I ended up agreeing with a lotta what M. Emba "said." Also, I write in a Way that mebbe comes across as a know-it-all. Nothing further from the truth. I'm pretty uneducated. Don't watch TV or follow the news a whole lot. Or much at all. I don't use social media, other than Substacks, which is my saving grace.
Point being: What I *don't* know vastly overwhelms what I *do* know, and I know that.
What I hope I apply to these conceptual problems is a bit of hard-won common sense. I think that's a lost art, and it seems like it's pretty easy to *over-*conceptualize. I do that. But it seems over-conceptualizing is found a lot amongst the younger generations. ICBW (I Could Be Wrong), as always.
Thank You for another fine article. There is *so* much that soundly resonated with me. Some I disagreed with a *lot.* So much that I could “say.” Looking forward to Your book on *desire,* M. Goff.
I wrote this junk when I paused reading after the first three paragraphs quoted. Mebbe an unwarranted screed. I take issue with this quote:
"Some of the justifications are admirably open-hearted. An increased appreciation of intersectionality has led to the understanding that lived experience is shaped in different ways by race, gender, and class, making people who are committed to equal rights justifiably wary of endorsing universal prescriptions. Having adopted the “born this way” ethos to support LGBTQ rights in particular, many of us are loathe to pull back and suggest that desire is mutable. We don;t want to suggest that some orientations might be a choice, and risk those groups’ marginalization. We are uncomfortable imposing our personal views on others; in a free society, morality is seen as a private affair."
Open-hearted? No. I think it's closer to say some of the justifications are not admirable and are, in fact, brain dead. Granted, i could state that in a kinder Way, but allow me to justify my views.
The "born this way" ethos was foisted on the public by the LGBs. Douglas Murray admitted as much. Of course they would prefer to present the issue as hardware, rather than software. Very convenient to say there's really no choice about being Gay or Lesbian. Then everyone *necessarily* has to accept them as they are. No choice.
But, looking at past history, how many qualities are 100% determined by genetics? Immutable characteristics. Physical qualities. I'm not doubting there's a physical quality to sexual attraction. But anyone who tries to claim that sexual attraction is *strictly* a physical quality and is an immutable characteristic is on a foundation of air, AFAIK.
For one thing, can anyone seriously make the claim that sexual attraction is based on a single gene, or possibly only two? As if there's a gene for male attraction and female attraction and Bisexuals just have both set on. (Or both set off, depending.)
Yeah... I suppose that's *possible.* I just think that sexual attraction is a lot more complex than eye color. It's said there are over a *thousand* genes that effect intelligence. Each one contributing next to nothing, but in total, effecting a lot. Which is sexual attraction more likely to be similar to?
Let's consider the G element of LGB. Along the spectrum, but based on intuitions alone so be glad to be contradicted, I believe that some LG's are more attracted to the opposite sex than others. Some are more "B" than others. I believe that's a lot less than 50%.
These are the reasons why I think LGBs can be classed in two broad categories: Ls and Gs that are primarily influenced by genetics. Bs that are attracted to same sexed people being more based on "nurture" rather than "nature."
I believe that's why some LGs are opposed to considering trans folks as just another part of LGBTQIAWTF*. And why Bs might be more inclined to be supportive of LGBT.
What is the fundamental problem with my hypothesis? Simple.
I don't believe You'll ever see an *unbiased scientific study* of these issues. I'm not at all sure You'll see any *biased* scientific studies. These issues have *already* been settled into "known facts" without much recourse to science, right? Like Christine Emba says. We're all "open-hearted" now.
How nice and warm and, especially, fuzzy the feelings are.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I find this quote interesting:
“But to question the primacy of desire would eventually mean suggesting that some forms of sexual expression [Emba had just described a woman’s experience with a guy who wanted to choke her during sex] are better or worse than others, or harmful if their consented to. It feels like a slippery slope. We don’t want to judge other people’s desires for fear of being judged ourselves. Who will get to decide what’s allowed and what’s not? Whose desires will be disapproved? Will they be ours? These are not easy questions to answer, and a consumerist culture has trained us to jealously guard access to all of our options. Any boundary is seen as a threat.”
I’m somewhat incredulous that people can be so incredibly stupid. I dunno how old M. Emba is. I suspect she’s Millennial or less. ICBW, ‘course. But this is an immature person, who may never grow up to be an adult.
What world of unReality would view *any* boundary as a *threat?* That’s near suicidal. So, yeah, I can see where this POV would pose a quandary.
