RugbyRebels

So, 3 euro matches in Budapest, 3 investigations into Racism and homophobia. And then today, state sponsored homophobia to the fore again as police confiscated Dutch rainbow flags.

Truly appalling.

That could be Alabama.

It clearly is political - being as it was a protest against a recent Hungarian law. Why are we so cavalier about the impact of a homonormative norms on society? Gender is partially a social construct, as clearly evidenced for example by the prevalent homosexuality in ancient greek society. A society should be free to protect its value system, and not forced to conform to whatever is in vogue in the West.

Clearly we want less discrimination against homosexuals, surely no good person can deny (and there's an argument along those lines here no doubt), but it is also a reasonable goal to prevent homosexuality from becoming seen as normal as heterosexuality. Applying Kantian ethics - i.e. what would society be like if everyone was gay - clearly indicates that a completely homonormative society would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit for sake of discussion.

Having said all that, my understanding from current science is that the development is most strongly caused by genetics and prenatal hormones, with some potential probably weak environmental effect. We know that environment can influence hormones - for example diet. We should definitely be looking at what might be causing homosexuality - for example cosmetics or products (e.g. endocrine disruptors) or diet (e.g. phytoestrogens etc) that alter prenatal hormones in such a way to influence the development of the fetal brain. For example imagine a scenario where profit motive and lack of regulation of products results in hormone disruption and maldevelopment of the fetal brain - surely that is a scenario we would prefer to avoid?

That’s playing devils advocate??? Saying ‘well what if everyone was gay? What then, huh?’

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s playing devils advocate??? Saying ‘well what if everyone was gay? What then, huh?’

Too many words for you? Need a tldr?

tldr:
-it is political as it is a protest against recent legislation
-let's not be too cavalier with our postmodern western hubris regarding societal norms
-discrimination should of course be reduced
-would homosexuality caused by profit motive and lack of regulation be ethical

I asked about a particular part of what you said, and for some reason you read that as me saying your post was too long?

I suppose your edit has at least added some context for your opinions on "causes" of homosexuality. Good stuff.

The problem is not the number of words, but the fricking bizarre take they're being used to express.

Homosexuality *is* normal. It occurs in every human culture, regardless of if that culture discriminated or bans it, and it's a natural occurrence in most species of animal. It's not a "post-modern Western hubris" to acknowledge that - gay people have existed throughout history and, for large swathes of it, no-one has given two short shits.

The devil never needs an advocate, especially when it comes to punching down on discriminated groups - there are always plenty willing to do that without the need for people offering to cheerfully debate whether minorities have a right to exist, just for an enjoyable argument.

Disappointed in you Zhiv.

Puja

Zhivago wrote:but it is also a reasonable goal to prevent homosexuality from becoming seen as normal as heterosexuality.

Erm...what now?

This reads like something right out of Animal Farm "but some animals are more "normal" than others"

Puja wrote:The problem is not the number of words, but the fricking bizarre take they're being used to express.

Homosexuality *is* normal. It occurs in every human culture, regardless of if that culture discriminated or bans it, and it's a natural occurrence in most species of animal. It's not a "post-modern Western hubris" to acknowledge that - gay people have existed throughout history and, for large swathes of it, no-one has given two short shits.

The devil never needs an advocate, especially when it comes to punching down on discriminated groups - there are always plenty willing to do that without the need for people offering to cheerfully debate whether minorities have a right to exist, just for an enjoyable argument.

Disappointed in you Zhiv.

Puja

Just because it occurs does not make it normal. It is considered normal purely as part of the propaganda (not in a negative sense) against homosexual discrimination. This is a worthy cause, but we should be careful not to slip from defending people who happen to be homosexual to actively promoting it. Sexual orientation is clearly a spectrum, some clear homosexual, some clear hetero. Just because it exists, does not mean that it is good for society. This obsession with this is postmodern because it is part of the deconstruction of our modernist value system (rightly or wrongly).

I could also draw a parallel with monogamy and polygamy (or -amory). Completely natural, even more so that we are. But would it be healthy for society if we in our postmodern throes were to deconstruct that modernist value of monogamy? What could be more individualist than prioritising one's own hedonism than considering about its impact on the social circle both small and wide. What if we legalised marriages between three people? Certainly would help with paying the mortgage (yay house prices could go higher!!)...

