eh, I always thought that they stopped calling homosexuality a disorder because of political pressure not science.Xiado said:
Homosexuality as a disorder
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Why thank you.Bara_no_Hime said:
OT: At this point, with the warning that sadly had to come at the beginning of the OP, anybody that actually thinks this thread is about homosexuality ought to be reprimanded in some fashion. Nothing too extreme, but perhaps a sting that will make them read more carefully and completely in the future.
Now, moving on to the actual argument. Very well made point, Original-Poster. As a debater, I have to deal with words all the time, and though I love language I've witnessed all too often how sloppy wording can ruin a point. Let me give you a recent example:
In the U.S. this year's resolution, or 'topic',(what every high-school debater will talk about for the year's season,) is that "the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of Space beyond the Earth's mesosphere." For instance, one of my partner and I's plans is that the United States should put solar power gathering satellites into Geosynchronous orbit above the mesosphere (one layer of the Earth's atmosphere,) for various reasons.
Now, it's important to remember that in a debate round, everything is spoken aloud- so capitalization of words doesn't matter. In this example, the important words are "Space" and "Earth". The example is a case brought up against my partner and I at a varsity level tournament;
The case was that the United States Federal Government should substantial increase its exploration and or development of Space beyond the Earth's mesosphere by breaking off a large piece of Antarctica, floating it into U.S. waters, and colonizing it. How, you ask, does that pertain at all to colonizing Space? They explained;
They defined "Earth" as what's on the ground, i.e. "earth"- lowercase.
They defined "Space" as the 3-Dimensional area in which everything takes place, i.e. "space"-lowercase.
And it turns out that there's a second "mesosphere" beneath the earth's surface, just outside the core of the earth.
Essentially, they used different definitions to say that the topic about about exploring/developing any space anywhere outside of the Earth's core. And though we managed to beat them on topicality (saying that their plan does not pertain to the topic,) no doubt other teams less skilled than my partner and I in debate theory lost to their insane case.
The Original-Poster's comment is an important point for every language-speaking individual to consider, as it has been in history, but even more important in the approaching intellectual and critical-thinking enlightenment that I, personally, hope comes soon to deliver humanity from our current state of in-education and religious/non-religious bigotry.
TL
R (for the lazy): The OP made a good point in a good way, if you don't have the capacity to understand that it is not the fault of the OP's.
You know what you typed doesn't make sense, right? I have ADD (not ADHD because I'm impulsive not hyperactive)which I acknowledge is a disorder, but by your logic everybody else has a disorder because they can focus and not act out impulsively, which is complete bullsh*t. I AM the one with the disorder (ADD) not everybody else.Yatagarasean said:
The word could only be used to describe communism to the medically illiterate. Deviating from the norm is a pretty terrible definition of disorder.
I'd be much more concerned about the common use of communism, meaning totalitarian socialism, and Marxist communism, meaning a stateless egalitarian society, being conflated in the public view if I were you.
I'd be much more concerned about the common use of communism, meaning totalitarian socialism, and Marxist communism, meaning a stateless egalitarian society, being conflated in the public view if I were you.
Problem is that if your original point (the definition of something) has been changed, then your point is moot. We can no longer argue it because our definitions differ, which is what this entire argument boils down to anyway. What does the definition of something mean? That's an interesting question, but that's not the question that's promised by virtue of the title of this thread.2012 Wont Happen said:
Why? There are pieces missing. Your argument implies that "average" and "ordinary" are functions of majority rules. In that case, "average" etc. is just as slippery a concept as "disorder." The majority is likely more influenced by current culture than it is by anything else. Culture justifies itself. It is very rarely introspective...
I think what I'm saying is that you didn't deconstruct the argument sufficiently. There was a boilerplate definition of "average" but it didn't go further than that top level of analysis. And what's worse is you immediately jumped down the throats of people bringing up legitimate questions. Their posts may have been short, but just because they didn't use jargon like you doesn't make the posts any less important. Plus, you basically pat yourself on the back with the quoted claim: "I... make an interesting point via [why via? the preposition "by" is more idiomatically correct here] giving a very startling example..." The claims you made that I'm disputing are in bold.
I found those points neither interesting nor startling. I already know that language misrepresents things. This is not interesting to me. The example you used, the title of the thread, is misleading. In a way, when you think about it, this post in and of itself is wielding language non-felicitously by claiming to talk about one thing (homosexuality as a disorder) then quickly veering off into claiming that language can be used to misrepresent things. Perhaps you didn't mean this post this way, but it is horribly ironic.
Gotcha. Sort of atypical, but I can dig it.Dags90 said:
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
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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 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.WeAreStevo said:
To the OP: you might find Wittgenstein's later work interesting and enjoyable to read.
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.Silvianoshei said:
Actually.. yes, yes and yes. By using the definitions, you proved it. and there's nothing wrong with that.2012 Wont Happen said:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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