Is there any reason Strong Families are incompatible with alternative lifestyles? The modern conception of the nuclear family as the main unit is itself something barely 50-100 years of vintage. What’s the in practice difference between say, a polyamorous group raising children together in a stable situation and a large, extended family with various cousins and so on?
Or to make it even simpler, I see no strong reason to say “you shouldn’t be gay” when you could be saying “Hey gay guys, you should form a monogamous pairbond and raise children together for 18 years”.
What’s the in practice difference between say, a polyamorous group raising children together in a stable situation and a large, extended family with various cousins and so on?
Well, what’s the difference in practice between polyamorous relationships and family ties?
What’s the in practice difference between say, a polyamorous group raising children together in a stable situation and a large, extended family with various cousins and so on?
The fact that their internal dynamics are completely different.
Or to make it even simpler, I see no strong reason to say “you shouldn’t be gay” when you could be saying “Hey gay guys, you should form a monogamous pairbond and raise children together for 18 years”.
Because:
1) The child is deprived of a mother (or father). And yes the two play different roles in bringing up children.
2) Gays aren’t monogamous. One obvious way to see this is to note how much gay culture is based around gay bathhouses. Another way is to image search pictures of gay pride parades.
2) Gays aren’t monogamous. One obvious way to see this is to note how much gay culture is based around gay bathhouses. Another way is to image search pictures of gay pride parades.
This user seems to to spreading an agenda of ignorant bigotry against homosexuality and polyamory. It doesn’t even temper the hostile stereotyping with much pretense of just referring to trends in the evidence.
Are the upvotes this account is receiving here done by actual lesswrong users (who, frankly, ought to be ashamed of themselves) or has Azathoth123 created sockpuppets to vote itself up?
Are the upvotes this account is receiving here done by actual lesswrong users (who, frankly, ought to be ashamed of themselves) or has Azathoth123 created sockpuppets to vote itself up?
I’ve suspected Azathoth123 of upvoting their own comments with sockpuppets since having this argument with them. (If I remember rightly, their comments’ scores would sit between −1 & +1 for a while, then abruptly jump up by 2-3 points at about the same time my comments got downvoted.)
Moreover, Azathoth123 is probably Eugine_Nier’s reincarnation. They’re similar in quite a few ways (political views, spelling errors, mannerisms) and Azathoth123 started posting prolifically roughly when Eugine_Nier got banned.
Well, firstly I’d like to say that I certainly don’t think we should ban homophobia (unless we ban all politics), and I also think that some of the things Azathoth123 says are intelligent and worthy of upvoting.
Having said that,
I’ve been downvoted for saying stupid things (by LW standards) and this is ok. But arguing with Azathoth123 is the only time I think I’ve been downvoted for saying things just because someone disagrees with the politics. Yesterday I posted two replies to him, neither was antagonistic or problematic in any way I can see, but still both have been downvoted. I have noticed this repeatedly.
What’s more, this isn’t going to help him spread his politics. People will stop being willing to talk to him (I’ve certainly grown tired of it), and it also reflects badly on other NRxers.
Futhermore, given that the large majority of LWers are socially liberal, I find it surprising that some of Azathoth123′s comments get so many upvotes. It doesn’t fit my model of the average LWer, even when filtered to assume that more consevatives are talking to him. I’d say maybe 70% confidence that he’s using sockpuppets based on that, rising based on what you and others have said.
Futhermore, given that the large majority of LWers are socially liberal, I find it surprising that some of Azathoth123′s comments get so many upvotes. It doesn’t fit my model of the average LWer, even when filtered to assume that more consevatives are talking to him.
In itself, heavy upvoting of Azathoth123′s comments doesn’t make me suspicious. Eugine_Nier often got lots of upvotes, and I don’t recall suspecting them of self-upvoting when they were posting under that name. (Though I have now started to wonder.) Other neoreactionary-leaning commenters like Konkvistador, Vladimir_M, Athrelon, and GlaDOS have solidly upvoted comments as well, and I’ve no reason to believe any of them have ever self-upvoted.
Other neoreactionary-leaning commenters like Konkvistador, Vladimir_M, Athrelon, and GlaDOS have solidly upvoted comments as well
I don’t think you can easily lump all of NRx under one banner. Criticism of democracy is fairly accepted on LW, and HBD (as an ‘is’ statement, not as a justification for discrimination) is seen as plausible. OTOH I don’t think there is much support for homo/transphobia here, and its certain comments on this subject which seemed to get an unreasonably large number of upvotes.
actual lesswrong users (who, frankly, ought to be ashamed of themselves)
Hi. I’m a kneejerk moderate who has found Aza’s comments a rare view into a world I do not know. I vote him/her up often, since I am benefited by this knowledge. I do not vote people up because I agree with them or, in this case, vice versa. I believe s/he is an asset to the site.
