If DeSantis wins

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,912
1,775
118
Country
United Kingdom
But your claim is a consensus among gay people. I have not found any evidence of that.
A healthy adult with a normal social life, or for that matter any intellectually curious human being with the capacity for thought, should not require "evidence" of this any more than they require evidence of other obvious social consensuses. If you have reached adulthood and yet not managed to develop any kind of basic understanding of human sexuality, you are simply not equipped for this discussion and you need to stop and maybe go talk to some normal people.

You can cry about logical fallacies all you want, but the simple fact is, noone wants to watch you humiliate yourself, and noone needs to prove the obvious.

But to explain to you what you should have learned as a child, there is a basic difference between sexual attraction and sexual identity. Sexual attraction is very obviously outside of conscious control or social mediation, if you are attracted to someone then you are attracted to them and you cannot choose not to be. There is a some question over whether some individuals may have the ability to consciously cultivate new forms of sexual attraction in the same way some people can consciously develop a taste for certain foods over a long period of time, but the reverse is not true. Attempts to remove unwanted forms of sexual attraction rely on the mechanism of social repression. They are harmful, ineffective and increasingly illegal.

Sexual identities are the social identities associated with particular patterns of sexual attraction. At times, queer political movements have attempted to reclaim these identities as chosen identities for various ends, but always with the conscious recognition that this is in opposition to the way these identities operate socially. Outside of radical queer politics, sexual identity is a mediated identity produced through the way an individual interacts with society. If a man insists they are heterosexual but demonstrates clear attraction to men, then those around them are extremely likely to stop viewing and treating them as heterosexual.

The fact that sexual identity is not immediately intelligible in the same way as physical properties like sex or skin colour, but is rather something that is subject to continuous social negotiation, is referred to (both socially and academically) as "closeting". Again, it would be simplistic to describe closeting as a choice, as people do not have control over the conditions under which the social negotiation of their sexual identity occurs, although they can control how they react to those conditions. For example, the man in the case above might tactically choose not to express attraction to other men in order to be interpreted as heterosexual, but he is not choosing an identity, he is engaging in an intentional deception for social advantage.

The "debate" around choice is separate from and yet related to the debate around whether or not sexual attraction is innate. Homophobic political lobbies frequently attempt to confuse the two, because while there is a pretty absolute consensus outside of conversion therapy advocates and the religious right that sexual attraction is not a choice, there is no clear consensus amongst gay people or anyone else around whether or not sexual attraction is innate or learned. Psychological research exists to support both positions, and in general the evidence leans towards sexual attraction being based on the interaction of inherent features and those learned in early life. But even those who strongly favor social learning as the basis for sexual attraction overwhelmingly reject the idea that it is a choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,507
930
118
Country
USA
The "debate" around choice is separate from and yet related to the debate around whether or not sexual attraction is innate. Homophobic political lobbies frequently attempt to confuse the two, because while there is a pretty absolute consensus outside of conversion therapy advocates and the religious right that sexual attraction is not a choice, there is no clear consensus amongst gay people or anyone else around whether or not sexual attraction is innate or learned. Psychological research exists to support both positions, and in general the evidence leans towards sexual attraction being based on the interaction of inherent features and those learned in early life. But even those who strongly favor social learning as the basis for sexual attraction overwhelmingly reject the idea that it is a choice.
The comment you're responding to is specifically about the lack of data of the opinions of gay people on the subject, and I think you illustrate why right here. When the question is very nuanced, the results of a poll are inevitably misleading. If there were a clear and significant majority of gay people who would say "yes, I was born this way", someone would ask the question and publish the surveys that Silvanus was pretending exist, but given the option, I think the plurality of people asked if they were born gay would pick "I don't know". And if you ask someone if they chose something like this, questioning what the word "chose" even means is a very valid response.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,114
5,834
118
Country
United Kingdom
When the question is very nuanced, the results of a poll are inevitably misleading. If there were a clear and significant majority of gay people who would say "yes, I was born this way", someone would ask the question and publish the surveys that Silvanus was pretending exist [...]
*sigh* Had been happy to let it lie, but seeing as you've seen the need to snipe.

