Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I dunno, that line of argument sounds awfully like declaring yourself "bright".

I'm sure there's a latin term for claiming that because they believe in something, they must secretly feel the opposite inside. Sounds Freudian, and I have just about zero respect for him.

Posted by Big D at December 2, 2006 10:52 AM

I dunno, that line of argument sounds awfully like declaring yourself "bright".

Not to me.

I'm sure there's a latin term for claiming that because they believe in something, they must secretly feel the opposite inside.

That's not my claim. Or you've stated it in such a vague way that it's hard to know whether it is or not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 10:58 AM

> If someone claims that homosexuals have a choice (that is, it really is a "preference"), then how can they know that?

Because in college, I knew a number of radical feminists who become lesbians as a political statement. Since politics are not inborn, that choice was obviously not inborn.

The inclination to be attracted to one sex or another might be inborn, but acting on that inclination is a choice decision.

Sexual attraction is not an irresistable impulse. If we start to believe that it is, we are heading down a slippery slope. What of other groups? Could not lawyers defend pedophiles and rapists by saying they had no choice but to act on their own inborn impulses?

Posted by at December 2, 2006 11:06 AM

The inclination to be attracted to one sex or another might be inborn, but acting on that inclination is a choice decision.

That's what I'm talking about, so I'm not sure what the argument is, unless you're claiming that everyone is born with a choice (i.e., is bisexual by nature). I'm a counterexample to that proposition, and there's no empirical evidence for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 11:28 AM

By the way, when people bring out the straw men of pedophilia and rape, they make a severe category error, since in neither case is it consensual (the purpose of statutory rape laws is to recognize societally, among other things, that children are not sufficiently mature to consent).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 11:31 AM

Well, the argument is amusing, Rand, and it would be marvelous to see it deployed against a rabidly antihomosexual televangelist...

But I think it has two flaws nonetheless: first, few people argue that anyone has a choice with respect to their urges. Urges are, well, urges. They bubble up from dark depths, and no one can consciously decide them.

What people argue is that, whatever your urges, you have a choice about how and whether you act on them. That means most folks who argue homosexuals can and should make different choices with respect to their urges are roughly equivalent to those (which is most of us, at various times) who argue that heterosexual men should refrain from sex until married, and refrain from rape all their lives.

I say "roughly" because these folks do not allow homosexuals even the one sanctioned "outlet" for their urges equivalent to marriage for heterosexuals.

Although...maybe it should be noted that the idea that every heterosexual man should be guaranteed such an outlet (if she'll have him) is a pretty modern notion. Two centuries ago a man was not really allowed to marry unless he could afford it, and some never did for just that reason. In principle such men were expected to restrict themselves to whacking off all their lives. In practise, a certain amount of illicit sex was tolerated. For that matter, in the same era a certain amount of illicit homosexual sex was tolerated. In both cases you were merely expected to keep it quiet -- don't scare the horses in the street -- and be ashamed if it came to light.

The second flaw I find is the idea that people derive what they say consistently from what they feel. I doubt this. People are so bad at knowing what they really feel that I think there is, at best, only a weak correlation between one's urges and one's philosophy. Id est, people are perfectly capable of thinking they have a choice when they really don't ("I can quit any time I want to!") And they are perfectly capable of thinking that other people have a choice even if they themselves act as if they don't. ("You should stop smoking," said Thelma the enormously fat woman as she reached for another petit four, "It's just a matter of choosing your behaviour, you know. Oh, did I tell you I'm considering stomach stapling?")

Posted by Carl Pham at December 2, 2006 11:37 AM

I don't think that "urge" is the right word. And of course I expect people to have self control over their urges. What I don't expect is for people to engage in sexual activity with people with whom they find it repugnant and repulsive. I wouldn't do it with a guy, barring a gun to my head. I assume that homosexuals feel the same way about women. If they don't, they're not really homosexuals--they're just bisexuals who prefer men.

