Sexual Fluidity and Legal Implications (and cultural)

[Calm]

Adding in hopes of avoiding derailing comments:

Please, I do want input, I would like to see if others who view "born that way"/immutability arguments as justification for cultural change to consider if they can see possibilities of adapting this research to support civil rights and agency.  I am not particularly interested in responses that amount to we should wipe out the last 50 years of interacting with other humans who have different attractions and expressions of attractions.  And especially not interested in making this a discussion about individual extreme expressions.  If you are not interested in the above, feel free to skip the thread.

original start:

I don't normally watch videos, but this was highly recommended by a professional as quality research and while 45 minutes long, there was not a time except right at the beginning where she is chatting that  is cluttered by chit chat.  It is massive data providing and she uses graphs throughout so it is relatively easy to capture and understand her point.  I didn't have to back up and listen to anything because she wasn't clear....which is a huge pet peeve I have with videos and podcasts....nor did my mind ever wander because of too much repetition or derailing comments.

She is not LDS, she works at the UoU.  She is lesbian and a gay rights advocate.

Don't have time to deal with all the info, but the main point is the solid research demonstrates that there is much more sexual fluidity in patterns of behaviour than previously believed, especially among men.  In the past, sexual fluidity among women has been a more common expectation among researchers, but there was an assumption that there were major gender differences.  Her research demonstrates there is much less than previously supposed, though to be clear there are significant differences found in some areas.

If you don't have time or desire to watch the data analysis, jump to 37 minutes where she gets into her conclusions and legal implications, including her belief that arguing legal status for civil rights protections based on "born that way" or immutability will turn around and bite advocates on their *** because the research won't support them.  This is from 2013 and her comments about her fear her research was going to torpedo the queer advocates side's arguments before the Supreme Court and her relief immutability and diversity in the group was never brought up may interest many of you.

If you want to skip her analysis of the larger, more reliable global research findings on sexual fluidity (though I would highly recommend watching from the beginning if you have any interest in the subject and discuss it with others as it will help you get the conclusions better imo) and just focus on her own research which was based in Salt Lake, start around 25 minutes.  She is rather sweet in her excitement about working with "Mormon heterosexuals" and amusing when she throws in comments about Mormon culture a time or two (I didn't find her humorous comments the least offensive or condescending, but instead probably realistic).

I think her comment in the conclusions that sexual categories are "short cuts" for researchers and nature is much more messy than such labels make it appear is essential to our understanding of the discussion about homosexuality and how our greater culture and church culture should be responding to those with such attractions and self described sexual identities and I am interested to hear others' reactions.

I think the discussion of sexual fluidity is important to the discussion about what the Church is requiring of those who identify as queer in terms of obeying the Law of Chasity lifelong and potential for isolation and being deprived of even the expectation of the type of companionship those who identify as attracted to the opposite sex.

I should make it clear that even though I see the phrase and belief "born that way" as problematic based on my understanding of patterns of sexual fluidity, that does not mean I believe attraction is a pure choice.  Behaviours learned in childhood or in a culture that doesn't recognize options are not chosen, imo, and even if one recognizes cultural impact on learning doesn't imply one can then choose to change those learned behaviours.

------

Off topic to her research, but something that I have noticed in looking into research over the years, the phrase " same sex attraction" is widely used in clinical and social research and I see the requirement by some to avoid its use as offensive problematic if we want to based our expressed opinions on research and not just personal experience or emotion.  How can one accurately discuss research if you can't use the terms the researchers use?  Now perhaps I am missing nuances here in the arguments against its usage, so if someone wants to correct my perception, please do so.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

Wait a minute. Sex is a behavior?

Whoda thunk?

[Calm]

Anyone wants to just take the 8ish minutes it takes to watch her conclusion to comment and not bother with the rest, I am fine with that.  Quite surprised no one has said anything besides USU.  Has everyone heard this before?