My point is that the existence of something says nothing of its value. It exists, yes, and we should defend those who are homosexual. But that does not mean that we should undertake actions that might increase its prevalence, or shut down debate about its value to society, rather than its value to the individual.

Wow.

Mikey Brown wrote:Wow.

I know, right?

Puja

Just to be clear - there is value in the cause to defend homosexuals from discrimination and hatred, and I fully support this. It is crucial that we prevent/heal divisions along issues like this. But that desire to prevent divisions of people along social identities is also a reason to be more moderate on the issue and not so radical. Tolerance and understanding goes both ways. Educating people takes time. Yet LBGT movement is very radical (e.g. transgenderism pronoun culture war). This radicalism is not necessarily a good thing if it creates divisions needlessly, and it should also not serve as a distraction from the war that must be waged - against those who economically exploit others.

Radical - yes, respecting people and referring to them as they wish to be referred to. Radical. Respecting people.. Radical.
"They" should know "their" place; and be grateful for the crumbs "they've" received - but "they" really shouldn't go getting all chippy and wanting to be considered "normal"

Sorry - that's only radical if you're a bigot; and I feel no compunction to tolerant and understanding of bigots.

I like how "You should endeavour not to be a dick to people and just address them how they want to be addressed rather than assuming you know better," is framed as a radical culture war. It's a nice touch.

Puja

Puja wrote:I like how "You should endeavour not to be a dick to people and just address them how they want to be addressed rather than assuming you know better," is framed as a radical culture war. It's a nice touch.

Puja

In which case, I would like you to address me as Doctor Zhivago from now on, please. To call me Zhiv was particularly disrespectful.

You're both missing the point. This culture war only aids the right. This pronoun stuff is a complete distraction and detrimental to the leftist cause. Fragmentation of identity on the altar of individualism is a feature of postmodern capitalism and we should not be falling to the right's trap by picking such issues for our energy and antagonism.

I don't understand why the left wants to fight multiple enemies at the same time. Socially moderate approach of gradual progression should be combined with a more radical and focus on the economic liberation.

I'm purely a pragmatist here. And I really don't understand why you support such radical individualism. Radical individualism is antithetical to the minimum amount of collectivism required to have a functioning society.

Which Tyler wrote:Radical - yes, respecting people and referring to them as they wish to be referred to. Radical. Respecting people.. Radical.
"They" should know "their" place; and be grateful for the crumbs "they've" received - but "they" really shouldn't go getting all chippy and wanting to be considered "normal"

Sorry - that's only radical if you're a bigot; and I feel no compunction to tolerant and understanding of bigots.

Postgenderism is radical. I mean how can you read the below without understanding that it's radical??

[The] end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud's 'polymorphous perversity'—would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally.

This is the path we're on if we keep deconstructing gender.

Who are you quoting? You sincerely read that and were just like 'yep, that makes sense to me, that's the logical end goal of feminism right there'?

Zhivago wrote:It clearly is political - being as it was a protest against a recent Hungarian law. Why are we so cavalier about the impact of a homonormative norms on society? Gender is partially a social construct, as clearly evidenced for example by the prevalent homosexuality in ancient greek society. A society should be free to protect its value system, and not forced to conform to whatever is in vogue in the West.

Clearly we want less discrimination against homosexuals, surely no good person can deny (and there's an argument along those lines here no doubt), but it is also a reasonable goal to prevent homosexuality from becoming seen as normal as heterosexuality. Applying Kantian ethics - i.e. what would society be like if everyone was gay - clearly indicates that a completely homonormative society would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit for sake of discussion.

Having said all that, my understanding from current science is that the development is most strongly caused by genetics and prenatal hormones, with some potential probably weak environmental effect. We know that environment can influence hormones - for example diet. We should definitely be looking at what might be causing homosexuality - for example cosmetics or products (e.g. endocrine disruptors) or diet (e.g. phytoestrogens etc) that alter prenatal hormones in such a way to influence the development of the fetal brain. For example imagine a scenario where profit motive and lack of regulation of products results in hormone disruption and maldevelopment of the fetal brain - surely that is a scenario we would prefer to avoid?