As for people not being consistent about what they think and feel, that almost always goes without saying. I'm just pointing out the logical consequences of their stated beliefs. And of course, if many, or even most people are bisexual, then there's no obvious shame in being one. It comes back to behavior. But they shouldn't extrapolate their own sexual orientation to those of us (hetero and homo) who don't share it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 11:47 AM

Anyone here ever live in Thailand? Then you know what a Khatoi is. Thailand has a third sex, accepted as such for ages. Men visit not only female prostitues but sometimes a Khatoi (a man who is really a woman). The Thais didn't seem to see an issue with bisexuality and accomodated it without much fuss a long time back. Most Thais don't exhibit much self control with regards to sex. One could either view this as depraved or enlightened. Fact is though, most who have lived in Thailand encounter a very relaxed people who take fun to another level. Lots of US GIs indulged themselves there quite thoroughly during the Vietnam war and wound up marrying and living in Thailand.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 2, 2006 12:21 PM

Its interesting to note that where the lines are drawn as to what is and isn't homosexual changes for different people. In health care they warn workers if you come across a patient who tells you he has been having sex with another man then do not assume that he is gay. In fact, you may make the person angry by calling them a homosexual. In some cultures you can be hetero still if you give it to another man. However, if you willingly take it from another man then you can be considered gay at that point.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 2, 2006 06:09 PM

And what culture would that be Josh? One that condones rape as a punishment for promiscuity? One that calls it 'Honor Rapes' perchance?

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 2, 2006 06:42 PM

Here's my intuition. We all have a very strong but
subtle instinct for sex. It is not at all fixed in
the sense that people are predetermined about what gender
they will be attracted to or the specific kind of
person they will be attracted to. Instead the instinct
to sex is a vague but definite and more or less
continually present, though waxing and waning, pressure.

A person's initial experiences of sex can in some
cases result in a fixation on a particular kind of
sex. This is particularly true if the initial experiences
are in childhood.

Therefore homosexuality versus heterosexuality is
malleable. Virtually all people could be either one or
the other depending on their specific experiences. This
does not though mean that people are malleable in the
experiences they seek once they acquire a preference.

Once a preference has been formed it can be hard
to change.

I believe that males are genetically biased to
prefer females and females to prefer males, but that
the sexual instinct is not nearly specific enough
to lock this in, instead the main instinctual
impetus is for sex in a general sense.

Further I believe that all people carry genetically
the more or less complete code for male or female
behavior. That is the male Y chromosome actually codes
for very little of the male pattern. It's a stub
or master switch. Sometimes the female program gets
activated in a person otherwise male, or the male
pattern in a person otherwise female.

But even this doesn't determine a person's gender
preference. Instead it's the vagaries of personal
experience. Further even when a person is fixated
on one kind sexual experience, this is not necessity.

Most homosexual men are perfectly capable of having
sex with women. And likewise with women.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 2, 2006 06:51 PM

It is not at all fixed in the sense that people are predetermined about what gender they will be attracted to or the specific kind of person they will be attracted to. Instead the instinct to sex is a vague but definite and more or less continually present, though waxing and waning, pressure.

You can believe this fantasy if you want, but there's zero empirical or logical basis for it. You certainly haven't provided any, other than your own wishful thinking.

Most homosexual men are perfectly capable of having sex with women.

If that's true, then there's no meaning to the word "homosexuality." And the corollary is that heterosexual men are perfectly capable of having sex with men, which I know from personal experience is utter nonsense. Are you claiming that you're capable of that?

Sorry, but your comment is utter nonsense as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 07:28 PM

Y'know, when you boil it all down, Rand, we're arguing over nature/nurture.

I believe in nurture--or rather, in personal decisions, as opposed to "my parents raised me that way". I believe that genetics gives me certain predispositions, certain leanings--but that those should and must pale before my own thoughts, my own decisions. And thus the "hey, it's all genetic" argument just doesn't carry water with me.

Posted by Big D at December 2, 2006 07:41 PM

I believe in nurture--or rather, in personal decisions, as opposed to "my parents raised me that way".

Hey, you can believe whatever you want, for whatever reason you want, and who's to stop you?

The reality remains that there's no empirical or logical evidence for your beliefs. That's important, of course, only to those who require such.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2006 08:02 PM

So you believe in genetic predestination?

Because when you get down to it, that's what you're arguing for. If the genes say you should act this way, then heaven forbid that society, family, or (particularly anathema) God should tell you otherwise.

I'm almost willing to go along with that for animals, but even then, I'm not too sure. And I just can't buy it for people.

