Gena Davis institute on Gender in media tries to link violent games to mass shootings and police violence

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,085
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
I doubt many hetrosexual people will have the sense that there's something "fundamentally distinctive" about them.
What are you talking about?

Of course heterosexuals believe there is something fundamentally distinctive about them. That something is literally the thing that makes them believe they are heterosexual. You cannot believe that you are heterosexual if you don't believe there is some distinctive property of you that makes you that way.

Why are you trying to nitpick a point that is borderline tautological?

Regardless of the term's origins, or any alternate term you use, most people, heck, most animals, are going to have an opposite-sex attraction.
And?

Having an "opposite sex attraction" doesn't make you a heterosexual. What is supposed to make you a heterosexual is having an attraction that is exclusively directed towards members of the opposite sex.

In reality, only a minority of people who identify as heterosexual have got through life without ever having any experience of same-sex desire or intimacy, so heterosexuality also relies on the ability to suppress or sublimate any desire that is not towards the opposite sex in order to preserve the integrity of the identity.

But imagine if heterosexuality stopped existing tomorrow. Imagine if people never really thought about the type of person they wanted to have sex with in abstract terms, and instead only acted based on the sexual desire that they felt in the moment.

Things would continue largely the same, men and women would have sex. The acts might change a bit, but not unrecognizably. Some of those men and women (possibly a majority) would also have sex with members of the same sex. Some of them would not, and would only have sex with members of the opposite sex. In the latter case, it wouldn't be because they had decided they were a type of person who didn't feel desire for the same sex, it would be because whenever the opportunity had arisen they had not felt the desire to do so.

Those are very obviously different things.

I hate to bring up the "lived experience" argument, but I've never metanyone in real life who braggged about "doing" someone.
My point was not about "bragging" or not being "terrified" or anything along those lines, it's an incredibly basic point. Heterosexuals tend to imagine sex as something men do to women. This can manifest in a whole range of different ways, it can certainly manifest as a sense of achievement and accomplishment in having sex or in one's own sexual competence. It can also manifest as anxiety about the ability to meet a partner's sexual needs. "Doing" in this case can also mean "giving", and "giving" comes with certain expectations.

And yes, this is a bigger part of sexual ideology than it is of actual sexual acts. In reality, most straight men tend to not enjoy partners who are too passive. But again, heterosexuality is kind of a cultural fiction (kind of like a stereotype - an artificial generalization that we use to make sense of a complex social environment). I'm not the one who thinks heterosexuality actually exists. Yuck!

But the scene is bereft of any actual intercourse (that we see)
Believing that intercourse is the only meaningful expression of sexuality, or has some special privileged position among sexual acts, is kind of a heterosexual stereotype to be honest.

Is "pandering" simply the depiction of relationships?
Look, I'm fine with having straight people in media if there's a point to it. But come on, there's no reason to rub it in our faces. Making these characters straight for no reason is completely meaningless and gratuitous and it serves no purpose within the narrative except to act as tokenistic "representation". They could have removed it, or used gay characters instead, and nothing would have changed.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
What are you talking about?

Of course heterosexuals believe there is something fundamentally distinctive about them. That something is literally the thing that makes them believe they are heterosexual. You cannot believe that you are heterosexual if you don't believe there is some distinctive property of you that makes you that way.
You and I clearly have very different definitions of "distinctive."

First, the person claiming that heterosexuals believe that there's something distinctive about them is the person on this thread that isn't heterosexual, while every heterosexual is saying the opposite, so you might want to stop and consider that. I can list a handful of things I consider distinctive about myself, none of them are based on inherent traits.

Second, distinctive is defined as "something marked as separate or different." If you belong to the majority of a group, and are like everyone in that group, there's not really much distinction. Even if you don't, that's not necessary as case for being distinctive. I'm right-handed for instance (like most of humanity) and have blue eyes (a recessive trait shared by about 10% of humanity). That most people don't have blue eyes doesn't make me distinctive in any way whatsoever.

And?

Having an "opposite sex attraction" doesn't make you a heterosexual. What is supposed to make you a heterosexual is having an attraction that is exclusively directed towards members of the opposite sex.

In reality, only a minority of people who identify as heterosexual have got through life without ever having any experience of same-sex desire or intimacy, so heterosexuality also relies on the ability to suppress or sublimate any desire that is not towards the opposite sex in order to preserve the integrity of the identity.
This is borderline semantics though. By the standards you're laying out, no kind of sexuality could ever exist, because no-one would conform to it 100% of the time.

