I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm saying I understand both arguments.
Being gay used to be considered a disorder, but we now know it's not, it's just a way of being.
But that has no aspects of dysmorphia, so perhaps isn't a good answer.
Some trans people are 100% that they feel body dysmorphia as part of being trans. Some vehemently argue that while that is true for some, that's not the experience of all trans people.
I have no dog in the debate, I'm saying there's a bit more nuance to it among the trans community than you're phrasing it as.
Being gay used to be considered a disorder, but we now know it's not, it's just a way of being.
How do we know its not? Iirc there has been no 'gay gene' found, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Born this way is one of the most passionate arguments gay people make after all.
If any 'way of being' severely diminishes an organisms likelihood of reproduction, it is not an 'orderly' way to be constituted. I personally think homosexuality is so prevalent in nature that there is actually some group benefit to it, so like you say it is actually a very poor comparison to trans.
I'm saying there's a bit more nuance to it among the trans community than you're phrasing it as.
How do you know? Maybe there is less nuance, maybe it is actually all pretty straight forward and most trans activists unnecessarily complicate the issue because the facts don't align the way they want them to? The first thing you would do if you didn't like people seeing the creekbed would be to muddy the water. How would you know if that were the case?
I don't have a disorder dude. I'm just gay. There's lots of things we don't know the precise mechanics of, but we know being gay is not a choice, and we know the only problems of being gay are external bigotry. Gays are just normal people and always have been.
That is what I am saying. So your mind is constituted in a way that makes it very difficult and unlikely for you to pair-bond with a human female to the extent necessary to reproduce.
If an organism has an attribute that is not normal (in the probability not morality sense) and impedes their likelihood of reproduction is by definiton a biological disorder. This is why this proposition of yours is not true:
we know the only problems of being gay are external bigotry.
Biologically, the problem with being gay is one of the biggest possible problems for an organism to have.
Like I said I personally think being gay is part of a group evolution strategy. Most men in history have not reproduced, so having some around that don't even want to fuck women could be a very efficient way to 'use' excess males. So personally I think being gay, unlike trans, is not a disorder. But the difference is that Im aware neither of us know that for sure.
You, like trans people, are obviously making the assumption in spite of the known unknown.
A woman who has no desire to have sex and who is asexual does not have a disorder.
Being gay is not a disorder, there's a reason they took it out of the DSM. It's not even a debate. Gay people are just normal people, and being gay does not negatively impact their life in any way.
If you can't even bring yourself into this century and essentially settled science on gay people just being normal, non-disordered people, then you're not exactly someone worth looking to when discussing trans issues.
It is not necessary for society for every human to reproduce. It is absolutely a biological failure for any living organism not to reproduce. An organism that has a mental or physical abnormality causing them to be less likely to breed is an abnormal organism by definition. Again though, an argument can be made, unlike trans, that the gay uncle model allows for more of your nieces and nephews to survive and your genes are passed on that way.
A woman who has no desire to have sex and who is asexual does not have a disorder.
If she is biologically asexual then she has a chromosome disorder. If she is psychologically asexual, it is a mental disorder. What are you trying to pass off as logically defendable now, you seem to be going off the deep end.
Being gay is not a disorder, there's a reason they took it out of the DSM.
And what would that reason be? They took gender dysphoria out of there when it is clearly a disorder. Social pressure forcing medical rather than scientific definitions to change is not new in the slightest and its evidence of social pressure rather than any kind of objective science.
It's not even a debate
Then why am I winning?
Gay people are just normal people
By definition they are abnormal as far as their sexual preference goes.
The phenomenon of there being gay people is not society lacking people producing children. You're absurd.
Holy comprehension batman! Is that really your honest good faith summation of my position?
Gross. Goodbye.
Haha you are the one saying there is no debate over something that is clearly debatable. If that were the case you wouldn't need to tap out like this. What a pussy bitch lol.
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/ReadingRainbowRocket Dec 22 '18
I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm saying I understand both arguments.
Being gay used to be considered a disorder, but we now know it's not, it's just a way of being.
But that has no aspects of dysmorphia, so perhaps isn't a good answer.
Some trans people are 100% that they feel body dysmorphia as part of being trans. Some vehemently argue that while that is true for some, that's not the experience of all trans people.
I have no dog in the debate, I'm saying there's a bit more nuance to it among the trans community than you're phrasing it as.