Care to explain exactly why I should be ashamed of myself?
I assign a very high probability (>90%) to Azathoth123 being Eugine_Nier. Given the latter’s history, I wouldn’t be surprised if Azathoth were involved in voting shenanigans. But I think it would be better if you take this to a mod (Viliam_Bur, I believe) for confirmation/action, rather than speculating in public.
ETA: Just realized that this comment is doing exactly what it was advising against. Slightly embarrassed that I didn’t notice while I was writing it.
I consider social policy proposal harmful and reject it as applied to myself or others. You may of course continue to refrain from speaking out against this kind of behaviour if you wish.
In the unlikely event that the net positive votes (at that time) given to Azathoth123 reflect the actual attitudes of the lesswrong community the ‘public’ should be made aware so they can choose whether to continue to associate with the site. At least one prominent user has recently disaffiliated himself (and deleted his account) for a far less harmful social political concern. On the other hand other people who embrace alternate lifestyles may be relieved to see that Azathoth’s prejudiced rabble rousing is unambiguously rejected here.
In the unlikely event that the net positive votes (at that time) given to Azathoth123 reflect the actual attitudes of the lesswrong community the ‘public’ should be made aware so they can choose whether to continue to associate with the site.
Yes, but wouldn’t this be more effective if you first confirmed/disconfirmed your hypothesis about the votes through a mod? In the absence of that information, how is a member of the public to know how to act? My objection was more about the speculative nature of the comment rather than the fact that you’re “speaking out”. I have nothing against speculation per se, but in cases where it can be fairly easily verified I prefer to see that happen instead.
This user seems to to spreading an agenda of ignorant bigotry against homosexuality and polyamory.
Do you have a counterargument to go with your insults. Also, while you’re on the subject could you define what you mean by “bigotry” and why it’s a bad thing. In my experience these days it usually means “he’s using a Bayesian prior based on a category I don’t like”.
Or is this simply the kind of comment you now need to occasionally make to keep the Australian thought police of your case? If so, I’d like you to know that I sympathize with your position and hope Australia desides to re-embrace free speech.
So are children raised in orphanages. Where do you think children adopted by gay couples come from?
And yes the two play different roles in bringing up children.
And yet empirically children raised by gay couples don’t end up much worse adjusted than those raised by straight couples, and more generally parenting seems to have very little effect on children when controlling for genetics and nonshared environment.
Why do studies that do find that it all comes down to genetics and nonshared environment not get the “evil racist” treatment?
As long as they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the potential racial implications. Otherwise, they do.
As for why studies showing the connection between race and things like IQ are now becoming “slightly more mainstream”, probably because people have been noticing these things for decades and it’s becoming increasingly obvious.
Most changes to working systems make things worse. Which means the burden of proof is on you to explain why the change you’re advocating doesn’t make things worse.
I’ll point out, again, that no one is making traditional child rearing arrangements unavailable, so it is not so much a change to “the” system as allowing other systems to operate.
That’s independent of the question of whether this the non-traditional arrangements are better or even workable.
Also, I’d be much more willing to tolerate them if there were schools I could send my children to where they weren’t encouraged to “find of if they’re gay” or “find out if they’re trans”.
Also if progressives are so in favor of “allowing other systems to operate”, why to they freak out whenever some hamlet in the Bible Belt decides to teach creationism?
In what sense? It’s real in the sense that there are people who engage in gay sex and people who claim to be “really” the opposite gender. There are also people who rape, people who believe in creationism and people who believe themselves to be “spiritually” some animal.
That doesn’t mean we should endorse their behaviors or take their claims at face value.
there are people who engage in gay sex and who claim to be “really” the opposite gender
People who sleep with their same sex do not necessarily identify as homosexuals, and definitely not all homosexuals identify as transgender. They are not the same phenomenon, they must not be confused, and the fact that you confuse them reveals a lot about your suitability to have this discussion.
There are also people who rape, people who believe in creationism and people who believe themselves to be “spiritually” some animal.
No valid argument exists to equal homosexuality per se with, respectively, violating others’ autonomy, being ridiculously misinformed, or having a psychiatric disorder.
People who sleep with their same sex do not necessarily identify as homosexuals, and definitely not all homosexuals identify as transgender.
Sorry if my wording wasn’t clear.
No valid argument exists to equal homosexuality per se with, (..) or having a psychiatric disorder.
I don’t see what argument you can possible make for why say transsexuality shouldn’t be considered a psychiatric disorder but being an “other kin” should. Today people who call transsexuality a psychiatric disorder are labeled “evil trasphobes”, the way progressivism is going in a couple decades people, like yourself, who call other-kinness a psychiatric disorder will be labeled “evil other-kinphobes”.
The problem with otherkin is that they deny their own humanity, which is in a completely different category than denying one’s femaleness. (However, if future surgical advances allow anyone who wants to get functional hooves and wings implanted, I say let them be happy.)
