Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

What I do not understand is the concept of an immutable sexual orientation that governs our desires.  I can't even get a consistent explanation for what sexual orientation means.  As a human male who does not identify myself sexually in any way at all the concept is foreign.

As a scientist when I am presented with a new hypothesis, theory, or even a piece of software to test it always leads to the same question: "How can I break this?".  If I can "break" it in at least one way it is invalid and must be revised.  It doesn't matter how many times it appears to be valid, if a single solitary exception can be found it is incorrect.

Exceptions to the concept of an immutable sexual orientation can be found pretty easily.  It doesn't matter how many times it appears to correctly describe a person's experience it is still invalid.  Something else is going on.

To me the most plausible explanation is also the simplest:  Our sexual desires develop in the same way all our desires develop.

-guerreiro9

Software and human sexuality are not the same.

The most plausible explanation is that for a small minority, sexual orientation is malleable.  For most, however, it is not.  Else what do you make of the countless stories of people who so desperately desired and worked to change their sexual orientation to no avail?

Again, consider just listening to the real, lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters.

p.s.  If you really care about the definition of sexual orientation, just look up the AMA definition.

p.p.s You say that you don't identify yourself sexually.  Are you married?

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Software and human sexuality are not the same.

The most plausible explanation is that for a small minority, sexual orientation is malleable.  For most, however, it is not.  Else what do you make of the countless stories of people who so desperately desired and worked to change their sexual orientation to no avail?

Again, consider just listening to the real, lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters.

Have you considered the possibility that there are many individuals who have homosexual tendencies but are able to nurture their heterosexuality to the point that their homosexual tendencies never become an issue and, hence, they see no need to disclose them? In that event, we would never hear their stories. We would be incessantly conditioned by the can't-change narrative because we would never hear anything to the contrary. 

Speaking for myself, if I had any homosexual tendencies (and I don't), I would carry that secret to my grave, especially if I saw no need for it ever to be an issue. 

[guerreiro9]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Software and human sexuality are not the same.

The most plausible explanation is that for a small minority, sexual orientation is malleable.  For most, however, it is not.  Else what do you make of the countless stories of people who so desperately desired and worked to change their sexual orientation to no avail?

Again, consider just listening to the real, lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters.

p.s.  If you really care about the definition of sexual orientation, just look up the AMA definition.

p.p.s You say that you don't identify yourself sexually.  Are you married?

I am not interested in the medical definition, I am interested in what people understand it to mean so that we may converse.

What I make of the stories is that sexual orientation in the way it is usually meant does not exist.  They are trying to change an artificial construct that doesn't accurately describe their situation anyway.

Attractions of any kind are extremely difficult to change once acquired.  It would be nearly impossible at this point for me to find chocolate unappealing, yet there is not some ethereal dessert orientation that made this attraction inevitable.

Also appealing to an individual's inability to accomplish something does not make that thing impossible.  It's a logical fallacy you should stop using.

Yes I am married, and happily so (although it is becoming less happily so as I ignore my wife to post on this board)

-guerreiro9

Edited August 26, 2016 by guerreiro9

[Gray]

15 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

So the difference between a fetish and a preference is a matter of degree, and the difference between orientation and the other two is orientation is related to gender and the others are not?

Why would a preference for all other things be fluid and conditioned by life experiences, but not gender?

-guerreiro9

Let me just say, that's my off the cuff response to fetishes. I've haven't made a fetish of studying fetishes. The closest thing I can personally relate to it what I find attractive and how it has changed over the years. My first crush in kindergarten was a girl with short blonde hair. As I got older I continued to find girls (my own age) with short hair more attractive than girls with long hair. Eventually that faded away and now I don't find one more attractive than the other. That's not really a fetish, of course. 

To your question - why are microexpressions of sexuality somewhat fluid (and non-exclusive), with at the macro level it is less fluid or not fluid at all? I don't know. It would be interesting to find out. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Even without the idea of "organisms" and "milk" and "feeding" and "years" and using those "classifications" to define the "word" "mammal"?

Who was talking about it before there were those words and classifications?  When you are running from something trying to eat you are you concerned if it is a "mammal" or not?

It's eat or be eaten.   I don't think many mammals even know they are mammals except one species.   The others just live it.  

Maybe we should ask other mammals if the idea of "mammal" is a human idea?   Would they agree?  Do they feel some solidarity with us because we are fellow mammals?

It's like "no death before the fall".  One could say that organic carbon recycled itself but was it "death" in our human concept?  Was there a "water" cycle before there was "water"?  Dinosaurs eating each other and contributing to the organic material for other organisms down the food chain- does that constitute the human idea of "death"?

Was it even "organic carbon"?

Was there time "before" time?

Who knew about it and what was the use of the concept before anybody thought of it that way?  

