Philosophy Discussion Forums

I think that, as you mentioned, Fried Egg, it's more about people's greater willingness to ask for help with GD these days. Once, like homosexuality, it was shameful and had to be hidden - parents took kids to preachers for conversion "therapy", or tried to bash it out of their kids. Impossible. It meant GDs were forced into the closet. But much has changed over the last few decades for gays and for transexuals. They are no longer sicko criminals who have to hide.

Gays are legally able to register their marriages and transexuals can get help much earlier and eventually transition. They feel more able to speak up and be seen for who they are. I think there has been a reaction by the religious right to this - they are affronted and infuriated at the new found-courage of gays and tans to make themselves visible and heard. All I can say about this is that the religious right need to learn to live and let live.

I have worked with gay and trans people all my life and I have gay friends. Gays and trans are just regular people who want to live their lives in peace and security and, like everyone else, be able to speak up if they are being given a hard time. Which they mostly have for the last 2000 years. In order to be able to deal with this new state of affairs, I think the religious right are the ones most in need of therapy.

Consul wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 4:59 pm ...the Gender Liberation Front denies the biological facts about sex for ideological reasons—either by asserting that sex doesn't naturally exist at all, that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is continuous spectrum of sexes.

This is just plain wrong. A human being, like any living being, is a complex thing. We have many attributes, and sex is one of them. Sex is not simply determined by the presence of a penis/testes or vagina/ovaries. I don't know the medically-defined terms, so I'll have to use everyday terms: But sex is also dependent on hormones, for a start. More or less testosterone or oestrogen also has a significant effect. In fact, I believe that the sex of a developing embryo is dependent on the relative levels of testosterone and oestrogen during development.

These are biological differences. And if a 'man' has less testosterone than is typical, it will have a real, real-world, effect on that person. An effect that is based in biology, not a lifestyle choice, or whatever dismissive language you care to apply. To be a binary male or female, as you describe, is unlikely, in practice. We are all just a little different in these respects. Slightly more oestrogen, or some quite different biological balance, is normal, although significant deviations from the norm are much less common, but such differences are not unknown. Such biological differences.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:17 pm The "natural sex binary" is only an ideal, largely promoted by phobic theists. Sometimes that binary doesn't happen perfectly. Body and brain can vary considerably, despite your certainty that sexual attributes in biology are magically perfect while every other aspect of existence is flawed and variable.

Computers are strictly binary. Nature is approximately binary. Your attitudes in this are strictly binary, which makes them effectively a category error. You are treating humans as if they were machines, or created perfect by a deity.

Exactly. DNA, impressive though it is, cannot and does not map the location and type of every cell in a human body. Its information capacity is insufficient for this. DNA is a general map, and the details are filled in during development. Sometimes, usually, these details appear in balance with one another, but sometimes they do not. Sex, biological sex, is determined by many factors. It is a mistaken and superficial understanding that asserts that sex is binary. Sex is determined by the balance of all of these biological factors, not just the presence of penises or vaginae (?).

Consul wrote:...the Gender Liberation Front denies the biological facts about sex for ideological reasons—either by asserting that sex doesn't naturally exist at all, that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is continuous spectrum of sexes.

What is the Gender Liberation Front? I have never heard of it. And I can't find any reference to it anywhere. Is this term just right-wing religious anti_WOKE-speak for sexual minorities that they would like to see disappear? Or is it a real organisation that represents or supports certain groups? If so, why is there no reference to it online? Or is it a secret society conspiring to overthrow right-wing religious hegemony and civilisation as we know it?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:53 am

Consul wrote:...the Gender Liberation Front denies the biological facts about sex for ideological reasons—either by asserting that sex doesn't naturally exist at all, that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is continuous spectrum of sexes.

What is the Gender Liberation Front? I have never heard of it. And I can't find any reference to it anywhere. Is this term just right-wing religious anti_WOKE-speak for sexual minorities that they would like to see disappear? Or is it a real organisation that represents or supports certain groups? If so, why is there no reference to it online? Or is it a secret society conspiring to overthrow right-wing religious hegemony and civilisation as we know it?

In fact, LGBTQI+ does not exist either. Half of these groups detest each other, or at least have no connection at all.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:53 amWhat is the Gender Liberation Front? I have never heard of it.

No wonder, I made this name up, referring to the gender theorists & activists in general.

