What they fear is that they are wrong about sexual orientation being a choice. So if their child was never exposed to anything gay, they then can act straight and be quietly depressed about why other people aren’t like them.
I’ve questioned my brother in law on this as he acts this way. Instead of any epiphany on his part, I made a reference to watching black people on tv not making a white person black which led him to come up with the dumbest and racist take of all black people having some frontal lobe defect? I have zero clue where he came up with this but I suspect whatever braindead source for his anti gay rhetoric is also pushing the anti non white rhetoric. He also argued from the point of someone who was regurgitating information he half understood instead of a point he’d actually thought about
Nah, this is just basic biological racism. It wouldn’t be phrenology until they were making arguments that the shape or the lumps on his head made him stupid/insane/an insatiable raping machine/some other dumb bullshit.
Somehow, biological racism isn’t nearly as stupid as phrenology.
No, it is just as stupid, racist, and grounded in as much verifiable science but this is a rectangle/square conversation. Phrenology is a subsect of biological racism.
but this is a rectangle/square conversation. Phrenology is a subsect of biological racism.
True, but the situation described was that PoCs have an internal defect making them “lesser”, not that the shape of a person’s head can determine their abilities or characteristics.
I have no issue with limping them together generally, but the specific situation is not phrenology.
I hate phrenology, for the obvious reasons, but also because it makes people scared to death to discuss any kind of bone structure differences between regional groups.
I remember when Elizabeth Warren was getting flack for lying about being part Native American. The “high cheekbones” comment got a lot of derision, despite being a fairly tame comment outside of the lying.
Not saying it’s useful in a biological sense, just in colloquial speak.
The point is that the conversation needs to happen to point out when they are being idiots who gobble down this rhetoric of anti gay, anti poc, anti woman bullshit.
And I’m not doing it for him as much as his daughter and my daughter. They need to know that hating people isn’t the only option. Being gay is ok. Not being gay is ok. Being different is ok and it’s up to us to make sure people are not treated as if they are lesser because they are different. People in a position of privilege need to use that to help, not hinder those who have issues in our society.
By virtue of genetics, I’m a white guy who can’t tan. People automatically listen to me more than some other members of my family. They took more after my maternal grandmother’s side and get greeted with Spanish before English in our area. I have an obligation to speak up when people act a fool especially now that it’s become government policy to hate and ignore sound science.
If you have an obligation to speak up, your obligation surely is to speak effectively. So if you’re trying to convince children who are hearing from others that being gay is a choice and an immoral one at that, this analogy is unlikely to do anything.
This is my point: it’s an analogy that only works if you already agree with its conclusion. If you’re trying to convince kids at risk of being turned into bigots, you’re better off just exposing them to positive representation and positive talk. Getting there via an argument that only works if they don’t believe the bigotry is ineffective - or at least, it’s no more effective than just saying “being gay is OK,” while being less direct. And a smart kid who is hearing “being gay is an immoral choice” will realise that this analogy doesn’t contradict what they heard from their dad or their friend and may become harder to convince due to having heard a shit argument.
Although his argument doesn’t go in that direction, you’re mixing apples and oranges and splitting hairs.
In other words, he is NOT saying that being racist is bad and therefore being homophobic is also bad, he is not going on the moral ground.
What he is saying is that you cannot choose your skin color because it is a deterministic genetic fact that precedes any capacity for volition: your genes determine whether you will be black or white, not any decision after your birth. And he is extrapolating this to homosexuality, something that is in fact anchored in very solid evidence. There’s a reason he talks about choice: you can’t choose to be black because that’s only “decided” or determined by your genes, and the same goes for homosexuality (although I should say that there are also nuances; homosexuality also has an environmental component).
I hate all this “for my mental peace I won’t try to change someone’s mind as they won’t change anyways”, as yeah, it’s true and all that that they won’t change themselves, but you will be able to at least change other people or prevent other people from falling into those bullshit.
They deny that sexuality is genetically determined, yes.
Also I think that is true, in that there is a statistically higher chance of younger brothers being gay than older brothers, which is unlikely to be due to genetics (and more likely due to womb environment). Anyway, the basic idea that sexuality is not a choice is important to teach people, and a better place to start than what’s in the post.
I have zero clue where he came up with this but I suspect whatever braindead source for his anti gay rhetoric is also pushing the anti non white rhetoric
Almost certainly. I followed right wing media for quite a few years (a good amount of them were by proxy, thankfully) and the anti gay/PoC/women narratives were all mixed together more often than not.
Not even that far. It’s about “purity”. Heterosexuality, manliness, virginity, whatever they associated with purity is extremely fragile and mere mention of any “impurity” may sully it, because the more pure you are the more bragging rights you have.
In islamist circles for example, some are obsessed with drinking from cups no alcohol has touched.
Yes. There was a study done with people that said they were straight and exposed them to gay porn. The ones that said they were homophobes had the most reaction from their penis.
That is another part of the issue. They believe if they have the urges and the chose to closeted then it is a choice. They see it as a strength of will but it is really self hatred.
I wish this was their logic.
What they fear is that they are wrong about sexual orientation being a choice. So if their child was never exposed to anything gay, they then can act straight and be quietly depressed about why other people aren’t like them.
