Your gender and sexuality

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).

Your gender and sexuality?

Female-Gay
2
5%
Female-Bi
3
7%
Female-Straight
1
2%
Male-Gay
10
23%
Male-Bi
2
5%
Male-Straight
23
52%
Interesex-Gay
0
No votes
Interesex-Bi
0
No votes
Interesex-Straight
0
No votes
Female, Male or Interesex; Asexual
3
7%
 
Total votes: 44

User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
Posts: 3423
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by catmoon »

If you are a cat, please select "all of the above".
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
ovi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by ovi »

Thanks for your post.
Zhen Li wrote: I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but I noticed that in the 1960s (not that I remember them), liberals were divided with socialists on the same issues they were divided with conservatives on. For instance, back then, homosexual marriage would have been rejected by socialsits on the grounds that it perpetuates the prison of the bourgeois family, and is just another manifestation of the superstructure rendered existent by the bourgeois mode of production, whereas conservatives would have rejected it on the grounds that it is not traditional marriage, etc.
That's not technically true. The prison of bourgeois family that you refer to has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the left-wing criticism of marriage. For instance, neither the state, nor the church should have anything to do with the private and free relationship between adults or the fact that the institution of marriage has been used as an instrument for the oppression of women etc. The latter was and still is a criticism advanced by left-wing feminists.
Zhen Li wrote: Of course, as you know the left were opponents of homosexuality too, it was really only liberals who were supportive in the mid20th century - the mainstream leftist, or to be precise, marxist, view of homosexuality, is that it is a bourgeois construct - ironically, in an attempt to prove this theory, East German scientists (who also used techniques that we'd consider inhumane) found that regardless of conditioning, one cannot fundamentally change sexuality in the vast majority of people, and that the incidence of homosexuality is higher where the childbearing mother is exposed to more stress - hence lowering the amount of testosterone needed for the development of a 'masculine' brain, to put it simply.
There are two great branches of philosophical thought which consider themselves part of the revolutionary left: anarchism and Marxism. The first publication in the world dedicated to gay issues was Der Eigene, published from 1896 to 1932 in Berlin, by an anarchist called Adolf Brand. Emma Goldman, a famous anarcha-feminist philosopher of the late 19th and 20th century is well known for her outspoken critique of homophobia (as well as marriage). Marx didn't comment on the issue at all, while Lenin abolished the czarist laws regarding the prohibition of homosexuality and abortion in the 1920s, as he believed the state shouldn't have any saying in private matters, which was reversed by Stalin, not that either of them have anything to do with any sort of liberation. Until the issue of LGBT rights became more widespread, no political thought was completely free of homophobia, however the only philosophy that was consistently against criminalizing homosexuality was anarchism, as that would be completely against its anti-authoritarian view. As for the present situation, any sign or act of homophobia is the sure way to get you cast aside in any real-life anarchist collective, or online anarchist or Marxist forum. Communist parties also fully support LGBT rights, with the USA RCP being quite unusual in the worldwide context for only having done so since 2001. Much can be said about the history of LGBT rights, but the claim that leftists were historically opposed to homosexuality and that liberal thought was responsible for changing this is not true.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

ovi wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but I noticed that in the 1960s (not that I remember them), liberals were divided with socialists on the same issues they were divided with conservatives on. For instance, back then, homosexual marriage would have been rejected by socialsits on the grounds that it perpetuates the prison of the bourgeois family, and is just another manifestation of the superstructure rendered existent by the bourgeois mode of production, whereas conservatives would have rejected it on the grounds that it is not traditional marriage, etc.
That's not technically true. The prison of bourgeois family that you refer to has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the left-wing criticism of marriage. For instance, neither the state, nor the church should have anything to do with the private and free relationship between adults or the fact that the institution of marriage has been used as an instrument for the oppression of women etc. The latter was and still is a criticism advanced by left-wing feminists.
Which is precisely why I did not say that it has to do specifically with homosexuality, but rather with "the left-wing criticism of marriage."
ovi wrote:Much can be said about the history of LGBT rights, but the claim that leftists were historically opposed to homosexuality and that liberal thought was responsible for changing this is not true.
That's revisionist history. The majority of Socialist countries historically, as everyone knows, were vehemently more anti-homosexual than non-Socialist ones, and the justification was that it was a manifestation of the bourgeois mode of production - the East Germans only decriminalised it because they were the only ones who had the gall to look at the data and do inhumane experiments to determine the truth.
ovi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by ovi »