There *is* no “slippery slope” here obviously, to me at least. (I was going to write “me and any sane person,” but that mebbe would-a been going too far.) Anybody who fears judgement has the emotional stability of a teenager. If that much. Who gets to decide what’s allowed or not? That’s what consensual sex *is,* right? Giving consent doesn’t *necessarily* lead to what-i-call “consensual” sex. Consensual sex, in my mind and I would sure hope others, would involve sex that *both* of the couple finds is agreeable to them. Yeah, because there’s no absolutes on what “good sex” is that’s a problem. But if either one of the couple finds the sex very DISagreeable, then it’s gone *way* too far, right? That should never happen, right?!?
Have all attempts at common sense been thrown out with the bath water?
And if these are problems and are a reflection of “consumerist culture,” then mebbe desire has gone so sideways that consumerist culture should be looking as being suspect, no?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I won’t quote the following paragraph, because most-a it is just some welcome common sense. Except this: “We might have to acknowledge that we could be better than we are. We might have to change.”
Technically, it’s not that One *might* hafta change. One cannot *prevent* change. You can hope for *stability,* sure. But prevent change? Mebbe do it about as long as You can hold Your breath. (In Reality, not even that long.)
And anybody who says “We *might* have to acknowledge that we could do better?”
This is where the generational divide comes in. Anybody who says “might” is delusional. I don’t care how perfect You wanna think You are. The people that think that way the most are, of course, the least perfect. That’s a Law of Nature as solid as gravity is.
And anybody who says they “might” be able to do better is a very sick person. Because a person who *can’t* say they *wanna* do better is, no matter how gay they are, just empty and dead inside. I’ve been in that situation for years at a time. I got a ways to go still. But I’m glad, for the most part, I’m not that Way now.
So, no. It’s not “We might have to change” in a second respect. You would *wanna* change. (You’re gonna change anyway. May as well direct the change You wanna *become,* right?)
Gain some self-respect and don’t let Your self-respect depend on anybody else. Judge Yourself, lest Ye be judged, is my advice. (Yeah, I know. Almost *nobody* capable of taking advice. *Always* been that way.) Yeah, DO better. Make the *attempt* as often as You can. *Remember:* Two steps forward and one step back. Granted, I dunno how many people can see it this way, these days.
Don’t think and *talk* about it so much. Take Nike’s advice.
I should-a prefaced below:
I ended up agreeing with a lotta what M. Emba "said." Also, I write in a Way that mebbe comes across as a know-it-all. Nothing further from the truth. I'm pretty uneducated. Don't watch TV or follow the news a whole lot. Or much at all. I don't use social media, other than Substacks, which is my saving grace.
Point being: What I *don't* know vastly overwhelms what I *do* know, and I know that.
What I hope I apply to these conceptual problems is a bit of hard-won common sense. I think that's a lost art, and it seems like it's pretty easy to *over-*conceptualize. I do that. But it seems over-conceptualizing is found a lot amongst the younger generations. ICBW (I Could Be Wrong), as always.
Thank You for another fine article. There is *so* much that soundly resonated with me. Some I disagreed with a *lot.* So much that I could “say.” Looking forward to Your book on *desire,* M. Goff.
I wrote this junk when I paused reading after the first three paragraphs quoted. Mebbe an unwarranted screed. I take issue with this quote:
"Some of the justifications are admirably open-hearted. An increased appreciation of intersectionality has led to the understanding that lived experience is shaped in different ways by race, gender, and class, making people who are committed to equal rights justifiably wary of endorsing universal prescriptions. Having adopted the “born this way” ethos to support LGBTQ rights in particular, many of us are loathe to pull back and suggest that desire is mutable. We don;t want to suggest that some orientations might be a choice, and risk those groups’ marginalization. We are uncomfortable imposing our personal views on others; in a free society, morality is seen as a private affair."
Open-hearted? No. I think it's closer to say some of the justifications are not admirable and are, in fact, brain dead. Granted, i could state that in a kinder Way, but allow me to justify my views.
The "born this way" ethos was foisted on the public by the LGBs. Douglas Murray admitted as much. Of course they would prefer to present the issue as hardware, rather than software. Very convenient to say there's really no choice about being Gay or Lesbian. Then everyone *necessarily* has to accept them as they are. No choice.
But, looking at past history, how many qualities are 100% determined by genetics? Immutable characteristics. Physical qualities. I'm not doubting there's a physical quality to sexual attraction. But anyone who tries to claim that sexual attraction is *strictly* a physical quality and is an immutable characteristic is on a foundation of air, AFAIK.