At some point of course none of it makes sense. Literally.  Without sentences nothing makes "sense" because we define"sense" as a sentence which makes "Sense"

That "something was happening" goes without saying, but saying who was doing what to whom requires words.

At the end of the day everything we're talking about is conditioned by language and culture. Sure, sexuality is a "construct", but so is everything else. So it's not really meaningful to say that something is "just" a construct as a way to try to make it sound less legitimate. It's like criticizing a single drop of water for being wet, in an ocean of water. 

Do animals have a concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality? Unlikely. But some of them are still primarily attracted to their own gender. Part of the essential nature of being human is applying labels to things to try to make sense of them. Homosexual is a perfectly useful and appropriate construct to describe what is being observed. And without these kinds of constructs, you can't even have a conversation about it. Then the message board shuts down and we all have to be productive again, and no one wants that. 

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you considered the possibility that there are many individuals who have homosexual tendencies but are able to nurture their heterosexuality to the point that their homosexual tendencies never become an issue and, hence, they see no need to disclose them? In that event, we would never hear their stories. We would be incessantly conditioned by the can't-change narrative because we would never hear anything to the contrary. 

Speaking for myself, if I had any homosexual tendencies (and I don't), I would carry that secret to my grave, especially if I saw no need for it ever to be an issue. 

Not only have I considered that possibility but I do believe that such persons exist.  I think the Kinsey Scale supports such a conclusion.  But that doesn't change the reality of an immutable sexual orientation for others.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

I am not interested in the medical definition, I am interested in what people understand it to mean so that we may converse.

We've described to you how we understand sexual orientation.  You then wrote:  "I can't even get a consistent explanation for what sexual orientation means."  Obviously as you converse with different people you'll get different understandings.  If you want a "consistent explanation", I'd suggest going to a scholarly source.

9 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

What I make of the stories is that sexual orientation in the way it is usually meant does not exist.  They are trying to change an artificial construct that doesn't accurately describe their situation anyway.

Sorry, this just comes across as nonsensical double-speak to me.

9 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

Attractions of any kind are extremely difficult to change once acquired.  It would be nearly impossible at this point for me to find chocolate unappealing, yet there is not some ethereal dessert orientation that made this attraction inevitable.

Dessert preferences and sexual orientation are really not comparable.

9 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

Also appealing to an individual's inability to accomplish something does not make that thing impossible.  It's a logical fallacy you should stop using.

Impossible = not able to be done.

I referred to people not being able to do something.  Sure doesn't seem like a logical fallacy.

9 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

Yes I am married, and happily so (although it is becoming less happily so as I ignore my wife to post on this board)

Okay... so you are a male married to a woman.  Toward the top of this page you said that you do "not identify [yourself] sexually in any way".  So, when did you date men?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

Again, consider just listening to the real, lived experiences of our gay brothers and sisters.

 

Fortunately or not, that is the logical equivalent of telling them to listen to testimonies that they are wrong.   A nice concept, but it doesn't work.

There is a bit of a gulf between private experience and public data unfortunately.  That is the whole alleged conflict between faith and reason.  I think we are pretty familiar with that argument around here.

I am not saying they are wrong- I am just addressing the strength of the argument as an argument

Edited August 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

On 8/24/2016 at 6:18 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Large numbers of men and women still live in societies completely devoid of the concept of 'sexual orientation'. In their cases, the 'external stimuli' usually come in the form of Western popular culture and the work of Western-based institutions (including NGOs). This is precisely how culture spreads ... though in this case the power imbalance is more a colonising of the imagination.

CFR

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you considered the possibility that there are many individuals who have homosexual tendencies but are able to nurture their heterosexuality to the point that their homosexual tendencies never become an issue and, hence, they see no need to disclose them? In that event, we would never hear their stories. We would be incessantly conditioned by the can't-change narrative because we would never hear anything to the contrary. 

Speaking for myself, if I had any homosexual tendencies (and I don't), I would carry that secret to my grave, especially if I saw no need for it ever to be an issue. 

What bothers me are those who are able to cultivate enough heterosexuality to father children and take on the promises to be there and provide for the wife and children as a parent and then decide they cannot do it.   I would think once the decision is made to go down the heterosexual road, one should stay there.  I can't imagine being able to father children and then decide that the sex was not stimulating enough to keep the relationship alive.

From my experience as a bishop I know there are many married people who have sex lives they do not deem to be fully "satisfactory" and yet they persist because of the love they have, the commitment, and all those things that keep a marriage of two very different people alive for 50 or 60 years even after the need for sex has departed.   I just don't get it.  If it works well enough to make babies- in many cases multiple babies, I think one should stay with the relationship.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What bothers me are those who are able to cultivate enough heterosexuality to father children and take on the promises to be there and provide for the wife and children as a parent and then decide they cannot do it.   I would think once the decision is made to go down the heterosexual road, one should stay there.  I can't imagine being able to father children and then decide that the sex was not stimulating enough to keep the relationship alive.