Zhen Li wrote: That's revisionist history.
No it's not. You can look up everything I said. I've already mentioned the criminalization of homosexuality under Stalin, which means it was so under every other communist country. Stalin being a tyrant doesn't make left-wing philosophies homophobic.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

I never said anything about philosophy or homophobia or tyranny. Law is law, what is prohibited is prohibited. Where the law is more strict, it is more strict. No ideological or political claim has been made, merely a historical factual one.

"The majority of Socialist countries historically, as everyone knows, were vehemently more anti-homosexual than non-Socialist ones, and the justification was that it was a manifestation of the bourgeois mode of production - the East Germans only decriminalised it because they were the only ones who had the gall to look at the data and do inhumane experiments to determine the truth."
ovi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by ovi »

You said that the left were opponents of homosexuality. If you consider Stalinism to be the essence of left-wing politics, then I completely agree with you. Capitalists, anarchists and the various Marxist schools have different and contradictory views regarding each other, this isn't a debate on facts, but a debate on terms.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

I never said anything about essences. I am talking about specific instances in specific governments.
ovi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by ovi »

Claim: leftists were historically homophobic and this changed in the second half of the 20th century, due to the influence of liberalism. This is only true if you replace leftists with Stalinists. The first gay rights publication is due to a left-wing activist, the Soviet Union abolished the criminalization of homosexuality long before most liberal countries and so on, the history of gay rights in the left-wing movement precedes that of liberalism. Plus, you have anarchists and plenty of Marxists who completely reject the idea that the Soviet Union was ever socialist, but state capitalist, with Mikhail Bakunin, one of the greatest anarchist philosopher warning that the practice of Marxism would lead to a tyranny worse than that of the tsar, half a century before the Soviet Union was even born. I agree to disagree, as there's no way we can reach resolution due to conflicting premises.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

I never used the term homophobic. It's the incorrect term. My point was that the Marxist justification led to anti-homosexual laws in Socialist countries in the 20th century, at the same time that such laws were present in non-Socialist ones, which weren't repealed until the advent of liberalism, or liberal 'cultural revolution' in both cases. The majority of Socialist regimes were anti-homosexual, not just Stalin's. Khrushchevites, Brezhnevites, the early Ulbricht regime, the Kim regime, Maoists, Hoxhaists, etc. Their justification was that homosexuality was a manifestation of the bourgeois mode of production.

Anarchists and marginal ideologies can say what they like, they never had any impact on the world at large, they did not paint half the world red. When someone says "socialist states in the 20th century," everyone knows what they mean. Footnote of history x, y or z doesn't really come to mind.
Adi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Adi »

Zhen Li wrote:... The earliest attempts at understanding homosexuality, i.e. identifying it as something unique, really only arrive in the 19th century with the notions of inversion - which is more or less correct according to modern science....
Only if by "modern science" you mean science before the 1930's which is when the theory of sexual inversion began to be discounted. It was fully abandoned by the 1960's as having no basis.

Adi
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Kaccāni »

Anarchist, Marxist, left, right, liberal, libertarian, democrat, christian, buddhist, ... Godwin?

Dear loving heart, what did your sexuality turn into?
Make love, not categories.
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

Adi wrote:Only if by "modern science" you mean science before the 1930's which is when the theory of sexual inversion began to be discounted. It was fully abandoned by the 1960's as having no basis.
No reputable scientific journal would accept a citation in cognitive science from the 1960s. Based upon recent studies, the theory of sexual inversion shows itself to be more or less accurate, the brains of homosexual males are closer to those of females than heterosexual males (smaller INAH3). This is what the East German experiments found, but even that, along with most cognitive science in the 1960's, was too primitive to know what we now do. Inversion is largely a correct simplification of the physical reality. (LeVay S, Baldwin J (Fourth ed., 2012). Human Sexuality. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-570-3)
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Kaccāni »

@zhen li: Cause or effect, or just some other correlation?
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

