Welcome to Poor Justin's Almanac 2.0. A repository of my sociopolitical musings, loosely based on the concept of Ben Franklin's Poor Richard. Simply an outlet for what's on my mind without all the pitfalls of traditional social networking.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
A Paradox
Something hit me today.
Transgenders say that genetics do not define their sexuality.
Homosexuals say that genetics define their sexuality.
I'm a bigot if I disagree with either.
Um...which is it? Can we actually have it both ways?
My Husband says, "that highlights a very good point that liberals live under."... and then went into a rant I couldn't get all typed out fast enough.
This is actually a very similar rant I've heard a lot from my husband a few times.
If a homosexual says that genetics defines their sexuality then that means they could go to a doctor and be diagnosed as gay? But than they would argue that they just are gay, they can't be diagnosed as gay. But that in of itself is a circluar argument. So which is it?
He usually goes on and on with a lot more detail but I can't remember all of his points.
Justin: Being transgender is not really about sexuality at all, it is about gender identity. Being transgender does not necessarily mean you are also gay, so I'm not so sure the correlation is valid here. So to answer your question, yes it can be both ways, as they are actually to very different subjects. And I would not call you a bigot as I don't like name calling (accomplishes nothing) and I can deal with the fact that we have differing opinions on a lot of issues :) Love and respect.
Jasmine: Can your husband be diagnosed heterosexual? Sexuality is not a disease, regardless of which side you fall on.
@Willa: Well, they're definitely related. They don't call it he LGBT community for nothing.
And conceptually, they're pretty damn identical. One side says 'genetics are empirical and cannot be wrong, the psyche doesn't matter', and the other says 'the psyche is empirical and genetics can be wrong'.
There is clear genetic evidence that someone born male is, well, male. Transgenders claim that this is incorrect, a birth defect of sorts (although no mechanism for such a thing has ever been identified) and their mental feelings dictate who they are.
There is no clear genetic evidence that someone is born homosexual. There is, however, a ton of mental/psychological evidence of 'nurture vs. nature' when it comes to homosexuality. Homosexuals say that evidence is wrong, and that another birth defect of sorts (although no such thing has ever been proven) is to blame for their orientation.
In both cases, people choose to say that something with evidence is wrong, and something without evidence is correct.
What I find odd is that logically they're pointing at the opposite thing. Homosexuals believe in genetics, transgenders believe in psychology.
This happens anytime you're dealing with humans and claim something is black and white. Humans aren't that simple and we don't understand enough about them to make such claims. So if you tell me 'you're either born gay or you aren't' I instantly go into skeptic mode even -if- I didn't believe the things I do.
I live in the grey. I'm comfortable not having all the answers or that some things just don't have answers. It's just as it is. Nothing is ever clear and black and white. So... I have to say that everything that makes us who we are is a combo deal. A little nature, a little nurture and a little life experience /choices. Pretty vague, eh?
4 comments:
My Husband says, "that highlights a very good point that liberals live under."... and then went into a rant I couldn't get all typed out fast enough.
This is actually a very similar rant I've heard a lot from my husband a few times.
If a homosexual says that genetics defines their sexuality then that means they could go to a doctor and be diagnosed as gay? But than they would argue that they just are gay, they can't be diagnosed as gay. But that in of itself is a circluar argument. So which is it?
He usually goes on and on with a lot more detail but I can't remember all of his points.
Justin: Being transgender is not really about sexuality at all, it is about gender identity. Being transgender does not necessarily mean you are also gay, so I'm not so sure the correlation is valid here. So to answer your question, yes it can be both ways, as they are actually to very different subjects. And I would not call you a bigot as I don't like name calling (accomplishes nothing) and I can deal with the fact that we have differing opinions on a lot of issues :) Love and respect.
Jasmine: Can your husband be diagnosed heterosexual? Sexuality is not a disease, regardless of which side you fall on.
@Willa: Well, they're definitely related. They don't call it he LGBT community for nothing.
And conceptually, they're pretty damn identical. One side says 'genetics are empirical and cannot be wrong, the psyche doesn't matter', and the other says 'the psyche is empirical and genetics can be wrong'.
There is clear genetic evidence that someone born male is, well, male. Transgenders claim that this is incorrect, a birth defect of sorts (although no mechanism for such a thing has ever been identified) and their mental feelings dictate who they are.
There is no clear genetic evidence that someone is born homosexual. There is, however, a ton of mental/psychological evidence of 'nurture vs. nature' when it comes to homosexuality. Homosexuals say that evidence is wrong, and that another birth defect of sorts (although no such thing has ever been proven) is to blame for their orientation.
In both cases, people choose to say that something with evidence is wrong, and something without evidence is correct.
What I find odd is that logically they're pointing at the opposite thing. Homosexuals believe in genetics, transgenders believe in psychology.
This happens anytime you're dealing with humans and claim something is black and white. Humans aren't that simple and we don't understand enough about them to make such claims. So if you tell me 'you're either born gay or you aren't' I instantly go into skeptic mode even -if- I didn't believe the things I do.
I live in the grey. I'm comfortable not having all the answers or that some things just don't have answers. It's just as it is. Nothing is ever clear and black and white. So... I have to say that everything that makes us who we are is a combo deal. A little nature, a little nurture and a little life experience /choices. Pretty vague, eh?
Post a Comment