This is borderline eugenics friend. A load of wank dressed up as science. Homosexuality has been around far longer than KFC, so you know, just deal with it.

Mikey Brown wrote:Who are you quoting? You sincerely read that and were just like 'yep, that makes sense to me, that's the logical end goal of feminism right there'?

It's from a classic of feminist literature "The Dialectic of Sex". To assume that the movement will just be happy and stop at a certain point is foolish. The movement is driven by a radical ideology, and it is foolish to view each development in isolation.

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:It clearly is political - being as it was a protest against a recent Hungarian law. Why are we so cavalier about the impact of a homonormative norms on society? Gender is partially a social construct, as clearly evidenced for example by the prevalent homosexuality in ancient greek society. A society should be free to protect its value system, and not forced to conform to whatever is in vogue in the West.

Clearly we want less discrimination against homosexuals, surely no good person can deny (and there's an argument along those lines here no doubt), but it is also a reasonable goal to prevent homosexuality from becoming seen as normal as heterosexuality. Applying Kantian ethics - i.e. what would society be like if everyone was gay - clearly indicates that a completely homonormative society would be detrimental to the continuation of our species.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit for sake of discussion.

Having said all that, my understanding from current science is that the development is most strongly caused by genetics and prenatal hormones, with some potential probably weak environmental effect. We know that environment can influence hormones - for example diet. We should definitely be looking at what might be causing homosexuality - for example cosmetics or products (e.g. endocrine disruptors) or diet (e.g. phytoestrogens etc) that alter prenatal hormones in such a way to influence the development of the fetal brain. For example imagine a scenario where profit motive and lack of regulation of products results in hormone disruption and maldevelopment of the fetal brain - surely that is a scenario we would prefer to avoid?

This is borderline eugenics friend. A load of wank dressed up as science. Homosexuality has been around far longer than KFC, so you know, just deal with it.

Nonsense. Endocrinology is a fascinating topic, and seeking to understand the impact of environmental chemicals and environmental regulation of endocrines is just a sensible idea.

Using it as a fulcrum to force the discussion into the death of a species via starving it of sexual recombination is nonsense. Boys will be girls and girls will be boys. It's as it always has been. Being queer 'aint a disease or an unfortunate consequence of engineered food. It just is.

We're so far off the rise of homosexuality risking the end of the human race that it's really not a serious point (and it's difficult to see how it ever could be since, for instance, many lesbian couples somehow find a way to have children). Let's just try to keep things non-coercive: let people be what they want to be.

morepork wrote:Using it as a fulcrum to force the discussion into the death of a species via starving it of sexual recombination is nonsense. Boys will be girls and girls will be boys. It's as it always has been. Being queer 'aint a disease or an unfortunate consequence of engineered food. It just is.

I never was much good at ethics. I was extrapolating to an extreme to make a point. Kant's rule for testing proposed maxims is that they should be universalizable without contradiction. That sort of thing I was going for.

A lot of advancement has been made since Alfred Jost you know. But even back then we knew that in the absense of certain sex hormones the fetus becomes phenotypically female. Why do you think that people of male sex with female orientation is more common than vice versa? We start as females and differentiate into males - hence why we have nipples etc. I'm not claiming to know how different sexual orientation develops, I'm just saying that we should be cautious, not hubristic, and should seek to understand more, without it being taboo to research or discuss it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We're so far off the rise of homosexuality risking the end of the human race that it's really not a serious point (and it's difficult to see how it ever could be since, for instance, many lesbian couples somehow find a way to have children). Let's just try to keep things non-coercive: let people be what they want to be.

It's not a choice for them. They are what they are. I'm not arguing against that. But let's not add more environmental/psychosocial stimuli that might influence their development without knowing what we're doing. And while we should stand up against discrimination, we don't need to be so radical that we antagonise sections of society that we should align with to fight the more important battle for economic liberation.

Is there a way to ban yourself from opening a particular thread?