http://www.politicususa.com/en/proof-that-homophobia-is-associated-with-homosexual-arousal
Proof in quotes of course because that only exists in maths. I'd say that this is strong evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014).
And it's strong evidence for something we here probably take for granted, that homophobia is mostly internalized homophobia linked to homosexual tendencies. I'm happy to have some numerical evidence to that general hypothesis, though. Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal. Of course, arousal can happen for many reasons, not just sexual ones, so it's interesting that none of the non-homophobic men had any response to the homosexual erotica. I'd like to see a larger replicated study with closer to 100 participants in both control and treatment groups, but I wonder if this is unnecessary. Plus, this study is over 10 years old; you would think that if the methods were to be called into question they would have been already. I'd also like to see it done with a control group of homosexual men, to see if their arousal difference is symmetrical to that of heterosexual men, but that's an entirely different thing.
Is there anyone who has experience with psychological experimentation and can access the full article?
ETA: Cock and repost.
I thought I remembered a study that found that homosexual men are more likely to be aroused by erotic images of females than heterosexual men are by images of males but I don't remember where. I'm pretty sure that has been trotted out by some of the "gay is a choice" fuckers though.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 09, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
I thought I remembered a study that found that homosexual men are more likely to be aroused by erotic images of females than heterosexual men are by images of males but I don't remember where. I'm pretty sure that has been trotted out by some of the "gay is a choice" fuckers though.
Shut the fuck up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 09, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
I thought I remembered a study that found that homosexual men are more likely to be aroused by erotic images of females than heterosexual men are by images of males but I don't remember where. I'm pretty sure that has been trotted out by some of the "gay is a choice" fuckers though.
Shut the fuck up.
:fap:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 09, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
I thought I remembered a study that found that homosexual men are more likely to be aroused by erotic images of females than heterosexual men are by images of males but I don't remember where. I'm pretty sure that has been trotted out by some of the "gay is a choice" fuckers though.
Your bullshit antecdote is bullshit.
i haven't dug into the study at hand, but when i got to the point where they grouped their subjects into 'homophobic' v. 'nonhomophobic' i became interested because they used as their measure the "Index of Homophobia".
I eagerly took the quiz to see how they handled what i consider to be a .... tricky term.
i gotta say, i wasn't really impressed, and after that the study that relied on it as a ruler immediately became tl;dr.
Here's direct link to the quiz (http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/sa/file14259.pdf).
Am i alone in thinking this test to be seriously lacking?
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 10, 2011, 02:33:06 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 09, 2011, 06:32:20 PM
I thought I remembered a study that found that homosexual men are more likely to be aroused by erotic images of females than heterosexual men are by images of males but I don't remember where. I'm pretty sure that has been trotted out by some of the "gay is a choice" fuckers though.
Your bullshit antecdote is bullshit.
Found link to study.
Is not bullshit.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/126/3/252.short
I suspect that the reason for the results is that heterosexuals are culturally conditioned to find homosexual material repellent while the reverse is not true of homosexuals.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 09, 2011, 05:35:08 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/en/proof-that-homophobia-is-associated-with-homosexual-arousal
Proof in quotes of course because that only exists in maths. I'd say that this is strong evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014).
And it's strong evidence for something we here probably take for granted, that homophobia is mostly internalized homophobia linked to homosexual tendencies. I'm happy to have some numerical evidence to that general hypothesis, though. Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal. Of course, arousal can happen for many reasons, not just sexual ones, so it's interesting that none of the non-homophobic men had any response to the homosexual erotica. I'd like to see a larger replicated study with closer to 100 participants in both control and treatment groups, but I wonder if this is unnecessary. Plus, this study is over 10 years old; you would think that if the methods were to be called into question they would have been already. I'd also like to see it done with a control group of homosexual men, to see if their arousal difference is symmetrical to that of heterosexual men, but that's an entirely different thing.
Is there anyone who has experience with psychological experimentation and can access the full article?
ETA: Cock and repost.
Right off the bat with the second link, I'd wonder at their segregation of "Homophobic" or "non Homophobic" men in the study. It's a solid bitch to quantify and opinion via scientific method, and self - report of that sort of thing is unreliable, since it's a socially loaded issue.
Ok, but lts see what happens when the error that may have been included swings results to the extreme.
We either have A) a bunch of men who pretended to be heterosexual homophobes (for their own reasons), this inflating that poolsize and interfering with results (some could have been legit homosexual ??? I don't know why either)..... or B) the 'homophobes' pool was self-selecting in that only homophobic men who have sexual response to homosexual images are willing to claim that they are homophobes on a scientific survey... both of which are nonsense...
Quote from: Iptuous on December 10, 2011, 03:30:11 AM
i haven't dug into the study at hand, but when i got to the point where they grouped their subjects into 'homophobic' v. 'nonhomophobic' i became interested because they used as their measure the "Index of Homophobia".
I eagerly took the quiz to see how they handled what i consider to be a .... tricky term.
i gotta say, i wasn't really impressed, and after that the study that relied on it as a ruler immediately became tl;dr.
Here's direct link to the quiz (http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/sa/file14259.pdf).
Am i alone in thinking this test to be seriously lacking?
Doesn't seem that bad, IMO (actually in hindsight it looks like a pretty shitty test indeed, but read on!) Looks like your average standardized psychometric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics) test? What do you consider lacking about it?
My criticisms, also after asking my dad-- who is a neuropsychologist, uses these types of tests a lot, but only responsibly as either a guide to further inquiry or therapeutic aid (it can help the patient find their problem points).
- They ask the subject to score themselves after filling in the test, this is going to cause all sorts of completely preventable errors in the results (bias from cheating and noise from counting erorrs), just because the researchers were too lazy to do it. I can't access the study, does it say in their methodology that this is actually how they did it? Because that's
very sloppy, IMO.
- Interpretation of the total score (see below).
But I'm guessing that your problem with this test is more about the actual questions themselves? In the sense of "I'm not homophobic but I'm still scoring on some of these questions"? (apologies if I'm mistaken, and FYI I don't believe you're homophobic either ;-) ).
Because that doesn't really matter as much as you'd expect :) See, there's 25 questions with results 1-5, giving a total score between 25-125.
A
proper psychometric test then compares these scores to several
norm groups. Usually these are university students (for ease of data gathering), highschool students (another popular choice), random population samples (very important), but also specific groups (male/female, age, psychiatric disorders, etc).
This total score is the sum of many random variables. They're independent (w.r.t. a single subject), have finite mean and are even roughly identically distributed, so the Central Limit Theorem applies and you can model the total score as a Normal distribution (there's a few technical snags I won't go into, but it works really well).
With that you can calculate the normalized score of a subject w.r.t. each norm group by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of each norm group.
And
then you can say things like "the subject has mostly negative feelings about queers with respect to a norm group of random people from Boston", or something.
Now I see they don't do this. They interpret the score in classes of 25-50, 50-100 and 100-125 (introducing yet another small but unnecessary error by having a 1-point overlap ambiguity :roll:), which has the "neutral" group twice as large as the others, so that's
kinda like a normal distribution, but
only if their test questions are incredibly cunningly selected (w.r.t. an unknown norm group which we'll assume to be a large random US population sample) to have a mean of
exactly 75 and a carefully tweaked standard deviation so that 25 points from the mean is a descriptive discrimination cut-off.
Yeah and I don't believe they did that. Not given the other errors they made.
And there's no reason at all to assume the mean for
any reasonable norm group would lie exactly in the middle of the 25-100 point range. No idea whether it should be higher or lower, btw.
In a sense that could be solved by picking exactly the right questions, but saying "the questions aint right" is the wrong way to go about it because you're never going to get them exactly right because it's very subjective.
That's why it's better to make up a whole bunch of questions that try to neatly span the range and measure *something*, then normalize it with respect to some carefully chosen norm groups. Which takes hard work and effort, but it's deterministic, objective, methodical and scientific.
