Homosexuality as a disorder

[Silvianoshei]

You're using a definition of "nature" which, while used in the dictionary given as the basis for definitions in the OP, isn't the first one. I'm operating on the assumption of laziness. The first definition of nature is simply, "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence". It doesn't say whether or not a person was raised in a way that made them gay, or genetics, just that it's something which is inherent to their character.


As an off-topic note, there never will studies which are by themselves definitive. That's not how science works. There will be multiple studies supporting it. There are also increasingly more studies pointing towards genetic and epigenetic factors.

Gotcha. Sort of atypical, but I can dig it.

Ahh, you're right, but that's not what I meant. I was just saying that people shouldn't come to the conclusion that it's purely genetic or purely experiential. It's most likely a mix of both, as it usually is. Very little is truly dichotomous in the real world.

I know how long and arduous the process is from discovery to policy (environmental/observational to case-control to cohort to randomized control trials...) since it's my day job

 

[thethird0611]

Wrong thread >_> Sorry

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

Perhaps unrelated, perhaps not.. but I'll throw in my first thought upon seeing this as I pretty much think it's a load of "something". But I may also have read it incorrectly as it was hard to follow, what with not seeming all that accurate, and such.

IN PART, I see Homosexuality as a natural response to the explosive population growth of Humanity. It's becoming harder and harder for people to die as science and medicine comes up with more cures, but certain religions continue to beat people over the head with the notion that having craptons of children is a good idea. There are more people being born than there are dying (at least in the US), as of a recent report a relative told me about.

I have met far more homosexual and bisexual people in the last 10 years than me and my family had in the previous 30.. a lot more. It is very common for people to be curious about the same gender, I have even heard from more than a few people I know that they've been curious what it would be like to BE the other gender.


CAN Homosexuality be the result of birth issues? Sure, if you were meant to be born the other gender and despite what you physically possess, your personality and estrogen/testosterone levels may point you in a different direction. However, that's certainly not the "normal" reason that Homosexuality exists.

Likewise, it can result from trauma such as rape, abusive significant others, and even the way you were raised (abusive father/mother). I've met at least one woman who, after becoming totally disgusted with all the guys she'd met/dated over the years, decided to swear them off entirely. In a similar vein, peer pressure can also lead to confusion over preferred gender and thoughts; the media also plays a part in the confusion of what side one may fall on with the sexuality issue, and this includes video games.


However, by and large, I notice that homosexuality and especially bisexuality are lifestyle choices.

Anyways, that's it for me.


EDIT: By the way, I find it extremely difficult to believe only 3.5% of your country's population falls into the category of homosexual/bisexual. The only reason I can see is that source of this number was a very poorly handled poll/consensus, or that they simply didn't ask that many people. It's also possible that your country (I didn't catch the name) makes people not want to come forwards.

 

[Caffiene]

@Thread starter: I understand the point you're making, but I think part of the problems you are running into is that your chosen example is somewhat flawed.

The idea is to show that language can be used to trick people. Thats a point worth making. To do so, you use the example that if you trust Merriam Webster and follow all the definitions to their most basic points homosexuality can be defined as a disorder. But where you shoot yourself in the foot is that you havent actually fully fleshed out your example. This is the point that walrusaurus was making on the first page. ie:

Disorder is defined as "an abnormal physical or mental condition".
Abnormal is defined as "deviating from the normal or average"
Average is defined as "not out of the ordinary"
Ordinary is defined as "of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events".

Substituting in those definitions, as you began to do in the OP, you get
A disorder is "a physical or mental state of being that deviates from the normal or from things not of a kind to be expected in the normal order of events".

As walrusaurus was saying, you didnt then take the next step of looking up the definition of normal.

If we take the first 4 definitions from Merriam Webster:
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
b : free from mental disorder : sane

We can discard 1 as not applicable (referring only to math), 2 is subjective - its only relevant in the context of a specific rule/principle/standard/etc, which we do not have, and 4b becomes a circular definition by referring to disorder.

Which leaves normal is defined as "occurring naturally ; of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development"

These definitions do apply to homosexuality (if we allow for nature/nurture debate both falling under the definition of "natural", which it seems to without continuing on through even more definitions). Therefore: By following your process Merriam Webster defines homosexuality as not a disorder.