But imagine if heterosexuality stopped existing tomorrow. Imagine if people never really thought about the type of person they wanted to have sex with in abstract terms, and instead only acted based on the sexual desire that they felt in the moment.

Things would continue largely the same, men and women would have sex. The acts might change a bit, but not unrecognizably. Some of those men and women (possibly a majority) would also have sex with members of the same sex. Some of them would not, and would only have sex with members of the opposite sex. In the latter case, it wouldn't be because they had decided they were a type of person who didn't feel desire for the same sex, it would be because whenever the opportunity had arisen they had not felt the desire to do so.
If everyone acted on the sexual desire they felt in the moment, sexual assault would probably go through the roof, for starters.

That aside, we'd have a plummeting birth rate for starters, but aside from that, I agree, not much would change in terms of day-to-day interactions, because not many people tend to talk about sex or sexual preference on a day-to-day level.

Both our arguments are on the level of identity, you just aren't admitting it yet.
No, your argument is on the level of identity, mine's on the level of categorization.

It also further diverges (seemingly) given how we view film, because the majority of your comments have been on "gaze" and whatnot, mine have been more on the level of plot, theme, and character. And as high and mighty as that sounds, I don't think many people would disagree.

My point was really not complicated. It's not about "bragging" or not being "terrified" or anything along those lines, it's an incredibly basic point. Heterosexuals tend to imagine sex as something men do to women. This can manifest in a whole range of different ways, it can (as I've said) manifest as a sense of achievement and accomplishment in having sex or in one's own sexual competence. It can also manifest as anxiety about the ability to meet a partner's sexual needs. "Doing" in this case can also mean "giving", and "giving" comes with certain expectations.

And yes, this is a bigger part of sexual ideology than it is of actual sexual acts. In reality, most straight men tend to not enjoy partners who are too passive. But again, heterosexuality is kind of a cultural fiction (kind of like a stereotype - an artificial generalization that we use to make sense of a complex social environment). I'm not the one who thinks heterosexuality actually exists. Yuck!
Again, you seem to be describing bro culture rather than "heterosexual culture." Tellingly, even in your own example you're describing how men perceive women and what language they use. Even taking these claims as true of literally all males, that leaves out females.

Believing that intercourse is the only meaningful expression of sexuality, or has some special privileged position among sexual acts, is kind of a heterosexual stereotype to be honest.
You've focused on intercourse, I gave you an example of lack of intercourse.

I also explained why Link and Zee aren't equivalent to Neo and Trinity in regards to storytelling and character, but apparently that doesn't matter.

None of which changes the fact that a cake gave a woman an orgasm, and it was very heterosexual.
And again, that's all that seems to matter. No sub-text, no deeper meaning, no implied themes and ideas...nup. Sex.

God, that's depressing. :(

Look, I'm fine with having straight people in media if there's a point to it. But come on, there's no reason to rub it in our faces. Making these characters straight for no reason is completely meaningless and gratuitous and it serves no purpose within the narrative except to act as tokenistic "representation". They could have removed it, or used gay characters instead, and nothing would have changed.
Nice quote mining.

You're responding to the question of "Is "pandering" simply the depiction of relationships?", when my VERY NEXT SENTENCE was "Regrettably, I've seen the argument applied to same-sex relationships, where their mere presence is decried by idiots as a form of "pandering."

In other words, you're making the argument I made originally, while presenting it as your own counter-argument, to an argument I never actually made, but you want to claim that I did.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
It's CANON. I can PROVE it!

There's your proof.

Also, if you want to argue that Enter the Matrix isn't canon, you'd have to contend with how not only was it written by the Wachowskis, but its events are directly referenced in the third film.

Whether you consider Enter the Matrix canon or not, it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Lots of people pretend that the sequel films aren't canon as well, doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Also, distinctly, you ignored the fact that I used The Animatrix as an example of heterosexual pandering, so, what, that's canon, but Enter the Matrix isn't?
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,244
1,309
118
It seems that you're basically falling into the Difference = Discrimination fallacy.
Uh no.

All of this is simply me stating that the "soft" discrimination of 'you are not the majority' has a major impact in a world that is run by money, and where what is popular or the majority will typically be the prefered investment. Meaning everyone who isn't the majority is at best courteously dismissed. Money and preference heavily decides what is seen in our society, and if you fall outside of that you will be seen less.

And that's not even factoring in the actual full-on ideological discrimination that is still very much present, or people who get mad or upset at inclussion for the sake of inclussion.

There's nothing wrong with being part of the majority or the minority, but we're still living in a world where those terms are used to exclude others, either by bigoted groups with a lot of money and influence, or by businesses who simply look at the bottom line.

I never said pointing out differences is discrimination, I'm stating that the way society opperates makes it so differences will be discriminated against to a various degree depending on the particular difference, and that this has a ripple effect on those who wish not to be discriminated.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,492
522
118
Country
USA
You and I clearly have very different definitions of "distinctive."

Second, distinctive is defined as "something marked as separate or different."
"Distinctive" is effectively "able to be distinguished." Your eye color and right-handedness are distinctive, because they are traits that can be identified and used to distinguish between you and other people. Basically, any trait that might help the cops find you is reasonably described as distinctive, even if it's literally the most common option of every possible trait.

But in the subject of the argument you're having, that's also what identity is. People use the word identity as though it carries all of someone's self-image and self-worth, but Identity is basically the sum of the things that allow people to distinguish who is the same or who is different. In the narrowest possible concept, you have uses like "identity theft" where the person didn't steal your conception of self, they stole the information that other people use to identify you. In the broader sense, you have things like the sexual identities you're talking about, where people are identifying traits to find who is alike to them.

So like, what I think you're saying is true enough, that heterosexual people for the most part aren't basing much of their personal image of themselves on their sexuality, it isn't something they give much weight when asking questions like "who am I" or "what gives me value". But that's not what identity is. Identity is an external, relative thing. You don't get to choose the public weight carried by your identity, because you are not the only person trying to distinguish between you and everyone else.

Terminal Blue has said a lot of accurate things here about sex and sexuality, chief among them that sexualities are not really a description of who you find attractive but a description of who you identify as being attracted to. The entire idea of naming exclusive attractions to one sex is to distinguish between groups of people. Which is largely to say the entire discussion of sexual identity is pretty deeply seated in homophobia, as that's a pretty big motivation for making a clear demarcation between groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terminal Blue

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Uh no.

All of this is simply me stating that the "soft" discrimination of 'you are not the majority' has a major impact in a world that is run by money, and where what is popular or the majority will typically be the prefered investment. Meaning everyone who isn't the majority is at best courteously dismissed. Money and preference heavily decides what is seen in our society, and if you fall outside of that you will be seen less.
You're basically describing a situation where it's impossible not to discriminate by that criteria.

This isn't even money-based. Working in local government (so, without the profit motive), you can literally walk from one suburb to the next and be a majority in one suburb, and a minority in the other. That's why the material we stock tries to account for that (in terms of language), but by the criteria, we're discriminating because the majority-minority status will be in constant flux.

Also, this isn't even getting into how "minority regimes" still exist in the world today, and most of human history has generally been a small group dominating everyone else, but fine, sure, money's the root of discrimination. If anything, money's generally something of an equalizer. For instance, if I'm in the movie business, and I don't want to make movies starring women, I'm shooting myself in the foot because I'm cutting out 50% of an audience. Even if you're selfish, there's an argument to be made that you're still better served by casting your net out as much as possible.

And that's not even factoring in the actual full-on ideological discrimination that is still very much present, or people who get mad or upset at inclussion for the sake of inclussion.
I could say a lot more here, such as how "inclusion for the sake of inclusion" tends to be irritating regardless of identity (e.g. fan service), but yeah, sure, there's a lot of whiners about "pandering" and "forced diversity." Those people are twats.

There's nothing wrong with being part of the majority or the minority, but we're still living in a world where those terms are used to exclude others, either by bigoted groups with a lot of money and influence, or by businesses who simply look at the bottom line.

I never said pointing out differences is discrimination, I'm stating that the way society opperates makes it so differences will be discriminated against to a various degree depending on the particular difference, and that this has a ripple effect on those who wish not to be discriminated.
Again, the criteria you're listing is a scenario where it's outright impossible not to discriminate.

I mean, let's actually look into this. Say I sell scissors. 88% of people are right-handed, 12% of people are left-handed. I'm therefore left with two options:

a) Make 88% of the scissors I sell right-handed, and 12% of them left-handed

b) Go for 50/50.

Either way, there's an argument that I'm discriminating against someone.

This isn't even a hypothetical scenario by the way, similar scenarios have occurred, and this is just a single product.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
So like, what I think you're saying is true enough, that heterosexual people for the most part aren't basing much of their personal image of themselves on their sexuality, it isn't something they give much weight when asking questions like "who am I" or "what gives me value". But that's not what identity is. Identity is an external, relative thing. You don't get to choose the public weight carried by your identity, because you are not the only person trying to distinguish between you and everyone else.

Terminal Blue has said a lot of accurate things here about sex and sexuality, chief among them that sexualities are not really a description of who you find attractive but a description of who you identify as being attracted to. The entire idea of naming exclusive attractions to one sex is to distinguish between groups of people. Which is largely to say the entire discussion of sexual identity is pretty deeply seated in homophobia, as that's a pretty big motivation for making a clear demarcation between groups.
I disagree with most of this.

First, I agree that there's elements of external identity, but also internal, and I guess factual. To cite three examples:

-Factual: Right-handed

-External: Australian

-Internal: Writer

That I'm right-handed is a statement of fact, that I'm Australian is a statement of circumstance, and that I might call myself a writer is something I sort of have a claim to, at least on the hobby level. You could replace it with any hypothetical thing such as "bibliophile," or "cineophile," or anything that might give you some level of distinction.

But since this has become about sex, that I have attraction to the opposite sex is factual. I could claim some kind of "identity" in opposition to that, it doesn't change the fact in of itself, and if I did, chances are I'd be pissing a lot of people off. And arguably with good reason. Or to get back to the list above, I can claim I'm left-handed, or ambidextruous. I could construct my sense of being around it. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not. Fortunately, there isn't any identity politics around being left-handed (that I'm aware of, anyway), nor is there anything like "hetrosexual culture," in a thread where every example I've seen is, I'd argue, an example of bro culture.

What strikes me as bizzare as I'm reading this is that it's generally a 180 of how, I'd think, most people would at least try to operate. Y'know, the type of people who will say "maybe being gay is a phase" or "are you SURE you're gay?" The kind of demeaning comments that I thought we were beyond. The attitude here is pretty much the same, just without the malice.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,492
522
118
Country
USA
What strikes me as bizzare as I'm reading this is that it's generally a 180 of how, I'd think, most people would at least try to operate. Y'know, the type of people who will say "maybe being gay is a phase" or "are you SURE you're gay?" The kind of demeaning comments that I thought we were beyond. The attitude here is pretty much the same, just without the malice.
The way that you think most people operate is nonsense, and you think it reasonable because it's largely without malice. But if someone with malice were insisting that people are born gay, the potential outcomes are even a bit darker than someone with malice claiming it's just a phase.

The entire concept of being "born this way" is rooted in a system of homophobia. It's a deflection. It's saying "you can't blame me, I didn't choose this", which sort of implicitly concedes that blame would be reasonable if it was a choice. It's all an effective shutdown on the conversation, because homophobes when asked if they could ever be gay are quick to say "no, no, I could never not be straight"... you know, because they're homophobes.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,244
1,309
118
You're basically describing a situation where it's impossible not to discriminate by that criteria.
I'm describing a situation where it's very easy for discrimination to creep in unnoticed - seeing as it has - how the default shouldn't just be followed without question. And how it can perpetuate a norm that may not even be as much the norm as people think. And even if it is that there needs to be enough openness and inclussion to allow the norm to shift. I've had and still have biases due to being told throughout my life what is and isn't the default. I know these biases are wrong, but if they're nurtured long enough by your surroundings they're hard to completely shake off.

By saying 'this is the default' (and I'm not talking left-handed scissors) we're only perpetuating this line of thinking that default is "normal" and normal is "good". And I know this might sound all 'feeings over fact', but the facts in this regard are pretty vague and prone to change. This is not exclussive to the heterosexual "norm" either, since among gay communities bi-sexuality was once brushed off as not normal or not even existing.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,085
595
118
Country
United Kingdom
The entire concept of being "born this way" is rooted in a system of homophobia. It's a deflection. It's saying "you can't blame me, I didn't choose this", which sort of implicitly concedes that blame would be reasonable if it was a choice. It's all an effective shutdown on the conversation, because homophobes when asked if they could ever be gay are quick to say "no, no, I could never not be straight"... you know, because they're homophobes.
I feel like that's really quite insightful, in a way I probably wouldn't have expected. Whatever the motivation, well done.

According to the best theories we currently have, sexuality is neither innate or a choice. Kind of like how some people have certain foods that they love and other foods they just can't stand. There may be underlying innate factors which precondition that response (to a degree) but it is ultimately just one of those weird individual quirks people develop as they mature. As frightening as it may be to admit, it can also change. A few people can consciously cultivate a taste for certain foods they previously didn't like, or just wake up one day feeling curious about a food they always used to hate. The idea of an innate, immutable sexuality that is completely intrinsic to who you are is a very comforting idea for a lot of people (gay and straight alike) but comfort is not the same thing as truth.

Of course, trying to change someone's sexual orientation is monstrous and should be illegal. Not because sexuality is an innate, unchanging feature of a person, but because the process of trying to change a person's sexual orientation, especially through coercive behaviour modification techniques, is abusive, unnecessary, doesn't work and certainly doesn't lead to any kind of long term psychological wellbeing.

More generally though, on the subject of appealing to "born this way", I think if the past century taught us anything it's that pleading for clemency from the straight population doesn't work. Part of the pride movement (the actual pride movement, not the pink capitalist sham we have now) was to say "sure, I didn't choose this, but I would choose this". One of the most pervasive forms of homophobia in our culture, I think, is the idea that queer people are all miserable tortured souls and that the only way to be happy is to assimilate into heterosexual culture. To me, that's always been pretty laughable. Heterosexuality (cisheterosexuality at least) hasn't even made the straights happy, it's definitely not going to work for anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The way that you think most people operate is nonsense, and you think it reasonable because it's largely without malice. But if someone with malice were insisting that people are born gay, the potential outcomes are even a bit darker than someone with malice claiming it's just a phase.

The entire concept of being "born this way" is rooted in a system of homophobia. It's a deflection. It's saying "you can't blame me, I didn't choose this", which sort of implicitly concedes that blame would be reasonable if it was a choice. It's all an effective shutdown on the conversation, because homophobes when asked if they could ever be gay are quick to say "no, no, I could never not be straight"... you know, because they're homophobes.
You're describing a situation where it's impossible to not be prejudiced, you understand that, right? The person with malice is on the same level as the person without it.

By saying 'this is the default' (and I'm not talking left-handed scissors) we're only perpetuating this line of thinking that default is "normal" and normal is "good". And I know this might sound all 'feeings over fact', but the facts in this regard are pretty vague and prone to change. This is not exclussive to the heterosexual "norm" either, since among gay communities bi-sexuality was once brushed off as not normal or not even existing.
Well, yes, it does sound like feelings over facts. And that can have potentially lethal consequences. Look at the fat acceptance movement for instance. I'd have thought (right now, I don't know anymore) that we could all agree that it's a bad thing to be overweight (and even worse to be obese), while also agreeing that people shouldn't be discriminated against or mocked for being overweight or obese. However, even that's a controversial sentiment in some circles.

If we can't even agree that most people are right-handed, or that most people have opposite-sex attraction (which isn't a statement of value, it's a statement of number that's backed up by every survey ever conducted, even as prejudices decreased), then good luck tackling deviances from the norm that are genuinely harmful and/or disabling.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,014
1,688
118
Country
United States
Well, yes, it does sound like feelings over facts. And that can have potentially lethal consequences. Look at the fat acceptance movement for instance. I'd have thought (right now, I don't know anymore) that we could all agree that it's a bad thing to be overweight (and even worse to be obese), while also agreeing that people shouldn't be discriminated against or mocked for being overweight or obese. However, even that's a controversial sentiment in some circles.
Generally because it's A) not actually that big of deal,
B) based on BMI which is a stat that's mostly pseudoscientific bullshit, and
C) jumps right into the discriminatory and mocking part with no hesitation
If we can't even agree that most people are right-handed, or that most people have opposite-sex attraction (which isn't a statement of value, it's a statement of number that's backed up by every survey ever conducted, even as prejudices decreased), then good luck tackling deviances from the norm that are genuinely harmful and/or disabling.
Would you describe red haired or blond haired people as "abnormal"? How about blue eyes?