On the other hand, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSM, and the treatment is helping your body match your brain, not the other way around.
Neither Bryan Caplan’s post at the other end of that link, nor the Wired article he in turn links to, appears to me to be saying that the contents of the DSM are “massively influenced by politics”.
[EDITED to add:] For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that both make a lot of criticisms of the DSM. I just don’t see that “massively influenced by politics” is what they’re complaining about.
I don’t see what argument you can possible make for why say transsexuality shouldn’t be considered a psychiatric disorder but being an “other kin” should.
How about the fact that everything we know about ontogeny suggests that gender of a child of human parents should be more fluid than its species, since the determination and development of gender-typical physiology in utero is complex and multivocal? There are ontogenetic factors (insufficient uptake of testosterone, for instance) that might lead to a child with male-typical sexual organs but more female-typical neurological features. There aren’t any analogously complex species-determining processes involved in the development of a child.
There are ontogenetic factors (insufficient uptake of testosterone, for instance) that might lead to a child with male-typical sexual organs but more female-typical neurological features.
Why would this effect the neurological and only the neurological features? On the other hand the example of other-kin shows that it’s possible for a human brain to identify as something it isn’t.
Nothing prevents a straight man from having a night of experimentation, and he may or may not end up liking what he finds.
I couldn’t care less whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice. If it’s innate, the debate is over. If it’s a choice, you’re free. In both cases, nothing wrong has happened.
I couldn’t care less whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice. If it’s innate, the debate is over. If it’s a choice, you’re free. In both cases, nothing wrong has happened.
s/homosexuality/other-kinness in that paragraph. Do you still agree with it? If not, what’s the difference?
EDITED: It took me several minutes to guess what the s/ syntax probably meant.
Otherkin (or transgenderism, as discussed in previous posts) is an identity. It refers to who you are. Homosexuality is an orientation. It refers to whom you desire. They are different categories, but they can and do intersect (for example, if a person was born with lady parts, and only finds feminine people attractive, and identifies as male, that person is a transman, and not homosexual).
(Short version: No obligatory link ties a particular set of body parts with a particular set of personality traits.)
I cannot claim to know firsthand the experiences of a transgender person, but I will attempt to do it justice. What we call “gender identity” describes a subjective sense of alignment with a set of traits that our culture tends to associate with a biological sex. Every culture assigns its own sets of expected roles, rights, privileges, and allowed emotional range to people of each biological sex, and at its core individualism begins by questioning the validity of those expectations. Just like the shoemaker’s son should not have his life options limited to shoemaking, a child born with lady parts should not have to perform only a nurturing, submissive role. But gender identity covers more than socially approved roles; it involves the way you present yourself to society, the language you choose to use, the clothes you feel comfortable with, the type of personal ties you prefer to establish, the virtues you embody. No obligatory link exists between a particular set of body parts and a particular set of personality traits. We also need to remember that gender identity does not necessarily follow a binary pattern; as intersex people exemplify, not even biological sex does. Evolution may have given us a very specific procedure for reproduction, but it says nothing about the way we should structure our society, and you cannot try to derive cultural norms from it without falling into an is-ought fallacy.
That all makes good sense, but to me it leaves two issues unexplained. The first is that for all the fluidity and conventionality claimed for the things summarised as “gender identity”, it is still treated as a package deal even by transgender people: you perform either the standard male package or the standard female package, however those are defined by the culture around you, with no more variation from that standard than cis people show. The very names “trans” and “cis” embody the practice. Meanwhile, some cis women just get on with being assertive, and some cis men bring up children themselves.
The second is that many (most? I don’t know) transgender people seek hormones or surgery to modify their bodies so as to more closely resemble, at least outwardly, the biology of their desired sex. Apparently, they desire not merely to perform that gender role, but to have that sex. Something more than gender roles is going on. That is also indicated by self-reports of gender dysphoria, where the sufferer experiences acute discomfort with the physical sensations of their own body’s sex.
modify their bodies so as to more closely resemble, at least outwardly, the biology of their desired sex
Not all have the same motivations. It depends on what you want your body to do. Some trans people care that others will treat them according to the image they present: it may be difficult for others to think of you as the man you feel you are if you lack the conventional signals (beard, voice, flat chest, etc.). For other trans people, erotic possibilities are the deciding factor: your body parts determine which sex acts are possible for you. Still other trans people may find that it’s more an issue of overall self-image. And some trans people may simply not mind any of these factors and decide not to have any surgery at all.
For both issues, a more general reply is that acknowledging the variety of possibilities of human sexual experience involves acknowledging further variation at the individual level.
Trans people engage in more variation than that, actually.
I nearly said something about the concept of genderqueer in my previous message, which would have been to the effect that it’s an alternative to the trans route rather than something that includes it.