How were we to know this, Consul? The tenor of all your posts in this topic to date seems to indicate that that there is such an organisation engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow good, wholesome civilisation as we know it. Therefore, quite reasonably, I did a search to see if I could find out anything about this putative subversive organisation. Nothing. It's just a rhetorical boogeyman. The stuff of conspiracy theories.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 4:25 pm

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 8:53 am

Consul wrote:...the Gender Liberation Front denies the biological facts about sex for ideological reasons—either by asserting that sex doesn't naturally exist at all, that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is continuous spectrum of sexes.

What is the Gender Liberation Front? I have never heard of it. And I can't find any reference to it anywhere. Is this term just right-wing religious anti_WOKE-speak for sexual minorities that they would like to see disappear? Or is it a real organisation that represents or supports certain groups? If so, why is there no reference to it online? Or is it a secret society conspiring to overthrow right-wing religious hegemony and civilisation as we know it?

In fact, LGBTQI+ does not exist either. Half of these groups detest each other, or at least have no connection at all.

The term LGBTQI+ (or whatever the latest version of it is) is bewildering. None of my gay and lesbian or trans friends and acquaintances ever uses it and I don't either. I think it is a stupid acronym that lumps a bunch of different population cohorts together into a seemingly cohesive organisation when in fact it is no such thing. I suspect the term is more beloved of the religious-right than it is of gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans or intersex people. It provides a strawman for the religious-right to attack.

It is unfortunate that the acronym has been taking up and propagated by loony post-modernists at our universities. The media has also taken it up rather than report separately on these different groups who all have their own particular concerns. They are lumpers instead of splitters. The use of the term should be discouraged, IMO.

LGBTQI+ ????? Does anyone else here find this acronym bewildering? I can't even say it without stumbling over the phonemes much less understand it. I understand what most of the individual letters refer to but I cannot see what is gained by lumping all the individual cohorts referred to in the acronym together into a group when they have little in common with each other.

Lesbians and gays are both homosexual. That may be all they have in common and, as far as I can ascertain, the two groups don’t mix or socialize much together. I know lesbian couples and gay male couples. None of them use this acronym.

Bisexual people are attracted to both genders. I have only ever known one bisexual man who was married to a woman. That is all I know about bisexual people. They are perhaps the least visible group. I suspect that few of them identify much with or use the term LGBTQI+.

Transexuals are physical males or females who feel themselves to be, and often live as, the opposite sex. The may at some point undergo medical and surgical interventions so that their bodies reflect the sex or gender they feel themselves to be. In my professional life I have known several highly successful male to female transexuals. In some cases they were in long term relationships with heterosexual men. They had fully functional vaginas and, if you saw these transexuals on the street, you would not know they were transexuals. They are the lucky ones.

“Queer” along with "fag" and "poof"(the latter is Australian), used to be a derogatory term used by heterosexual men to refer to gay men. I have no idea what it stands for in the acronym LGBTQI+.

Intersex people are born with a range of conditions that result in them having both male and female physical characteristics. They may have XX, XY or XXY chromosomes, and their genitalia can vary greatly. Some have both a vagina and a penis. They, too, often undergo surgery so that their genitalia match those of the sex or gender they feel themselves to be.

The + symbol is a mystery to me. I read that it refers to "any other self-identifications" under the umbrella of ‘sexuality’ and/or ‘gender". I have no idea what “any other self-identifications” means.

I notice that sometimes an “A” is added to the acronym to include asexual people so that the acronym becomes LGBTQIA+ I have never known an asexual person. But that does not mean they don’t exist. However, if they are asexual (not interested in any form of sex), then why would they want to be lumped in with a bunch of other folks for whom sexuality is an issue?

Lumping all these disparate groups together is bewildering to me. It’s loony postmodernism on stilts cooked up by so called "gender theorists". None of my gay and lesbian or trans friends and acquaintances ever uses the term LGBTQI+ and so I don't either. I suspect they see the term as about as useless as it is ridiculous as I do.

As always, I may be wrong, so if anyone wants to argue a case for using this acronym, I'd be interested to read it.

Even in the old days, LGB didn't quite make sense.

The Lettuce and Gherkin only sometimes hung out, and both suspected the Bacon of being a Lettuce or Gherkin but unable to admit it.

Adding Tomato later on didn't help because the Lettuce claimed that the Tomatoes were just adulterated Gherkins, and objected to them being allowed into the Lettuce bag.

It's all a bit of a dog's breakfast.

LOL. Yes, or a word salad.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 3:13 am Even in the old days, LGB didn't quite make sense.

The Lettuce and Gherkin only sometimes hung out, and both suspected the Bacon of being a Lettuce or Gherkin but unable to admit it.

Adding Tomato later on didn't help because the Lettuce claimed that the Tomatoes were just adulterated Gherkins, and objected to them being allowed into the Lettuce bag.