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm looking forward to watching this this weekend. A couple of thoughts based on your comments:

5 hours ago, Calm said:

... her belief that arguing legal status for civil rights protections based on "born that way" or immutability will turn around and bite advocates on their *** because the research won't support them.

Professional historians have been saying this for years, but who listens to them? As far as this argument -- which was consciously chosen as the best political pathway forwards near the beginning of the 1970s, if I remember the timeline correctly -- eventually backfiring, I've long harboured that expectation. It appears to have been the shortcut to political victory, but like many other power-laden discourses, it contains within it the seeds of its own inevitable deconstruction. Those in the gay rights movement who were arguing that a campaign based on notions of liberty would be more effective in the long run, I strongly suspect, will be proved right in the end. But by then, it will be too late; the entire discourse will be unraveling.

Quote

I should make it clear that even though I see the phrase and belief "born that way" as problematic based on my understanding of patterns of sexual fluidity, that does not mean I believe attraction is a pure choice.  Behaviours learned in childhood or in a culture that doesn't recognize options are not chosen, imo, and even if one recognizes cultural impact on learning doesn't imply one can then choose to change those learned behaviours.

This is one of the most important false dichotomies that we need to pull apart. You are spot on here.

[Maidservant]

I did watch it.  I'm just not sure I'm versed enough to comment on it.  I'm with @Hamba Tuhan, that as a historian, I already "saw through" categories long ago.  But, then again, I'm the kind of person to err on the side of, I don't know, letting people have their agency.  And to exercise it without fear (insomuch that it does not harm another).  (I'm also an anarchist, so I don't want the government in my marriage at all.  Not to mention that I consider that the tradition of marriage actually harks back to the buying and selling of women, and their slavery.  So not a fan.)  I also think that none of us understand sexuality at all.  We still have barely started at zero about that.  I non-identify because I don't see the point.  My sexual identity is that I am human.  I am glad to see that we can continue the conversation as a society based on more research.  That's cool.

[kllindley]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone wants to just take the 8ish minutes it takes to watch her conclusion to comment and not bother with the rest, I am fine with that.  Quite surprised no one has said anything besides USU.  Has everyone heard this before?

I've cited her work here several times before. But it goes against the dominant narrative where LGBT activists get to claim science is on their side and anyone who disagrees is stupid. When I posted a list of more than 12 scientific articles about fluidity, I was accused of being unable to consider anyone else's feelings or experience. I do sincerely wish more people would be willing to listen to what the science actually says. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I non-identify because I don't see the point.

The concept of sexual identity -- and the terms we associate with the concept -- was specifically crafted by a known person in a known historical context to serve a known political purpose. From the very beginning, that has been the only point. If you're not part of that particular fight, then there is no point.

Quote

My sexual identity is that I am human.

Which simply means that you are part of the mainstream human experience across both time and space.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

I remember mid70s San Francisco peninsula it was all about allowing people their sexual freedom, their choice.  When I was at a summer job at B Dalton's, my boss was a lesbian and we had a huge section of LGBT books.  So many dealt with experimentation and self exploration. The expression of lesbians I knew of was that having experienced men in their lives, they were choosing women because the cost of relationships with men wasn't worth it while the relationship with women was.  (Granted, I didn't know of many).  I was quite surprised when the dialogue shifted to born that way, one can't be authentic with multiple expressions.  Seemed like the change happened pretty quickly as my brother in law's expression was very similar to born that way.

The 60s was the ultimate in freedom to express anything including sexuality, make your own destiny.  Perhaps that explosion is what helped the pendulum swing back the other way 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone wants to just take the 8ish minutes it takes to watch her conclusion to comment and not bother with the rest, I am fine with that.  Quite surprised no one has said anything besides USU.  Has everyone heard this before?

Never Mind.  Carry on.

Edited July 20, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

As is always the case the objectivity of her data all depends on the questions that were asked.  Have you ever had sex with someone of the opposite sex.  Have you ever kissed someone of the opposite sex.  Have you ever had a crush on someone of the opposite sex.  Have you ever thought about having a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  I could answer yes to every single one of those questions, yet I am in no way fluid in my sexual orientation.  The conclusions she would draw about my sexuality would absolutely be completely inaccurate with my reality.  