One thing I believe is that they should at least have divided groups into male and female, because I think there would be some significant differences, at
least because of the way lesbian sex vs male-male sex is regarded socio-culturally. There are some other subgroups I'd like them to have considered (age, religion, self-described sexual preference, relationship status, might have been interesting), but male/female seems a pretty significant one to miss.
i think you hit the primary concerns i had.
i think the problems that i had with any specific questions were based on the lack of division into groups which leads to the situation where you're thinking, 'i know what they're getting at, but it doesn't really apply in this case... i guess i'll pick neutral.'
oh. also. the answer set they have i think is poor. when they say 'neutral', does that imply that you're ambivalent? like the first question where they say 'i'd be comfortable working closely with a gay coworker'... i'm completely ambivalent regarding this. i'm really quite neutral on the subject. so should i choose 'neutral'? and then would that imply that if i were to choose 'strongly agree', that i would actually be excited about my new, gay work partner because of the fact that they're gay?
if you were completely ambivalent in all regards, you would put 3 on each answer giving yourself a score of 75, which according to the scoring, seems to indicate that you have some antipathy towards gays. so obviously this isn't what they intended. would a simple binary answer choice ameliorate this ambiguity?
also. i was under the impression that these normalized tests usually had a much longer question set with many questions that seem to ask the same thing with slightly different wording to wipe out some error. this thing seemed pretty quick to tell me that i secretly have some issues with gay people.
and, i know you say that you can't get upset by saying 'the questions ain't right!', but...... the questions ain't right.
for instance, it asks if i would be disappointed if my child turned out to be gay. Yes. i would. their life would be harder. people would throw shit at them for it till the day they died. there are legal hurdles. it would make it less likely that i would pass on my Y. So, yes. i would be disappointed. I don't believe this indicates 'negative feelings towards gays', however. i wouldn't begrudge them being gay. i wouldn't feel that i failed them (as asked in another question). i wouldn't be angry at fate or god or whatever that this 'befell' them.
i believe that their inclusion of questions like this tells me more about the mindset of the test makers than my answer would tell them about me. the implication that if i don't put 'strongly disagree' on disappointment with child being gay indicates negative feelings towards gays gives me the impression of someone willfully dismissive of realities in favor of an ideal
with a topic as charged, politicized, and personal as this, it seems that test like this would have to have so many asterisks as to render it pointless.
i guess that's my point.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 10, 2011, 04:32:17 PMi think the problems that i had with any specific questions were based on the lack of division into groups which leads to the situation where you're thinking, 'i know what they're getting at, but it doesn't really apply in this case... i guess i'll pick neutral.'
oh. also. the answer set they have i think is poor. when they say 'neutral', does that imply that you're ambivalent? like the first question where they say 'i'd be comfortable working closely with a gay coworker'... i'm completely ambivalent regarding this. i'm really quite neutral on the subject. so should i choose 'neutral'? and then would that imply that if i were to choose 'strongly agree', that i would actually be excited about my new, gay work partner because of the fact that they're gay?
No, that's not what the question means. But given the fact that you're reasonably intelligent and still got it wrong, means that they should have worded the question much, much clearer.
First step,what I've seen quite often in such tests is instead of "neutral", they call the middle option "don't agree/don't disagree".
They're asking about your
agreement with the statement "I'd be comfortable working closely with a gay coworker."
So if you "strongly agree" with that statement, it means that you'd "strongly agree" with someone who'd describe your feelings about working closely with that coworker as "comfortable".
If you say "neutral", or rather "don't agree/don't disagree", you'd actually be saying "I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with a gay coworker".
But the fact that this confused you means the question's not right.
Quoteif you were completely ambivalent in all regards, you would put 3 on each answer giving yourself a score of 75, which according to the scoring, seems to indicate that you have some antipathy towards gays. so obviously this isn't what they intended. would a simple binary answer choice ameliorate this ambiguity?
Not necessarily. The only way to prevent ambiguity is to put in the work to try out the tests among testing groups and see if there's questions that consistently give fuzzy answers, and/or to ask random people to speak aloud and comment while making the test, etc etc, so you can find the "bugs".
Binary answers do make some of the statistics involved a bit simpler.
Quotealso. i was under the impression that these normalized tests usually had a much longer question set with many questions that seem to ask the same thing with slightly different wording to wipe out some error. this thing seemed pretty quick to tell me that i secretly have some issues with gay people.
I agree that it's kind of short, but the type you describe with the different wordings usually scores character traits along several axes, like "cognitive", "physical", etc. This one just checks for one thing, so it doesn't need to be that big.
Especially since the score finally is only used to differentiate between three groups (negative, neutral and positive), I think they could have made a reasonably accurate test with only 25 questions, if they had designed it better. The advantage of a shorter test is of course also that it's easier and quicker to take. I mean, maybe you could go up to 50, but I can imagine people could feel a bit "are you for real", if they had to take a test with 100 questions just to determine their level of homophobia! :)
Quoteand, i know you say that you can't get upset by saying 'the questions ain't right!', but...... the questions ain't right.
Well, you can't get upset by that, if I said so.
Quotefor instance, it asks if i would be disappointed if my child turned out to be gay. Yes. i would. their life would be harder. people would throw shit at them for it till the day they died. there are legal hurdles. it would make it less likely that i would pass on my Y. So, yes. i would be disappointed. I don't believe this indicates 'negative feelings towards gays', however. i wouldn't begrudge them being gay. i wouldn't feel that i failed them (as asked in another question). i wouldn't be angry at fate or god or whatever that this 'befell' them.
i believe that their inclusion of questions like this tells me more about the mindset of the test makers than my answer would tell them about me. the implication that if i don't put 'strongly disagree' on disappointment with child being gay indicates negative feelings towards gays gives me the impression of someone willfully dismissive of realities in favor of an ideal
Mmyeah. I think this is because of two reasons:
1. The
question statement could have been more accurately worded as "I would be disappointed
in my child if they turned out to be gay." strongle agree/agree/don't agree don't disagree/disagree/strongly disagree.
2. You're overthinking this, IMO it's really kinda obvious they meant the above and not "I would be disappointed
for my child's life which might be hard" or anything.
Quotewith a topic as charged, politicized, and personal as this, it seems that test like this would have to have so many asterisks as to render it pointless.
i guess that's my point.
Well, I believe it
could be done right. But this particular test isn't.
Good points.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 11, 2011, 02:34:01 PM
...IMO it's really kinda obvious they meant...
That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if
chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2011, 09:15:10 PM
Good points.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 11, 2011, 02:34:01 PM
...IMO it's really kinda obvious they meant...
That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.
Nah, that seems more like your defense mechanisms are just trying to disregard any uncomfortable truths that this study is bringing up for you.
Even if it was designed to prove a political point, homophobes still had to supply an erection in response to gay sex.
There's no manufacturing that.
:) i expected this a bit sooner.
please spell out the uncomfortable truths for me?
I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.
While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it. For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.
Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well. If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.
Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2011, 08:18:04 AM
I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.
While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it. For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.
Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well. If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.
:motorcycle:
Phox,
Just used the motorcycle emote. Awww yeahhh.
I think we've gotten so used to a conspiratorial mindset in the Western world that we have to look for dark and hidden reasons for everything. Sometimes, a religious bigot is just a religious bigot, ya know? No deep psychological reasons for their actions, they're just (sincere) arseholes.
Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2011, 08:28:57 AM
I think we've gotten so used to a conspiratorial mindset in the Western world that we have to look for dark and hidden reasons for everything. Sometimes, a religious bigot is just a religious bigot, ya know? No deep psychological reasons for their actions, they're just (sincere) arseholes.
Yes, I completely agree. As far as throwing this in their faces, or what have you, I suspect that most of them are fairly well inoculated against this sort of thing by now, I am not sure that this would give you any ammunition, except perhaps confirmation bias? I am not sure that's the term I'm looking for, but.. .eh. it'll do, I guess.
(btw before anyone mistakes, this post is not about the erection research, which I agree is probably bullshit and/or flawed, but about Iptuous' belief that a psychometric test to score for homophobia is impossible)
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2011, 09:15:10 PM
Good points.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 11, 2011, 02:34:01 PM
...IMO it's really kinda obvious they meant...
That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.
"Good points, but I choose to ignore what they mean" ?
Quote from: Iptuous on December 12, 2011, 02:56:51 AM:) i expected this a bit sooner.
What the fuuuuuuuck man. So you were just trolling before?
Because right up to before you made the above "good points but I still choose to believe you cannot construct a psychometric test to score for homophobia"
bullshit post, I really thought we were having a discussion and I was just brushing you up (and myself because I had to look most of that shit up or ask my dad) on the theory of psychometric test.
Thing is I'm seriously wondering about your "sooner" remark. Because if you were just being contrary, agreeing "yeaah good point yeah yes uhuh" while in your own head going "LALALALALA WHATEVER YOU SAY I MADE UP MY MIND", I wasn't really expecting that up until I read the above two things.
I was already a bit pissed off by the "good points but I'm going to stick with my belief regardless" remark above, but I decided to just not reply because 1. it was late and maybe I read it wrong (nope) and 2. arguing with people like that just gets me angry and leads to nothing (yup).
To address your points (even though it'll just get me angry and lead to nothing)
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2011, 09:15:10 PM
That, i think, is the crux of the matter.
this test if chock full of the above, and i'd be pretty darned impressed if a test were able to be constructed that wasn't, given the subject matter.
too vague, too charged, too politicized, too personal.
seems anathema to real science to me.
"too vague" -- The statements and scores in this particular test can be worded much better. However, you might have noticed in other psychometric tests that vagueness can never be gotten rid of entirely (when I take one, there's usually one or two that make me go wtf as well). This is perfectly okay, it's better if it's minimized, but as I said above proper normalization of the test scores models it as a Normal distribution, which takes into account both the mean
and the standard deviation, so if some questions get fuzzed by apparent ambiguity, that'll work itself into the standard deviation of the total score, thereby into the normalized distance from the norm groups, and finally into the p-value for the accuracy of your conclusions. The only requirement is that it has a positive correlation with the thing you're trying to measure, even if it's small, as long as it's not negatively correlated.
"too politicized, too personal" -- Well, yes,
of course. Don't forget "cultural" too! What do you expect? When you're measuring homophobia in a population,
of course you're also measuring the homophobia in the population's politics, culture and personality. Both affect eachother. What the hell do you expect, if we're doing psychometric tests on homophobia in Mecca, Amsterda, New York, the Vatican, San Francisco and Texas, we should be making adjustments for local politics and culture? Ha!
"anathema to real science" -- Where I'm from, we don't really buy into the retarded debate of what is "real science" and what is not, because the real important distinction lies between what is bullshit and what is not. It's a red herring, a con, just like your two-party system, our leftwing/rightwing system, and the true/false Scotsmen lurk in the shadows on either side.
Quoteplease spell out the uncomfortable truths for me?
ok spelling it out
FACT: You see the ambiguity in the statement "I would feel disappointed if I learned that my child was queer" and realize that it could mean
1. "I would feel disappointed
in my child if they turned out to be gay"
2. "I would feel disappointed
for my child's
life which might be harder if they were gay"
3. "I would feel disappointed if my child turned out to be gay because they would be less likely to pass on my Y chromosome"
FACT:
Within the context of a psychometric test to score for homophobia you choose to believe that these interpretations are somehow equally valid.
FACT: With these interpretations in mind, you do not "disagree" with the statement.
Interpretation 1, negative feelings towards gays: Straightforward, disappointment in someone for being gay is a negative feeling.
Interpretation 2, negative feelings towards gays: "Empathy", "support", but if you think a statement about "disappointment" is agreeable when it's about your kids life, then yes that counts as a negative feeling. Not as in hatred, but as if it's a disability, like they were deaf or have Aspergers. Or imagine this, your wife has a black mother white father but is almost Caucasian in appearance herself, when you get a kid there is a small chance they'd be almost as black as their grandmother. Now their life is going to be harder because racism is still very real. Would you say you'd be
disappointed? Really?
Interpretation 3, negative feelings towards gays: Again, "disappointment" in this case pretty much counts as a negative feeling. Assume your son's infertile. "Hey son, yeah you know I love you, but you can imagine how disappointed I was when we found out you were infertile" how's
that for radiating positive cheerfulness into your family life?
UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH (spelled out): You have some negative feelings towards gays.
Are you homophobic? Hell if I know! This is just
one question out of 25 of a psychometric test that we already agreed upon is methodologically flawed.
And sure I can imagine how you can argue for all these feelings and interpretations how perfectly
reasonable and "realistic" they are.
So don't do that, you don't need to do that, I can come up with all those reasons myself, and imagine how perfectly reasonable they must seem to a person that chooses not to pause and ask themselves whether it's
right to feel that way.
Fortunately, unlike homosexuality, having negative feelings towards gays
is a choice. You're a good person Iptuous but don't believe that your worldview and life vision is ever "done" or set in stone.
Gonna have to side with Ippy on this one. That test is crap and no amount of psychobabble terms or attempted rationalization can make it not be crap. The questions are so horribly worded and (seemingly intentionally) vague that I am driven to the conclusion that the researchers had already decided what conclusions they wanted to reach before they wrote the test.
That said, it still makes me giggle that homophobes pop boners to gay porn.
Trip,
please allow me to reword, then. i certainly wasn't trolling and intend all civility in my responses.
interesting points.
your comments about the normalized testing procedures and details are beyond the scope of my experience, and i have learned from you. i also appreciate the impact that they have on the context here.
given that, i'm still not convinced. and i don't believe that i'm simply being recalcitrant here.
i can see how the normalizing process may fuzz out some ambiguity in a test, but only up to a point. beyond that, shitty test is shitty. i won't pretend to declare where this test falls on the spectrum of 'explicit and complete meaning' vs. 'meaningless nonsense', but it smells enough of the latter that i'm calling bullshit, and i've seen no reason not to think this a healthy and rational skepticism.
you ask what i expect in regards to my accusation that it is too politicized and too personal? well, i expect that it renders any such test suspect at best and a deceitful weapon at worst. it'll be about as clear as mud, when the basic definitions we're working with aren't going to be agreed upon by the participants, and the landscape is so strongly emotional.
'real' was an unnecessary qualifier of science then, i guess. i'll just use your preferred distinction, and call bullshit, however.
My response that 'i expected it earlier' to Net's declaration of uncomfortable truths was simply a quip because, at some point, "yer ghey" always seems to come up in this conversation, and i was smiling at the arrival. no ill will meant.
but you
did bring up a truth that is, perhaps, uncomfortable for me in the PD setting. In that I
do see homosexuality as an aberration. not quite a disability in the same way as deafness, or aspergers as it doesn't inherently detract from the quality of your life in any way (were it not for society's reaction to it), but it does seem like a 'condition' to me in some sense. I imagine this upsets some people. perhaps it is wrong headed of me, and perhaps i will change my mind on it at some point, however I don't see how that is a 'negative feeling' in any way that would put me in the position of being either
afraid of homosexuals, or having any
antipathy towards them.
regarding interpretation three.... yes. yes, i would be disappointed if i found out that my son was infertile. wouldn't you?! again, it's not a disappointment
in the child, as if it were their fault, but it is certainly something that negatively impacts something that i want. namely the continuation of the line. i'm not going to talk to my kid like a dick like you put it there, though. :lol:
I don't see how these count as negative feelings towards homosexuals. but you say not to think in terms of reason, but rather in terms of whether it is 'right' to think those thoughts. wait, what? what does that mean?
that's a dismissal.... you're saying that my views are morally wrong regardless of their reasoning and regardless of the fact that i hold no malevolence toward any?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 12, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
That said, it still makes me giggle that homophobes pop boners to gay porn.
Despite the enjoyable banter, this does remain the most important take away from this whole thing. :lol:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 12, 2011, 12:38:22 PMGonna have to side with Ippy on this one. That test is crap and no amount of psychobabble terms or attempted rationalization can make it not be crap. The questions are so horribly worded and (seemingly intentionally) vague that I am driven to the conclusion that the researchers had already decided what conclusions they wanted to reach before they wrote the test.
Nobody that posted ITT disagrees with that, I certainly don't. The test is crap and I pointed out more than several flaws in it right from the start.
However, I do hope that "psychobabble" does not refer to my attempted explanation of the proper methodology in psychometric tests.
"Ippy's side", what I'm arguing against, is that according to him, it is flat out impossible to even construct a psychometric test to score for homophobia, even if it
is properly done. But he seems to be perfectly happy continuing to conflate those two opinions as well.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 12, 2011, 03:15:50 PM
i can see how the normalizing process may fuzz out some ambiguity in a test, but only up to a point. beyond that, shitty test is shitty. i won't pretend to declare where this test falls on the spectrum of 'explicit and complete meaning' vs. 'meaningless nonsense', but it smells enough of the latter that i'm calling bullshit, and i've seen no reason not to think this a healthy and rational skepticism.
Yes, this particular test is shitty. Extremely shitty. And I'm fairly sure they didn't do any normalizing at all.
It doesn't mean, however, that if you
do follow a proper methodology, that you can never end up with a proper test.
Quoteyou ask what i expect in regards to my accusation that it is too politicized and too personal? well, i expect that it renders any such test suspect at best and a deceitful weapon at worst. it'll be about as clear as mud, when the basic definitions we're working with aren't going to be agreed upon by the participants, and the landscape is so strongly emotional.
Well, if it's done properly, that's what the methodology is for, even in the face of emotional and political topics.
'real' was an unnecessary qualifier of science then, i guess. i'll just use your preferred distinction, and call bullshit, however.
If it's meaningless, the statistics will point it out.
The thing is, you just gotta be real careful about what it is you think those statistics actually prove and show. And when you do, it means sometimes you will come up empty-handed. You can call that "clear as mud", but at least you'll know for
sure that it is.
Unlike this particular test, which does not only have a couple of vague question-statements, but also, as far as I can tell, grabs the method for scoring and determining the "outcome" completely out of thin air.
QuoteMy response that 'i expected it earlier' to Net's declaration of uncomfortable truths was simply a quip because, at some point, "yer ghey" always seems to come up in this conversation, and i was smiling at the arrival. no ill will meant.
Um. I don't think Net was trying to say the "uncomfortable truth" was "you're gay" at all. Net should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he too was hinting at some negative feelings towards gays that you are perhaps (or not) uncomfortable with in yourself.
Quotebut you did bring up a truth that is, perhaps, uncomfortable for me in the PD setting. In that I do see homosexuality as an aberration. not quite a disability in the same way as deafness, or aspergers as it doesn't inherently detract from the quality of your life in any way (were it not for society's reaction to it), but it does seem like a 'condition' to me in some sense. I imagine this upsets some people.
Well, that
is a negative feeling towards gays, in some sense.
QuoteI don't see how that is a 'negative feeling' in any way that would put me in the position of being either afraid of homosexuals, or having any antipathy towards them.
Um yeah. That's what I said at the end of my last post, right? While it
is a negative feeling,
just that one thing doesn't make you a homophobe or -hater.
It's also not exactly a positive quality or anything.
Quoteregarding interpretation three.... yes. yes, i would be disappointed if i found out that my son was infertile. wouldn't you?! again, it's not a disappointment in the child, as if it were their fault, but it is certainly something that negatively impacts something that i want. namely the continuation of the line. i'm not going to talk to my kid like a dick like you put it there, though. :lol:
No I wouldn't? I might feel a whole lot of different things about it, but "disappointment" would not be one of them.
And talk like a dick? Well how
would you word it then? You feel something about or towards your son. He is your son. But you never speak it aloud. You feel this, very strongly in fact. You don't say it. He is your son. How the fuck does that work? Either you feel something strongly and you have the balls to say it to your sons face because you are his father and he has the right to know what his father
really thinks of him OR you realize that these are hurtful feelings your son would be hurt if he came to know what you
really think and you might want to sit down and ponder good and hard about what
you think is right, here. (which may be different than what I think, because I'm me and not you) Well, that's what I would do in such a situation, cause hiding my true feelings about my son for my whole life also doesn't really seem like a workable option.
Actually, I think I do agree with Ippy that it's basically impossible to construct one of these test in a manner that renders it "non-bullshit", for lack of a better term.
If, indeed, that was Ippy's thought on the matter. But it is mine.
I also think that I object to your attempt to place a moral value judgment on someone's feelings about something like being disappointed that their child is infertile. It's not wrong OR right, it's just how someone feels. And there's also nothing inherently wrong with that person keeping those feelings to themself if those feelings are directed at a circumstance rather than at the person who finds themselves in that circumstance, especially if they care about that person and know that their disappointment towards an uncontrollable circumstance would hurt that person's feelings unnecessarily.
Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2011, 08:18:04 AM
I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.
While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it. For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.
Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well. If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.
Agree wholeheartedly... and the whole idea of "we found THE cause" of anything seems antiquated. I would imagine a lot of factors come into play with something like this.
Quote from: Cain on December 12, 2011, 08:18:04 AM
I still find it somewhat suspect, as a finding.
While I'm sure many, many homophobes are repressing homosexual feelings of some sort, it is somewhat of a stretch to correlate it definitively with it. For one thing, I'm fairly sure there are many religious individuals who disapprove of homosexuality for "moral" reasons, and social conservative types who may not be necessarily religious but also decry it for reasons of tradition and undermining the idealised form of family living.
Of course, it depends how homophobia is being strictly defined as well. If someone does spend every day fuming over gays, then, sure, it's probably not some kind of religious objection going on, and they doth protest too much. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure those who we would normally define as homophobic think in those terms.
I think that I would prefer to define it according to its formal definition.
Quoteho·mo·pho·bi·a/ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
Noun:
An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.
Homophobia is an emotional reaction, like arachnophobia. People often use the word to refer to people who are anti-gay for any reason, but strictly speaking it only applies to people who experience an irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality. I would VERY MUCH HOPE that scientific researchers are using the formal and proper definition.
Quotean irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality
I would posit that
any negative emotional reaction to homosexuality would necessarily be irrational.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 12, 2011, 07:55:38 PM
Quotean irrational negative emotional reaction to homosexuality
I would posit that any negative emotional reaction to homosexuality would necessarily be irrational.
Technically, any emotional reaction is irrational, due to being emotional.
I don't know about "proof", but I will say that every homophobe I've ever met has set my gaydar off.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 09, 2011, 05:35:08 PM
Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal.
I just want to chime in on this methodology --- changes in penis circumference are the best methods we've got
right now, but it's not universally accepted as a valid measure.
When I was in college, we read a bunch of arousal studies like this. My professors were collectively skeptical that people have genuine arousal responses when they're sitting in a lab, have a little band wrapped around their johnson, and are aware that their responses are being recorded by scientists.
And you can only do these sort of measurements with men, it's hard to say that this is a general human principle and not just some bizarre artifact of male psychology.
/pedantry
I have several issues with Iptuous' statements.
One is his use of the word "ambivalent". Iptuous, are you actually "ambivalent" about working with gays, or do you simply not know what that word means?
Another is the statement that you would be disappointed to have a gay child because of the reduced likelihood that the child would pass on your Y chromosome. Again, I can't tell whether you actually meant what you said, or whether you simply have a poor grasp of genetics and don't know that men can pass on a Y chromosome, resulting in a male child, or an X chromosome, resulting in a female child. The way your statement is worded implies an odd bias.
Basically, I am unwilling to seriously consider your criticism of the screening test due to what appears to be a mild form of illiteracy.
I have not yet read the study, and hope they clarify whether or not they included test subjects who scored ambivalently on the homophobia screening, or whether they included only subjects who scored as strongly homophobic and strongly non-homophobic.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 12, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 09, 2011, 05:35:08 PM
Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal.
I just want to chime in on this methodology --- changes in penis circumference are the best methods we've got right now, but it's not universally accepted as a valid measure.
When I was in college, we read a bunch of arousal studies like this. My professors were collectively skeptical that people have genuine arousal responses when they're sitting in a lab, have a little band wrapped around their johnson, and are aware that their responses are being recorded by scientists.
And you can only do these sort of measurements with men, it's hard to say that this is a general human principle and not just some bizarre artifact of male psychology.
/pedantry
I'll also offer TMI and say that there have been scenarios
1 where I have found myself being moderately aroused
2 while fully knowing that if it was presented IRL, I would be utterly disgusted and turned off.
A form of horrormirth, if you will. A depraved and dispicable one, to be sure.
LMNO
-don't hate the sink, hate the plumbing.
1see: tools for tools like you
2"quarter chub" --enough to register on a peter meter
Quote from: Cramulus on December 12, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 09, 2011, 05:35:08 PM
Increase in penis circumference is a nice, unbiased estimator of arousal.
I just want to chime in on this methodology --- changes in penis circumference are the best methods we've got right now, but it's not universally accepted as a valid measure.
When I was in college, we read a bunch of arousal studies like this. My professors were collectively skeptical that people have genuine arousal responses when they're sitting in a lab, have a little band wrapped around their johnson, and are aware that their responses are being recorded by scientists.
And you can only do these sort of measurements with men, it's hard to say that this is a general human principle and not just some bizarre artifact of male psychology.
/pedantry
Hm, actually you can do something similar with women and there was a recent study utilizing technology that measured female arousal responses... the instrumentation is more sophisticated, of course, but it exists.
I have hostility toward Gays.
But I have an equal, identical hostility toward Straights.
Both are primates, and I can't fucking stand them.
Sorry about being so pedantic this morning.
I can't quite form the words in a discussion context, but what about this:
homophobe > gay porn > RAGE HATE > thoughts of violence towards gays > arousal
Or something like that.
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
I can't quite form the words in a discussion context, but what about this:
homophobe > gay porn > RAGE HATE > thoughts of violence towards gays > arousal
Or something like that.
According to the article,
Quotethis study does differentiate from arousal that can result from anger and specifies the arousal measured as sexual.
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 09:01:59 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
I can't quite form the words in a discussion context, but what about this:
homophobe > gay porn > RAGE HATE > thoughts of violence towards gays > arousal
Or something like that.
According to the article,
Quotethis study does differentiate from arousal that can result from anger and specifies the arousal measured as sexual.
Is it the same thing? Getting aroused by the thought of committing violence, and arousal from anger?
If so, I have learned something today.
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 09:10:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 09:01:59 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
I can't quite form the words in a discussion context, but what about this:
homophobe > gay porn > RAGE HATE > thoughts of violence towards gays > arousal
Or something like that.
According to the article,
Quotethis study does differentiate from arousal that can result from anger and specifies the arousal measured as sexual.
Is it the same thing? Getting aroused by the thought of committing violence, and arousal from anger?
If so, I have learned something today.
Initially misread... yes, they are the same.
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 09:20:48 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 09:10:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 09:01:59 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on December 12, 2011, 08:21:24 PM
I can't quite form the words in a discussion context, but what about this:
homophobe > gay porn > RAGE HATE > thoughts of violence towards gays > arousal
Or something like that.
According to the article,
Quotethis study does differentiate from arousal that can result from anger and specifies the arousal measured as sexual.
Is it the same thing? Getting aroused by the thought of committing violence, and arousal from anger?
If so, I have learned something today.
Initially misread... yes, they are the same.
Oh, my bad.
I came across another definition of homophobia today:
The fear that gay men will treat you the same way you treat women.
Nigel,
Yes, i misspoke using the word 'ambivalent'. i meant to say that i don't care one way or the other. i've been misusing that word for years, it would appear. :oops:
as far as the genetics, i do understand what you describe. whether my desire to continue a male line is irrational or not is beside the point. it is something i desire, and having my son(s) turn out to be gay would lessen the likelihood that they have children (and necessarily, therefore, a male child) and so i would be disappointed. not in them, by any means. just in the situation which isn't anybody's fault. but according to that question, which i used as just one example, i would therefore have negative feelings towards homosexuality. i do not agree.
i have slightly improved my literacy on one front (thank you), and hopefully dispelled the appearance of such on the other?
QuoteActually, I think I do agree with Ippy that it's basically impossible to construct one of these test in a manner that renders it "non-bullshit", for lack of a better term.
If, indeed, that was Ippy's thought on the matter. But it is mine.
I also think that I object to your attempt to place a moral value judgment on someone's feelings about something like being disappointed that their child is infertile. It's not wrong OR right, it's just how someone feels. And there's also nothing inherently wrong with that person keeping those feelings to themself if those feelings are directed at a circumstance rather than at the person who finds themselves in that circumstance, especially if they care about that person and know that their disappointment towards an uncontrollable circumstance would hurt that person's feelings unnecessarily.
You know what, I've thought about it some more and I think you and Iptuous are right, on the second thing you said. It is okay to feel sad or disappointed about your son not being able to make you grandkids. In fact putting it like that it kind of feels stupid to say otherwise. And if the son being homosexual means you won't get grandkids, I suppose that's similar. I suppose I don't place as much value on progeny myself, but that's personal. It still also hinges on a rather subtle and careful meaning of the word "disappointed", though, which is what threw me off at first.
For the first part, I still disagree. Maybe not for making a test which, with certainty says "you are/are not a homophobe", but in the context of larger research to determine a trend of "homophobes are more likely to X", I think it's definitely possible to construct a test which would suit that purpose.
Which is an excellent example of why it's so stupid to let the test subjects score themselves, because they'll feel personally judged by such a test, get all bothered and maybe try to second-guess the answers. It should be conducted with the subjects anonymized, which is also part of proper methodology.
So I'll repeat, the test in this research is indeed pretty inaccurate.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 12, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
Nigel,
Yes, i misspoke using the word 'ambivalent'. i meant to say that i don't care one way or the other. i've been misusing that word for years, it would appear. :oops:
as far as the genetics, i do understand what you describe. whether my desire to continue a male line is irrational or not is beside the point. it is something i desire, and having my son(s) turn out to be gay would lessen the likelihood that they have children (and necessarily, therefore, a male child) and so i would be disappointed. not in them, by any means. just in the situation which isn't anybody's fault. but according to that question, which i used as just one example, i would therefore have negative feelings towards homosexuality. i do not agree.
i have slightly improved my literacy on one front (thank you), and hopefully dispelled the appearance of such on the other?
So I take it you would also be disappointed by having a daughter?
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 10:12:34 PM
So I take it you would also be disappointed by having a daughter?
This is sort of tangentially related, but this question jogged my memory on this.
My ex (who we all know is in fact an idiot and quite probably a bit of a douche), when I was prego and didn't know if it was a boy or a girl, expressed the hope that it wasn't a girl, flat out. He professed that it wasn't because he didn't want a daughter, nor that he'd be disappointed if the monkey turned out to be a girl, but I still feel like he wasn't being genuine with his explanations (worries about girl getting prego, always sleep with a gun under the pillow, etc etc.). I feel as though if the monkey HAD been a girl (and he, the ex, already had two boys) he would have treated her differently, as something less-than.
He does this anyway, and did before I split with him (at least from my perception), but I think its mostly because he was never married to me and so doesn't see his responsibility to the monkey as equal in importance (maybe).
it is purely academic, as i am the first in 5 generations to have more than one son. :)
however, if i had not had a son, i would love all of my many daughters with all my heart.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 12, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
as far as the genetics, i do understand what you describe. whether my desire to continue a male line is irrational or not is beside the point. it is something i desire, and having my son(s) turn out to be gay would lessen the likelihood that they have children (and necessarily, therefore, a male child) and so i would be disappointed. not in them, by any means. just in the situation which isn't anybody's fault. but according to that question, which i used as just one example, i would therefore have negative feelings towards homosexuality. i do not agree.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that being gay would prevent one from becoming a parent. It just makes you less likely to become one by accident. A friend of mine is a surrogate parent, and has recently given a second couple of married men a child which is biologically one of theirs.
Quote from: Luna on December 12, 2011, 10:27:08 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 12, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
as far as the genetics, i do understand what you describe. whether my desire to continue a male line is irrational or not is beside the point. it is something i desire, and having my son(s) turn out to be gay would lessen the likelihood that they have children (and necessarily, therefore, a male child) and so i would be disappointed. not in them, by any means. just in the situation which isn't anybody's fault. but according to that question, which i used as just one example, i would therefore have negative feelings towards homosexuality. i do not agree.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that being gay would prevent one from becoming a parent. It just makes you less likely to become one by accident. A friend of mine is a surrogate parent, and has recently given a second couple of married men a child which is biologically one of theirs.
This is true, especially in a social climate that allows gays to be out and marry their partners. I know several gay couples with children.
Thank you, Luna.
I was sort of reading this with my mouth agape thinking, "why is everyone forgetting SCIENCE?" I must redirect everyone to my point about homosexuality and irrationality.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 12, 2011, 10:54:29 PM
Thank you, Luna.
I was sort of reading this with my mouth agape thinking, "why is everyone forgetting SCIENCE?" I must redirect everyone to my point about homosexuality and irrationality.
Yeah, I know. :|
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 12, 2011, 10:09:48 PM
QuoteActually, I think I do agree with Ippy that it's basically impossible to construct one of these test in a manner that renders it "non-bullshit", for lack of a better term.
If, indeed, that was Ippy's thought on the matter. But it is mine.
I also think that I object to your attempt to place a moral value judgment on someone's feelings about something like being disappointed that their child is infertile. It's not wrong OR right, it's just how someone feels. And there's also nothing inherently wrong with that person keeping those feelings to themself if those feelings are directed at a circumstance rather than at the person who finds themselves in that circumstance, especially if they care about that person and know that their disappointment towards an uncontrollable circumstance would hurt that person's feelings unnecessarily.
You know what, I've thought about it some more and I think you and Iptuous are right, on the second thing you said. It is okay to feel sad or disappointed about your son not being able to make you grandkids. In fact putting it like that it kind of feels stupid to say otherwise. And if the son being homosexual means you won't get grandkids, I suppose that's similar. I suppose I don't place as much value on progeny myself, but that's personal. It still also hinges on a rather subtle and careful meaning of the word "disappointed", though, which is what threw me off at first.
For the first part, I still disagree. Maybe not for making a test which, with certainty says "you are/are not a homophobe", but in the context of larger research to determine a trend of "homophobes are more likely to X", I think it's definitely possible to construct a test which would suit that purpose.
Which is an excellent example of why it's so stupid to let the test subjects score themselves, because they'll feel personally judged by such a test, get all bothered and maybe try to second-guess the answers. It should be conducted with the subjects anonymized, which is also part of proper methodology.
So I'll repeat, the test in this research is indeed pretty inaccurate.
Ahh....thanks for the clarification! Makes sense to me.
when i said the likelihood would be less, i was speaking statistically.
i understand that it is certainly possible.
although i haven't really looked at the numbers, i would be shocked to find out that homosexuals are now bearing their own offspring anywhere near the rate of heterosexuals. i would be shocked to see that there is any trend that would indicate that this even in the medium term future.
i figured i didn't have to use e-prime since i said 'less likely'.
it is, at any rate, a small reason that i would be 'disappointed' if my child turned out to be gay, relative to the disappointment in knowing that my child's life would be fraught with derision, which in turn, was only a point of contention in one question that raised an eyebrow on this test for me...
Quote from: Igor on December 12, 2011, 09:33:06 PM
I came across another definition of homophobia today:
The fear that gay men will treat you the same way you treat women.
So did I, on one of my Irish friend (From Dublin)'s facebook page. Wouldn't be the same person would it?
Quote from: Faust on December 13, 2011, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Igor on December 12, 2011, 09:33:06 PM
I came across another definition of homophobia today:
The fear that gay men will treat you the same way you treat women.
So did I, on one of my Irish friend (From Dublin)'s facebook page. Wouldn't be the same person would it?
I've seen it floating around recently as well.
I saw it on Dan Savage's blog. Just seems to be a particularly repeatable memebomb.
Friend of mine (who happens to be gay) explained that to me a decade ago. :lulz:
I personally think that the "they will face struggles and derision" shape of disappointment is itself a form of hatred. People said (and still say) exactly the same thing about blacks marrying whites. You could almost say the same thing about people choosing to become artists or scientists.
could you explain how it is a form of hatred? or even antipathy of any sort?
(just thinking out loud here...)
If the sexuality of the child was somehow determined by the parents, would you choose to have the child be gay?
the comparison to race is interesting. the skin tone of the child (to a decent degree) is known when the decision to have a child is made. is this inconsistency in the analogy significant?
i wonder what percentage of homosexuals would choose to have children if they knew that the child would also be gay.
i wonder what percentage would choose to have a child that would be gay if they somehow had a choice in it.
if a gay person has a child, and it turns out to be gay, and they are disappointed in knowing that the child will likely endure the significant difficulties that they had to go through, would this be a form of self loathing?
I can see how it might be considered 'negative' in that it could be seen as caving into the unfortunate cultural bigotry in some way, but i don't see how it as hatred by any stretch.
The "if you could choose" question is nothing more than a red herring. Because you can't choose. But following that line of reasoning, you seem to be saying that people make the choice to fall in love with a person of another race, and then to conceive a child with them. Sure, it's a choice... but is it wrong? Would you be disappointed if your son married a black girl? Because of the difficulty they and their progeny would face in an intolerant society?
There is a roughly 1 in 10 chance that any child will be gay, and you know that when you make the decision to have a child.
