Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental āillnessā thatās the problem here, or that itās 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.
Iām an LGBT supporter, so Iām not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose itās curiosity and ignorance. Donāt 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?
Thatās a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.
āDeviations from the normā would imply that there is a specific baseline ānormā to point at, when itās 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.
Itās not a
āYou tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the labelā kind of thing,
itās more
āYou 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 categoryā
Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs āsome other thingā is a whole other giant kettle of fish.
And musical ātalentā can have many sources, depending on your definition.
The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we donāt have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever
Itās commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
Look up what they used to call āHysteriaā and what that enabled them to justify as āmedical proceduresā.
Iām sure there are people who legitimately think itās some sort of illness but iād 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 ānaturalā 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 āabnormalā, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?
Again I donāt 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 āabnormalā
They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isnāt particularly useful here , itās only when itās given context that it makes sense.
My view is that the word āabnormalā 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 ānormalā), then you might get more positive responses.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. Iāll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes Iām getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I donāt think Iāll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
āDeviations from the normā would imply that there is a specific baseline ānormā to point at, when itās much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
Iām making a pretty general statement so I donāt have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didnāt have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but youāre right this always changes with increased research and study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
I did this on purpose. Iām not saying any of these are similar at all, just that theyāre attributes that might make us unique and as far as Iām aware (since Iām 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. Iām not a neuroscientist so I donāt know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
(Illness) Itās commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
I agree completely, which is why I say itās not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies itās 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.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isnāt particularly useful here , itās only when itās given context that it makes sense.My view is that the word āabnormalā 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 ānormalā), then you might get more positive responses.
This is the conclusion I came to in a seperate comment here. That I am coming at the word abnormal from the statisctical point of view, as in it deviates from a known norm. A lower percentage of it happening compared to other outcomes. Other people are using the word abnormal as a way of shunning āthe otherā, which is unfortunate.
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. 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. Itās a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I canāt exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
ābut that is the concensus is it not?ā As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
Iāve done a lot of explaining myself, but Iām 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, itās not a choice, itās who they are. I didnāt 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 donāt know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
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 donāt like words that black and white say theyāre 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 āotherā. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say theyāre on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
Anyway, thatās enough rambling from me. Thanks for the reply.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. Iāll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes Iām getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I donāt think Iāll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
No problem, i recognise the style of question because itās 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 itās just a case of determining if Iām 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, thatās good, even if they disagree Iām getting the discussion i was looking for.
In more concise wording, people are going to people, donāt let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you donāt.
At least thatās what works for me.
Iām making a pretty general statement so I donāt have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didnāt have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but youāre right this always changes with increased research and study.
I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of ānormā isnāt 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 itās easy to partition the population based on something like that.
With things like mental health diagnoses we canāt even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so itās 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. Iām not saying any of these are similar at all, just that theyāre attributes that might make us unique and as far as Iām aware (since Iām 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. Iām not a neuroscientist so I donāt know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.
Though i donāt rule out something weād consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i donāt really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.
I donāt subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.
The answer to most of this is āitās complicatedā and weāre 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 āattributesā, in reality itās much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.
Honestly iād consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isnāt very helpful in most circumstances.
I agree completely, which is why I say itās not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies itās 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 donāt disagree (aside from the discussion on ānormā 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.
Thatās 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, thatās fine also, but you arenāt 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 thatās not enough for some people, so be it.
This kind of communication is a skill, itāll get more refined over time.
Itās a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I canāt 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 wonāt be blindsided.
Iāve done a lot of explaining myself, but Iām 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, itās not a choice, itās who they are. I didnāt 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 donāt 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 arenāt know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldnāt understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably canāt just point to a āgay geneā as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, theyād be doing stupid shit that doesnāt 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 donāt like words that black and white say theyāre 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 āotherā. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say theyāre on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
I think itās 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 theyād 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 donāt actually think thatās the issue here however, i agree itās just a charged subject and people are people.
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.
If the answer to the question āis homosexuality a mental abnormalityā depends on if you consider homosexuality natural, that would mean that being unnatural is a condition of a mental abnormality, which, since people are born with mental illnesses and not resulted from human activity, would also exclude mental illnesses
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.
Thatās a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.
āDeviations from the normā would imply that there is a specific baseline ānormā to point at, when itās 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.
Itās not a
āYou tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the labelā kind of thing,
itās more
āYou 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 categoryā
Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs āsome other thingā is a whole other giant kettle of fish.
And musical ātalentā can have many sources, depending on your definition.
Itās commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
Look up what they used to call āHysteriaā and what that enabled them to justify as āmedical proceduresā.
Iām sure there are people who legitimately think itās some sort of illness but iād put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
My personal opinion is that anything we do is ānaturalā 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 āabnormalā, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?
They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isnāt particularly useful here , itās only when itās given context that it makes sense.
My view is that the word āabnormalā 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 ānormalā), then you might get more positive responses.
As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. Iāll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes Iām getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I donāt think Iāll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
Iām making a pretty general statement so I donāt have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didnāt have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but youāre right this always changes with increased research and study.
I did this on purpose. Iām not saying any of these are similar at all, just that theyāre attributes that might make us unique and as far as Iām aware (since Iām 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. Iām not a neuroscientist so I donāt know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
I agree completely, which is why I say itās not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies itās 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.
This is the conclusion I came to in a seperate comment here. That I am coming at the word abnormal from the statisctical point of view, as in it deviates from a known norm. A lower percentage of it happening compared to other outcomes. Other people are using the word abnormal as a way of shunning āthe otherā, which is unfortunate.
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. 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. Itās a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I canāt exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
Iāve done a lot of explaining myself, but Iām 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, itās not a choice, itās who they are. I didnāt 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 donāt know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
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 donāt like words that black and white say theyāre 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 āotherā. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say theyāre on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
Anyway, thatās enough rambling from me. Thanks for the reply.
1/2
No problem, i recognise the style of question because itās 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 :
In more concise wording, people are going to people, donāt let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you donāt.
At least thatās what works for me.
I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of ānormā isnāt 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 itās easy to partition the population based on something like that.
With things like mental health diagnoses we canāt even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so itās significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.
in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.
I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.
Though i donāt rule out something weād consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i donāt really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.
I donāt subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.
The answer to most of this is āitās complicatedā and weāre 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 āattributesā, in reality itās much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.
Honestly iād consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isnāt very helpful in most circumstances.
2/2
And i donāt disagree (aside from the discussion on ānormā as stated above).
Thatās 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, thatās fine also, but you arenāt going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.
All we can do is our best, if thatās not enough for some people, so be it.
This kind of communication is a skill, itāll get more refined over time.
True, so manage your expectations accordingly.
If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you wonāt be blindsided.
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 arenāt know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldnāt understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably canāt just point to a āgay geneā as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, theyād be doing stupid shit that doesnāt make any sense.
I think itās 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 theyād 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 donāt actually think thatās the issue here however, i agree itās just a charged subject and people are people.
If a requirement to mental abnormality is that its unnatural, wouldnt that also exclude most mental illnesses?
I donāt think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?
If the answer to the question āis homosexuality a mental abnormalityā depends on if you consider homosexuality natural, that would mean that being unnatural is a condition of a mental abnormality, which, since people are born with mental illnesses and not resulted from human activity, would also exclude mental illnesses
Am i misunderstanding something?
Ah i think i see.
That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.