You've been shown now that the larger the proportion of people in a given demographic that identify as LGBT+, the greater the proportion of that demographic will say it's not a choice. You've offered speculated alternative explanations for that trend, but the trend is statistically undeniable and highly pronounced: the more personal experience and personal interaction with gay people in a demographic, the more likely they are to say it's not a choice.

but given the option, I think the plurality of people asked if they were born gay would pick "I don't know".
Which is subtly different from asking whether it was a choice, of course, but that's by-the-by.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,912
1,775
118
Country
United Kingdom
The comment you're responding to is specifically about the lack of data of the opinions of gay people on the subject, and I think you illustrate why right here. When the question is very nuanced, the results of a poll are inevitably misleading. If there were a clear and significant majority of gay people who would say "yes, I was born this way", someone would ask the question and publish the surveys that Silvanus was pretending exist, but given the option, I think the plurality of people asked if they were born gay would pick "I don't know". And if you ask someone if they chose something like this, questioning what the word "chose" even means is a very valid response.
Except that you are specifically talking about choice. You are speculating about the hypothetical psychological processes by which you imagine people might make choices regarding sexuality. The question of choice is not a "nuanced" question at all. The answer to that question is incredibly, incredibly obvious. It is only disputed by those trying to persuade vulnerable people, people who are distressed by their same sex attractions but who are not able to change because sexual attraction is not a choice, to pay money in order to undergo harmful and abusive forms of pseudo-scientific therapy that do not work.

Like many of those people, you have attempted to deliberately confuse the issue by presenting an equivalence between the question of innateness and choice, but that equivalence is fundamentally a lie. It does not matter whether sexual attraction is innate or not, and it does not matter what proportion of gay people believe it is. The absence of innateness does not imply choice. A child does not control its own early development any more than it controls its own genetics. A fact which should be entirely obvious to anyone willing to engage in basic self-reflection.

If you want to keep pulling this existentialist radical choice argument, I'm going to need you to start living in accordance with your beliefs. Choose to be gay. Choose to be attracted only to men. Choose to break up with your partner because you respect them to much to allow them to live what you choose to be a lie. Choose a man and choose to love them and desire them, then choose to be happy from now until the day you die. Until you manage to do that, you're just a straight up hypocrite, emphasis on the straight.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,507
930
118
Country
USA
*sigh* Had been happy to let it lie, but seeing as you've seen the need to snipe.
You should have let it lie, you were correct to be happy. You walked into a complete dead end, and I decided to let it end there rather than do this to you:
You've been shown now that the larger the proportion of people in a given demographic that identify as LGBT+, the greater the proportion of that demographic will say it's not a choice. You've offered speculated alternative explanations for that trend, but the trend is statistically undeniable and highly pronounced: the more personal experience and personal interaction with gay people in a demographic, the more likely they are to say it's not a choice.
Correlation is not causation, none of that is how statistics work. You made a very clear-cut statement about the polls and surveys done on the subject, you razzed me for my lack of basic research, and now you're arguing that a correlation between demographics that say its not a choice and those with more self-identified LGBT people is positive evidence for your claim. Even after being told you're just seeing multiple ways of saying "young people say what the media has told them for the last couple decades". But even if that was an accurate conclusion, where's the polls and surveys directly on the question of what specifically gay people think about this? You want to mock me for my lack of basic research, you better have something to back it up.
The question of choice is not a "nuanced" question at all. The answer to that question is incredibly, incredibly obvious.
Do you believe in free will?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,114
5,834
118
Country
United Kingdom
You should have let it lie, you were correct to be happy. You walked into a complete dead end, and I decided to let it end there rather than do this to you
....except you didn't let it lie. You failed to provide a coherent response to the studies and surveys at the time they were given, then a few weeks later shot a snide little insult while interacting with someone else entirely.

Correlation is not causation, none of that is how statistics work. You made a very clear-cut statement about the polls and surveys done on the subject, you razzed me for my lack of basic research, and now you're arguing that a correlation between demographics that say its not a choice and those with more self-identified LGBT people is positive evidence for your claim. Even after being told you're just seeing multiple ways of saying "young people say what the media has told them for the last couple decades". But even if that was an accurate conclusion, where's the polls and surveys directly on the question of what specifically gay people think about this? You want to mock me for my lack of basic research, you better have something to back it up.
Firstly: this condescending guff about having "something better to back it up" is tremendously rich, considering I've been the only one here to provide anything in the way of scientific research, surveying, and lived experience, while you've been offering precisely fuck-all except outside speculation.

Anywho, here's some more:


(Beliefs about the determinants of sexuality are strongly linked to sexual orientation and contact with other gay people, more so than other factors);


(Shows that those who believe it's a choice are hugely more likely to be those who view homosexuality negatively, and vice versa).
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,507
930
118
Country
USA
....except you didn't let it lie. You failed to provide a coherent response to the studies and surveys at the time they were given, then a few weeks later shot a snide little insult while interacting with someone else entirely.
I did. I allowed you to have the last word, that's letting it lie. I didn't make a snide insult while interacting with someone else, they revived the dead thread on their own, and I accurately recounted the events thus far.