Posted by Big D at December 2, 2006 08:59 PM

Rand,

No. Even though homosexual men are functionally
capable of having sex with women -- and many in
fact on occasion do so -- this does not mean that
homosexuality does not exist. Would you argue
that rocket scientists don't exist because people
don't have to become rocket scientists?

And the argument is even stronger in the case of
homosexuals because whereas becoming a rocket
scientist is a more or less conscious choice I'm
speculating that the preference for homosexuality
is fixed in childhood as a side-effect of initial
sexual experiences. And even more than that I'm
speculating that some homosexuals are running the
genetically-determined female behavioral component
of the genetic program.

Now that's far from saying all homosexuals have
feminizing genes activated, but if there is a
genetic-determined feminine behavioral program then
some men are going to have it.

Obviously all this is opinion. I started off by
saying it's my intuition. But your insistence
that there's "zero empirical or logical basis for
it" leads me naturally to thinking about empirical
and logical arguments.

Let's abandon my speculations for the moment and take
your belief: part of which is that some men are
born completely and non-optionally heterosexual.
That is they are sexually attracted to women and
nothing else, and no experience, even in childhood
could possibly alter that.

Now look at that belief from a biological perspective.
If there are such men aren't the odds of their
having children considerably greater than men
whose attraction to the opposite sex is optional?
Shouldn't this genetically determined and genetically
advantageous fixed attraction to the only sex with
which one can possibly bear children come rapidly
to almost completely dominate the gene pool?

Yes absolutely. If there are any such men at all,
then almost men should be like this. The empirical
observation that there are a significant number of men
who are not like this is logical evidence that
there are no such men at all.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 04:24 AM

So you believe in genetic predestination?

No.

Because when you get down to it, that's what you're arguing for.

No, it's not.

If the genes say you should act this way

We are not discussing actions. We're discussing sexual orientation, and who we're attracted to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 04:51 AM

Even though homosexual men are functionally
capable of having sex with women -- and many in
fact on occasion do so -- this does not mean that
homosexuality does not exist.

When did I claim that homosexuality doesn't exist? My claim is that it does.

I don't accept your premise, though. If a man is capable of having sex with women, then he's not homosexual. By definition, he's bisexual.

Would you argue that rocket scientists don't exist because people don't have to become rocket scientists?

I haven't argued that any kind of person doesn't exist. In fact, my argument is that many kinds of people exist. Are you actually reading what I write?

Let's abandon my speculations for the moment and take your belief: part of which is that some men are born completely and non-optionally heterosexual. That is they are sexually attracted to women and nothing else, and no experience, even in childhood could possibly alter that.

That's right. I am such a man.

Now look at that belief from a biological perspective.

If there are such men aren't the odds of their
having children considerably greater than men
whose attraction to the opposite sex is optional?

Yes. But I didn't claim that it was only genetic. It could also be (and there is quite a bit of evidence for) a result of womb environment.

Shouldn't this genetically determined and genetically advantageous fixed attraction to the only sex with which one can possibly bear children come rapidly to almost completely dominate the gene pool?

No, not necessarily. If homosexuality is genetic, it could be caused by a combination of genes, each of which is beneficial in some way, but doesn't result in homosexuality unless they're combined.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 05:02 AM

Rand,

As I understand it you see a world where there
are mandatory heterosexuals, bisexuals, and
homosexuals. I see a world where there are,
from the perspective of the genotype, only
bisexuals. Now I'm distinguishing between genotype
and phenotype. By genotype I mean what the genes
say, and by phenotype, what actually results. (To
shorten the writing henceforth I'm going to mainly
talk about men).

Phenotypically I do see a world where there is
something approximating mandatory heterosexuals,
bisexuals, and homosexuals. That is I have no
doubt there are homosexuals that have never had
sex with a women, can't imagine themselves doing
so, and sincerely believe that they are incapable
of doing so. But I think this is a product of the
phenotype and not the genotype. These convictions
arise from the pecularities of that person's
development.

What I don't believe is that there is any genotype
that fixes either homosexuality or mandatory
heterosexuality.

My main reason for believing this is the genetic logic
of the situation. If homosexuality could be genetically
predetermined, it would be so disadvantageous
that this genetic constellation would almost
immediately be eliminated. If mandatory hetero-
sexuality could be genetically predetermined, then
that possibility would be so advantageous that
it would soon completely take over.