Not all have the same motivations.
And yet “gender dysphoria” (which is the wrong name if gender is a conventional construct) isn’t on your list, but from what I’ve read and heard seems to be the primary motivation for reassignment surgery.
The general point I’m making is that dissatisfaction with conventional, socially constructed ideas of gender cannot explain the whole transgender phenomenon.
Indeed, just like only in soap-operas can male homosexuality be explained by bad experiences with women. There is evidence that brain structural differences play a big role in the appearance of varied sexual behaviors.
Otherkin (or transgenderism, as discussed in previous posts) is an identity. It refers to who you are. Homosexuality is an orientation. It refers to whom you desire.
I covered that in my responses to RichardKennaway in this same thread. I can see you’re refusing to understand this issue. I’m done discussing with you.
When I went to school (not that long ago) there was no mention of homosexuality in school sex education by law, and there was homophobic bullying. Even the most liberal teacher said “if two pupils were in a gay relationship, we’d cross that bridge when we came to it”. Despite this, some of my school friends were gay, and plenty of people of my age are gay.
Do you have a link to back up this claim of schools teaching children to “find out if they’re trans”? There’s a difference between preaching tolerance and preaching advocacy.
If non traditional arrangements are unworkable then they die out,. Why be afraid of things you think are doomed to fail? Why oppose things that work?
Also, I’d be much more willing to tolerate them if there were schools I could send my children to where they weren’t encouraged to “find of if they’re gay” or “find out if they’re trans”.
Why? Because it’s all imprinting? Heterosexuality is right because it is an inherent default, yet, so un-inherent that the rumour of an alternative will convert people?
Also if progressives are so in favor of “allowing other systems to operate”, why to they freak out whenever some hamlet in the Bible Belt decides to teach creationism?
There’s a difference between teaching creationism and teaching only creationism.
If non traditional arrangements are unworkable then they die out,. Why be afraid of things you think are doomed to fail?
The question is what they’ll take out with them when they do fail.
Why? Because it’s all imprinting?
Not all imprinting but there’s certainly some of that.
Heterosexuality is right because it is an inherent default,
No, heterosexuality (and monogamy) is right because it is an effective system for raising children.
yet, so un-inherent that the rumour of an alternative will convert people?
It will convert some people and cause others to mess up their lives. Also what these “find out if you’re gay” programs are doing is much more than “a rumour of an alternative”.
Also note how you’ve shifted from “please allow these other systems to operate” to “let us expose all children to these other systems”.
There’s a difference between teaching creationism and teaching only creationism.
Well even the former causes progressives to totally freak out.
The question is what they’ll take out with them when they do fail.
Indeed. So provide some evidence they’ll take anything out.
No, heterosexuality (and monogamy) is right because it is an effective system for raising children.
There’s no logical connection between “X is effective at Y” and “X is mandatory on everybody”.
The existence of celibate priests , spinsters and other non breeders has not historically destroyed any societies.
It will convert some people and cause others to mess up their lives. Also what these “find out if you’re gay” > programs are doing is much more than “a rumour of an alternative”.
Evidence...evidence...and evidence?
(And notice how anomalous your claims are. In every other case, everybody, including conservatives, can understand the difference between teaching-about and teaching-to. Nobody thinks telling kids about Henry VIII will turn them into wife murderers)
Also note how you’ve shifted from “please allow these other systems to operate” to “let us expose all children to these other systems”.
And notice how anomalous your claims are. In every other case, everybody, including conservatives, can understand the difference between teaching-about and teaching-to.
Um actually we do, the issue is that progressives what to do the latter.
Nobody thinks telling kids about Henry VIII will turn them into wife murderers
Depends on how it’s taught. If the teachers emphasized Henry VIII’s behavior as a positive example, they would turn some kids into wife murderers.
Frankly even teaching about will some kids into wife murderers, but the number of such kids is so small that its not worth worrying about (compared with the positive effect of giving the kids a more accurate map of reality.)
And that’s evidence of what? That persuasion is possible? That persuasion is persuasive (special
.lu in marketing...)? That some extra bad kind of persuasion is happening in classrooms?
even the latter causes progressives to totally freak out.
I think you meant “even the former.”
That is, I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to traditional lifestyles and belief systems that we are not even willing to allow them even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
Am I mistaken?
(To be clear: I am not interested in debating the merits of teaching creationism, teaching only creationism, encouraging heterosexuality, encouraging non-heterosexuality, etc. But if I’ve misunderstood you and you actually meant what you said in that last sentence, I’m intrigued.)
That is, I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to traditional lifestyles and belief systems that we are not even willing to allow them even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I assume you meant to put “creationism” for “traditional lifestyles” in that sentence.
I didn’t, actually. But if the argument you’re making applies only to creationism and not to traditional lifestyles more generally, I’ll be interested to learn that as well.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to creationism that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating one-man-one-woman families as a particularly valuable sort of family unit that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating heterosexuality as intrinsically superior to homosexuality that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to assigning social roles based on gender that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
And so forth.
If I’m still unintelligible, I apologize for my lack of clarity and am happy to tap out here.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to creationism that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
This was the argument I was making in the relevant paragraph.
What are the internal dynamics you think are optimal for child-rearing?
I don’t know the details and I’m guessing neither does anyone else in this thread. However, stability is good, as well as being raised by people to whom Azathoth has given a desire to care about the child’s future, as opposed to who are conditioned to regard the child as a rival for their children.
as well as being raised by people to whom Azathoth has given a desire to care about the child’s future, as opposed to who are conditioned to regard the child as a rival for their children
That’d be an argument against all adoptions and orphanages, not just gay adoptions.
2) Gays aren’t monogamous. One obvious way to see this is to note how much gay culture is based around gay bathhouses. Another way is to image search pictures of gay pride parades.
I think the stereotype is that male gays are promiscuous while lesbians are the opposite. Given this, would you be in favour of letting lesbians adopt?
Is there any reason Strong Families are incompatible with alternative lifestyles? The modern conception of the nuclear family as the main unit is itself something barely 50-100 years of vintage. What’s the in practice difference between say, a polyamorous group raising children together in a stable situation and a large, extended family with various cousins and so on?
Or to make it even simpler, I see no strong reason to say “you shouldn’t be gay” when you could be saying “Hey gay guys, you should form a monogamous pairbond and raise children together for 18 years”.
Well, what’s the difference in practice between polyamorous relationships and family ties?
The fact that their internal dynamics are completely different.
Because:
1) The child is deprived of a mother (or father). And yes the two play different roles in bringing up children.
2) Gays aren’t monogamous. One obvious way to see this is to note how much gay culture is based around gay bathhouses. Another way is to image search pictures of gay pride parades.
This user seems to to spreading an agenda of ignorant bigotry against homosexuality and polyamory. It doesn’t even temper the hostile stereotyping with much pretense of just referring to trends in the evidence.
Are the upvotes this account is receiving here done by actual lesswrong users (who, frankly, ought to be ashamed of themselves) or has Azathoth123 created sockpuppets to vote itself up?
I’ve suspected Azathoth123 of upvoting their own comments with sockpuppets since having this argument with them. (If I remember rightly, their comments’ scores would sit between −1 & +1 for a while, then abruptly jump up by 2-3 points at about the same time my comments got downvoted.)
Moreover, Azathoth123 is probably Eugine_Nier’s reincarnation. They’re similar in quite a few ways (political views, spelling errors, mannerisms) and Azathoth123 started posting prolifically roughly when Eugine_Nier got banned.
Well, firstly I’d like to say that I certainly don’t think we should ban homophobia (unless we ban all politics), and I also think that some of the things Azathoth123 says are intelligent and worthy of upvoting.
Having said that,
I’ve been downvoted for saying stupid things (by LW standards) and this is ok. But arguing with Azathoth123 is the only time I think I’ve been downvoted for saying things just because someone disagrees with the politics. Yesterday I posted two replies to him, neither was antagonistic or problematic in any way I can see, but still both have been downvoted. I have noticed this repeatedly.
What’s more, this isn’t going to help him spread his politics. People will stop being willing to talk to him (I’ve certainly grown tired of it), and it also reflects badly on other NRxers.
Futhermore, given that the large majority of LWers are socially liberal, I find it surprising that some of Azathoth123′s comments get so many upvotes. It doesn’t fit my model of the average LWer, even when filtered to assume that more consevatives are talking to him. I’d say maybe 70% confidence that he’s using sockpuppets based on that, rising based on what you and others have said.
In itself, heavy upvoting of Azathoth123′s comments doesn’t make me suspicious. Eugine_Nier often got lots of upvotes, and I don’t recall suspecting them of self-upvoting when they were posting under that name. (Though I have now started to wonder.) Other neoreactionary-leaning commenters like Konkvistador, Vladimir_M, Athrelon, and GlaDOS have solidly upvoted comments as well, and I’ve no reason to believe any of them have ever self-upvoted.
(Your other observations mostly align with mine.)
I don’t think you can easily lump all of NRx under one banner. Criticism of democracy is fairly accepted on LW, and HBD (as an ‘is’ statement, not as a justification for discrimination) is seen as plausible. OTOH I don’t think there is much support for homo/transphobia here, and its certain comments on this subject which seemed to get an unreasonably large number of upvotes.
Hi. I’m a kneejerk moderate who has found Aza’s comments a rare view into a world I do not know. I vote him/her up often, since I am benefited by this knowledge. I do not vote people up because I agree with them or, in this case, vice versa. I believe s/he is an asset to the site.
Care to explain exactly why I should be ashamed of myself?
I assign a very high probability (>90%) to Azathoth123 being Eugine_Nier. Given the latter’s history, I wouldn’t be surprised if Azathoth were involved in voting shenanigans. But I think it would be better if you take this to a mod (Viliam_Bur, I believe) for confirmation/action, rather than speculating in public.
ETA: Just realized that this comment is doing exactly what it was advising against. Slightly embarrassed that I didn’t notice while I was writing it.
I consider social policy proposal harmful and reject it as applied to myself or others. You may of course continue to refrain from speaking out against this kind of behaviour if you wish.
In the unlikely event that the net positive votes (at that time) given to Azathoth123 reflect the actual attitudes of the lesswrong community the ‘public’ should be made aware so they can choose whether to continue to associate with the site. At least one prominent user has recently disaffiliated himself (and deleted his account) for a far less harmful social political concern. On the other hand other people who embrace alternate lifestyles may be relieved to see that Azathoth’s prejudiced rabble rousing is unambiguously rejected here.
Yes, but wouldn’t this be more effective if you first confirmed/disconfirmed your hypothesis about the votes through a mod? In the absence of that information, how is a member of the public to know how to act? My objection was more about the speculative nature of the comment rather than the fact that you’re “speaking out”. I have nothing against speculation per se, but in cases where it can be fairly easily verified I prefer to see that happen instead.
Do you have a counterargument to go with your insults. Also, while you’re on the subject could you define what you mean by “bigotry” and why it’s a bad thing. In my experience these days it usually means “he’s using a Bayesian prior based on a category I don’t like”.
Or is this simply the kind of comment you now need to occasionally make to keep the Australian thought police of your case? If so, I’d like you to know that I sympathize with your position and hope Australia desides to re-embrace free speech.
So are children raised in orphanages. Where do you think children adopted by gay couples come from?
And yet empirically children raised by gay couples don’t end up much worse adjusted than those raised by straight couples, and more generally parenting seems to have very little effect on children when controlling for genetics and nonshared environment.
Or rather anyone who publishes a study saying otherwise gets the “evil homophobe” treatment to encourage others to self-censor.
Why do studies that do find that it all comes down to genetics and nonshared environment not get the “evil racist” treatment?
As long as they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the potential racial implications. Otherwise, they do.
As for why studies showing the connection between race and things like IQ are now becoming “slightly more mainstream”, probably because people have been noticing these things for decades and it’s becoming increasingly obvious.
Different doesn’t mean worse.
Most changes to working systems make things worse. Which means the burden of proof is on you to explain why the change you’re advocating doesn’t make things worse.
I’ll point out, again, that no one is making traditional child rearing arrangements unavailable, so it is not so much a change to “the” system as allowing other systems to operate.
That’s independent of the question of whether this the non-traditional arrangements are better or even workable.
Also, I’d be much more willing to tolerate them if there were schools I could send my children to where they weren’t encouraged to “find of if they’re gay” or “find out if they’re trans”.
Also if progressives are so in favor of “allowing other systems to operate”, why to they freak out whenever some hamlet in the Bible Belt decides to teach creationism?
Sexual diversity is real; creation science is not. Schools must teach what is true.
In what sense? It’s real in the sense that there are people who engage in gay sex and people who claim to be “really” the opposite gender. There are also people who rape, people who believe in creationism and people who believe themselves to be “spiritually” some animal.
That doesn’t mean we should endorse their behaviors or take their claims at face value.
People who sleep with their same sex do not necessarily identify as homosexuals, and definitely not all homosexuals identify as transgender. They are not the same phenomenon, they must not be confused, and the fact that you confuse them reveals a lot about your suitability to have this discussion.
No valid argument exists to equal homosexuality per se with, respectively, violating others’ autonomy, being ridiculously misinformed, or having a psychiatric disorder.
Sorry if my wording wasn’t clear.
I don’t see what argument you can possible make for why say transsexuality shouldn’t be considered a psychiatric disorder but being an “other kin” should. Today people who call transsexuality a psychiatric disorder are labeled “evil trasphobes”, the way progressivism is going in a couple decades people, like yourself, who call other-kinness a psychiatric disorder will be labeled “evil other-kinphobes”.
Again, you are confusing homosexuality and transgenderism.
Same-sex attraction is not classified as a mental disorder and does not require any medical intervention.
On the other hand, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSM, and the treatment is helping your body match your brain, not the other way around. “There is also evidence that transsexuals have parts of their brain structure that is typical of the opposite birth-assigned gender.” That’s why in another comment I said it’s firmware: your gender identity cannot be ‘repaired’ because it’s wired in your brain, and that’s why the treatment is modifying your netherparts instead.
The problem with otherkin is that they deny their own humanity, which is in a completely different category than denying one’s femaleness. (However, if future surgical advances allow anyone who wants to get functional hooves and wings implanted, I say let them be happy.)
Um, you do realize the DSM’s contents is massively influenced by politics?
It’s also listed in the WHO’s ICD, if you prefer that source.
I’m not as familiar with WHO’s ICD; however, I’d expect the process that produces its contents to be similar to the one for the DSM.
Neither Bryan Caplan’s post at the other end of that link, nor the Wired article he in turn links to, appears to me to be saying that the contents of the DSM are “massively influenced by politics”.
[EDITED to add:] For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that both make a lot of criticisms of the DSM. I just don’t see that “massively influenced by politics” is what they’re complaining about.
How about the fact that everything we know about ontogeny suggests that gender of a child of human parents should be more fluid than its species, since the determination and development of gender-typical physiology in utero is complex and multivocal? There are ontogenetic factors (insufficient uptake of testosterone, for instance) that might lead to a child with male-typical sexual organs but more female-typical neurological features. There aren’t any analogously complex species-determining processes involved in the development of a child.
Why would this effect the neurological and only the neurological features? On the other hand the example of other-kin shows that it’s possible for a human brain to identify as something it isn’t.
Just noticed this clause. Then which of the two is the thing that is supposedly 100% innate?
Nothing prevents a straight man from having a night of experimentation, and he may or may not end up liking what he finds.
I couldn’t care less whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice. If it’s innate, the debate is over. If it’s a choice, you’re free. In both cases, nothing wrong has happened.
s/homosexuality/other-kinness in that paragraph. Do you still agree with it? If not, what’s the difference?
EDITED: It took me several minutes to guess what the s/ syntax probably meant.
Otherkin (or transgenderism, as discussed in previous posts) is an identity. It refers to who you are. Homosexuality is an orientation. It refers to whom you desire. They are different categories, but they can and do intersect (for example, if a person was born with lady parts, and only finds feminine people attractive, and identifies as male, that person is a transman, and not homosexual).
Can you taboo those italicised phrases? Or to put that differently, write it in E-Prime?
(Short version: No obligatory link ties a particular set of body parts with a particular set of personality traits.)
I cannot claim to know firsthand the experiences of a transgender person, but I will attempt to do it justice. What we call “gender identity” describes a subjective sense of alignment with a set of traits that our culture tends to associate with a biological sex. Every culture assigns its own sets of expected roles, rights, privileges, and allowed emotional range to people of each biological sex, and at its core individualism begins by questioning the validity of those expectations. Just like the shoemaker’s son should not have his life options limited to shoemaking, a child born with lady parts should not have to perform only a nurturing, submissive role. But gender identity covers more than socially approved roles; it involves the way you present yourself to society, the language you choose to use, the clothes you feel comfortable with, the type of personal ties you prefer to establish, the virtues you embody. No obligatory link exists between a particular set of body parts and a particular set of personality traits. We also need to remember that gender identity does not necessarily follow a binary pattern; as intersex people exemplify, not even biological sex does. Evolution may have given us a very specific procedure for reproduction, but it says nothing about the way we should structure our society, and you cannot try to derive cultural norms from it without falling into an is-ought fallacy.
That all makes good sense, but to me it leaves two issues unexplained. The first is that for all the fluidity and conventionality claimed for the things summarised as “gender identity”, it is still treated as a package deal even by transgender people: you perform either the standard male package or the standard female package, however those are defined by the culture around you, with no more variation from that standard than cis people show. The very names “trans” and “cis” embody the practice. Meanwhile, some cis women just get on with being assertive, and some cis men bring up children themselves.
The second is that many (most? I don’t know) transgender people seek hormones or surgery to modify their bodies so as to more closely resemble, at least outwardly, the biology of their desired sex. Apparently, they desire not merely to perform that gender role, but to have that sex. Something more than gender roles is going on. That is also indicated by self-reports of gender dysphoria, where the sufferer experiences acute discomfort with the physical sensations of their own body’s sex.
Trans people engage in more variation than that, actually.
Not all have the same motivations. It depends on what you want your body to do. Some trans people care that others will treat them according to the image they present: it may be difficult for others to think of you as the man you feel you are if you lack the conventional signals (beard, voice, flat chest, etc.). For other trans people, erotic possibilities are the deciding factor: your body parts determine which sex acts are possible for you. Still other trans people may find that it’s more an issue of overall self-image. And some trans people may simply not mind any of these factors and decide not to have any surgery at all.
For both issues, a more general reply is that acknowledging the variety of possibilities of human sexual experience involves acknowledging further variation at the individual level.
I nearly said something about the concept of genderqueer in my previous message, which would have been to the effect that it’s an alternative to the trans route rather than something that includes it.
And yet “gender dysphoria” (which is the wrong name if gender is a conventional construct) isn’t on your list, but from what I’ve read and heard seems to be the primary motivation for reassignment surgery.
The general point I’m making is that dissatisfaction with conventional, socially constructed ideas of gender cannot explain the whole transgender phenomenon.
Indeed, just like only in soap-operas can male homosexuality be explained by bad experiences with women. There is evidence that brain structural differences play a big role in the appearance of varied sexual behaviors.
And this distinction is relevant because?
I covered that in my responses to RichardKennaway in this same thread. I can see you’re refusing to understand this issue. I’m done discussing with you.
When I went to school (not that long ago) there was no mention of homosexuality in school sex education by law, and there was homophobic bullying. Even the most liberal teacher said “if two pupils were in a gay relationship, we’d cross that bridge when we came to it”. Despite this, some of my school friends were gay, and plenty of people of my age are gay.
Do you have a link to back up this claim of schools teaching children to “find out if they’re trans”? There’s a difference between preaching tolerance and preaching advocacy.
Depends on where I went to school in a liberal state and what I describe was definitely going on.
Do you mean that at your school people were teaching children to “find out if they’re trans”? If so, then please do describe what was going on.
If non traditional arrangements are unworkable then they die out,. Why be afraid of things you think are doomed to fail? Why oppose things that work?
Why? Because it’s all imprinting? Heterosexuality is right because it is an inherent default, yet, so un-inherent that the rumour of an alternative will convert people?
There’s a difference between teaching creationism and teaching only creationism.
The question is what they’ll take out with them when they do fail.
Not all imprinting but there’s certainly some of that.
No, heterosexuality (and monogamy) is right because it is an effective system for raising children.
It will convert some people and cause others to mess up their lives. Also what these “find out if you’re gay” programs are doing is much more than “a rumour of an alternative”.
Also note how you’ve shifted from “please allow these other systems to operate” to “let us expose all children to these other systems”.
Well even the former causes progressives to totally freak out.
[Edit: fixed, thanks OtherDavid].
Indeed. So provide some evidence they’ll take anything out.
There’s no logical connection between “X is effective at Y” and “X is mandatory on everybody”.
The existence of celibate priests , spinsters and other non breeders has not historically destroyed any societies.
Evidence...evidence...and evidence?
(And notice how anomalous your claims are. In every other case, everybody, including conservatives, can understand the difference between teaching-about and teaching-to. Nobody thinks telling kids about Henry VIII will turn them into wife murderers)
Nothing has changed.
Um actually we do, the issue is that progressives what to do the latter.
Depends on how it’s taught. If the teachers emphasized Henry VIII’s behavior as a positive example, they would turn some kids into wife murderers.
Frankly even teaching about will some kids into wife murderers, but the number of such kids is so small that its not worth worrying about (compared with the positive effect of giving the kids a more accurate map of reality.)
Evidence?
Evidence?
Start here.
And that’s evidence of what? That persuasion is possible? That persuasion is persuasive (special .lu in marketing...)? That some extra bad kind of persuasion is happening in classrooms?
I think you meant “even the former.”
That is, I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to traditional lifestyles and belief systems that we are not even willing to allow them even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
Am I mistaken?
(To be clear: I am not interested in debating the merits of teaching creationism, teaching only creationism, encouraging heterosexuality, encouraging non-heterosexuality, etc. But if I’ve misunderstood you and you actually meant what you said in that last sentence, I’m intrigued.)
Yes, sorry typo fixed.
I assume you meant to put “creationism” for “traditional lifestyles” in that sentence.
I didn’t, actually. But if the argument you’re making applies only to creationism and not to traditional lifestyles more generally, I’ll be interested to learn that as well.
In that I case have no idea what you’re talking about in the grandparent.
Some examples:
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to creationism that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating one-man-one-woman families as a particularly valuable sort of family unit that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating heterosexuality as intrinsically superior to homosexuality that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you’re making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to assigning social roles based on gender that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
And so forth.
If I’m still unintelligible, I apologize for my lack of clarity and am happy to tap out here.
This was the argument I was making in the relevant paragraph.
Understood.
bathhouses and pride parades are a shitty example, but I’ll admit that gay guys don’t seem to be monogamous after I looked around for studies.
What are the internal dynamics you think are optimal for child-rearing?
I don’t know the details and I’m guessing neither does anyone else in this thread. However, stability is good, as well as being raised by people to whom Azathoth has given a desire to care about the child’s future, as opposed to who are conditioned to regard the child as a rival for their children.
That’d be an argument against all adoptions and orphanages, not just gay adoptions.
The argument is weaker since ordinary adoptions are better at providing stability.
I think the stereotype is that male gays are promiscuous while lesbians are the opposite. Given this, would you be in favour of letting lesbians adopt?
You seriously don’t know what you’re talking about.