Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Political lesbianism

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:37:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A friend told me about political lesbianism, and I was amazed because it's exactly what zoinks has been saying here about sexuality not being a choice.

http://bugbrennan.com...

I really like this because it challenges all those assumptions about what sexuality is and what we are as "heterosexuals". I mean, who came up with the idea of heterosexuality in the first place?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:48:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
*sexuality BEING a choice, I mean. It could be a political choice. It IS a political choice, we just don't realize it. I never saw that before.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:56:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've never liked the "born this way" rhetoric. I only found out recently that it's actually a contested issue among lesbian feminists/feminist psychologists. You may like Celia Kitzinger.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 7:26:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:56:55 AM, lamerde wrote:
I've never liked the "born this way" rhetoric. I only found out recently that it's actually a contested issue among lesbian feminists/feminist psychologists. You may like Celia Kitzinger.

Thanks. I'm checking up on her stuff now and it's really interesting. I thought I had a good idea about feminism, but I've never come across these ideas before.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 1:04:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:48:26 AM, Garbanza wrote:
*sexuality BEING a choice, I mean. It could be a political choice. It IS a political choice, we just don't realize it. I never saw that before.

... if its a political choice, in what way is it related to one's sexuality on that level level? I made the same comment with Zoinks: if I am eating a ham sandwich while I balance my check book, the ham sandwich was not an economic choice.

Secondly, this particular author (the linked one) asserts quite a bit with more pleas to emotion then I care to count in order to make a point. Its woefully one sides to the point of being intellectually bankrupt. This thing, "Compulsory Heterosexuality" gets introduced as a patriarchal device, devoid of exploring the common sense conclusions: "She is groomed for a life as a wife and servant for Men. She is groomed to want to have babies and raise the children of men. She is groomed for Compulsory Heterosexuality, the concept coined by Baltimore native and Radical Feminist Adrienne Rich that identifies heterosexuality as the agent that keeps Females from actualizing their full sexual and emotional capacities, an agent that denies a sexual way of being unrelated to Male pleasure " Lesbian sexuality.

See bolded. Servant for men? Seriously? In the same capacity, boys are groomed to be responsible husbands, and doting fathers. The author begs the question as to how the full capacity for sexual and emotional feelings MUST come from lesbianism.

Before putting to much stock in what Zoinks has to say about sexuality and choice, I cordially suggest you view his evidence to his assertion, which is "Logical reasoning", solely authored by himself. His conclusion stems from his evidence, of course his evidence is derived by the conclusion. His position is circular by tacit admission.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanielCoimbra
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 12:58:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I understand it, it all depends on what one means by 'sexuality'. Allow me to explain by giving two examples, each with very different implications for the definition of homosexuality.

On the one hand, it is very well established in behavioral genetics that homosexuality is tightly correlated with genetics. This was obtained by analyzing families with more than one offspring. It turns out that you are much more likely to be homosexual if your genetic twin is one than if your non-twin sibling is one. However, here homosexuality means 'having a sexual or romantic attraction to the male figure', or something close to that. So this paragraph establishes that people are born with significant sexual tendencies, which could be the difference between enjoying sexy time with a woman or with a man. But this can be further complicated by what one perceives as a man.

On the other hand, once we consider that we play various roles in society, that we wear various personas in our social life, it becomes clear that social identity is important. Think about the concept of gay-ness. It does not simply mean an attraction for men; rather, it is a role one performs. A way of talking, a way of walking, a way of behaving, a way of thinking about people. Inside the homosexual population, we have both conservative and discrete homosexual couples and party aficionados polyamorous homosexual men. The later perform (and by no means I mean that they are not authentic in a meaningful sense) a certain role, they perform gay-ness. Another example is the goth subculture: no one is born a goth, rather one becomes a goth and performs goth-ness.