I’ve questioned my brother in law on this as he acts this way. Instead of any epiphany on his part, I made a reference to watching black people on tv not making a white person black which led him to come up with the dumbest and racist take of all black people having some frontal lobe defect? I have zero clue where he came up with this but I suspect whatever braindead source for his anti gay rhetoric is also pushing the anti non white rhetoric. He also argued from the point of someone who was regurgitating information he half understood instead of a point he’d actually thought about
That shit comes from phrenology.
Nah, this is just basic biological racism. It wouldn’t be phrenology until they were making arguments that the shape or the lumps on his head made him stupid/insane/an insatiable raping machine/some other dumb bullshit.
Somehow, biological racism isn’t nearly as stupid as phrenology.
No, it is just as stupid, racist, and grounded in as much verifiable science but this is a rectangle/square conversation. Phrenology is a subsect of biological racism.
True, but the situation described was that PoCs have an internal defect making them “lesser”, not that the shape of a person’s head can determine their abilities or characteristics.
I have no issue with limping them together generally, but the specific situation is not phrenology.
I hate phrenology, for the obvious reasons, but also because it makes people scared to death to discuss any kind of bone structure differences between regional groups.
I remember when Elizabeth Warren was getting flack for lying about being part Native American. The “high cheekbones” comment got a lot of derision, despite being a fairly tame comment outside of the lying.
Not saying it’s useful in a biological sense, just in colloquial speak.
The problem with phrenology is linking bone structure with behavior. But it’s stupid not discussing bone structure for a pseudoscience.
That analogy was never going to work on anyone though…
It works out the same. You can choose to be gay as much as you can choose to be black. You choose to be gay as much as you choose to be straight.
It isn’t the media you consume that makes you into what you inherently are.
The people this is targeted at don’t believe that though, so what’s the point?
The point is that the conversation needs to happen to point out when they are being idiots who gobble down this rhetoric of anti gay, anti poc, anti woman bullshit.
And I’m not doing it for him as much as his daughter and my daughter. They need to know that hating people isn’t the only option. Being gay is ok. Not being gay is ok. Being different is ok and it’s up to us to make sure people are not treated as if they are lesser because they are different. People in a position of privilege need to use that to help, not hinder those who have issues in our society.
By virtue of genetics, I’m a white guy who can’t tan. People automatically listen to me more than some other members of my family. They took more after my maternal grandmother’s side and get greeted with Spanish before English in our area. I have an obligation to speak up when people act a fool especially now that it’s become government policy to hate and ignore sound science.
If you have an obligation to speak up, your obligation surely is to speak effectively. So if you’re trying to convince children who are hearing from others that being gay is a choice and an immoral one at that, this analogy is unlikely to do anything.
This is my point: it’s an analogy that only works if you already agree with its conclusion. If you’re trying to convince kids at risk of being turned into bigots, you’re better off just exposing them to positive representation and positive talk. Getting there via an argument that only works if they don’t believe the bigotry is ineffective - or at least, it’s no more effective than just saying “being gay is OK,” while being less direct. And a smart kid who is hearing “being gay is an immoral choice” will realise that this analogy doesn’t contradict what they heard from their dad or their friend and may become harder to convince due to having heard a shit argument.
Although his argument doesn’t go in that direction, you’re mixing apples and oranges and splitting hairs.
In other words, he is NOT saying that being racist is bad and therefore being homophobic is also bad, he is not going on the moral ground.
What he is saying is that you cannot choose your skin color because it is a deterministic genetic fact that precedes any capacity for volition: your genes determine whether you will be black or white, not any decision after your birth. And he is extrapolating this to homosexuality, something that is in fact anchored in very solid evidence. There’s a reason he talks about choice: you can’t choose to be black because that’s only “decided” or determined by your genes, and the same goes for homosexuality (although I should say that there are also nuances; homosexuality also has an environmental component).
Sure, that’s not what I understood him to be saying…
Based.
I hate all this “for my mental peace I won’t try to change someone’s mind as they won’t change anyways”, as yeah, it’s true and all that that they won’t change themselves, but you will be able to at least change other people or prevent other people from falling into those bullshit.
You mean that they deny genetic determinism? Well, that’s totally not true.
They deny that sexuality is genetically determined, yes.
Also I think that is true, in that there is a statistically higher chance of younger brothers being gay than older brothers, which is unlikely to be due to genetics (and more likely due to womb environment). Anyway, the basic idea that sexuality is not a choice is important to teach people, and a better place to start than what’s in the post.
Well, you have a fair point, I think.
Almost certainly. I followed right wing media for quite a few years (a good amount of them were by proxy, thankfully) and the anti gay/PoC/women narratives were all mixed together more often than not.
Not even that far. It’s about “purity”. Heterosexuality, manliness, virginity, whatever they associated with purity is extremely fragile and mere mention of any “impurity” may sully it, because the more pure you are the more bragging rights you have.
In islamist circles for example, some are obsessed with drinking from cups no alcohol has touched.
lol, know what they call “purity” in genetics? In-bred 😂
See also: the “one drop” rule
Usually because the worst anti gay of them are indeed tempted because they’re closet gay and think the rest of humanity feels the same way.
Yes. There was a study done with people that said they were straight and exposed them to gay porn. The ones that said they were homophobes had the most reaction from their penis.
That is another part of the issue. They believe if they have the urges and the chose to closeted then it is a choice. They see it as a strength of will but it is really self hatred.
I really can’t understand why they are so hung up about this. Just suck some cock, it’s fun!
They fear the social rejection they’re dolling out on everyone else.
Just like thier daddy and grad daddy. Like a MAN!