For one thing, can anyone seriously make the claim that sexual attraction is based on a single gene, or possibly only two? As if there's a gene for male attraction and female attraction and Bisexuals just have both set on. (Or both set off, depending.)
Yeah... I suppose that's *possible.* I just think that sexual attraction is a lot more complex than eye color. It's said there are over a *thousand* genes that effect intelligence. Each one contributing next to nothing, but in total, effecting a lot. Which is sexual attraction more likely to be similar to?
Let's consider the G element of LGB. Along the spectrum, but based on intuitions alone so be glad to be contradicted, I believe that some LG's are more attracted to the opposite sex than others. Some are more "B" than others. I believe that's a lot less than 50%.
These are the reasons why I think LGBs can be classed in two broad categories: Ls and Gs that are primarily influenced by genetics. Bs that are attracted to same sexed people being more based on "nurture" rather than "nature."
I believe that's why some LGs are opposed to considering trans folks as just another part of LGBTQIAWTF*. And why Bs might be more inclined to be supportive of LGBT.
What is the fundamental problem with my hypothesis? Simple.
I don't believe You'll ever see an *unbiased scientific study* of these issues. I'm not at all sure You'll see any *biased* scientific studies. These issues have *already* been settled into "known facts" without much recourse to science, right? Like Christine Emba says. We're all "open-hearted" now.
How nice and warm and, especially, fuzzy the feelings are.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I find this quote interesting:
“But to question the primacy of desire would eventually mean suggesting that some forms of sexual expression [Emba had just described a woman’s experience with a guy who wanted to choke her during sex] are better or worse than others, or harmful if their consented to. It feels like a slippery slope. We don’t want to judge other people’s desires for fear of being judged ourselves. Who will get to decide what’s allowed and what’s not? Whose desires will be disapproved? Will they be ours? These are not easy questions to answer, and a consumerist culture has trained us to jealously guard access to all of our options. Any boundary is seen as a threat.”
I’m somewhat incredulous that people can be so incredibly stupid. I dunno how old M. Emba is. I suspect she’s Millennial or less. ICBW, ‘course. But this is an immature person, who may never grow up to be an adult.
What world of unReality would view *any* boundary as a *threat?* That’s near suicidal. So, yeah, I can see where this POV would pose a quandary.
There *is* no “slippery slope” here obviously, to me at least. (I was going to write “me and any sane person,” but that mebbe would-a been going too far.) Anybody who fears judgement has the emotional stability of a teenager. If that much. Who gets to decide what’s allowed or not? That’s what consensual sex *is,* right? Giving consent doesn’t *necessarily* lead to what-i-call “consensual” sex. Consensual sex, in my mind and I would sure hope others, would involve sex that *both* of the couple finds is agreeable to them. Yeah, because there’s no absolutes on what “good sex” is that’s a problem. But if either one of the couple finds the sex very DISagreeable, then it’s gone *way* too far, right? That should never happen, right?!?
Have all attempts at common sense been thrown out with the bath water?
And if these are problems and are a reflection of “consumerist culture,” then mebbe desire has gone so sideways that consumerist culture should be looking as being suspect, no?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I won’t quote the following paragraph, because most-a it is just some welcome common sense. Except this: “We might have to acknowledge that we could be better than we are. We might have to change.”
Technically, it’s not that One *might* hafta change. One cannot *prevent* change. You can hope for *stability,* sure. But prevent change? Mebbe do it about as long as You can hold Your breath. (In Reality, not even that long.)
And anybody who says “We *might* have to acknowledge that we could do better?”
This is where the generational divide comes in. Anybody who says “might” is delusional. I don’t care how perfect You wanna think You are. The people that think that way the most are, of course, the least perfect. That’s a Law of Nature as solid as gravity is.
And anybody who says they “might” be able to do better is a very sick person. Because a person who *can’t* say they *wanna* do better is, no matter how gay they are, just empty and dead inside. I’ve been in that situation for years at a time. I got a ways to go still. But I’m glad, for the most part, I’m not that Way now.
So, no. It’s not “We might have to change” in a second respect. You would *wanna* change. (You’re gonna change anyway. May as well direct the change You wanna *become,* right?)
Gain some self-respect and don’t let Your self-respect depend on anybody else. Judge Yourself, lest Ye be judged, is my advice. (Yeah, I know. Almost *nobody* capable of taking advice. *Always* been that way.) Yeah, DO better. Make the *attempt* as often as You can. *Remember:* Two steps forward and one step back. Granted, I dunno how many people can see it this way, these days.
Don’t think and *talk* about it so much. Take Nike’s advice.