In the first sense, homosexuality is innate. In the second sense, it is a social construction that molds people's behavior and other people's perception of them. They are not mutually exclusive. While heterosexual genitalia preferences may be innate, our sexuality may also be restrained and molded to a significant degree by social norms, along with the way we express it and what we are willing to experiment or even consider. In this sense, heterosexuality can be a cultural phenomenon, and something one can fight against.

At least this is how I understand both sides of the discussion. Do you guys agree? I can re-write this post if my wording was not clear enough. It has been quite a while since I last wrote anything of considerable length.
TruthS4yer
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 1:58:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:56:55 AM, lamerde wrote:
I've never liked the "born this way" rhetoric. I only found out recently that it's actually a contested issue among lesbian feminists/feminist psychologists. You may like Celia Kitzinger.
A person is not born with their regional speaking accent but they don't choose it. Likewise for pubic hair. How we are born doesn't dictate whether or not a given trait is volitional. It may be sufficient to establish that one is not chosen but not that one definitely is. I.E. It is sufficient but not necessary for something to be involuntary.

The "born this way" rhetoric arises from LGBT laymen's knowledge that they didn't choose their orientation. There are studies that support it but you're correct that most claims aren't based upon research... LGBT people, like most of our species it seems, like comfortable conclusions, not necessarily true ones. This is human stupidity rather than LGBT stupidity.
Please avoid quoting all of large posts - it needlessly means we have to scroll through them to navigate a thread.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:37:59 AM, Garbanza wrote:
A friend told me about political lesbianism, and I was amazed because it's exactly what zoinks has been saying here about sexuality not being a choice.

http://bugbrennan.com...

I really like this because it challenges all those assumptions about what sexuality is and what we are as "heterosexuals". I mean, who came up with the idea of heterosexuality in the first place?

Freud believed that everyone was bisexual from birth.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:09:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are three possibilities:

1. Sexuality is genetic

2. Sexuality is determined by upbringing

3. Sexuality is chosen

None of these seem problem-free, I personally don't know which is right. There may even be other potential options.

If sexuality is genetic, then why hasn't the gene died out? Homosexuals are far less likely to reproduce, so over time there should be a net decrease in the amount of homosexuals. Yet if anything there seems to be more homosexuals now.
Also, if it was genetic then there would exist a 'gay gene' that is ethically problematic. If a gene exists then it can be detected before birth, which could lead to abortions based on sexuality, or attempts to modify foetuses that are suspected to be gay.

If sexuality is determined by upbringing, then we would likely see a correlation between parenting styles and sexualities, yet I know of none. I doubt that an adopted child of two gay parents is any more likely to be gay than the son of ultra-conservative parents.

If sexuality is chosen, then it faces two problems. Firstly, virtually no homosexuals have reported a conscious decision to be gay, and secondly, why would anyone choose to be gay? One has a far smaller pool of potential mates, as well being more at risk from bullying.

So this presents a trilemma of sorts, what do you guys think?
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:41:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 1:58:16 PM, TruthS4yer wrote:
At 5/21/2015 8:56:55 AM, lamerde wrote:
I've never liked the "born this way" rhetoric. I only found out recently that it's actually a contested issue among lesbian feminists/feminist psychologists. You may like Celia Kitzinger.
A person is not born with their regional speaking accent but they don't choose it. Likewise for pubic hair. How we are born doesn't dictate whether or not a given trait is volitional. It may be sufficient to establish that one is not chosen but not that one definitely is. I.E. It is sufficient but not necessary for something to be involuntary.

The "born this way" rhetoric arises from LGBT laymen's knowledge that they didn't choose their orientation. There are studies that support it but you're correct that most claims aren't based upon research... LGBT people, like most of our species it seems, like comfortable conclusions, not necessarily true ones. This is human stupidity rather than LGBT stupidity.

I also don't believe people choose their sexuality. It's unclear whether you are making that assumption about me. I have never subscribed to the belief that you need to be born a certain way in order to not choose it.

However, I do see the point that many feminist lesbians make that "born this way" excludes numerous women who "found" their sexuality later in life.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...