters want to viciously shame those against their so-called "civil rights movement" ...

Ah, I see you have an emotional hostility to calls for gay rights, Stuart.

I'm emotionally hostile to any duplicity of epic proportions.

I don't consider homosexuality to be something that needs be accepted by anyone. Take the modern condition of alienation. That condition I suffer from, and I don't expect people to accept it, because it isn't something to be desired.

Now take the American democratic party, socially they're a nightmare, they're extremely duplicitous, yet they're needed to oppose the republicans who would finish destroying the economy given a chance. So while I don't support the democrats' duplicity, it's true that my blood pressure doesn't rise as much as it does due to the homosexual rights organizations' duplicity. My current issue with them, beyond just their duplicity, is that they support general feminization. It's interesting though, what initially turned me away from having any sympathies for homosexual rights organizations, far before I was aware of feminization, is that they ruined Kerry's chance to be elected, and consequentially there reckless disregard for the larger picture, is why the American economy is still recovering from that subsequent four years of republican rule.

That orientation and gender seem to be "related" doesn't mean we can just assume they work the same way, Stuart! What grounds or evidence do you have for believing that gay people are lying to us about their inner worlds? (I'm guessing, none.)

You're not providing any more evidence than I am. I mean if it was so obvious that homosexuality was entirely not a choice, then I would think you could find me several quality links in a short time. Now when men say that they're being actively emasculated by societal pressures, and those complicit in that emasculation try claiming that men can choose the level of masculinity they're happy with and therefore only need to tell themselves that they're fine being emasculated, would you be willing to direct the same argument against them; would you tell those arguing that men can choose the level of masculinity they're happy with that they need evidence that men are lying about their inner worlds?

... my blood pressure rises due to the homosexual rights organizations' duplicity.
Okay, the problem with anger is that it makes your opinions prey to cognitive biases.

You're not providing any more evidence than I am.
Here's more evidence than you have provided: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-sie ... 05680.html.

Stuartp523 wrote:Many people claim that homosexuals can't choose their orientation.

why does this even matter?

if someone were to decide, out of the blue, that they want to start having sex with people of their own gender, would that make any difference?

there would still be no reason (or at least a good reason) to condemn that person on moral grounds, or to discriminate against them, etc.

Stuartp523 wrote:In other words, if a boy who would be athletic, interested in mechanics,

what does being athletic or mechanical got to do with anything

i am athletic and can repair a tractor

but when i do not have to do anything athletic or tractor related i tend to dress - and act in what can be described as streotypically girly ways

(you cant really wear a nice dress when repairing a tractor)

Kayla wrote:

Stuartp523 wrote:Many people claim that homosexuals can't choose their orientation.

why does this even matter?

if someone were to decide, out of the blue, that they want to start having sex with people of their own gender, would that make any difference?

there would still be no reason (or at least a good reason) to condemn that person on moral grounds, or to discriminate against them, etc.

Your issue is not with me but those who use that argument as if it does matter. If someone says homosexuals can choose, and claim that means they should choose not to, why would people respond so often and so adamantly that, no, they cannot choose, if choice wasn't important? They yell the response, "Yes, we can choose", rather than, "The issue of choice is not relevant here." My concern is not why they yell the former more often than not, or if they should yell the former rather than the latter; my concern is what type of logic they would need to remain unhypocritical being that they do insist on engaging in the argument concerning choice.

The word 'gender' is a linguistic term. Nouns in some languages are masculine, feminine, or neuter. All organisms that reproduce sexually are either male or female (or both). 'Sexing' refers to sorting newly hatched chicks to determine their sex. The females are kept for egg production, whereas the males are discarded. The rest of this thread is worthless babble.