Another blow for LGBT to try and get something positive from?

[Aruntraveller]

What it must be like to be an autoeroticist with Peter Tatchell, The chief Rabbi, Richard Dawkins and Eddie Izzard standing on the other side of the road together all chanting ''You wanker'' at you.

Have you left the monkey in charge of the keyboard again?

[Aruntraveller]

If you mean it in the same way that I know what it is like to be gay - as in the object of my attraction is irrelevant since the physiological and psychological feelings and responses of attraction in the individual are very similar regardless of the sex of the object of the attraction, then I agree. But is there some way that gay people interact with each other and groups that is different from the way heterosexual people interact with each other and in groups? I would have thought that the feelings of being an outsider and not accepted by the group can be experienced by anyone - I am heterosexual but my chosen behaviour of not dating while at school meant I felt an outsider because I had not experienced what my friends had experienced and therefore could not fully participate in the conversation based on first-hand experience. There are many times I don't behave according to conventional gender stereotypes and therefore cannot share experiences with a group of women, who do conform to those stereotypes. 

No I didn't mean that. I meant that I and many other of my contemporary gay friends were 'trained' to be heterosexual. It was assumed by our parents, our friends, even ourselves (at times in our lives) that we were heterosexual. You never got the reverse of that - you were never assumed to be gay, told that gay was the right way to behave, the right way to exist.

Why do you think so many gay people for so many years could "pass" as heterosexual?

We'd been taught well by our loving society.

As to the bit about teenagers, exactly right.

[Maeght]

I never understood why the T was included with the LGB as thought it isn't about sexuality but thought I just didn't understsnd the issues fully.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Could somebody help out on this puzzle. Why is gender reassignment in principle correct but sexuality reassignment in principle wrong.
Doesn't gender reassignment involve sexuality reassignment?
No offence since I have no personal experience in this only views please.

Gender and sexuality can both be expressions of self-identity but sexuality seems to be about expressing the feelings of romantic attraction to physical and non-physical characteristics in someone else, while gender is about expressing your own attributes/ characteristics.   

I think it is up to the individual to decide how they want to prioritise  the various elements that make up their identity  e.g. gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, culture, philosophical, ethical, religious or political beliefs, allegiance to a football team etc etc, so if someone wants to suppress their sexuality in order to prioritise some other aspect of their identity, I think that's up to them. But trying to convince someone that they should prioritise one aspect of their identity over another aspect has lots of potential for harm as many gay people who have undergone sexuality conversion therapy to try to become straight have said they felt harmed by it and concluded they were happier not suppressing that particular aspect of their identity. And teenagers are still trying to form their identities and sense of belonging to groups so they could get really confused / upset about negativity towards romantic attractions they can't control. There are studies where people have said they are happier after the conversion therapy - but unless there were some objective measures of "harm" and "happiness" it's all subjective, as is the idea of identity I suppose.

There is no peer-reviewed evidence that a person can change the attributes that they are consistently physically or emotionally attracted to in order to form a romantic relationship - but these may be a wide range of attributes and some or many of the attributes/ characteristics could be present in both sexes while obviously some are only present in one biological sex.

A family friend's daughter is a girl transitioning to a boy and is getting married to a girl who identifies as straight - so if the family friend's daughter had remained a girl rather than becoming a boy, the two of them would not be in a romantic relationship. 

[Maeght]

Could somebody help out on this puzzle. Why is gender reassignment in principle correct but sexuality reassignment in principle wrong.
Doesn't gender reassignment involve sexuality reassignment?
No offence since I have no personal experience in this only views please.

Why would changing the bodies physiology change sexual preferences? I have no personal experience either but don't see thus necessarily follows.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No I didn't mean that. I meant that I and many other of my contemporary gay friends were 'trained' to be heterosexual. It was assumed by our parents, our friends, even ourselves (at times in our lives) that we were heterosexual. You never got the reverse of that - you were never assumed to be gay, told that gay was the right way to behave, the right way to exist.

Why do you think so many gay people for so many years could "pass" as heterosexual?

We'd been taught well by our loving society.

As to the bit about teenagers, exactly right.