Things can be rare while still being perfectly normal. Default is a computer setting
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,492
522
118
Country
USA
You're describing a situation where it's impossible to not be prejudiced, you understand that, right? The person with malice is on the same level as the person without it.
As far as truth is concerned, that second sentence can be the case. A person can be truthful and malicious, or alternatively kind and wildly inaccurate. That doesn't mean it's impossible to not be prejudiced (though whether that is true or not is a different bag of worms), just that trying to be kind is not necessarily indicative of lack of prejudice. They are independent qualities.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Generally because it's A) not actually that big of deal,
B) based on BMI which is a stat that's mostly pseudoscientific bullshit, and
C) jumps right into the discriminatory and mocking part with no hesitation
Obesity absolutely is a problem. If you think it isn't, you're living in another universe.

Also, I don't know what you're trying to say with point C. Are you trying to say that discrimination and mocking aren't problems? If so, I'd love to live in this universe.

Would you describe red haired or blond haired people as "abnormal"? How about blue eyes?

Things can be rare while still being perfectly normal. Default is a computer setting
Abnormal? No. Rare? Yes.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,014
1,688
118
Country
United States
Obesity absolutely is a problem. If you think it isn't, you're living in another universe.

Also, I don't know what you're trying to say with point C. Are you trying to say that discrimination and mocking aren't problems? If so, I'd love to live in this universe.
Me too, but we don't. And damn never everybody raging about the obesity epidemic participates in the harassment and discrimination part
Having extra pounds isn't a problem. Being unhealthy is a problem, and while there's a correlation it's not causation.

Abnormal? No. Rare? Yes.
So being gay or whatever is normal then. I mean, if the two percent of the population with red hair aren't deviances from the norm.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
4,501
1,891
118
So sick of these famous idiots using games as scapegoats for societal ills while turning a blind eye to the fact kids far too often have parents that (for whatever reason) don’t lead by example provided they’re even around in the first place. Most of these “problem” kids were put on the wrong path long before they picked up a goddamn controller.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,484
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Me too, but we don't. And damn never everybody raging about the obesity epidemic participates in the harassment and discrimination part
Having extra pounds isn't a problem. Being unhealthy is a problem, and while there's a correlation it's not causation.
The people "raging" about the obesity epidemic tend to be medical professionals. Who the heck are they harassing? Generally, the people who do the harassment and discrimination are everyday people, especially in the school ecosystem.

Also, if you're obese, you're far more at risk from conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and various cancers. Living through the pandemic, we've seen this play out in real time, in that being obese makes you far more vulnerable to Covid. The link between obesity and health conditions is sound. In fact, it's so sound that we're living through the first time in human history where more people are dying from heart-related diseases than starvation.

So being gay or whatever is normal then. I mean, if the two percent of the population with red hair aren't deviances from the norm.
In an effort to be as scientifically accurate and politically correct as possible, I'll go with "normal deviation."

Back to blue eyes for an instance. Blue eyes are a deviation from the human norm. This isn't subjective judgement about the 'worth' of such a trait, it's a scientific fact that blue eyes are a very recent mutation within the human gene pool. If you want to know the "norm" for human eye-colour, it's brown, and has been until extremely recently in our evolution. It's another fact that red hair is extremely rare, and can be traced back to a single Y-chromosomal haplogroup, and tends to be more prolific among groups found in higher latitudes (so, more common in Eurasia than other parts of the world). So on the one hand, yes, gingers do have souls, but on the other, gingers are rare, and a minority among the human race. That blue-eyes, red hair, and left-handedness (among other things) are the exceptions to the rule shouldn't be a controversial statement.

So if we're talking about LGBT stuff, we can agree (I hope) that being in that bracket doesn't warrant any kind of discrimination or separate treatment, but, well, here's an article:


And to quote, "A 2016 literature review stated that "in all cultures the vast majority of individuals are sexually predisposed exclusively to the other sex (i.e., heterosexual) and that only a minority of individuals are sexually predisposed (whether exclusively or non-exclusively) to the same sex." They state that there is no persuasive evidence that the demographics of sexual orientation have varied much across time or place. Bisexuality comes in varying degrees of relative attraction to the same or opposite sex. Men are more likely to be exclusively homosexual than to be equally attracted to both sexes, while the opposite is true for women.

Going through all the statistics provided, that appears to be the case.

If you want to argue that none of the above is true, then you're facing an uphill battle.

Fortunately, none of the above are "harmful deviations," while obesity absolutely is.