Welcome, Reddit ban wave refugees!

submitted by [deleted] from (self.whatever)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think I am an ideologue.

I guess for me it seems like there is a similar thing going on with LGB ideology. Would you consider it "homophobic" to say "I think homosexuality isn't a real thing, it's just a choice/behavior/interest like anything else humans do". I have found many people consider that to be a "bad" idea (because disputing it would create political difficulties for the LGB political movement, much the same reason Galileo was punished in his time for his truthseeking causing political difficulties for a different political group in his time.)

Would you consider that an idea that's perfectly fine to discuss and be curious about and explore, just like "why is the sky blue?" and any other idea?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think anyone who argues human behavior is "a choice" in some meaningful fashion is already packaging in factually flawed notions of free will, as well as giving up the ground of their own sexuality. There's a reason everyone mocks those people, because if homosexuality is a choice they must concede heterosexuality is a choice, and if they don't resort to "muh bible" they've nothing to actually argue.

"Homophobic", though? I reserve that for people who actually do preserve and persist in contradictory hypocritical positions specially reserved for homosexuals. Like, you know, every trans person ever who argues not wanting to put your dick in a vagina is transphobic. Or the people who claim that "it's a choice" but then claim their own sexuality isn't a choice. It's a mindset, not an argument.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I guess to me things like "only the bible has arguments challenging these ideas" and "people who think very differently than I do about these topics are homophobic/bigots" seem more ideological and dogmatic.

At any rate, thanks for sharing your current thoughts about this. I'm not that familiar with LGBdroptheT so it's interesting to see what people have to say about it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've had countless arguments over countless hours with all sorts of people. If I am not allowed to summarize my experiences by accurately depicting the vast majority of them as "muh bible", which they generally are, what am I supposed to do? Write whole books and encyclopedias of transcripts? It isn't about "people who think differently", it's a special category of people I reserve as bigots who are explicitly hypocritical with respect to their treatment of others.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you not think you're being hypocritical if you use "homophobia" this way but don't want others to use "transphobia" (and perhaps "sexism" or "misogyny") this way?

Nobody else here mention the bible, or people who say that it's transphobic for self-identified homosexual men to not consider transgenderist women as sexual partners. It was you who introduced those topics. All I did was say that it looks to me like there is at least one dogmatic, ideological position within LGB-ism: it's bad and not ok to think "homosexuality is as much of a choice as most other human behavior." And I invited you to comment on that. To me, your response suggests to me that this is an ideology-based dogmatic stance for you.

I might be misunderstanding, if so you're welcome to clear it up. That's just how it looks to me. I had somewhat hoped that DropTheT might be a place where more open discussion could take place the way you were talking about it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I do not understand your point at all anymore. It is precisely because sexuality is not something "chosen" that gender ideology is homophobic, since it seeks to supplant innate inclinations with an ideology of gender expression above all else. Just as the bible thumpers did with one era of their arguments against homosexuality. What do you think is hypocritical here?

To compare what is, reality, with dogma and ideology, is to supplant reality itself with mere opinion. The "choices" people make in the casual way people mean choice, such as whether to have a sandwich or make eggs, is not comparable nor even coherent to sexuality. That is a real, distinct, difference. How is that ideology?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do not understand your point at all anymore.

Oh. Sorry. I'm not always as clear a writer as I'd like to be. Was there anything in particular where it wasn't clear what I was saying?

To compare what is, reality, with dogma and ideology, is to supplant reality itself with mere opinion. The "choices" people make in the casual way people mean choice, such as whether to have a sandwich or make eggs, is not comparable nor even coherent to sexuality. That is a real, distinct, difference. How is that ideology?

I would consider it dogmatic and ideological to say "this is what reality is, that's just the way it is." It seems like most of the time when we're trying to be reality based, people can just freely discuss ideas. If something's incorrect, it's easy to correct because you can just point out how reality is, and everyone in the conversation can see it. People are more likely to say, "this is what we've learned about X topic so far" or "I find it useful to think of it like this" than "this is just how it is and there's probably something wrong with people who think otherwise."

I don't think LGB ideology really attempts to be reality-based. I think for one, the "it's never a choice" thing exists because it's politically useful because of the existing framework for anti-discrimination laws. I would also consider it dogmatic and ideological to insist on understanding human sexual behavior in the LGB way. That there is a thing called "sexuality" that all humans have. It's innate; environmental factors don't affect it. "Sexuality" can basically be "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or "bisexual". The most important thing that informs this "sexuality" is a person's biological sex, above all. Thoughts, emotions, drives, etc about reproduction are an entirely unrelated thing from "sexuality". Etc.

Are these things true? Maybe some of them. Maybe like geocentric astronomy they kinda work ok enough much of the time. Maybe some aren't true. Maybe that's not the only way to think of things and that's ok. But it doesn't seem like you can freely explore these ideas in places which enforce LGB ideology. That's why it seems ideological and dogmatic to me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would you consider it "homophobic" to say "I think homosexuality isn't a real thing, it's just a choice/behavior/interest like anything else humans do"

I would yes. That's basically the basis for conversion therapy.