From my experience as a bishop I know there are many married people who have sex lives they do not deem to be fully "satisfactory" and yet they persist because of the love they have, the commitment, and all those things that keep a marriage of two very different people alive for 50 or 60 years even after the need for sex has departed.   I just don't get it.  If it works well enough to make babies- in many cases multiple babies, I think one should stay with the relationship.

Sexual orientation is established between ages 2 and 5 years old. While not permanent in all cases it is very hard to change. Biology doesn't care about feelings.

Edited August 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We've described to you how we understand sexual orientation.  You then wrote:  "I can't even get a consistent explanation for what sexual orientation means."  Obviously as you converse with different people you'll get different understandings.  If you want a "consistent explanation", I'd suggest going to a scholarly source.

Sorry, this just comes across as nonsensical double-speak to me.

Dessert preferences and sexual orientation are really not comparable.

Impossible = not able to be done.

I referred to people not being able to do something.  Sure doesn't seem like a logical fallacy.

Okay... so you are a male married to a woman.  Toward the top of this page you said that you do "not identify [yourself] sexually in any way".  So, when did you date men?

Oh come on!

One can know what one likes without making it part of your "identity"

I like to eat steak but I do not go around joining "steakophile" groups and lobbying for people to eat steak or try to prove it is healthy and a good thing to do.

I don't even go on websites that show pictures of naked steaks!

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What bothers me are those who are able to cultivate enough heterosexuality to father children and take on the promises to be there and provide for the wife and children as a parent and then decide they cannot do it.   I would think once the decision is made to go down the heterosexual road, one should stay there.  I can't imagine being able to father children and then decide that the sex was not stimulating enough to keep the relationship alive.

From my experience as a bishop I know there are many married people who have sex lives they do not deem to be fully "satisfactory" and yet they persist because of the love they have, the commitment, and all those things that keep a marriage of two very different people alive for 50 or 60 years even after the need for sex has departed.   I just don't get it.  If it works well enough to make babies- in many cases multiple babies, I think one should stay with the relationship.

While I don't defend those who leave their spouse and children, it's important to realize that sexual orientation is about much more than just "the sex".  And it would have been good if church leaders hadn't taken so long to realize that they should stop counseling gay men and lesbian women to enter mixed-orientation marriages.  While rare, I still hear accounts of that counsel being given today.  It's dangerous and damaging.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come on!

One can know what one likes without making it part of your "identity"

I like to eat steak but I do not go around joining "steakophile" groups and lobbying for people to eat steak or try to prove it is healthy and a good thing to do.

I don't even go on websites that show pictures of naked steaks!

What is with the comparisons of sexual orientation to food?

I would suggest that if one has only dated members of the opposite sex and has married a person of the opposite sex than that individual has identified him/herself as heterosexual.

[bcuzbcuz]

10 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

I am not interested in the medical definition, I am interested in what people understand it to mean so that we may converse.

What I make of the stories is that sexual orientation in the way it is usually meant does not exist.  They are trying to change an artificial construct that doesn't accurately describe their situation anyway.

Attractions of any kind are extremely difficult to change once acquired.  It would be nearly impossible at this point for me to find chocolate unappealing, yet there is not some ethereal dessert orientation that made this attraction inevitable.

Also appealing to an individual's inability to accomplish something does not make that thing impossible.  It's a logical fallacy you should stop using.

Yes I am married, and happily so (although it is becoming less happily so as I ignore my wife to post on this board)

-guerreiro9

You are married....but.....(by your own definition) "a human male who does not identify (himself) sexually in any way"!!!!!!. Have you told your wife? You are neither attracted nor unattracted to her.

I understand now why you do not grasp what people mean when talking about sexual orientation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What bothers me are those who are able to cultivate enough heterosexuality to father children and take on the promises to be there and provide for the wife and children as a parent and then decide they cannot do it.   I would think once the decision is made to go down the heterosexual road, one should stay there.  I can't imagine being able to father children and then decide that the sex was not stimulating enough to keep the relationship alive.

 

It bothers me as well.

But then, I am equally bothered by heterosexual men who decide after marrying and fathering children that the sex is not stimulating enough for them so they abandon their wives and their children -- those who should be more precious to them than life itself -- to seek new adventures. Even if I were inclined to do this (which I'm not) I would not be able to live with myself after having done so.

Quote

From my experience as a bishop I know there are many married people who have sex lives they do not deem to be fully "satisfactory" and yet they persist because of the love they have, the commitment, and all those things that keep a marriage of two very different people alive for 50 or 60 years even after the need for sex has departed.   I just don't get it.  If it works well enough to make babies- in many cases multiple babies, I think one should stay with the relationship.

I heartily agree with this.

Furthermore, I agree with Brigham Young, who said that those who remain faithful to the end and go on to receive their exaltation need have no fear that the wife will be dissatisfied with the husband or the husband with the wife. He said that all those who attain this indescribable state of existence will be "as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh come on!

One can know what one likes without making it part of your "identity"

I like to eat steak but I do not go around joining "steakophile" groups and lobbying for people to eat steak or try to prove it is healthy and a good thing to do.

I don't even go on websites that show pictures of naked steaks!

Do you do protest demonstrations and publicity campaigns against steakophobes?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What is with the comparisons of sexual orientation to food?

Both eating and sex are powerful human urges.

And furthermore, one is necessary to personal survival, while the other is not.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both are powerful human urges.

And furthermore, one is necessary to personal survival, while the other is not.

Okay... I was concerned we were headed back into the "fetish" territory.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not only have I considered that possibility but I do believe that such persons exist.  I think the Kinsey Scale supports such a conclusion.  But that doesn't change the reality of an immutable sexual orientation for others.

The question is whether or not such immutability is predominant. I'm suggesting that, contrary to what has become the only socially acceptable narrative, there is no way to know definitively.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The question is whether or not such immutability is predominant. I'm suggesting that, contrary to what has become the only socially acceptable narrative, there is no way to know definitively.

Predominant among which subset of people?  Those who would fall into a 1-3 on the Kinsey Scale?

If there is no way to definitely know than I guess we will just have to trust our brothers and sisters who tell us that they can't change.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

I am not interested in the medical definition, I am interested in what people understand it to mean so that we may converse.

What I make of the stories is that sexual orientation in the way it is usually meant does not exist.  They are trying to change an artificial construct that doesn't accurately describe their situation anyway.

Attractions of any kind are extremely difficult to change once acquired.  It would be nearly impossible at this point for me to find chocolate unappealing, yet there is not some ethereal dessert orientation that made this attraction inevitable.

Also appealing to an individual's inability to accomplish something does not make that thing impossible.  It's a logical fallacy you should stop using.

Yes I am married, and happily so (although it is becoming less happily so as I ignore my wife to post on this board)

-guerreiro9

If you are not interested in the medical definition. Then why insert your opinion? It's about as useful as being uninterested in lung cancer and claiming that lungs don't exist.

I made my living counseling people, and was good at it. Can I talk you into becoming a homosexual?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What is with the comparisons of sexual orientation to food?

I would suggest that if one has only dated members of the opposite sex and has married a person of the opposite sex than that individual has identified him/herself as heterosexual.

That's nice.CS Lewis:

Quote

“If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But, of course, when people say, 'Sex is nothing to be ashamed of,' they may mean 'the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of'. If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips.”

 

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139095-if-anyone-says-that-sex-in-itself-is-bad-christianity

Edited August 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[CMZ]

I see that this thread is veering away from the gender identity topic and towards the sexual orientation topic, which to me are, indeed, very different topics.

Since I am getting ready for work and can't type all my thoughts on the matter now I will just refer to a time I was listening to Love Line on KROQ and a male listener called in saying that he had been molested by his uncle when he was maybe around 12 and that ever since then he's felt attracted to males. Dr. Drew told him, "When your uncle did that to you he changed the wiring in your brain to make you attracted to males and that change is permanent and the best thing you can do now is to learn to accept it." Sooooo..... someone else can choose to engage in actions that unalterably change your sexual orientation but you can't do anything to change it back?

And, I do think some may have something about their physical makeup that gives them something like homosexual urges, but I also think that the world builds some concrete sort of construct around that to make them seem bigger and more permanent and unalterable than they really are. And the further away an individual gets from understanding and adhering to Gospel principles the bigger and more out of control those feelings will seem (no, I'm not saying that strict gospel adherence will necessarily remove all such feelings, but quite often in these discussions I see people putting temporary mortal feelings ahead of eternal gospel principles as though their sexual orientation is the most powerful force in the universe).

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Predominant among which subset of people?  Those who would fall into a 1-3 on the Kinsey Scale?

If there is no way to definitely know than I guess we will just have to trust our brothers and sisters who tell us that they can't change.

Well, that's just it. They can only speak for themselves.

That's all anyone can do as pertaining to this matter.

But the prevailing social narrative is that it's not possible for anyone to change.

A few years before she died, I learned that one of my favorite pop singers of the '60s, Lesley Gore ("It's My Party, and I'll Cry If I Want To"), was a lesbian who had lived with her partner for many years.

I found an online interview in which she was asked if anyone knew her sexual orientation during the heyday of her career, when she was in her teens. She responded that if they did, "they knew it before I knew it," because she was not aware of it until she was in her 20s.

Now, unless she was altogether asexual during her teenage years, which I highly doubt, here is one individual who did change her sexual orientation after puberty.

I wonder how many there are who are like her in that respect.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd