This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Explaining My (Blogger) Tortured Metamorphis on Same Sex

 Ever since the same-sex Supreme Court decision, the discussion has been hot and heavy on this blog. Some of you registered your chagrin when I saw the conflict as a civil rights issue. For any interested, I would like to take you through the torturous metamorphosis this issue has put me through. Again, mostly I give reader Happily Married, a lot of credit for
asking all the right questions.

To begin, I have lived through a lot of the history of my field of psychology. (My psychoanalyst was psychoanalyzed by one of Sigmund Freud’s closest colleagues.) At first, treatments were primitive, but in the mid-sixties, drugs began to raise hopes.

Drug treatment led to the realization we were dealing with something organic–an actual organic disorder of the brain.

That realization led us to the next stage. If the disorder is organic, what right do we have stigmatizing brain disordered people or locking them in prison-like psychiatric wards? That realization led me to become an advocate for those with brain disorders. I served and sometimes headed local, state and national advocate organizations. These groups are credited in bringing about major changes in the treatment system as well as reducing the stigma which was causing so much damage.

Anyway, it was then easy to make another step to those people who are attracted to their same sex. It is not difficult for me to believe that somewhere along the line from conception on, some epigenetic events changed the software in their brain. With my history, it was easy for me to ask myself what I was doing in the group that stigmatizes someone with an organic difference? Now, I am uncoupling myself.

Now as to the next problem. What about the Bible? That problem was easy for me to solve. If you are regular readers, you know that I keep saying Bible believers should never have gotten in the moralizing business in the first place. The Bible is the revelation of God’s dealing with the banished elohims. The Old Testament is about trying to keep one chosen tribe out of the hands of the fallen elohims. The New Testament is about rescuing people from the elohims. Moralists make the Bible impossible to understand. I have already disconnected myself from the moralists.

The next question then is why did I write so much about the Kentucky Clerk? Well, here again HM helped by pointing out that Christianity is no longer the accepted social contract that holds our culture together. Mrs. Davis is among those who don’t understand this. So they will be setting themselves up for persecution by the self-righteous who see themselves as victims and its payback time.

Persecution against Christians and Jews is always frightening because it has behind it a supernatural malevolency. There is Jesus’ warning "the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God."

So Christians like Mrs. Davis who don’t know what has happened, will set themselves up for persecution. HM even said they will deserve it. So Christians will need to try to protect one another, even when we wish others would recognize the times and lower their profiles.


Sarkazein said...

The test is weather a society should adjust its laws to accommodate groups of people with varying brain disorders. We all have some form of brain disorder, I am sure. Some of those disorders are dangerous and some can be ignored.
If you are born a male in all ways, yet you are compelled to put on make up, a dress, and false breasts when you go out, you have a brain disorder. This affects society very little. THEN, the mayor of Houston wants to give the cross-dresser the "civil right" to use the women's locker room and showers. Now there is a problem. I don't see that as only a morals problem. I see that as government telling you you must be OK with this and you must comply because you are wrong-headed in believing locker rooms should be separated.
It is the same with homosexuality. If you are born a male with all the apparent sex apparatus to create off-spring, yet you have a sexual attraction to others of the same sex, you have a brain disorder. Is that brain disorder to be accommodated by society even to the length of changing definitions of words? Typically laws are for people. Not special groups of people.
We all have relatives, perhaps, friends, business associates who are gay. Live and let live. There is nothing one can do about it. The problem exists when one is forced by law to accept Orwell's 2+2=5... it doesn't. Are our laws to be based in brain disorders?

Sarkazein said...

Then there is political correctness. Is one even allowed to express their theory/belief without being sued, fired or even jailed? Perhaps I am one of the few who does not see the gay "marriage" thing as a morals issue, but I understand those who do because of the reason for all the apparatus and Who created it.

Dickson said...

Sarkazein.. I see you haven't changed much since we last chatted. Homosexuality is not a brain disorder and it's not the result of some epigenetic event. There has never been an environmental factor that is known to flip a switch and lead someone to a homosexual attraction where they would have otherwise been attracted to the opposite sex. In fact, most all, if not all of the evidence points strongly to genetic factors and genetic factors alone. There are many, many animals that engage in homosexual sex. Around 1000 different species as well as I remember. This is not to say that these animals mate for life with same-sex partners or any partner. Out of millions upon millions of animals on earth only 11 or so species mate for life, humans being one of those species. But, while they don't mate for life, research has shown that about 10% of rams refuse to mate with ewes but will mate with other rams. If anyone wants to make an argument that some epigenetic event or brain disorder is causing 10% of rams, on a consistent basis over time, to prefer other rams, be my guest. I'll anxiously await that data and your diagnostic criteria for ram mental illness. Long story short, homosexuality cannot be a "brain disorder" or what I would call a diagnosable condition. The reason for this is fairly simple... to make ANY diagnosis, the symptoms must, "cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning". Save for the internal conflicts of realizing you're gay in a society that so often condemns homosexuality and the struggle to "come out" and be oneself in that same society, gay people most certainly do not meet this criteria.

But I have to say I find your logic on this topic really interesting. You said, "If you are born a male with all the apparent sex apparatus to create off-spring, yet you have a sexual attraction to others of the same sex, you have a brain disorder". I find this interesting because you presuppose that the particular set of genitalia you're born with determines to whom you're attracted. While I'll admit that my attraction to my wife is, in part, of a sexual nature, I certainly don't think that my penis decided she was sexually attractive. When I was younger, my penis didn't sneak off and look at dirty magazines by himself either. Nothing of an epigenetic nature happened to him which in turn made me attracted to women. To whom we happen to be attracted has exactly not jack squat to do with what equipment we have.

Lastly, while it would appear that the Bible and thus God is opposed to homosexuality, any idea that you or anyone else can dictate to another what they must believe, what they can and cannot do, and who they can and cannot love based on your singular belief is the very definition of totalitarianism. It is the antithesis of the individualism, freedom, and liberty you so often laud as ideal values for our Nation. I applaud your defense and praise of these ideals, but if you're really saying that these ideals are only meant for some and not others, then you're clearly showing that any belief you might have in these sentiments is, in reality, false. Freedom and liberty for some is totalitarian idea... and as such, it's about as far away as you can get from support for individualism. Individualism, of course, requires that people are not forced or shamed into being part of a flock to which they do not believe they belong. That, my friend, is something else you hate, collectivism... or more specifically, forced collectivism.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson- I nerve used the term "mental illness". I also never wrote that the penis decides who you are attracted to. I never wrote anything about what the Bible says.
You are having a conversation amongst yourselves.

Blogger said...

Good job Dickson. But you failed to say that epigetic causes are being considered.

Your response makes my post sound like it is off the wall. It isn’t. However, the context of my thread is personal. I was explaining how my personal history of advocating for people who had their physiology, especially the brain, rewired by epigenetic factors, made me have to rethink my position on many types of stigmatized behavior. PS I am not Sark.

Dickson said...

Blogger: I did try to address epigenetics in my response, though I may have been less articulate than I could have been. So what we're talking about then (forgive me, it's been a long time since bio-psych) are environmental factors such as lifestyle and surroundings as well as age and other DNA exogenous factors influencing gene expression in interaction with either an existing genetic predisposition or the lack thereof. So my point to this was that, to my knowledge, Epigenetic factors may "attach" to DNA but do not change it. Environmental factors cause phenotypic changes which indirectly cause changes in gene expression and when combined with an inherited predisposition to familial homosexuality are more likely to result in someone being homosexual. OK... so if I'm understanding this correctly, when we drill this down to its most parsimonious elements, the hypothesis is really not something we haven't heard before. In essence this is a disease model, albeit a genetic disease model. There MUST be something, some external events or pathogens which cause homosexuality. The method of action seems less important than that idea. Its an old idea, "something caused him to be gay". Parenting style, attachment problems, bodily disease states, etc have all been proposed in the past with no scientific consensus in the affirmative resulting. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, how in the world would you ever be able to test this theory while controlling for all the potential variables? How would you even know what those variables might be? If I'm understanding all this, doesn't the broad scope of the theory literally mean that almost anything in one's environment could cause these changes?

Why does it seem so hard for people to believe that homosexuality is most likely a genotype and seemingly very easy for people to believe that psychopathy is a genotype... or, as some have suggested, is psychopathy a genotypic aberration that has somehow failed to be culled from the gene pool? It seems like this theory must first look at homosexuality in a similar way, as an aberration in the genotype, to move to the next position... external factors influencing gene expression are, at least in part, responsible for homosexuality.

Oh, and I guess I was replying to both you and Sark in my last response.

For Sarkazein: I assumed that when you said, "brain disorder" that was analogous to a mental illness. If that was wrong then I have absolutely no idea what "brain disorder" means. As for the penis deciding to whom we're attracted, you stated essentially that if you're born a biological man (thus having male genitalia) and you're attracted to other men, that this is evidence of a "brain disorder". My point was that whether you're a biological man and have a penis or a biological woman and have a vagina, these facts do not determine to whom you're attracted. Physical, romantic, and spiritual attraction to another person happens without regard to our physiology, it happens on a cerebral level. Our anatomy doesn't become involved except as an extension of that. You're right that you didn't mention the Bible. My apologies for that... I've been having too many debates with evangelicals and erroneously made the assumption that it was coming.

Dickson said...

oops... please strike the partial sentence, "So my point to this was that, to my knowledge,". I made a revision and only deleted part of that sentence apparently.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson- I did write that this is "belief/theory". Am I not allowed one?

If your actions are signals from the brain, and your brain is telling you you are a woman when you are actually a man... then what? Supernatural? The question might be "what causes those signals to be crossed". Genetics or something else. Or perhaps man is nothing more than the lowly animals in the "1,000 species" like you mentioned.

My first comment was more about how society and the law accommodate these "brain disorders" (my term) as it relates to Blogger's post. That being the Supreme Court ruling and the aftermath.

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: If it's your belief that homosexuality, being transgendered, and so on are "brain disorders" then you'd be making the best case possible for marriage equality. In fact, all of this would have been settled long ago under the Americans with Disabilities Act if homosexuality was a "brain disorder". As with anyone with a disability who is denied equal treatment under the law, if being gay were labeled as such we would have seen lawsuit after lawsuit against those who would deny equal rights to those with this "disability". You are certainly entitled to have a belief/theory and to express these views in whatever way you see fit. But it seems to me that you're overlooking some incredibly important information available to you in the construction of this belief. Namely that people with vastly more expertise and education in this subject matter than you and I do not consider homosexuality to be a diagnosable condition. Scientists, medical experts, psychiatry, and other such fields within academia do not consider homosexuality to be abnormal behavior. Vast amounts of research has been done which support the non-pathological nature of homosexuality. As with many things, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Neither I or science can currently tell you exactly why and how someone born a biological man, for example, feels and believes that they are instead a woman. All I can say is that attraction to others and self-concept are not inextricably linked to biology.

No one can definitively tell you what causes someone to be left-handed. Does this mean that being left-handed is abnormal and the product of a "brain disorder"? Ironically, if you happened to live in medieval Europe, being left-handed was thought to mean that you were the devil or a witch. Left-handed people were excommunicated, ostracized, killed, and tortured in those days. Why? Religious ideology. The same religious ideology that today scorns and attempts to deny equal rights to gay people. If Kim Davis lived in medieval Europe, she'd be screaming at some left-handed person, "He's a witch, he's a witch!" and many if not all the townsfolk would be gathered around her in support. Bottom line, if you believe in individualism, then you should allow people to be themselves, provided their behavior does not cause direct harm to others. (metaphysical or ideological differences in opinion or belief do not constitute harm incidentally)

So why shouldn't society accommodate every subsection of the population to the best of its ability? Again, to say that some groups of people in society should be accommodated and others should not is totalitarian in its logic.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson you wrote- "'d be making the best case possible for marriage equality."

Hence the question, how far does society have to go?

If we are like the other 1,000 species of lower animals, do you greet a stranger with a sniff and then hump their leg?
Or like Houston, should a law be passed that allows people to use whatever gender bathroom or locker room their brain is telling them they are, even though they are not, so as not to discriminate?

I was at a coffee shop in the middle of the mall last Saturday. A "woman" with a 5 o'clock shadow (at 12 noon) and an Adam's apple was in line for coffee. No one publicly chastised him or pulled off his wig or poked his falsies. BUT most people noticed and had facial expressions or pointed him out to more fortunate people who had not spotted him. His actions were "abnormal" no matter what some agenda study says, or no one would have noticed. Should he, by law, be allowed to walk into the restroom of his choice in order to "accommodate every subsection of the population"?

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: First, sure I greet everyone with a sniff of their ass and try to hump their leg. What a ridiculous question. Here's the problem... and this is a problem across the board for many conservatives with regard to a multitude of issues. You've invented or co-opted the term, "brain disorder". This term has apparently been defined by you as well and I assume must be part of some larger theoretical framework you've developed in your head. This personal framework for understanding transgenderism or homosexuality may even include what you consider to be "evidence" that supports your theory. But in reality, it's most likely that you seek out only those sources that support your personal theory and dismiss sources that may disagree. Additionally, it seems that when you encounter conflicting evidence or scientific research, you label these as being the work of some "agenda" driven effort. For many conservatives, it appears that if these sources are in agreement with conservative thinking, the possibility of these being agenda driven is rarely, if ever, mentioned. These sources are never, that I have seen, dismissed by conservatives due to bias for being driven by the conservative agenda.

The best, most omnipresent example of this is climate change. Evolution would also be another example. So here's the fundamental problem: When you say something like, "His actions were "abnormal" no matter what some agenda study says...", then it's readily apparent that you're making a choice to adhere to your belief-based, self-derived hypothesis, and reject evidence, science, research, and expert opinion that may contradict your personal theory.

Personally, I don't presume that I know more than people with vastly more expertise than I in any given subject area. Socrates said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing". If we assume that we know and understand anything to the exclusion of other opinions, other evidence, and other schools of thought, the chance that we're wrong about that issue is infinitely likely. But, by considering other opinions, schools of thought, conflicting scientific evidence, and so on, we can reduce the likelihood that we're wrong proportionally.

In this case, you're using a term, "brain disorder", that you haven't even defined and that has no specific meaning in any academic field of which I'm aware. Are you talking about a mental illness? An organic brain dysfunction arising from genetic factors? A neurological pathogen? Chemical imbalances in the brain? Neurological changes due to a general medical condition? The behavioral and/or emotional effects of a traumatic brain injury? Epigenetic factors influencing gene expression as Blogger suggested?

When you say that you believe things are a certain way, but produce no evidence to support your position, what you're really talking about is faith. Faith, by definition, is believing in something without evidence. Once again, enacting legislation or denying people equality and human dignity based on beliefs is a tenet of totalitarianism. If you're advocating that we should deny any subsection of the American populous accommodations or equal treatment, the you'll need to have real evidence, driven by real experts in the appropriate fields of study who have made or can make the argument that these people should be denied these rights or accommodations.

Sarkazein said...

In your entire comment, Dickson, you never answered whether or not a law should be passed (like in Houston) to allow a person to use the restroom/locker room depending on the gender they think they are, when they are not.
It is you who made the comment about the animal species. Do you bite someone when you are are startled by them or when they enter your territory? Why the species comment if only the agenda you propose should be justified by animal behavior?
Why does your intellectual curiosity stop at the point the "experts" say it should stop?
Again, if you are a man and your brain is telling you you must act as a woman or if you are a man and your brain is telling you you should mate with a man, then your brain is signaling you to act abnormally. Perhaps you think it is something else... fine. The question is- what is causing your brain to signal you to act abnormally?
Should it not be debated unless the "experts" approve?

Dckson said...

Sarkazein: I thought the last paragraph made it obvious that, yes, accommodations should be made for transgendered people to use the bathroom that coincides with their self-concept.

Animal behavior includes human behavior... unless you believe that, despite sharing all the attributes of other animals, especially mammals, we're somehow something different on a biological level. There's a reason pig heart valves can be used to replace human mitral valves. There's a reason that monkeys are (unfortunately) used for testing products and medicines to be used for human beings.

I made the species comment initially to illustrate that homosexuality is not confined to human beings and can, in fact, be found in roughly 1000+ animal species on earth.

Intellectual curiosity should NOT stop at anytime, and in fact it does not stop. Intellectual debate is essential to good science. Researchers work to disprove or support the work of their peers on a continual basis. Science is always looking for ways to disprove its theories... in the same way it seeks to prove them. But intellectual curiosity, as it is typically understood, means that you approach any given subject matter objectively... removing opinions and beliefs as much as possible and examine the existing research and evidence that currently exists.

A theory is basically an idea (a belief) about why something is the way it is or functions the way it does. What separates theory from scientific fact is research and data. So I'd never encourage anyone to stop seeking answers. I would encourage people to look at all available scientific research available and perhaps to do their own research rather than to think of something and then assume that this idea is true.

The erroneous assumption you keep making is that transgenderism and homosexuality are abnormal. The other assumption you're making is that our biological gender somehow automatically has an attraction to the opposite sex hard-wired into it... and that because of this, someone who is a biological man and attracted to men must therefore have a critical flaw in their self-concept that drives their attraction and their behavior. There is exactly zero evidence that either of these assumptions is true.

Let me ask you this, when someone is born a hermaphrodite, having both male and female functional genitalia, to whom should they be attracted? Clearly this attraction won't be based on a particular set of sex organs since they have both. Is this person a man or a woman? Well... technically they're both. So, from where then does this attraction come? Are all people born with both male and female genitalia just automatically bisexual? Of course not. Just as with everyone, to whom they are attracted and their identification and acceptance of their sexual identity is not dependent on their gender.

We could make the argument that most people tend to be attracted to other people who are fit and healthy. Yet, many, many people are attracted to other people who are significantly obese. Is this a "brain disorder"? We could argue that most people are primarily attracted to people of their own race. Yet many, many people find themselves predominantly attracted to people of other races. Is this a "brain disorder"? Attraction happens on a cognitive/sensory level and is influenced by genetics. We could certainly debate whether epigenetic factors play a role as Blogger did. But there is not, to my knowledge, any research that says that an LGBT orientation is an aberration in the human genotype or that it is the result of some neurological pathogen. There have been LGBT people for the entire recorded history of human kind.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson- Is "born a hermaphrodite" abnormal? What does your research and data tell you? Is the data and research showing .033% considered normal by you. How low of odds does the data have to be before you say, "Abnormal"? 0%?
I say politics control your conclusions much more than your "data and research". If you want the answer to your question, ask one who they are attracted to. Maybe both, maybe neither, maybe themselves... What is the politically correct answer?

You might not be mature enough to have lived in the early Seventies. Then, global cooling was the "data and the research" of the day. We were all going to freeze to death in the dark was the talking point of the day. That didn't happen, so the "research and data" told us there is global warming, and we are causing it. That didn't work so the "experts" told us we are causing climate change (climate change has existed as far back as can be studied, hence The Great Lakes). The same type of scientist of the day told Martha Washington the way to cure her husband's strep throat was to drain some blood out of him. When it didn't work they said they need to drain some more out of him. He died. But, they were smarter than earlier "experts" that said Earth is flat.

If you really think that people whose brain is telling them they are a woman when they are actually a man should be allowed to use the women's facilities, I invite you to watch the handicap parking places for an hour at a busy store.

Anonymous said...

Curious - liberals like Dickson believe "accommodations" should be made for transgenders, etc, allowing them to "use the bathroom that coincides with their self-concept." What about the rights of the other people who will also be in that restroom? If a biological male wants to use the female restroom, do the women in that restroom not have rights? What if they are uncomfortable with a man who claims to "self-identify" as a female entering their restroom. Why not just create a unisex restroom in addition to gender specific? The world is upside down! Everyone else shouldn't be forced to give up their rights to "accommodate" such a small group -- especially since the same people arguing for "accommodations" are loathe to extend them to religious persons in the workplace...

Anonymous said...

Let me put this a bit more strongly -- if my pre-teen daughter finds her privacy interrupted by a "man who self-identifies as a woman" in a public restroom, someone's going to get their a$$ beat.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 6:37 PM- The Houston law would extend to the "Q" (questioning) part of LGBTQ (sp).

To enforce this, the law would have to know the mind-set of the intruder. They might as well add a "C" to the LGBTQC (SP) for "curious". Then add "AB" (A$$ beaten) to LGBTQCAB

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: What you and anonymous have so clearly demonstrated is that you don't really have enough information and have not availed yourselves of the available scientific literature that is available in LGBT research. It's likely you won't do that either. It's much easier to have an opinion, stand behind that opinion to the exclusion of other opinions, and avoid at all costs the available information that may contradict your opinion. When confronted by contradictory research or evidence, denounce this as part of a "liberal agenda" and dismiss it outright. Search the web only for articles or blog posts that support your opinion without regard to who the author may be, what qualifications they may have, or if they even have scientific research supporting their positions.

I just read an article about Ted Cruz naming a Nevada Assemblywoman to his Nevada leadership team. This woman, Michele Fiore, once said that cancer was merely a fungus that could be cured with saltwater and baking soda. While this is an extreme example, it illustrates my point well. Clearly, this woman knows not jack squat about science or medicine... in fact, she doesn't even seem to possess the common sense to determine that if people are still dying from cancer, clearly saltwater and baking soda don't work as a cure. If she had taken 20 minutes to explore this idea by looking at current cancer research and current medical knowledge, and been open to consider that it's possible she's wrong, perhaps she would have never made such an incredibly stupid comment.