Not sure I was trained in heterosexuality - if heterosexuality is about romatic feelings to the opposite sex. My experience is that I was trained more about gender and cultural expectations. Anything related to romance or sex was very low down on the list of priorities and if there was any training given, it was about suppressing those feelings. The only time I remember my mother speaking about marriage when I was a kid was to say make sure you have a good education so you can leave an abusive  marriage and support yourself if you need to. And as a teenager education and family responsibilities were considered a priority - no one in my community cared about romantic attraction or at least it was rarely spoken about - romance was considered an unnecessary distraction to other more important priorities.

My ethnic and cultural community was not big on romance - in arranged marriages no one is that concerned about whether you are attracted to someone - the love comes after the marriage based on the decision to commit and the shared values and goals. But I watched a lot of old Hollywood movies (e.g. from the 1930s onwards) so I got the gist. And I did not want to go down the arranged marriage route, though some of my peers and relatives did.

[Aruntraveller]

But I watched a lot of old Hollywood movies (e.g. from the 1930s onwards) so I got the gist.

Not part of the training in heterosexuality that we all received at all, in any way?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not part of the training in heterosexuality that we all received at all, in any way?

No I agree that movies are some form of training - the more gay relationships or trans people are depicted in movies and television the more unremarkable/ acceptable they become.

I think that romantic attraction in movies are rarely realistic as the movie isn't long enough and the focus and emphasis is on one particular aspect of the story that the filmmaker is interested in telling or the focus is on a formula that will make money, which is one of the reasons why most of the romances are heterosexual as the majority of the people buying tickets are heterosexual and they will pay to see movies they can relate to.  In Asian countries movies are generally seen as a form of escapism from real life.

ETA: I think I absorbed a lot more cultural and gender training from movies though than I did about sexuality i.e. who the person was romantically attracted to when you take out the gender/ cultural stereotypes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would changing the bodies physiology change sexual preferences?

I'm just saying that a Gay man say becoming a woman becomes a heterosexual woman since she is now a woman attracted to men or if a woman attracted to women became a man attracted to women. Both are now heterosexual  I thought that would be obvious.

[wigginhall]

I never understood why the T was included with the LGB as thought it isn't about sexuality but thought I just didn't understsnd the issues fully.

I think the main reason has been political - that you have had a number of oppressed minorities, to do with sex/gender, and hence they have been collated in terms of LGBT.   In fact,  there are plenty of other letters that have been added - for example, I for intersex, Q for queer, A for asexual, and there are others.   There is also a historical aspect, you hear people say that at the time of the Stonewall  riots (US), trans people were on the barricades with gays and others, but I've no idea if this is accurate, or kind of romantic. 

But there are campaigns from time to time  to split the movement, since while some categories are about sexuality,  T is not.  And  there are undoubtedly transphobic elements, in fact, there was a fierce rumpus among feminists about this.  Try googling terfs, transexclusionary radical feminists. 

I find the whole movement very interesting, but it's unclear  whether wholesale shifts are going on about personal identity, or whether they are relatively minor.   So you hear much talk of non-binary, or gender fluidity, which can be applied to many people, I suppose, and is not trans.   

I suppose right wing people and evangelicals tend to see all this as the fall into chaos and moral turpitude, whereas people on the left tend to see it as the opening up of previously suppressed areas of life. 

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm just saying that a Gay man say becoming a woman becomes a heterosexual woman since she is now a woman attracted to men or if a woman attracted to women became a man attracted to women. Both are now heterosexual  I thought that would be obvious.

But no sexual preferences have been changed. The gay man now woman is still attracted to men and so on. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Rhiannon]

He is no longer a gay man so he can no longer do anything as a man.

''Gay man now woman''? How transphobic can you get?

Yeah, there is definitely someone exposing his prejudice and ignorance around here.

[wigginhall]

An informed answer, and it suggests that somebody seeking a gender change because they are a man or whatever because ''men are bad'' or'' it's bad being a man'' or ''maleness needs curing'' would receive the same advice as somebody seeking to change sexuality because they thought homosexuality was bad.

And maybe the same argument exists against assisted dying i.e. the danger of the decision being due to peer, familial, social and economic pressure.

I also take Shakers point or argumentum ad non consequentium that bad therapies should not be allowed

However what about the person who presents with an attitude that homosexuality is not bad but that they want to personally change sexuality?