Now, to the point: If the example is not technically correct, you are only really left with the conclusion - that you need to be careful of what you read and carefully consider whether the language is being used misleadingly. But you didnt need the example to make that point. Presumably you included the example because it is important getting your point across, therefore it is also relevant to the thread for people to point out flaws in the example. Which some people are doing.

 

[WeAreStevo]

I know that you put a lovely little caveat in there about how we are not here to debate the term "disorder" or "homosexuality" but I...I just can't...

You cannot use the dictionary to make a judgement about how a behavior or a decision is a mental disorder. There is another book for that, which is the DSM. Homosexuality was in the DSM II as a mental disorder, and as such in the 1950's homosexuals were sent to psychiatric wards as a result of their "illness."

Since then, it was removed from the DSM III and has been out since. More recently, there's been debate on removing "gender identity disorder" from the DSM as well, but that's not necessarily why we're here.

To address what I believe your original intention was (although it was rather convoluted amid all of the disclaimers that you threw up every time "homosexuality is a disorder" came up), yes. Disorder as a term is very manipulative. It can be used to stigmatize and to confine. I believe that as a society we need to move away from stigmatized labels.

However, going simply from a dictionary definition and not from a medical/psychological definition of a disorder, you are truncating the varied positions that exist within the spectrum of disorder and are simply rubber stamping everyone as "you have ________ disorder because you are not considered a high enough percentage to make it common place."

There are so many other facets that need to be examined before making such a claim of having a "disorder" that go far and beyond the dictionary definition.

 

[aashell13]

See, that's the trouble with relative definitions.

 

[Hap2]

I know that you put a lovely little caveat in there about how we are not here to debate the term "disorder" or "homosexuality" but I...I just can't...

You cannot use the dictionary to make a judgement about how a behavior or a decision is a mental disorder. There is another book for that, which is the DSM. Homosexuality was in the DSM II as a mental disorder, and as such in the 1950's homosexuals were sent to psychiatric wards as a result of their "illness."

Since then, it was removed from the DSM III and has been out since. More recently, there's been debate on removing "gender identity disorder" from the DSM as well, but that's not necessarily why we're here.

To address what I believe your original intention was (although it was rather convoluted amid all of the disclaimers that you threw up every time "homosexuality is a disorder" came up), yes. Disorder as a term is very manipulative. It can be used to stigmatize and to confine. I believe that as a society we need to move away from stigmatized labels.

However, going simply from a dictionary definition and not from a medical/psychological definition of a disorder, you are truncating the varied positions that exist within the spectrum of disorder and are simply rubber stamping everyone as "you have ________ disorder because you are not considered a high enough percentage to make it common place."

There are so many other facets that need to be examined before making such a claim of having a "disorder" that go far and beyond the dictionary definition.

You missed the point. The OP was commenting on how the use of a particular kind of language can also affect the way one thinks about something. Calling something a "disorder" affects the way in one views it, e.g. the difference between calling someone "eccentric", and saying that someone has a "disorder", each of those words carry different feelings and thoughts, influencing the perception of what is being referred to.

To the OP: you might find Wittgenstein's later work interesting and enjoyable to read.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Apparently, hating Twilight is also a disorder. Damn

 

[brainslurper]

Disorder, when referring to homosexuality (which has a biological significance, like obesity, or even something simple like a unibrow), is a medical term. Not a social one.

I don't think that is the point of this thread, at all. Opposite gender attraction exists to encourage reproduction. Two people of one gender can't reproduce naturally, so homosexuality is a disorder. Much like how humans are supposed to be able to see, being blind is a disorder. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with being blind or homosexual. Problem solved.

 

[balanovich]

So, is homosexuality a disorder? No. Is being a Communist a mental disorder? No. Is being a Fascist or a Libertarian or any of those other unpopular states of being I disagree with a disorder? No.

Actually.. yes, yes and yes. By using the definitions, you proved it. and there's nothing wrong with that.

You tell people to be careful about being manipulated by words. You wanted to show the hidden danger of words....

But don't realise that you're being manipulated yourself. Not by words, but by connotation.

Not only that but you fail to treat context. You cannot have manipulation without context.

lol, you're probably the communist who knows the less about manipulation.
...
or maybe you're just a smart and educated troll... you made a provocative yet inaccurate post. You've made it misleading so that many people will oppose/argue against it the wrong way and then you get to call them idiots for it.

That would explain why you mostly answer people who are beside the point while ignoring the one who are relevant.
clever .... but pathetic.

