Senal

2/2

---

I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.

And i don't disagree (aside from the discussion on "norm" as stated above).

I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.

That's not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.

If you want to refine your explanations, that's fine also, but you aren't going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.

I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.

All we can do is our best, if that's not enough for some people, so be it.

This kind of communication is a skill, it'll get more refined over time.

It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.

True, so manage your expectations accordingly.

If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won't be blindsided.

I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.

The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.

If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.

And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren't know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn't understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can't just point to a "gay gene" as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they'd be doing stupid shit that doesn't make any sense.

What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.

I think it's more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.

There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.

I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they'd probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.

Though i might be projecting.

I don't actually think that's the issue here however, i agree it's just a charged subject and people are people.

1/2

---

Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.

No problem, i recognise the style of question because it's how i would approach it.

As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions

Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.

I think of it this way :

• if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
  • Then it's just a case of determining if I'm willing to put forth the effort required to try and bridge that gap, which varies.
• If i think they are approaching in bad faith, that saves me some effort because i can just ignore/block them.
• If i think there is a genuine engagement, that's good, even if they disagree I'm getting the discussion i was looking for.

In more concise wording, people are going to people, don't let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don't.

At least that's what works for me.

I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.

I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of "norm" isn't very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.

Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it's easy to partition the population based on something like that.

With things like mental health diagnoses we can't even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it's significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.

in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.

I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.

I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.

Though i don't rule out something we'd consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don't really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.

I don't subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.

The answer to most of this is "it's complicated" and we're basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.

What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered "attributes", in reality it's much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.

Honestly i'd consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn't very helpful in most circumstances.

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.

I don't think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?

Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?

There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.

For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.

---

I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?

That's a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.

"Deviations from the norm" would imply that there is a specific baseline "norm" to point at, when it's much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.

Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.

ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.

This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.

It's not a

"You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label" kind of thing,

it's more

"You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category"

Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs "some other thing" is a whole other giant kettle of fish.

And musical "talent" can have many sources, depending on your definition.

---

The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever

It's commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.

Look up what they used to call "Hysteria" and what that enabled them to justify as "medical procedures".

I'm sure there are people who legitimately think it's some sort of illness but i'd put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.

but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?

Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.

My personal opinion is that anything we do is "natural" as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.

Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.

It also heavily depends on your definition of "abnormal", for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?

Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”

They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.

The strict definition of the word abnormal isn't particularly useful here , it's only when it's given context that it makes sense.

My view is that the word "abnormal" when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.

If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by "normal"), then you might get more positive responses.

but that is the concensus is it not?

As far as i understand it, no, it is not.

I somewhat agree with most of that, that particular brand of toxic masculinity is gaining traction and that is a problem.

Let's not pretend that this is new though, almost the entirety of modern western civilization has been patriarchal to a fairly extreme degree, this is just the latest flavour.

I'm not dismissing the current problems with all of that, just pointing out that the problem of enforced gender/sex specific division isn't new these are just the latest grifters, it's also not specific to men ,with differing problems for all sides.

This is a systemic societal problem and will almost certainly need solutions that acknowledge that, otherwise you are treating only the symptoms.

None of which is an actual answer to my original question.

That would imply an "essence" of masculinity that was not defined by it's lack of femininity.

That somebody would be pushed towards an ideal of masculinity and dissuaded from an ideal of femininity implies that both exist.

Not necessarily completely separate, but still existing at least partially individually.

I'm still confused over what is meant by

The essence of being male is to not be female.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious or i have some bias getting in the way of my understanding.

This is what I have been saying for a long time: The essence of being male is to not be female.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you mind elaborating ?

They should pay for prophylactic counseling?

Yes, because prevention is superior to treatment after the fact in both outcomes & overall cost.

Though it seems you have a differing understanding of "Medically Necessary" to my own so i suspect we won't agree on this.

"For profit healthcare" is a misnomer is should be called something like "profit equilibrium maintenance : healthcare edition"

The best outcome for a "for profit" is profit, not healthcare. Given the choice between larger profits and better healthcare outcomes the profit will win out, every time.

AI is far from a force multiplier for software development in it's current incarnation, could be eventually but not right now.

It's just magic looking enough to seem enticing to CEO's and project managers, it'll even out eventually unless something gets significantly better with the current gen.

AI + "cheap labour"* is absolutely a recipe for disaster in the mid to long term but if you are a CEO and the line is going up in the short term who tf cares about the mid to long term.

*By "cheap labour" i mean inexperienced and/or inappropriately skilled, there are inexpensive devs around who do excellent work, i'm not talking about them.

IMO There is a deep social stigma to seeking help in general, but mental health seems to be more pronounced in how it's perceived as weakness.

You have the overt "be a man" kind of toxicity that exists but there is a more insidious undercurrent in some cultures as a whole that makes it seem equally unacceptable.

The insidious part is the subtlety and the inclusion that even talking about how you aren't supposed to talk about it considered the same kind of weakness, making it self-reinforcing.

Fair enough, i could probably also do with being a bit less sarcastic to things that might just be honest mistakes.

As a genuine question, what point are you maintaining, I've lost the thread and don't know which one you mean?