It's all a bit of a dog's breakfast.

So now we turn from anti-trans rhetoric to anti-non-binary? Are all non-binary people to be attacked in this way, now? Are only heterosexual monogamists acceptable? What will happen to the rest of us, then?

The LGBTQ+ community is probably only a community because of the need to stand together against the persecution, beatings, and murders [Brianna Ghey RIP] perpetrated by Orthodox Normie extremists. But that isn't quite what you said, is it?

Yes, I guess a strong case can be made for similarly oppressed groups standing together to offer each other mutual support and to present a united front against their oppressors. I have no problem with that.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 8:48 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 3:13 am Even in the old days, LGB didn't quite make sense.

The Lettuce and Gherkin only sometimes hung out, and both suspected the Bacon of being a Lettuce or Gherkin but unable to admit it.

Adding Tomato later on didn't help because the Lettuce claimed that the Tomatoes were just adulterated Gherkins, and objected to them being allowed into the Lettuce bag.

It's all a bit of a dog's breakfast.

So now we turn from anti-trans rhetoric to anti-non-binary? Are all non-binary people to be attacked in this way, now? Are only heterosexual monogamists acceptable? What will happen to the rest of us, then?

The LGBTQ+ community is probably only a community because of the need to stand together against the persecution, beatings, and murders [Brianna Ghey RIP] perpetrated by Orthodox Normie extremists. But that isn't quite what you said, is it?

What anti-non binary?

Are you denying that lesbians and gays often don't associate with each other, that many gays don't suspect bisexuals of being in denial, or that lesbians often have considerable hostility towards transpeople?

Or did you simply not understand anything I said above?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 30th, 2024, 11:24 pmThe term LGBTQI+ (or whatever the latest version of it is) is bewildering. None of my gay and lesbian or trans friends and acquaintances ever uses it and I don't either. I think it is a stupid acronym that lumps a bunch of different population cohorts together into a seemingly cohesive organisation when in fact it is no such thing.

I agree, and I made this point a little way back in this thread. There's no reason/need to lump together different minorities (that have disparate needs and concerns) as if they all share the same problems and as if they are in any way a homogenous community.

Although the idea of a LBQT [etc.] "community" may have benefited certain trans activists that want to make common cause with homosexuals and make (what I believe to be) many false equivalences. And in this regard I think they have been quite successful. You only need see the number of occasions in this very thread that people have equated the way homosexuality was viewed in the past with the way trans are viewed now. While there may be some superficial parallels, the very nature of these groups (and society's reaction to them) has been very different.

For example, you have made mention many times that the reaction to the trans movement is largely a religious and right wing phenomenon (as was the case with homosexuality in the past). However, this is a gross mischaracterization of the trans movement's detractors that only makes sense at all if one equates too closely trans and gay people.

Of course, this might vary from country to country, but here in the UK, the reaction against trans activism has not come from the religious communities particularly (indeed, look at the archbishop of Canterbury for instance who is very pro-trans). It's not even necessarily a left-right thing (although, admittedly, more on the left have fully embraced gender ideology). But many of the most vocal critics of trans activism in the UK (such as JK Rowling, Graham George Linehan, Rosie Duffield, Julie Bindel, Mary Harrington, Kathleen Stock, etc.) have come from the left. They have not come from a religious or right wing perspective at all. Or what about nations like Iran which is very conservative when it comes to homosexuality but very progressive when it comes to trans?

That is not to say there are not many right wing detractors as well. Indeed, it is probably many of these that are reacting too strongly and going too far (i.e. trying to completely ban gender care). But I think it is not very helpful to see this is a left vs right issue and mischaracterizing it as such is only going to prevent you from understanding it properly.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 1st, 2024, 4:44 pm Are you denying that lesbians and gays often don't associate with each other, that many gays don't suspect bisexuals of being in denial, or that lesbians often have considerable hostility towards transpeople?

Every human community is diverse. Autists like us, for example, are not all clones. We are as different as all humans are different. This applies to all such communities. There is disagreement within communities of all sorts. But the LGBTQ+ community is also aware of persecution by those outside their community, and so they band together to resist it, even if some of their other opinions don't line up with all others in the community.

Until recently in Australia, there was a legally-allowable defence — I can't remember what it was called, maybe something like "gay rage"? — whereby a 'normal' heterosexual man was so outraged and offended by the presence or existence of a gay man, that he had no choice but to kill him. This level of prejudice, and others like it, across the world, has surely led to the LGBTQ+ community banding together for self-protection?