The prevailing theory, as represented in the above citation, is that the clustering (sorry, not size) of cells in INAH3 is the cause of sexual preference (sexual behaviour in general). Thus you see both correlation and causation. This is also why higher amount of stress in the mother during gestation, which can cause a lower "testosterone bath" at 3 months gestation (which causes that clustering), was seen to be correlated with a higher incidence of homosexuality (as was seen in Dresden). Other issues, such as a mother smoking during gestation, or genetic causes may also be at play. If you have a look at the literature, you'll see that this causality is also at play in animal life.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Nilasarasvati »

... The earliest attempts at understanding homosexuality, i.e. identifying it as something unique, really only arrive in the 19th century with the notions of inversion - which is more or less correct according to modern science....
Whoah whoah whoah.
Inversion?

I wish I was laughing hysterically, but I'm not. Inversion was a "theory" that homosexual men were basically women trapped in men's bodies.

that reductionism has nothing to do with whatever strange empirical stuff you're mentioning about neuroscience. Sexual behavior or attraction is an entirely different sphere from gender identity/expression (which is what inversion was erroneously trying to talk about. "Homosexuals are sissies because they are basically women in men's bodies")

More perfidious than ANYTHING however is this persistent gender and sexuality binary inherent in this whole string of comments you've made, Zhen Li. This presupposition there are two essential sexes with black and white characteristics, two discrete sexual orientations--it's absurd! These concepts of sex and gender belong in a museum.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

Well, humans are sexually dimorphous, that's how they reproduce. Sometimes, however, people either desire something different or don't turn out as either one or the other. So there are 2 sexes. Gender is a grammatical issue, and gender identity is subjective and not within the realm of natural sciences.

But yes, the notion of inversion is more or less that homosexuals are such because they have a female brain - not 100% accurate, but accurate where it counts: i.e. the parts of the brain that determine specifically sexual behaviour, and with it, attraction. The clustering of INAH3 cells in homosexuals is identical as that in heterosexual females, as opposed to heterosexual males.

However, I didn't claim there are two discrete sexual orientations. Yes, that is absurd Nilasarasvati, and if I believed that then I wouldn't be talking about how homosexuality is determiend would I? :P
Adi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Adi »

Zhen Li wrote:The prevailing theory, as represented in the above citation….
Your citation is a 600+ page book. Simon Levay's theory is not prevailing as it has not been replicated while a lot of issues have been presented with his work, enough to call into question its methodology and conclusions. His initial study made a media splash but it did not produce other studies with the same results and thus was never validated. People with attachment to his theory will continue to claim deterministic properties exist in parts of the brain but the evidence isn't there.

Be all that as it may or not, the materialists can say all they want about how things are and will eventually say most anything since their ideas, laws and methods are constantly changing because they are all based on their own phenomena. And since such phenomena are always coming and going, all ideas about such things as sexuality are only temporary appearances, so any idea can exist at all. Demons possessing people, miasms, inversions, brain structures, neuropeptide up-regulations…it's endless. Until people understand that some lives do not matter less than others there are going to be all sorts of scientific arguments about sexuality and none of them will stay around long enough to make any lasting difference.

Adi
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

You'll find that while it's not uncontroversial, it's not massively controversial either, and pretty mainstream enough to be prevailing. I have no investment in the matter personally, so feel free to provide alternate theories - if you're going to dismiss an argument with no rebuttal (since LeVay is also widely cited, even today, and there 'are' other studies that replicate the results), you might as well present an alternative. For me, one theory makes sense and is simple, the other (either non-genetic/foetus related, or none) does not. So I go with the simple and comprehensible one, but I really don't mind if you present a simpler and more comprehensible one - I am neither LeVay, nor his mother, so I won't be offended if I have to reject the theory.
Adi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Adi »

As already stated, I put my interests in Buddhist ideas and teachings on such subjects and don't hold with the every-changing, ever-argumetative world of neuroscience, a field in its very infancy by its own nascent account.

"if you're going to dismiss an argument with no rebuttal" presumes you've made an argument. Maybe you have, but I can't see it, so the fault is probably mine.

:focus:

Adi
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Kamakura

Re: Your gender and sexuality

Post by Zhen Li »

Sorry, but I don't think you're being sincere or kind here. If you want to talk to me, we can talk, but let's not be rude to one another. If you found my replies were overly assertive Adi, you have my apologies.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”