My response to her study?  WHO CARES what the study suggests or her conclusions are.  It doesn't change my orientation one single bit any more than if a study came out that had data telling you that you should be more attracted to women and the happiest relationship you could have would be with a woman. Would that study somehow change your feelings towards men?  Would it mean that all the sudden you should not have the right to marry who you want?  Should you conform your life to this study, divorce your husband and marry a woman?  Should you give up your civil rights because of that study?  Just what do you think the impact on the LGBT community should be?  Should they all the sudden believe it or they are just stupid because the "science" tells them something that they don't believe or experience?

Can anyone honestly say that sexual orientation is just an idol choice a person makes when so many LGBT pay such a high price for their attractions?  Is it just a matter of choice for the man thrown off the roof of a building for being gay?  Or the regularly reported stabbings, muggings, shootings that happen simply because the person is gay?  Do you think this study will make them reconsider being gay?  Do you think those that survive these hate crimes decide it is just not worth it to choose to be gay and they should be more fluid in their sexual orientation?  Does a Mormon decide to be celibate his whole life because he is just not willing to explore his fluid side of sexuality?

Honestly, you could show me a stack load of studies that tell me I shouldn't be gay and if I wanted to bad enough I could be attracted to women.  It wouldn't make one bit of difference.  Besides the fact that I could probably show you a stack twice the size that says that sexual orientation is immutable.  And even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, so what?  Does anyone else get the right to tell someone how they should live their lives and who they should love?

What exactly do you want to discuss?   Bringing up these studies that are impossible to prove only stir up contention.  If that is your purpose, then stand back and watch this thread over the next couple of weeks as straight Mormons tell gay men who they should be attracted to and what civil rights should be taken away from them.  

[BlueDreams]

Just finished listening to it as I cooked. It's very interesting, and does fit what I've seen in other research/therapeutic circles...as well as some cultural shifts in descriptions in sexuality (or growing trends to not label one's sexuality period). So I'm not 100% surprised. It ties in with changes in how people explore sexuality. For example, when questions of sexual attractions come up, I don't pull up a binary scale that focuses heavily on a broad consensus of sexual attraction. Instead I prefer using one that focuses on exploring different avenues or sexual attraction (erotic, social, romantic, and aesthetic). It gives greater freedom to not necessarily see their attractions as alligning with a specific camp, but just as is and that at times varying areas in it may change or be effected by our experiences or not change much at all. Best practices therapy is also focusing when helping a person in their explorations of themselves, to not negate equally important areas of their personhood that may have points  of conflict with their sexual inclinations. In essence such research is a growing backbone to how to best meet the needs of this population.  

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Off topic to her research, but something that I have noticed in looking into research over the years, the phrase " same sex attraction" is widely used in clinical and social research and I see the requirement by some to avoid its use as offensive problematic if we want to based our expressed opinions on research and not just personal experience or emotion.  How can one accurately discuss research if you can't use the terms the researchers use?  Now perhaps I am missing nuances here in the arguments against its usage, so if someone wants to correct my perception, please do so.

I think the basic argument is tied to the sense of medicalization (and historical pathologization) around sexuality. The labels and use around sexuality are difficult because at one point, to be gay was viewed as a psychological disorder. In layman use of the term SSA, the dialogue can still infer inherent struggles with or a problem. It can also be as a tool to force a comfort with hetero or hoophobic populations who may be uncomfortable acknowledging the importance of their sexuality in their life. At the same time, those who see the labels gay, bi, or lesbian as not just a sexual, but a cultural/political identity of sorts, may also not be comfortable with these labels as their life experience doesn't fit it. 