 

[teebeeohh]

well this is...
actually a pretty good way to point how language can be used for hate speech and then quickly hide behind the "i was just making a point" shield.
Because as the vast majority of responses point out, people will tend to have knee jerk reactions, if you gave this to a bunch of homophones they would keep reading: being gay is a disorder LOCK THEM AWAY

 

[AdmiralMemo]

This is the main reason why definitions need to be established before moving into debate. If this is not done, then you end up with two sides to the debate both completely missing the other side with the thrust of their argument.

 

[NightHawk21]

This should be well know to most people by the age of 18. You can cleverly spin almost anything without lying and print work that while true to the source material is combined in such a way that it makes it misleading. Shit its really fun to do in essays.

Off-topic: Yes, you could consider homosexuality as a disorder (speaking strictly from a biological point of view), but that doesn't necessarily mean those people should be discriminated against anymore than than its okay to punch people with down syndrome in the face.

 

[agentorange98]

Well your idea calls for a much more rigid dictation of what "normal" is, say for instance if normal is just the most common then being white would be a "disorder" under your definition cause the majority race is asians. Also I believe a disorder is classified as being restrictive, like a handicap

 

[ghostrider9876]

It's entirely likely you could have made your actual point (don't believe everything you hear, because people can manipulate language and meaning to trick you) using a topic that wouldn't have confused the issue as much as this has.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Wow, that was a very insightful post. Much more so then anything I've seen recently on this forum. Applause applause

A lot of bigotry, intolerance and bias is embedded in our language.

This reminds me of another idea that I've reading about recently:

http://www.bewareofimages.com/blog/2011/07/less-face-more-book/

It talks about how our society has become more image based, and thus more black-and-white. The nature of images, especially commercial ones (which is the majority of what people see) is a big, direct, sensational, singular message, which is often at it's core "buy this, feel good and be happy."

I feel that the prominence of bold images like that have gave rise to the 'instant-gratification' attitude in our society today: Happiness is just one purchase, action, or drug away. You're almost there, and then it's gone.

Much culture in our society, and thus language (art, music, words, ect.) is created by large corporations. Look at all of the music, TV shows, video games and movies people consume. How much of that is created by real humans beings and not faceless entities trying to sell a product? Consumerism and the perpetual dissatisfaction that comes with it has been deeply embedded in nearly every way we express ourselves and communicate with each other, from how we talk and what we talk about to the way we dress. Wearing expensive, stylish clothes makes you feel good and makes you look like those "perfect" and "happy" people shown in the media, thus making you appear happier, and spread the idea that buying such clothes makes one happier, to other people.

 

[CMDDarkblade]

That's nice. You're a communist. Good for you. So you are saying that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has some misleading definitions. That's possible. What's your point? Are you saying that Merriam-Webster have some hidden bourgeoisie agenda to subvert the righteous proletariat revolution? That's highly unlikely.

In response, I shall sing you a song:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
Ah

Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
All right, all right
All right, all right, all right
All right, all right, all right

 

[Justank]

Well done 2012 Wont Happen, all around. Not only did you posit a simple and true idea in your post, you used the thread itself to prove it. Thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

 

[girzwald]

You might want to check what year that dictionary is. Homosexuality hasn't been classified as a "disorder" since, I think the 70s (not sure when exactly it changed).

Only because people in the scientific/medical community were pressured to change it from advocate groups. Not through consensus.

 

[Lesd3vil]

snip.

Have you never been in a situation where words just aren't enough to adequately express what's in your head? Of course language is an imperfect system of communication, but that's not because language in and of itself is inherently insufficient. It's because people disagree with each other; any method of communication is going to become difficult when you're trying to explain what you think to a person that doesn't want to agree with you. Unfortunately it's also the only system of communication we've got. :/

Put less of your faith in what words mean and more of it in how words are used. Most people assume 'normal' to mean 'themselves' and why not? What other experience do they have?

EDIT: For the record, I agree with what you're saying about how certain states of being can be defined using fallacious logic. What I mean is that a definition is not the be-all and end-all of something, it's your own belief that defines what and how you see things. I know people who honestly think homosexuality is a disease; personally I believe that all people are born basically without sexuality and that we're conditioned into our sexualities through outside influences. I get along with them because I understand that no amount of argument is going to change their minds on that, not because I don't have the language to do it but simply because they don't want to believe anything other than what they believe >>