You really don't think that embracing the negative aspects of a person's reality is a form of hatred? Disappointment in their gayness is not exactly a warm fuzzy.
no. it's certainly not wrong. neither would be having a child that you knew somehow would be gay. however,I wouldn't choose it, and although it's an impossibility to choose, it's not really a red herring, because it illustrates that i think it would not be a
desirable trait, even if not a
bad trait. that distinction is pertinent because i believe it shows how one could be disappointed by their child being gay while not being a manifestation of any antipathy towards being gay.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 02:28:30 AM
You really don't think that embracing the negative aspects of a person's reality is a form of hatred?
I'm not quite able to parse this question...
I certainly concede that expressing disappointment in my child's gayness would not be a warm fuzzy. and i assuredly
wouldn't do that!
At risk of mixing disappointment about a circumstance and disappointment in behavior... I know i have disappointed my parents in some regards. ( i've heard it said that all parents are disappointed to some degree in their children, and all children are embarrassed to some degree in their parents.) It would sting to hear them express it to me, but they would never do that. because they are good, loving parents. (even though they can be embarrassing at times!)
I have to confess that I felt a sense of relief when my daughter told me she was gay.
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Ok, honestly. I get the same feeling in my gut thinking about "what if my future child is gay" as "what if my child preferred redheads".
Not that the desire is equivalent. The point is IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
What the fuck, people. You know how we say, "going against the mainstream is still letting the mainstream influence you"? Same principle.
Gird them for battle, of course. But don't feel sorry for them. They don't need, or require, your pity. THEY DESERVE YOUR STRENGTH.
YOU CLAIM TO WALK ON TWO LEGS. PROVE IT.
it shouldn't matter, but it does from a standpoint of how their life will be in relation to the society around them. it is most definitely not in the same ballpark as them preferring redheads in that regard.
not preferring it, or even actively desiring that it not be, does not imply pity.
with all due respect, however, i think we're speaking past the point.
the point was simply that one can be disappointed with the circumstance of their child being gay without any antipathy towards homosexuality itself.
so far, i've not heard any rational reason to dispute this.
With all due respect, and no hard feelings:
BECAUSE. BEING DISAPPOINTED. OF YOUR GAY CHILD. BEING GAY. IS LETTING THE SYSTEM. TELL YOU TO FEEL DISAPPOINTED.
YOU FUCKING RETARD.
assuming that by "BEING DISAPPOINTED. OF YOUR GAY CHILD. BEING GAY" you mean being disappointed in your child, then that is a misrepresentation of what i have said despite the fact that i clearly rebuked that very notion.
furthermore, your disrespect was uncalled for.
i'm out, on that note.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 02:21:51 AM
If the sexuality of the child was somehow determined by the parents, would you choose to have the child be gay?
Yes. I'd also choose to have said child be female to male transgender, obviously mixed race, poor, from a single parent household, and addicted to crack from birth. :roll:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:28:07 AM
With all due respect, and no hard feelings:
BECAUSE. BEING DISAPPOINTED. OF YOUR GAY CHILD. BEING GAY. IS LETTING THE SYSTEM. TELL YOU TO FEEL DISAPPOINTED.
YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Depends.
If you want to have kids, being disappointed is what you describe.
If having kids is nothing more then another trophy or furnashing for persons life instead of a human being then I can see why the person would be disappointed.
A friend of mine is now in her second trimester, after two miscarriages.
Somehow, I suspect, she won't care at all if the little one turns out to be gay, as long as the kid is delivered safe, reasonably healthy, and with all the parts in the right places.
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Yeah, so. I went off the rails a bit.
But if you're trying to describe the feeling that you realize the world is going to take an extra big shit on your child for being who they are, then I can't help think that "disappointed" is the wrong word to be using.
Quite simply, it means you have negative feelings for who and what the child is, which (if I understand you correctly) is not what you're trying to say. It's pointing the negative feelings in the wrong direction.
You should be disappointed in the world for taking a shit on your child, not disappointed of your child for getting shit on.
I can understand parents that want to see their genetic line carried through their grandkids. That's not so unusual, no?
I can understand being disappointed if your child is not going to breed.
I don't think that equates to homophobia...
Personally, I'm not interested in having kids. I can see why that would bum out my parents/grandparents and wouldn't assume they feel something negative towards me for it. (luckily, nobody in my family seems to care... hmm, maybe that's why I haven't caught the parent bug to begin with...)
lmno, i think the word you are looking for is pity.
aha! moment: this is just another example of how imposing order (categorization) causes strife (persecution of those in certain categories).
discordia wins again.
I can totally see Ippy's point, but there's a flaw in it.
There is no reason - aside from archaic laws - that a Gay person cannot have offspring.
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
lmno, i think the word you are looking for is pity.
I'm pretty sure it's not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 03:14:06 PM
I can totally see Ippy's point, but there's a flaw in it.
There is no reason - aside from archaic laws - that a Gay person cannot have offspring.
Indeed. If a gay person wants a child of their own genetic makeup, that is completely possible.
is it "ok" to pity homosexuals?
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:23:31 PM
is it "ok" to pity homosexuals?
Have you been a retard your entire life, or did you get brain damaged in an accident?
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
lmno, i think the word you are looking for is pity.
Hey, stupid:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:07:59 AM
Gird them for battle, of course. But don't feel sorry for them. They don't need, or require, your pity. THEY DESERVE YOUR STRENGTH.
I think you can safely stop trying to speak for other people now, jackass.
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:23:31 PM
is it "ok" to pity homosexuals?
Pitying someone for being who they are? I don't pity someone who's born black, or poor. I never pitied the guy in high school who was born with CP. Why would you?
I save my pity for those who choose to be less than they could be. I pity those who don't spit in the world's eye and say, "this is me, love it or fuck off."
And I pity those who dismiss people just because they were born individuals, not white bread, cookie cutter perfect.
To be a touch more magnanimous, I both empathize and sympathize with most people who get shit on by the world for merely being themselves. But I'm not disappointed in them, disappointed of them, nor do I pity them.
Instead, I get pissed off at the world. This seems to be the only rational position to take.
QuoteBut if you're trying to describe the feeling that you realize the world is going to take an extra big shit on your child for being who they are, then I can't help think that "disappointed" is the wrong word to be using.
i was just trying to find the
right word.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
lmno, i think the word you are looking for is pity.
Hey, stupid:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:07:59 AM
Gird them for battle, of course. But don't feel sorry for them. They don't need, or require, your pity. THEY DESERVE YOUR STRENGTH.
I think you can safely stop trying to speak for other people now, jackass.
fuck off
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:35:22 PM
QuoteBut if you're trying to describe the feeling that you realize the world is going to take an extra big shit on your child for being who they are, then I can't help think that "disappointed" is the wrong word to be using.
i was just trying to find the right word.
No, you were putting words in LMNO's mouth, to indulge your assburgers.
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:36:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 03:30:14 PM
Quote from: rong on December 14, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
lmno, i think the word you are looking for is pity.
Hey, stupid:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:07:59 AM
Gird them for battle, of course. But don't feel sorry for them. They don't need, or require, your pity. THEY DESERVE YOUR STRENGTH.
I think you can safely stop trying to speak for other people now, jackass.
fuck off
:lord:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 03:33:21 PM
To be a touch more magnanimous
With rong? Why bother? He's just there to be Wade.
I kind of went of the handle with Ipt last night, so I was trying to mellow out in general.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 03:44:18 PM
I kind of went of the handle with Ipt last night, so I was trying to mellow out in general.
Well don't blame me when rong rubs his assburgers all over your arm and licks the windows. That's exactly how the cold gets around, you know.
You've got a good point.
:mindlazorz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 01:51:41 PM
Yeah, so. I went off the rails a bit.
But if you're trying to describe the feeling that you realize the world is going to take an extra big shit on your child for being who they are, then I can't help think that "disappointed" is the wrong word to be using.
Quite simply, it means you have negative feelings for who and what the child is, which (if I understand you correctly) is not what you're trying to say. It's pointing the negative feelings in the wrong direction.
You should be disappointed in the world for taking a shit on your child, not disappointed of your child for getting shit on.
If I understand Ippy correctly, that's what he meant.
Yeah, but Ippy lives in Texas where those laws aren't exactly archaic. :lulz:
And LMNO, the very point was that he wouldn't be disappointed in his child.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Have you read my dating stories?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:28:07 AM
With all due respect, and no hard feelings:
BECAUSE. BEING DISAPPOINTED. OF YOUR GAY CHILD. BEING GAY. IS LETTING THE SYSTEM. TELL YOU TO FEEL DISAPPOINTED.
YOU FUCKING RETARD.
THIS.
Quote from: Faust on December 14, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2011, 04:28:07 AM
With all due respect, and no hard feelings:
BECAUSE. BEING DISAPPOINTED. OF YOUR GAY CHILD. BEING GAY. IS LETTING THE SYSTEM. TELL YOU TO FEEL DISAPPOINTED.
YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Depends.
If you want to have kids, being disappointed is what you describe.
If having kids is nothing more then another trophy or furnashing for persons life instead of a human being then I can see why the person would be disappointed.
ALSO THIS. HOLY SHIT SO SO SO SO MUCH.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Have you read my dating stories?
I'm fairly certain Gay people have the same amount of difficulty, though possibly different difficulties.
Just saying.
When my daughter came out, I was both relieved & disturbed. Never disappointed, but a little rattled.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Well, Texas explains a lot.
However, his initial point seems to be that the wording of one question is wiggly enough that it invalidates the selection for homophobia, with which I disagree.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Have you read my dating stories?
I'm fairly certain Gay people have the same amount of difficulty, though possibly different difficulties.
Just saying.
When my daughter came out, I was both relieved & disturbed. Never disappointed, but a little rattled.
They have similar emotional landscapes, but the base reality that I reacted to, in my first emotional response, is that she is less likely to be date-raped or contract a disease. And I felt relieved by that.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Have you read my dating stories?
I'm fairly certain Gay people have the same amount of difficulty, though possibly different difficulties.
Just saying.
When my daughter came out, I was both relieved & disturbed. Never disappointed, but a little rattled.
They have similar emotional landscapes, but the base reality that I reacted to, in my first emotional response, is that she is less likely to be date-raped or contract a disease. And I felt relieved by that.
See, there's where you're wrong. According to Rick Santorum, all Gays are habitual rapists & child molesters. And he used to be a Senator. So there.
ETA: Ick. Sometimes even Poe's Law can make you nauseous.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Well, Texas explains a lot.
However, his initial point seems to be that the wording of one question is wiggly enough that it invalidates the selection for homophobia, with which I disagree.
Did you read the test? ALL the questions are that poorly worded.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Have you read my dating stories?
I'm fairly certain Gay people have the same amount of difficulty, though possibly different difficulties.
Just saying.
When my daughter came out, I was both relieved & disturbed. Never disappointed, but a little rattled.
They have similar emotional landscapes, but the base reality that I reacted to, in my first emotional response, is that she is less likely to be date-raped or contract a disease. And I felt relieved by that.
See, there's where you're wrong. According to Rick Santorum, all Gays are habitual rapists & child molesters. And he used to be a Senator. So there.
ETA: Ick. Sometimes even Poe's Law can make you nauseous.
Yep. :vom:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Well, Texas explains a lot.
However, his initial point seems to be that the wording of one question is wiggly enough that it invalidates the selection for homophobia, with which I disagree.
Did you read the test? ALL the questions are that poorly worded.
Yes, and I strongly disagree. The questions are worded to elicit an emotional response, and as such are, IMO, completely effective.
Being ambivalent on one or two questions because of wiggly wording is not going to shift your score from "not homophobic" to "homophobic". Seriously? Please.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 14, 2011, 03:44:17 AM
why the negative feelings towards heterosexuality?
Homosexual females are statistically less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy or to suffer domestic abuse. Relief seems like a pretty reasonable response.
I am having a hard time even understanding the "it's a shitty test" bandwagon that so many people seem to be jumping on. It's a screening test designed to determine where people fall on an emotional response to homosexuality. It is worded to elicit that emotional response. It seems to be worked fairly effectively for what it is designed to do. What the fuck is the problem with that? Jesus fuck.
Furthermore, you FUCKING RETARDED SHITFUCKS, the quiz was adapted from and closely mirrors a well-known and much-scrutinized fucking psychometric study which has been repeatedly challenged in an academic environment and found to be sound.
Also you are all FUCKING STUPID.
I'M SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR FUCKING IDIOCY.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 05:38:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Well, Texas explains a lot.
However, his initial point seems to be that the wording of one question is wiggly enough that it invalidates the selection for homophobia, with which I disagree.
Did you read the test? ALL the questions are that poorly worded.
Yes, and I strongly disagree. The questions are worded to elicit an emotional response, and as such are, IMO, completely effective.
Being ambivalent on one or two questions because of wiggly wording is not going to shift your score from "not homophobic" to "homophobic". Seriously? Please.
IMO, if they're so poorly worded and/or vague that they allow for any number of reasons for that emotional response and don't make an attempt to distinguish between those reasons at all, then it's not an effective test. Unless you're suggesting that "I'd be disappointed that my child was gay because of the discrimination and difficulties they'd face in life" and "I'd be disappointed that my child is gay because I think that homosexuality is an abhorrent sin against God" should carry equal weight.
but perhaps if you dig your heels in and screech at us, that will make everyone think the way you want them to think.
You are stupid and I hate you all.
that's the spirit!
But feel free to continue disregarding academia whenever it doesn't match your preconceived notions. Fuck this, I'm joining the Tea Party. At least they don't masquerade their ignorance as "rationality".
I forgot that as soon as something becomes entrenched in academia it is forever beyond questioning or reproach.
I JUST AIN'T THAT SMART, YOU SEE. QUICK, SOMEBODY TELL ME WHAT ACADEMICALLY-VALIDATED OPINION I SHOULD HAVE!
ALL ACADEMICS ARE ALWAYS IN 100% AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT EVERYTHING AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE AN IGNORANT MOUTHBREATHER WHO SHOULD PROBABLY GO BACK TO SHOVELING COAL AND BOWING TO YOUR BETTERS.
OH GOD....I'VE BEEN THINKING THROUGH MY OWN OPINIONS FOR MOST OF MY LIFE. I'M HOPELESSLY FUCKED BEYOND REDEMPTION.
I mean, seriously. :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 05:55:29 PM
I forgot that as soon as something becomes entrenched in academia it is forever beyond questioning or reproach.
Actually, if you read the words I wrote, you would see that the psychometric test that one is based on has been challenged numerous times over the last 30 years. But nevermind that, continue dismissing it out of hand because it makes you feel smarter than those silly researchers.
It's more funny that way. Also more depressing.
Maybe we can also argue a little about why car manufacturers offer fewer bright colors during a recession, because that's relevant.
We may just have to agree to disagree on the basic validity of things like psychometric tests.
Even though I'm wrong, because people in schools are all about it.
So basically, you appear to be saying that anthropology and psychology are useless fields of study because there is no valid means of studying people's attitudes and behavior.
Yay you.
http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/19/2/214.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699003
by the way. Not that studies and papers mean anything.
/
:redneck2:
Never mind that it should be completely obvious to anyone that a test with vague and emotionally-charged questions can't possibly yield a truly scientific outcome or be relied upon as a source of data without some HEAVY interpretation involved.
I mean, there are universities that offer classes in and do research about all kinds of nonsense. That such nonsense is embedded in an academic setting doesn't somehow make it magically valid.
THE NAZIS HAD TESTS... THAT THEY MADE THE JEWS TAKE!
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 06:03:36 PM
So basically, you appear to be saying that anthropology and psychology are useless fields of study because there is no valid means of studying people's attitudes and behavior.
Yay you.
Yep. Because poorly-worded psychometric tests are the only tools that psychologists and anthropologists are allowed to use. :)
Mind you, I am not demanding that anyone agree with me. I'm just saying that the festival of "the test is invalid" is based in wanton ignorance and deliberate willful egotistical stupidity with some kind of smelly miasma of trying to sound smart and superior. "The questions are worded poorly!"
You have no idea how ignorant it's making you sound. Is all. It's making me sick and I wish you would stop, because it's the same level of intellectual sophistication as "quantumz!"
But feel free to dig in and screech, as you are so cleverly accusing me of doing.
OR, read the papers I linked to. Or don't. What the fuck ever.
REMEMBER KIDS, ARGUING AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THIS TEST MAKES YOU AN IGNORANT HILLBILLY WHO HATES THE GAYS.
I wonder if this would elicit such a strong response from people if the test were about, say, whether or not people had negative feelings about Victorian architecture.
This board is depressing the fuck out of me today.
It's just this thread, IMO. I think we found another "drug thread" catagory.
Plus rong.
I'm bailing.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I haven't read whatever test is in question.
I will point out, however, that question wording is very important when it comes to the validity of an instrument. If a question is at all leading it is going to give you biased results. You can't just throw questions together willy nilly, they have to be put together in a measure and thoughtful manner and relevant to whatever it is you are testing or measuring.
The test in question is a minor variation on the IAH.
Not that anyone is going to actually read the critical analyses I linked to.
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
The test in question is a minor variation on the IAH.
Not that anyone is going to actually read the critical analyses I linked to.
You're arguing with RWHN.
Just saying.
My main annoyance with this thread lies with the attempt at dismissing the results of the study based on the premise that the questionairre used to determine homophobia is amateurishly flawed, which is an almost bizarrely presumptuous position and pretty much screams "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about and am banking on no one else knowing either".
Followed by digging in and screeching.
I'm not even asking that anyone agree with the conclusions of the study. All I'm fucking asking is that you first understand what you're criticizing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 14, 2011, 07:54:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
The test in question is a minor variation on the IAH.
Not that anyone is going to actually read the critical analyses I linked to.
You're arguing with RWHN.
Just saying.
Furthermore, I am arguing with a post that says right in it "I haven't bothered to read any of this before forming an opinion".
I am an idiot.
I'm not arguing with anyone, just pointing out that question wording is important. But if this test was scientifically proven to have strong validity measures, then I don't see much to argue about.
But as far as the general discussion, my sentiments are similar to LMNO's. If one or both of my kids decided/discovered they were gay, I would make sure they were well armed with themselves and prepared to tell the rest of the disapproving world to get bent.
My sentiments as well, were I to find myself in that situation.
But I cannot object strongly enough to the attempted characterization of Ippy's position as being one of hatred.
I am not saying that he is homophobic based on ONE QUESTION. I am saying that being disappointed in the fact that a child is gay, for whatever reason, is supportive of an environment of homophobia, and thereby falls into the category, IMO, of "a type of hatred".
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
I think a whole lot of people ITT are willfully misinterpreting what Ippy is saying.
Not that I agree with him, but I certainly see his point. And remember, he doesn't live in wonderful liberal tolerant Massachussets, he lives in Texas where the cultural prejudice against homosexuality is still very much alive and well. Saying that being inwardly disappointed in the uncontrollable circumstance that will cause lifelong difficulties for his child without in any way being disappointed in the child itself is some sort of "hatred" is just ignorant and stupid.
Well, Texas explains a lot.
However, his initial point seems to be that the wording of one question is wiggly enough that it invalidates the selection for homophobia, with which I disagree.
Figured I'd restate this, to help nail down those moving goalposts.
I don't really agree with Ippy's position, but I think there's a HUGE gap between misguided disappointment and hatred. Hate is a very strong word, one that people mostly seem to have forgotten the actual meaning of. And you don't need to overstate things like that in order to criticize his position. In fact, IMO it only undercuts your argument.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 08:19:23 PM
I don't really agree with Ippy's position, but I think there's a HUGE gap between misguided disappointment and hatred. Hate is a very strong word, one that people mostly seem to have forgotten the actual meaning of. And you don't need to overstate things like that in order to criticize his position. In fact, IMO it only undercuts your argument.
What I actually said, now that you've completely shifted the focus of the discussion from your previous "the test is no good" argument:
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 01:06:21 AM
I personally think that the "they will face struggles and derision" shape of disappointment is itself a form of hatred. People said (and still say) exactly the same thing about blacks marrying whites. You could almost say the same thing about people choosing to become artists or scientists.
I know what you said. That was why I responded to what you said. My response goes for all of those examples, none of which fall into the category of actual hatred, unless you stubbornly believe (as I already said) that misguided disappointment and hatred are somehow the same thing, which is patently absurd. That neither of them are desirable does not mean they are the same thing.
And that WAS my original argument, the "crappy test" thing was just a side observation that got run away with.
I'm going to have to stand by what I said. So we can disagree on that point. "I'm disappointed because you will have a harder life" is bigotry-supporting bullshit IMO, every bit as much (or more) than saying exactly the same thing about a mixed-race couple in 1960.
The fact that good people have that reaction, and it doesn't make them bad people, doesn't mean it's not a reflection of prejudice.
And "the crappy test thing was a side observation" is a bullshit dodge, since that's specifically what I took issue with and you were arguing about today. Fucking man up. I expect better from you.
It's not a dodge at all. Whether or not it's what YOU took issue with, it's not the point that I cared about most ITT.
And you seem to have missed the point where Ippy specified that he would never SAY that to his child. So I guess when someones inner dialogue and outward actions are in conflict, we're supposed to place more weight on the innate feelings that they recognize as being damaging and decide to keep in check rather than how they actually treat the people around them?
That's ridiculous PC bullshit. And as undesirable as prejudice is in this context, it's STILL not the equivalent of hatred.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
It's not a dodge at all. Whether or not it's what YOU took issue with, it's not the point that I cared about most ITT.
And you seem to have missed the point where Ippy specified that he would never SAY that to his child. So I guess when someones inner dialogue and outward actions are in conflict, we're supposed to place more weight on the innate feelings that they recognize as being damaging and decide to keep in check rather than how they actually treat the people around them?
That's ridiculous PC bullshit. And as undesirable as prejudice is in this context, it's STILL not the equivalent of hatred.
You think Ippy's imaginary gay kid wouldn't be capable of digging up his old posts on PD where he said it?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
It's not a dodge at all. Whether or not it's what YOU took issue with, it's not the point that I cared about most ITT.
And you seem to have missed the point where Ippy specified that he would never SAY that to his child. So I guess when someones inner dialogue and outward actions are in conflict, we're supposed to place more weight on the innate feelings that they recognize as being damaging and decide to keep in check rather than how they actually treat the people around them?
That's ridiculous PC bullshit. And as undesirable as prejudice is in this context, it's STILL not the equivalent of hatred.
I think it's a form of hatred. Not the equivalent of. Stop putting words in my mouth. Disliking something is a negative emotion. I am not talking PC, I am talking reality.
And we all have prejudices. I think that fucking manning up and looking them in the eye instead of cowering behind semantics and claiming the test is crappy is a more bipedal way to handle them.
And if you didn't care about the "crappy test", why the fuck did you take so much issue with my general, not-specifically-directed-at-you post challenging that particular bandwagon?
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
It's not a dodge at all. Whether or not it's what YOU took issue with, it's not the point that I cared about most ITT.
And you seem to have missed the point where Ippy specified that he would never SAY that to his child. So I guess when someones inner dialogue and outward actions are in conflict, we're supposed to place more weight on the innate feelings that they recognize as being damaging and decide to keep in check rather than how they actually treat the people around them?
That's ridiculous PC bullshit. And as undesirable as prejudice is in this context, it's STILL not the equivalent of hatred.
I think it's a form of hatred. Not the equivalent of. Stop putting words in my mouth. Disliking something is a negative emotion. I am not talking PC, I am talking reality.
And we all have prejudices. I think that fucking manning up and looking them in the eye instead of cowering behind semantics and claiming the test is crappy is a more bipedal way to handle them.
And if you didn't care about the "crappy test", why the fuck did you take so much issue with my general, not-specifically-directed-at-you post challenging that particular bandwagon?
So...something is a FORM of hatred, but it's not hatred?
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that makes absolutely no sense at all.
DEAR IPTUOUS: WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE TEST IS RIGHT. YES. YOU BEING DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR KID'S GAYNESS IS AN INDICATOR OF NEGATIVE FEELING ABOUT GAYNESS.
This does not make you a bad person. It also doesn't make you a homophobe. If you took and scored the entire test, I very much doubt that you would even end up in the middle of the spectrum for homophobia.
The fact that you do, indeed, have some negative feelings about homosexuality is not enough to make you homophobic. However, it also doesn't mean that the test is flawed (at least, no more flawed than any such test can be). It means that you have some negative feelings about homosexuality.
"The test is flawed" is kind of a textbook avoidance tactic, and the fact that so many people jumped right on that bandwagon is really interesting.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 14, 2011, 08:56:53 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 08:47:29 PM
It's not a dodge at all. Whether or not it's what YOU took issue with, it's not the point that I cared about most ITT.
And you seem to have missed the point where Ippy specified that he would never SAY that to his child. So I guess when someones inner dialogue and outward actions are in conflict, we're supposed to place more weight on the innate feelings that they recognize as being damaging and decide to keep in check rather than how they actually treat the people around them?
That's ridiculous PC bullshit. And as undesirable as prejudice is in this context, it's STILL not the equivalent of hatred.
I think it's a form of hatred. Not the equivalent of. Stop putting words in my mouth. Disliking something is a negative emotion. I am not talking PC, I am talking reality.
And we all have prejudices. I think that fucking manning up and looking them in the eye instead of cowering behind semantics and claiming the test is crappy is a more bipedal way to handle them.
And if you didn't care about the "crappy test", why the fuck did you take so much issue with my general, not-specifically-directed-at-you post challenging that particular bandwagon?
So...something is a FORM of hatred, but it's not hatred?
I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that makes absolutely no sense at all.
It's not as virulent as hatred itself, but it's a relative. Sort of like passive evil.
Perhaps you would like to find some other semantic detail to nitpick over in order to distract from the fact that you made a fool of yourself with the "crappy test" argument.
so, in other words, it's NOT HATRED AT ALL.
Also, the crappiness of this particular test is a completely separate issue from the issue of whatever nonsense you're trying to make sense out of now and conflating them serves no purpose other than to obscure both arguments.
ETA: I see, so whether or not something is outright hatred or mild prejudice that's recognized by the person who holds it and subsequently does their best to keep it to themselves and not inflict those prejudices on other people is a "semantic detail".
For real? this is your argument? :lulz:
If so, I'm'a let this go because I feel silly feeding into such a patently absurd discussion.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on December 14, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
so, in other words, it's NOT HATRED AT ALL.
Also, the crappiness of this particular test is a completely separate issue from the issue of whatever nonsense you're trying to make sense out of now and conflating them serves no purpose other than to obscure both arguments.
ETA: I see, so whether or not something is outright hatred or mild prejudice that's recognized by the person who holds it and subsequently does their best to keep it to themselves and not inflict those prejudices on other people is a "semantic detail".
For real? this is your argument? :lulz:
You're introducing a bunch of things that don't really make any sense at all. You seem pretty upset over the idea that disappointment actually does rate somewhere on the scale of homophobia.
I am not even sure what on earth you're arguing. Are you arguing that disappointment in a son's gayness is not reflective of prejudice?
Are you saying it's not a negative reaction?
Are you trying to claim that recognizing it as a negative reaction equates it with more severe forms of prejudice?
What, exactly, is it that you think I am trying to say?