With your examples of bloodletting as a cure for strep throat and the belief that the world was flat, you fail to see that modern day Conservatives are the people supporting and rallying behind adherence to similar modern day ideas. People believed the world to be flat because of the Bible. The Bible makes reference to the "four corners of the earth" and the "end of the earth" repeatedly. As for bloodletting, while this practice certainly does not have the wide ranging application it was thought to have in Washington's time, believe it or not it is actually still used to this day for the treatment of some rare conditions. So you can't dismiss it outright as having no medical utility or being "quack" science.

Both climate change and evolution have great scientific consensus supporting them. The figures on this consensus vary according which article you read and the particular political affiliation these publications may have. But, regardless of this, scientific consensus is always well over 50%. The low estimate for scientific consensus on climate change is around 70%. The low figure for consensus on evolution is higher than that.

So if conservatives today were transported back to the 1600s, they would not be on the side of Galileo but on the side of the Catholic Church. Which you'll recall, found Galileo guilty of heresy for his heliocentric view of the universe and sentenced him to prison for the rest of his life. Why? Because the Bible says the world is flat.

I have to say Sarkazein, that I'm impressed by the fact that you haven't once brought the religious argument against homosexuality into this discussion. It seems odd though because that's really the only argument that exists. There isn't an argument within the scientific community, sans those very few scientists who believe in Biblical literalism, that homosexuality is somehow unnatural or an aberration within the human genotype.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson- I suggest it is you when confronted with contradictory evidence you dismiss it outright. As all liberals do, you have to be in a crowd to cross the street. "Consensus" is your definite proof. Not mine. Their are conflicting theories on what causes homosexuality, even in your church of the sciences.
My question, again and again, is what causes the brain to compel a person to cross dress or want to mate with someone of their own sex. Maybe it is from your monkey ancestors. It is a good thing not all the monkeys were gay, or there would be no Dickson.
I guess your biggest difference with me is that I find it abnormal and you don't.
If your daughter comes running out of the ladies room one day screaming that a man that looks like a woman is in there, you will say, "It's OK honey his ancestors were gay monkeys."

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: As I've said in earlier posts, it's genetic. While there may, at some point in the future, be environmental factors that are identifiable and determined to play a role via interaction as Blogger suggested, none have to date been positively correlated with homosexuality.... at least in terms of causation. Here's a link to the landmark work by Hammer, which proves genetic inheritance of homosexual traits. The "Gay Gene" study as it's sometimes called. Please feel free to dismantle his findings and prove him wrong if you choose.

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: By the way, the "monkey" and "church of sciences" comments only illustrate how little you understand about evolution and genetics... or even the current state of religious belief for that matter. I'm guessing that's because you choose to dismiss them outright as they conflict with your opinions/beliefs. Many Christian religions, such as Catholicism (which is incidentally the world's largest Christian denomination with 1.2 billion followers), have consistently moved toward the adoption of an "intelligent design" model of how the cosmos and human life came into being. This move has occurred in the face of the undeniable evidence of evolution. Intelligent design incorporates evolution into its understanding of how God (the unmoved mover), designed and guided the universe and everything in it.

Lastly, if you don't view scientific consensus as "proof", might I suggest you don't take medicine anymore should you get sick.. in fact, you probably don't need to go to the doctor ever again. I mean, every medical treatment is discovered by way of research and scientific consensus, so why even go? Although scientific consensus allows you feel confident that your condition will be treated successfully as opposed to seeing some guy in a shack who says he'll treat you with berries and pineapple juice, why bother? It just makes more sense to listen to someone with no expertise and unproven ideas that have no scientific consensus whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

I don't care WHY a person is gay or transgendered or any other thing. Knowing WHY a person is gay, etc. has little to do with my point, not that I expected you to understand or address it, because common sense tells everyone that I'm right. What I DO care about is how this is playing out in the political arena and public sphere in regards to the conflict of rights. Gays or transgendered people want to choose the restroom of their choice? I'll ask again the question you TOTALLY IGNORED in that lengthy drivel you posted -- what about the rights of the people in that restroom? Do they have rights? Do the rights of a man who says he "self identifies as a female" get to run roughshod over the rights of women who are ACTUALLY WOMEN and don't want that man in their restroom?

I'm betting you don't have children of your own, and especially a daughter. If so, you would, or at least, SHOULD, be able to imagine a situation where your daughter is at the movies with a group of friends and a 40 year old man who says, "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body" enters the public restroom with your daughter. If you were any kind of father and protector, you should be outraged with even the thought. If you are a liberal man, maybe the best you can do is "feel uncomfortable" with such a situation, but you would probably also feel "uncomfortable" feeling uncomfortable. It's just a product of your guilty straight white "privileged" conscious. I mentioned unisex restrooms for "confused" persons as an adequate solution -- why do you ignore that and lecture us on the "science" of homosexuality? Not germane to my point.

If the situation I described above happened to your daughter, you wouldn't spend a whole lot of time analyzing "why" that man is the way he is...

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: Good grief. If you actually spent some time around gay or transgendered people you'd understand why which bathroom they use is an utterly ridiculous conversation to have. I'm actually the father of two daughters Sark... and I'd protect them with my dying breath. But for me to be scared of someone who is transgendered being in a stall next to my daughter who is in a stall doesn't bother me a bit. It doesn't bother me, nor should it, anymore than a woman being in the stall next to my daughter. The only way it would bother me if I were erroneously making some assumption that trans people are pedophiles or somehow sexual deviants bent on taking advantage of girls in bathrooms. That's a completely non-sensical, hyper vigilant, and false stance. You must somehow think that a trans person is more likely to victimize someone than a straight or gay man or woman. Your logic defies understanding. A trans male to female is most likely going to be attracted to adult men... hence no threat to my daughters. A female to male trans may be attracted to women, but adult women.

The word you're looking for which is not synonymous with lesbian, gay, or transgendered people is "pedophile". Ya know what population makes up the vast majority of pedophiles in the U.S.? Straight males. Would I be concerned if a straight male went into the bathroom with my daughter? You bet you're ass I would.

What are you so afraid of exactly? Trans people, especially male to female trans people are generally very passive and kind hearted. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN BEING TRANS AND BEING A PEDOPHILE. If someone attempts to flash my daughters or do something sexual with them, he or she would get their ass kicked in short order. But that ass kicking would have nothing to do with their gender or their stated gender... I'd give the same ass kicking to a straight man that I would a male to female trans. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

If you don't care why a person is LGBT or "any other thing" then why did you ask in the post to which I replied by saying, "My question, again and again, is what causes the brain to compel a person to cross dress or want to mate with someone of their own sex". You're making little to no sense here Sark...

Sarkazein said...

How about- " It's OK Honey, his ancestors were gay Australopithecus... now quit crying, you're embarrassing me with your bigotry and your lack of knowledge of the gay gene!"

Dickson said...

Sarkazein: Now you're just showing that your comedy skills are as lacking as your reasoning skills. I had guessed they were but thanks for the confirmation.

Sarkazein said...

Dickson- You go off on tangents having little to do with anything I have written.You, as most liberals do, act mostly on your misconceptions. Nowhere did I ever write that transexuals were more likely to be sex offenders. However, I did write that the law cannot know the mindset of the intruder. The law has to take the word of the intruder or they have to give him a test, or he has to break an existing law of assault. Again, watch the handicap parking at a busy store. The person will get out of their car, walk into the store, walk up and down aisle after aisle, check-out then walk back to there car. The rare thing to see is an actual handicap person using the spaces. How is it that the walk from the parking space is somehow different then the walk up and down the aisles.
You mention your child's safe little stall... how about the showers? According to our mayor, that's OK. I guess as long as the intruder shows good shower etiquette, you are OK with it. I've news for you, this is the big city, and not everyone is as sweet as your transvestite friends. There are perverts like Bill Clinton out there who will take advantage of your liberal weakness, just like the people who take advantage of handicap parking.

Anonymous said...

I think Sarks comedy is quite funny. Probably not as funny as Dickson's attempts at serious posts, but overall, Sark's humor is hilarious.

Sarkazein said...

Thank you Anonymous 10:27 AM. I see a dark humor in liberalism. Who would have ever thought a father would think it OK for his daughter to be in a public restroom or in the shower with a strange man and to go on to think himself the more sophisticated for it. You have to laugh or you cry.

Anonymous said...

There was a time when someone who was born with male sex organs was considered a mail. If he started thinking he was a woman, then he was considered to have a mental problem and psychiatric counseling was called for. Now we assume his mental process is fine, and just remove his male parts to match his physical to his psychiatric.

If he starts thinking he is a chicken then I guess we will just stick feathers on him and wait for the eggs.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:41