You've suggested that maternal hormonal influences
may be affecting all this. I totally agree.

You've also suggested that perhaps "If homosexuality
is genetic, it could be caused by a combination of
genes, each of which is beneficial in some way, but
doesn't result in homosexuality unless they're combined."

The problem with that is not that in general
it wouldn't be a plausible genetic scenario,
but rather in this situation the shear magnitude
of the genetic disadvantage that has to be
compensated for.

In order to counterbalance the risk of homosexuality
these other factors would have to be so beneficial
that they should be right in our face. It seems
like we should know what they are.

The only advantage I've ever heard seriously argued
for male homosexuality is that men with the testosterone
levels stastically common among homosexuals (but not
exclusive to homosexuals) are on average a couple
of IQ points higher than men with higher testosterone
levels. Unfortunately this isn't even in the ballpark
of what's needed to compensate for the disadvantage
of not having children.

There are no plausible candidates. And if there were
such it seems like they should be standing out a
mile away.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 07:01 AM

What I don't believe is that there is any genotype that fixes either homosexuality or mandatory heterosexuality.

You can believe, or not believe it. Either way, it doesn't affect my argument, since I never made such a claim (though I certainly think it possible).

Once again, I get very annoyed at having to respond to straw men arguments that I didn't make. Nothing you wrote in this last comment is pertinent to my post, and it seems to have completely ignored my previous comment on how there is no gay gene, but that homosexuality could still have a genetic basis. I wish that people would read what I write, and actually respond to it, rather than to what they fantasize that I write while ignoring my counterarguments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 07:21 AM

Rand,

Actually I'm trying to up the signal-to-noise ratio
by articulating ideas rather than arguing about who
said what and what was literally said. And somehow
interface that with what was actually meant, which
in retrospect even, is sometimes not at all clear.

Would it surpise you to know that several times
in this discussion here I've felt you've advanced
strawmen? That you've misrepresented what I was
saying?

Here's what I find interesting. I know I haven't
deliberately misrepresented what you're saying.
Each time I've been responding to what I honestly
and forthrightly believed you to mean.

And I'll assume the same is true for you.

Yet look at where we find ourselves. How does that
happen?

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 07:48 AM

I should add:

In order to counterbalance the risk of homosexuality these other factors would have to be so beneficial that they should be right in our face. It seems like we should know what they are.

That doesn't follow at all. The fact that some complex of genes results in homosexuality doesn't in any way imply that we can therefore know what the beneficial effects of those genes are, either singly, or in some other combination. In fact, it would be impossible for us to even figure it out, given our current state of knowledge, since we don't even know which genes are involved. But the fact that we don't (currently) know that in no way negates the hypothesis, or even renders it unlikely.

But again, my argument, and post, does not depend on a purely, or even partially genetic basis for homosexuality. It only requires that the trait be provided by the time of birth (e.g., it could caused by in utero environment).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 07:51 AM

Would it surpise you to know that several times
in this discussion here I've felt you've advanced
strawmen? That you've misrepresented what I was
saying?

Yes, it would. Give me an example. I can give numerous examples in which you done so to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 07:56 AM

Re-reading your comments that first thing that
snags my eye is this, quote,

"wishful thinking"

which you attribute to me. Now what do you
imagine that I'm thinking that you believe
what I'm saying is "wishful thinking." That
thinking is apparently somehow to my advantage.
I don't know what you mean. It seems pejorative.

You're attributing an emotional need for a my
beliefs -- which seems to me not at all evident
from what I wrote. Perhaps this is a species
of strawman.

Next line is you quoting and responding to me.

Mark: "Most homosexual men are perfectly capable
of having sex with women."

Rand: "If that's true, then there's no meaning to
the word "homosexuality."

Now there's no strawman there but it leads to up
what I believe you imagine to be a strawman from
me.

Mark: "No. Even though homosexual men are functionally
capable of having sex with women -- and many in
fact on occasion do so -- this does not mean that
homosexuality does not exist. Would you argue
that rocket scientists don't exist because people
don't have to become rocket scientists?"

That was my direct response to your quote just
above. It seems clear to me what I'm saying.
I'm refuting your logic -- what you seem to have
literally said -- and as far as I can tell intended
to mean.

How do you respond?

Rand: "When did I claim that homosexuality doesn't exist?"

Rand: "Are you actually reading what I write?"

The strawmen here is that I'm not responding to you.
Or that I'm responding inappropriately. Or that I'm
ridiculusly misreading you.

I can believe that you meant something else than what
you actually wrote. That happens to people all the
time. Certainly it happens to me.

I'm struggling to make this clear. I don't know where
the misunderstanding arises. But stripped down:

a) Rand asserts if someone can functionally have sex
with a women then they are not homosexual;

b) Mark responds, "Would you argue that rocket
scientists don't exist because people don't have
to become rocket scientists?

c) Rand: "When did I claim that homosexuality doesn't
exist?"

It's curious what's going on here.

Maybe my analogy would have been slightly improved if I'd
said:

""Would you argue that a person can't become a rocket
scientist if he has the option of being something else?"

The only real change is that we've gone from the plural
to the singular. The analogy is really the same though.

I never said that you didn't believe in the existence
of homosexuality. I don't understand why you're thinking
I mean that.

To me, from where I'm standing, your responses seem
inappropriate, they misrepresent and misunderstand
what I'm saying.

Now is that the way I seem to you?

Anyways, enough.

Posted by Mark Amerman at December 3, 2006 08:51 AM

I'm struggling to make this clear. I don't know where the misunderstanding arises. But stripped down:

a) Rand asserts if someone can functionally have sex with a women then they are not homosexual;

b) Mark responds, "Would you argue that rocket
scientists don't exist because people don't have to become rocket scientists?

c) Rand: "When did I claim that homosexuality doesn't exist?"

It's curious what's going on here.

What's going on here is that your analogy makes no sense, at least to me, and seems like a non sequitur. It was asking me if I would argue that some other thing didn't exist. I couldn't figure out what you seemed to think I was claiming didn't exist, other than homosexuals.

You claimed that homosexuals can have willingly sex with women. I claim that this can't be so, by definition. Any homosexual who can do so is bisexual. I don't agree with your claim. I do in fact think that there are homosexual men (that is, men that are only sexually attracted to other men, and not to women). I can't figure out what the relevance of your "rocket scientist analogy" is to any of this.

In addition, you make (flawed) arguments against a purely genetic basis for homosexuality, when I have never claimed that such exists, and isn't part of the subject of my post, so again, it's a non sequitur.

As for the "wishful thinking" accusation, it was merely my attempt to come up with a hypothesis for your beliefs, because they certainly don't seem to me to comport with the empirical data or logic. I've noticed in debating these issues that it's very important to some people to believe that gays have a choice, regardless of the actual evidence or arguments. I won't speculate on why it's so important to them--only they can know that, but it certainly seems to be the case. If you don't have an emotional stake in it (or even if you do), then you might want to reconsider why you believe what you seem to believe.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 3, 2006 09:06 AM

I still do not understand peoples fascination with other peoples sex habits. If you want men, go there, if you want women, go there, no preference at all, well that doubles your chances of a date on Saturday night.

What amazes me is the screaming and yelling between the far ends of this topic from the far end supporters. Most people live in the middle, as with all religious / political topics. Most folks don't ever ponder this at all unless it starts dating their son or daughter.

I understand the Gay, lesbian, bi, curious crowd, they want to be openly whatever. What I don't understand is their insistence that being non-hetero should be a consideration for jobs, loans, schooling, or anything else. How does who you sleep with make you exceptional? You don't want to be discriminated against? Then go to work and do your job. Don't go to work and keep seeing people everywhere who hate you because you spouted off about being gay, lesbian, bi, curious. I've worked in any numbers of industries, never seen one yet, where a persons choice of sex partners affected the workload, for good or for bad. Unless you have sex for a living, your sexual preferences should not be an issue. If what I've read and seen about that is true, people who have sex for a living will do the job for whomever, given the right price.

I likewise don't understand the religious community. If a child can be born with a club foot or with Downs Syndrome, or any other birth defect, why can't a little boy be born with more female hormones than male, and thereby have feelings and tendencies toward acting female? Same for little girls and male hormones. I've never met one preacher or religious follower that would deny the first problems, but then they will deny the possibility of the latter occurring. I have argued this point and my head is sore from beating on the sky.

I wish they'd all just shut up. I'm getting tired of the din.

Posted by Steve at December 3, 2006 09:40 AM

Post a comment