8 hours ago, california boy said:

My response to her study?  WHO CARES what the study suggests or her conclusions are.  It doesn't change my orientation one single bit any more than if a study came out that had data telling you that you should be more attracted to women and the happiest relationship you could have would be with a woman. Would that study somehow change your feelings towards men?  Would it mean that all the sudden you should not have the right to marry who you want?  Should you conform your life to this study, divorce your husband and marry a woman?  Should you give up your civil rights because of that study?  Just what do you think the impact on the LGBT community should be?  Should they all the sudden believe it or they are just stupid because the "science" tells them something that they don't believe or experience?

Can anyone honestly say that sexual orientation is just an idol choice a person makes when so many LGBT pay such a high price for their attractions?  Is it just a matter of choice for the man thrown off the roof of a building for being gay?  Or the regularly reported stabbings, muggings, shootings that happen simply because the person is gay?  Do you think this study will make them reconsider being gay?  Do you think those that survive these hate crimes decide it is just not worth it to choose to be gay and they should be more fluid in their sexual orientation?  Does a Mormon decide to be celibate his whole life because he is just not willing to explore his fluid side of sexuality?

As a therapist for largely mormon populations I definitely care. It doesn't change your sexual orientation one bit. The research she highlights also doesn't negate that there are those (particularly men) that are definitely not sexually fluid. But the numbers indicate that those who often feel the heavier brunt of emotional disturbances, hate crimes, and discrimination aren't those who are exclusively gay or lesbian but the larger population of people who may be better described as bi or sexually fluid. IF our goal as community (LGBT, Mormon, or otherwise) is to help people live safe and secure and thriving lives, then it is important to not have blindspots. On an LGBT rights side, by focusing on a message of fate made me this way and my expression in sexuality is fairly determined, it can inadvertently leave a huge gaping hole in argumentation for relatively new rights in a court that's looking to veer conservative in the near future. That could be a serious problem. I don't think that it's the only argument out there, and that their is a way to still have said rights while acknowledging that the the community my by more lgB than LGb. But if those aren't utilized, it could erode not just an argument for marriage but other rights, such as equal housing clauses. 

On a mormon stance, I think it's very important as well. In no way do I want this research to lead to absolutist choice arguments as well. (The principle of agency will never be the same to me as absolute choice of circumstance...that's certifiably false to me). But LGBT populations are different with other minority groups in the sense that their community is made by identity not inherited by family ties.  Many people who may not label themselves as LGB or find that label secondary to their religious identity are effected by this.....and that choice of identity (not orientation or propensity for fluidity) needs to be apart of how we think and interact with those in our community with our spiritual beliefs around marriage and relationships. I find some positivist avenues that are easily within the doctrinal constrains of mormonism, that would still move us to a more inclusive and safer environment for what may often be a very hidden minority...especially if they do not fully ascribe to an LG identity. There could be a greater acceptance that these feeling or desires do not make you weird or a pariah. There are likely many straight-ID people who to some extent have empathy. It can open "straight" people to be more open that their sexuality hasn't been all that straight forward in the past or present, even if their current circumstance suggests otherwise. It could lead to changes about how we teach about building the church and kingdom of God. With less of a focus on just those who enter a sealing marriage, but those who also build in equally important and needed ways. To focus less on striving for a specific status or goal, but a deep relationship with God and serving in your community through the experiences that one has. And that all could be added to as opposed to replace with the greater acknowledgment that for some, just as there are straight people with no to little orientation outside the opposite sex, there are plenty who cannot and will not be happy in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. That we shouldn't and can't force someone's sexuality to fit our expectations and that we should still show love and care to those who's ultimate decisions may take them outside of regular church experiences. 

The problem I see with both communities is that the identity of sexual orientation and religious identity is still very separated and judged from both sides in different ways. And I think that comes from trying to find an ultimate truth and static perspective on both the gospel and one's sexuality. It leads to those who are in the gray to feel out of sorts and alienated in black and white dichotomies. There is also research (not yet published or through the pipeline) that I heard of recently that is focusing on several relational choices lived by people (married to opposite sex, celebate, single with no set part...but not celebate, married to same sex) by those who experience SSA in some way and are happy/satisfied with their expressions. It will focus on what patterns do they have that could be better guideposts for those who are wanting to make such a decision (for each category) or what may not work in said situations as well. I hope by moving away from a black/white - fate/will -right/wrong narrative, we can focus on what's more important to me: how we can best support and love those around us, even if we disagree? How can we disagree more amiably and without the collateral of human life?  