(Beliefs about the determinants of sexuality are strongly linked to sexual orientation and contact with other gay people, more so than other factors);
Almost there, it's just a shame we can't see what the links actually are. Got a nice little pay wall in the way that we can't actually see what correlation they found.

If you manage to break your way into that paper and find the actual results, and find anything less than a supermajority agreement, it's not going to be a good look for the "consensus" point you've tried to make. Terminal is the person dredging this back up, and not even Terminal is really on board with your position.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,114
5,834
118
Country
United Kingdom
I did. I allowed you to have the last word, that's letting it lie. I didn't make a snide insult while interacting with someone else, they revived the dead thread on their own, and I accurately recounted the events thus far.
Bollocks. I didn't "pretend they exist"-- I provided links, which you then ignored and/or explained away through sheer speculation.

What I didn't do then (until now, because you didn't let it lie) was produce a survey solely of LGBT+ people on the question. Because if we're being honest, a survey showing "choice" respondents are overwhelmingly from groups who don't identify as LGBT+ and don't interact with LGBT+ people is a strong indicator.

Almost there, it's just a shame we can't see what the links actually are. Got a nice little pay wall in the way that we can't actually see what correlation they found.
If you manage to break your way into that paper and find the actual results, and find anything less than a supermajority agreement, it's not going to be a good look for the "consensus" point you've tried to make.
I mean, I'll try, but... the strong relationship is literally attested in the freely-accessible abstract. And you also have another survey now showing that the "choice" response goes hand-in-hand with negative notions about gay people.

To dismiss all three of these now, and to completely ignore the raft of studies into causes I also provided, is getting absurd. You don't have a leg to stand on pointing fingers at others for a failure to back themselves up when you've still provided absolutely zilch except speculation.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,036
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Ever heard of Romneycare? The Right used to care nationalistically about the well being of its citizens. Or helping people due to it being the Christian thing to do. Or basic compassion. Or even just pragmatic realism. They're fully captured by the prosperity gospel freaks now though.

Lmao, of course you think the Democrats are "left" and not Reaganites in blue hats. California's run by venture capitalists and it's left-leaning ideas come solely from the electorate bucking their leadership.
I'm aware of RomneyCare... Just because a republican governor of one state that hasn't voted red for president since 1984 passed RomneyCare doesn't mean the republican party wants public healthcare.

I'm aware Democrats aren't left on core issues but their left social policies are horrible and doing nothing is better the vast majority of the time. Why are you voting for these people?

I'm talking about you promoting anti-trans and anti-homosexual bills. You know, the ones that ban them from existing in a public space
The only "anti-trans" bills that I'm for are stuff for minors and sports and until there's science saying it's beneficial/fair, I will continue to be for those things. That is banning anyone from existing in public spaces?

I think this might be the single most Phoenixmgs sentence ever. Ticks all the boxes. Prejudiced? Check. Sweeping and vague? Check. Spurious appeal to "the science"? Check. Grammatically awful despite only being a handful of words long? You know it.
Show me the science that says it's fair, and I'll gladly change my stance.

 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,507
930
118
Country
USA
Bollocks. I didn't "pretend they exist"-- I provided links, which you then ignored and/or explained away through sheer speculation.
You did, you did pretend they existed. You claimed there were polls and surveys supporting your position (and criticized me for not knowing about them) without ever having seen any evidence they exist. You had to dig to find maybe support for your claim in a small, pay-walled study from 30 years ago. Which, if we could see into, and it had something near consensus, I would unhesitantly congratulate you for proving your point, but that doesn't change the fact that you claimed it existed out of nothing but gut instinct. I know you had to work to find even what you did, I tried to find that information and gave up. You did more than I did, and I'm willing to acknowledge it's not "basic research".
I mean, I'll try, but... the strong relationship is literally attested in the freely-accessible abstract.
A strong relationship is attested to. What degree and in which direction are not specified. Even accepting the assumption that the gay subset more often think it's not a choice, if the strong relationship is going from say 60% think it's a choice to 40% think it's a choice, that's still far from a consensus. Everything I've looked at and everything you've provided still has never attempted to answer the question "what percent of gay people think it's a choice." I'm not going to be picky, if it's 90-10 one way, I'm not going to fight over the 10%. Literally nothing has given an answer to the question, with the exception being that one behind the paywall where we can't see the data and the abstract gives no numbers.