Well, the critique of gay conversion therapy was  that it was out and out homophobic, and produced inane statements, such as 'you're gay because you were abused', or the distant father claptrap.  This is why it was banned.

In fact, plenty of clients turn up with confused sexuality, and want to change in some direction.   This is not a problem, since the therapist is not pushing in a homophobic direction.   I have had clients who were moving in both directions, and of  course, bisexual people who are changing direction.  But mostly I worked with married clients (to the opposite sex),  who were coming out as gay.

[Rhiannon]

And we haven't even got onto biphobia yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/are-bisexuals-shut-out-of-the-lgbt-club

[floo]

I have just come across this:

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

Ye gods these people are sick morons! 

[wigginhall]

Yes, I've read this, although some American friends are saying that it's a sign of weakness.   In other words, that white evangelicals are  on the back foot, since their campaigns against gays have failed  really, so they are now going on the attack.

Amazing that they say not only is gay sinful, but approving of it is.   This means, for example, that parents of somebody gay are judged to be sinning, unless they condemn their child.   Eh?

I suppose they are also keen Trump supporters.   I saw one wry comment: evangelicals hate Jesus. 

[Aruntraveller]

And talking of blows to the LGBT community:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41179976

In this case literal blows.

[wigginhall]

Further to the Nashville Statement, it looks as if Trump is going hell for leather against trans people now, e.g. trying to ban them in the military, and Republican states are now trying to stop bathroom use by trans people. 

Bullying at the heart of government, eh?

[Shaker]

I've just discovered where the Nashville Statement was formally signed.

Posted without comment and with as much of a straight face as I can manage:

The group met last week at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center

[wigginhall]

Three points that friends have pointed out to me, that didn't immediately strike me about Nashville stuff - trans people are not condemned in the Bible, so there is no 'proof-text' against them.   So they have to squeeze condemnation of that inside the old Adam and Eve stuff, God made us male and female, so you are evil if you feel different.   

The second thing is that the 'pray the gay away' stuff is missing.   I don't know whether this is because they forgot, or because gay conversion has been panned across the board in psychology as actually dangerous, increasing the risk of suicide and so on.

And intersex is a real problem for creationists, so they tend to skip over it.  Why did God make people with both willies and yonis?

[Owlswing]

I have just come across this:

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

Ye gods these people are sick morons! 

From the preamble on this statement:

This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin?

I have never, ever, seen the Christian Churh or the Church of Christ referred to as a feminine entity before!

[wigginhall]

I was thinking about the schools that are bringing in gender neutral uniform, (although I think some of them are also trying to avoid endless arguments about girls' skirts being too short), and I wonder how widespread the trans movement is.   I heard of one school with 15 trans pupils, but actual statistics usually show it as a very small minority.

I would guess that young people will accept stuff like this, and older people less so.   Old categories seem to be breaking down.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

When I was in OTC at university my uniform was the same as a man's uniform - we just wore combat dress because the uniforms presumably were supposed to be functional, enabling us to train while protecting our skin. Introducing trousers seems functional rather than a gender issue. Do Scottish soldiers train/fight in kilts - and what are the implications of the jokes about kilts and modesty?

Just trying to work out if the gender implication for skirts is that women are presumed to be more interested in being decorative than functional at school? When a person says they feel more like a boy than a girl, that is presumably more than just a way of saying that they want to have short, functional hair and wear functional clothes and not be troubled by jiggling breasts when carrying out daily tasks?

[wigginhall]

I'm  not sure if skirts are being seen as decorative.   Some parents seem  to  be objecting to trousers as their daughters want to be feminine, or female.   That's not the same as decorative, is it?

I am pretty ignorant about trans stuff, although I was involved in gender studies from the 80s, but trans was not really prominent then.   I am curious about it as there seems to be a lot of publicity about it.

I've also been surprised at  how accepting the NHS has been about trans.   I think there are a few gender clinics, staffed by NHS.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've also been surprised at  how accepting the NHS has been about trans.   I think there are a few gender clinics, staffed by NHS.

Actually I think there are very few clinics that can be accessed except with private funds which most cannot afford. Certainly I gather that getting support as a teenager if you are transgender can be exceptionally difficult.