 

You're right though CA, this place has a tendency to have these conversations to degrade and fall into camps. I don't tend to talk about this here because in the end it feels counterproductive and a match for who's really really right in the end while throwing out words and phrases that are microagressive if not blatantly homophobic or discriminatory. But who knows, maybe for a minute there could be some nuance and acknowledgement of diversity in experience and results. I'm ever the optimist  

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited July 20, 2018 by BlueDreams

[Maidservant]

38 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

moving away from a black/white - fate/will -right/wrong narrative

Big vote yes.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Anyone wants to just take the 8ish minutes it takes to watch her conclusion to comment and not bother with the rest, I am fine with that.  Quite surprised no one has said anything besides USU.  Has everyone heard this before?

Didn't watch it, because I'm so freaking tired of this.  Unlike you, I watch lots of YouTube videos and there are some very odd people out there.  As an example, there's this one guy in particular who is transgender, dresses like a woman, and has a YouTube channel. I kid you not, he labels males who will not date him because he's not really a woman as bigots. There is a whole wing of the wingnut set who are more wingnut than you could possibly believe, Calm.  I'm not particularly exercised if there are people who are confused about their gender, (if they want to be fluid, have at it!) but the expectation that everyone support them in their delusions is a bit much.  And there's a lot of that going around.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Not to mention that I consider that the tradition of marriage actually harks back to the buying and selling of women, and their slavery.  So not a fan.

Really?  Not trying to be confrontational, but where do you get this idea?  Can you really trace the history back to slavery?

Do you know what the dream of the carnal man is?  It is to have sex with as many women as he can, without any obligation, especially without the obligation to support a woman who happens to get pregnant by him.  Marriage puts the screws to that dream, and is potentially the savior of women, and of the human race itself.  This is because it is darned difficult to successfully raise children without stable homes, especially back when we didn't have all these fine social institutions. 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't watch it, because I'm so freaking tired of this.  Unlike you, I watch lots of YouTube videos and there are some very odd people out there.  As an example, there's this one guy in particular who is transgender, dresses like a woman, and has a YouTube channel. I kid you not, he labels males who will not date him because he's not really a woman as bigots. There is a whole wing of the wingnut set who are more wingnut than you could possibly believe, Calm.  I'm not particularly exercised if there are people who are confused about their gender, (if they want to be fluid, have at it!) but the expectation that everyone support them in their delusions is a bit much.  And there's a lot of that going around.

Yeah, that's not at all what this is about. It is about the gender of the individuals a person is sexually and romantically attracted to. The fact is, it changes more often than it stays the same. So all the claims that gays have it impossibly hard in the Church because that is "just the way they are," are nonsense. 

Of course, for someone who isn't experiencing, and truthfully may not in the future experience, any particular sexual or romantic attraction to the opposite sex, the Law of Chastity as taught in the Church will seem difficult a and painful. We can and should be sensitive to that.

However, the facts about sexual attraction, orientation, and identity are not at odds with the Restored Gospel. Those claiming otherwise, or insisting that the Church change its doctrines, are not arguing from the perspective of science. 

[Calm]

 

Quote

Honestly, you could show me a stack load of studies that tell me I shouldn't be gay and if I wanted to bad enough I could be attracted to women.  It wouldn't make one bit of difference.  Besides the fact that I could probably show you a stack twice the size that says that sexual orientation is immutable.  And even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, so what?  Does anyone else get the right to tell someone how they should live their lives and who they should love?