I hope you are sharing this experience with me at least a little, I know it's in the interest of your argument to claim I'm just ignoring things, but it's really annoying that this data basically doesn't exist. Here we have a question of cultural, philosophical, and scientific significance in our societies, a question that informs things all the way from Lady Gaga to clinical psychology, and nobody has bothered to ask it properly.
...ignore the raft of studies into causes I also provided
Half of your links are opinion pieces. Who do you think you're gonna fool?
You don't have a leg to stand on pointing fingers at others for a failure to back themselves up when you've still provided absolutely zilch except speculation.
I provided one example of a gay person disagreeing with your consensus. In the absence of evidence such a consensus exists, a single reasonable alternative is sufficient to dispute you. What would your response be if we got into that study's data and 30% of gay respondents claimed it was a choice? Would you say they don't count cause they're a minority opinion?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,114
5,834
118
Country
United Kingdom
You did, you did pretend they existed. You claimed there were polls and surveys supporting your position
No matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise, a survey showing that "choice" respondents are overwhelmingly from demographics with less experience of LGBT people, and another showing that those who say its a "choice" are far more likely to be anti-homosexuality, are strong indicators.

Which, if we could see into, and it had something near consensus, I would unhesitantly congratulate you for proving your point
Based on how you've approached the scientific studies and other surveys-- with complete dismissal-- I don't believe this for a second.

A strong relationship is attested to. What degree and in which direction are not specified.
Yes, its true that i don't know the exact strength of "strong".

The direction thing is completely laughable. Even you don't believe for a single solitary second that there's any chance it's a strong relationship in the other direction.

I hope you are sharing this experience with me at least a little, I know it's in the interest of your argument to claim I'm just ignoring things, but it's really annoying that this data basically doesn't exist. Here we have a question of cultural, philosophical, and scientific significance in our societies, a question that informs things all the way from Lady Gaga to clinical psychology, and nobody has bothered to ask it properly.

Half of your links are opinion pieces.
....from researchers in the field. Alongside other links that identified specific biological indicators.

And no, I don't really think I am sharing much experience with you. I'm quite confident from what you've said so far that you have little to no interaction with LGBT+ people.

I provided one example of a gay person disagreeing with your consensus. In the absence of evidence such a consensus exists, a single reasonable alternative is sufficient to dispute you. What would your response be if we got into that study's data and 30% of gay respondents claimed it was a choice? Would you say they don't count cause they're a minority opinion?
One example of someone saying something isn't sufficient for anything-- you can find individual examples of people who believe ethnicity or disability are choices too.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,323
6,826
118
Country
United States
I'm aware of RomneyCare... Just because a republican governor of one state that hasn't voted red for president since 1984 passed RomneyCare doesn't mean the republican party wants public healthcare.
The key word was "used to".
I'm aware Democrats aren't left on core issues but their left social policies are horrible and doing nothing is better the vast majority of the time. Why are you voting for these people?
GOP social policies is currently "hunting the homeless for sport". But go ahead and post your standard anti-vax screed. Or is this you pro-life one? Maybe your anti-gender affirming care one?

Speaking of, gender affirming care is basically illegal in Florida now, regardless of age:

And they're sending investigators out to interrogate 10 year olds because their teacher showed them Disney kid's movie after they got permission slips

Lotta things happening that you were certain wouldn't
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,710
666
118
As I like to say: On the US political spectrum, anything left of Machiavelli is Marx.
That is kinda unfair to Machiavelli.

Honestly, it would be etremely difficult to sort him into modern US left or right wing as he mostly wrote about very different topics and to specific audiences. His situation is so removed from us that you could easily justify reading him as any arbitrary point on the left-write spectrum, if you really want.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,105
5,397
118
Australia
That is kinda unfair to Machiavelli.

Honestly, it would be etremely difficult to sort him into modern US left or right wing as he mostly wrote about very different topics and to specific audiences. His situation is so removed from us that you could easily justify reading him as any arbitrary point on the left-write spectrum, if you really want.
I always thought Machiavelli’s writing was about being the method man rather than arguing an actual point of view (as it were) to be taken.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,444
713
118
Country
Sweden
I always thought Machiavelli’s writing was about being the method man rather than arguing an actual point of view (as it were) to be taken.
I thought his point was: "Well, while I am obviously in favor of republics, if you absolutely must rule via monarchy, I'll make sure to write the ultimate guide in what that entails.".
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
I thought his point was: "Well, while I am obviously in favor of republics, if you absolutely must rule via monarchy, I'll make sure to write the ultimate guide in what that entails.".
I've heard so many different interpretations of it, ranging from fully endorsing manual of totalitarianism to pure denunciation of the mechanisms of manipulative/dictatorial powers.