What exactly do you want to discuss?   Bringing up these studies that are impossible to prove only stir up contention.  If that is your purpose, then stand back and watch this thread over the next couple of weeks as straight Mormons tell gay men who they should be attracted to and what civil rights should be taken away from them.  

I don't understand how you got this from either the research or my comments or klindley's or maidservant's, for example....or even Hamba's which is not telling anyone who can be attracted to, but just what labeling has used for.

Nowhere in her research was there a suggestion that this should allow anyone to tell others who they should be attracted to or who they were as people.  She is a gay rights' advocate herself and she sees no conflict with the community, only the problem of using immutability as a legal argument when the argument can't be supported by the most reliable science.  Her conclusion that immutability and diversity was ignored in the Supreme Court discussion (at least up to the time of the video) was hopeful that it could be put aside without harming the debate for civil rights.

As far as civil rights, she pointed out that using arguments that the research won't support will hurt the legal advancement of civil rights.  I agree.  There may be a backlash once the science gets well known, a greater distrust of both political groups and science.  So isn't a better solution than saying 'no one can tell me any different than I already believe' would be to start looking at workable reasons that research will support or will not impact, like imo simple human agency?  Back in my youth, I didn't see much wrong in the argument of having the right to choose expression, how to live.

I love Maidservant's approach...why not stop looking at ourselves as categories since they don't really exist in nature and just start viewing ourselves as humans, all in it together, living by the Golden Rule (the loving one, not the power one) to the best of our ability?

In my opinion, demonstrating that immutability applies to a minority of humanity would actually suggest that it isn't right to put people in any box, including only having the right to have legal relationships with one sex.

If you want to demonstrate her science is wrong, please point to studies of that large of nonself selected number of participants and label neutral questions.  I would be interested in seeing those.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't watch it, because I'm so freaking tired of this.  Unlike you, I watch lots of YouTube videos and there are some very odd people out there.  As an example, there's this one guy in particular who is transgender, dresses like a woman, and has a YouTube channel. I kid you not, he labels males who will not date him because he's not really a woman as bigots. There is a whole wing of the wingnut set who are more wingnut than you could possibly believe, Calm.  I'm not particularly exercised if there are people who are confused about their gender, (if they want to be fluid, have at it!) but the expectation that everyone support them in their delusions is a bit much.  And there's a lot of that going around.

Not requiring you to watch it if you don't want to, but please don't comment if you haven't even watch the conclusion unless you have read up on her data elsewhere.  I am interested in reactions to her research, to science, not to "wing nut" cases.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not requiring you to watch it if you don't want to, but please don't comment if you haven't even watch the conclusion unless you have read up on her data elsewhere.  I am interested in reactions to her research, to science, not to "wing nut" cases.

Yeah, you're right.  I'm being obstreperous.  However that's spelled.  I apologize for my thoughtless reactions.  And I will try to watch it -- we're flying to Austria tomorrow, for a week, so I may forget all about it.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I don't understand how you got this from either the research or my comments or klindley's or maidservant's, for example....or even Hamba's which is not telling anyone who can be attracted to, but just what labeling has used for.

Nowhere in her research was there a suggestion that this should allow anyone to tell others who they should be attracted to or who they were as people.

As far as civil rights, she pointed out that using arguments that the research won't support will hurt the legal advancement of civil rights.  I agree.  There may be a backlash once the science gets well known, a greater distrust of both political groups and science.  So isn't a better solution than saying 'no one can tell me any different than I already believe' would be to start looking at workable reasons that research will support or will not impact, like imo simple human agency?  Back in my youth, I didn't see much wrong in the argument of having the right to choose expression, how to live.

I love Maidservant's approach...why not stop looking at ourselves as categories since they don't really exist in nature and just start viewing ourselves as humans, all in it together, living by the Golden Rule (the loving one, not the power one) to the best of our ability?

In my opinion, demonstrating that immutability applies to a minority of humanity would actually suggest that it isn't right to put people in any box, including only having the right to have legal relationships with one sex.

Maybe this was what Elder Bednar was saying about there not being gays in the LDS church, to which I disagree. I think gays don't mind the label. Just like people don't mind the heterosexual or bi-sexual label. 

 

[Calm]

Bluedreams perfectly articulated my thoughts and concerns....and now I got to go be Grandma...so this will be short.

First to those posting here....Please, I do want input, especially I would like to see if others who view "born that way"/immutability arguments as justification to consider if they can see possibilities of adapting this research to support civil rights and agency and speak towards that.  I am not particularly interested in responses that amount to we should wipe out the last 50 years of interacting with other humans who have different attractions and expressions of attractions, the laws are all wrong, etc.

I am grateful for Bluedreams pointing out that the research shows those who experience fluidity more are the ones with more significant emotional disturbances, hate crimes, etc because this makes me very concerned that insisting on immutability may actually be making things worse for the largest group of those identifying as having attractions to the same sex.  If we want to create a safe and healthy environment/culture for all (and that must include those who have patterns of sexual behaviour that are immutably same sex) ignoring the existence of a large segment of the population is not the way to do it, imo.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 so I may forget all about it.

Please do.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not requiring you to watch it if you don't want to, but please don't comment if you haven't even watch the conclusion unless you have read up on her data elsewhere.  I am interested in reactions to her research, to science, not to "wing nut" cases.

OK, I watched it. Perhaps you would have preferred me to forget all about it.  But you made me feel ashamed of myself, commenting when I was clearly should have just shut up.

Quite interesting, as it turns out.  I am not sure what I want to say about it, however. 

This will require some thought.  Thanks for posting this.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Stargazer

[Calm]

Tac, for me it is not about liking or disliking the label, but the boxes those labels put us into and the potential for harm when the box doesn't fit or people realize the box is just a social construct that can easily be changed ( I am talking about changing labels, not behaviours the labels are attached to, which may be difficult or impossible to change).

I am currently leaning towards preferring an emphasis on sexual expression rather than orientation (always prefer measures of behaviour  over internal states).  A close analogy imo would be language, whether one uses English, Spanish, etc and all variations of bilingualism.  One can look at "native language" which would be the one that we naturally think in and have no recollection of how we learned it or at least for most any choice not to use it to either think or interact with others.  People should have the right, for example, imo to speak the language they are most comfortable with. 

I am not sure of what all the laws apply to accessibility to language, but I do know there have been a few similar controversies and it has been politicize in several countries I am aware of (I had someone from Quebec refuse to speak to me in English until he found out I was from the States and so never should have learned basic French in school, understandable because of the long history that French was suppressed in Canada, but still problematic imo).  The argument that if you move to a country, you should learn the language, for example, ignores how that may be impossible for some people...like me, I might be able to learn to read (recognize how others are using it), but hearing it, no way.  And speaking as in communicating my own ideas...stock phrases.  What little language fluidity I had in high school and college was long gone by the time I hit French in Canada and Russian in Moscow.  Expecting older immigrants to suddenly be fluent or even barring people from a country because they can't speak the official language is just wrong, imo....and most people would recognize that as nonsense I hope.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, I watched it. Perhaps you would have preferred me to forget all about it.  But you made me feel ashamed of myself, commenting when I was clearly should have just shut up.

Quite interesting, as it turns out.  I am not sure what I want to say about it, however. 

This will require some thought.  Thanks for posting this.  

Thanks for watching it.  And will be interested in thoughts on it.

[Calm]

19 hours ago, kllindley said:

I've cited her work here several times before. But it goes against the dominant narrative where LGBT activists get to claim science is on their side and anyone who disagrees is stupid. When I posted a list of more than 12 scientific articles about fluidity, I was accused of being unable to consider anyone else's feelings or experience. I do sincerely wish more people would be willing to listen to what the science actually says. 

I think I gave you points in the past, but it took me wanting to sound informed in family discussions where she was the main topic to actually watch it.  I appreciate you reminding me it was out there before...maybe next time I will watch your suggestions without prompting from family.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm