To Rrhain:
I apologise for the lateness of this reply.
I have a query that I would like to have settled before we continue: is this the part...
3) A bit of both: That is, examining the condition of homosexuality as one would a physical/psychological disorder (no offence to audience intended, please read on to understand that the comparison is made purely on the METHOD of analysis). This view supposes that homosexuality has a natural predisposition (genetic in nature) which may or may not manifest itself, depending on the precipitating factors (environment surrounding the individual during their upbringing) and any "stress events" which may trigger the onset of homosexuality.
...from my very first post (number 203 on this thread) the target of your criticism? I would like you to identify where the "metaphors", "comparisons" and "analogies" you have mentioned originated from.
I understand that I have attempted to use analogies to clarify my positon in subsequent posts, but I feel that you were not referring to those when you used the term "analogy". So please be so kind as to identify exactly which part of which post caused you to feel that I have displayed a less than acceptable attitude towards homosexuality.
In the response below, I have assumed that your main grudge was beared against the comment above. If this was not the case, ignore it and identify the actual problem in your next post.
*******************************************************************
Reply to your post:
I didn't understand why you were suddenly treating gay people as mentally ill.
Thus, my response of "Are you sure you really want to describe it that way?"
Perhaps because your perception of what I was doing (treating gay people as mentally ill) was not actually what I have intended to do? The answer to the subsequent question is "Hell,no!", as demonstrated in earlier posts:
Well I am wholeheartedly sorry for the unintended connotations.
I'm sorry, it must be that your intelligence far outclasses mine, granting you the power to see associations and implications that are hidden from foolish me.
I am in no way assuming/asserting/hinting that homosexuality is a disorder, and if my expression was lacking, I apologise and make amends.
*******************************************************************
Additional note: As I flipped back to read what I wrote in my first post, I suddenly realised that point (1) regarding genetic predisposition was actually a position derived from genetics research, which in turn was most famous for the investigation of GENETIC DISORDERS.
Furthermore, on re-reading point (2) regarding associative learning of sexual gratification and sexual stimulus, I suddenly realised that this position originated from theories of ANIMAL LEARNING (in particular, Pavlovian conditioning on dogs).
However, I guess I forgot to mention the origins of the above two perspectives because the origins seemed to be a logical deduction from the theories themselves. On the other hand, point (3) was developed from a clinical basis, and so its origins may not be entirely obvious to the audience. Thus I commented in passing where it was developed and used for (clinical psychological assessments) to familiarise the audience with its origin.
I am now waiting for you to accuse me of comparing homosexuals to patients with genetic disorders and animals, as well as wondering out loud why you haven't made the connections and accuse me of it earlier on.
********************************************************************
Surely it must have occurred to you that if you needed to preface your statement by saying, "no offence to audience intended," then you were going down the wrong path and should have tried again.
Well, no actually, it didn't occur to me. Usually when I preface my statements with "no offence intended", others actually realise that no offence was intended instead of reading deeper to find offence. Of course, you may assert that the offence was apparent and/or intended, but as I will discuss below, the implication of my comment was less than obvious.
I rewrote your passage removing all references to psychological disease and making the focus the study of the etiology of sexual orientation rather than focusing specifically upon homosexuality as if heterosexuality were the natural, assumed default:
That is, examining the condition of sexual orientation as one would any other physical/psychological state. This view supposes that sexual orientation has a natural predisposition (genetic in nature) which may or may not manifest itself, depending on the precipitating factors (environment surrounding the individual during their upbringing) and any "stress events" which may trigger the onset of sexual expression.
Looking back, I should probably have re-phrased "stress events" to something like "biological events such as the onset of puberty," but you see my point.
Problem with this 1:
"This view" is not, technically speaking, a view that I have personally developed. It is actually the "view" developed for clinical psychological assessments, and I believe that to simply state it as "this view" would violate the golden rule of plagarism.
Note: I agree that using "physical/psychological state" would eliminate the negative connotations of "disorder", but how then would you address the above point?
Problem with this 2:
If I had stated your revised version, and (hypothetically speaking) a forum member then posts the following:
"You freaking numbskull! What gives you the rights to use clinical psychological assessments to evaluate sexual orientation? You think that masking disorders as a "state" would trick me? You're implying that homosexuality is a mental illness aren't you? (NOTE: this inference will be made because this thread IS, after all, about homosexuality) You f**king bigot!"
What would my reply be? In other words, I am questioning how much better your revised version is better than mine in terms of "implications"? If someone is to take offence, I would rather honestly tell them the whole story (origin, utility and all) and assert that offence is not intended beforehand rather than changing the labels to less sensitive ones and hope that others don't find out what it really is. See my dilemma?
Can you think of one?
What I have tried to do was to find another (less sensitive) example of utility for the clinical method. But so far, I can think of no process other than clinical assessments which "find predisposition factors, identify precipiating factors, and isolate stress events" in order to examine a condition. Hence my invitation for you to find one. I think you have misunderstood my request.
********************************************************************
It isn't useful if it doesn't convey the point you are trying to make. It isn't useful if it leaves your audience with images of mentally ill gay people.
The point I was trying to make is "Hey, let's try to use this to examine what we're discussing. It might be useful!", and I think what I said has conveyed it very well (you understood it, at least). What I didn't count on was that for some people (re: you), it would also conjure up "images of mentally ill gay people", which was not its intention at all.
The methods used for investigating PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS are useful for things that actually are psychological disorders. Why would they be useful in studying homosexuality if being gay were not a psychological disorder?
Errrr....a knife can be useful for cutting fruits or killing people, but the fact that it is an effective apparatus for both doesn't mean that the tasks are related. Are you asking if the knife is useful for cutting things that are apples, why would it be useful in killing people if people are not apples?
Since you didn't mention a single thing about heterosexuality until I pointed out that you were seemingly saying gay people were psychologically disordered, the answer to your question is yes. That is precisely what I am accusing you of.
Nothing you said indicated that you were talking about the etiology of sexuality in general. You focused specifically and solely upon homosexuality and thought that the best metaphor to use was "psychological disorder."
What else is someone supposed to think?
Well, this is untrue. I have stated in post 203 (the original post)...
Examples that could be attributable to (3) is almost anything you can think of. If advances in genetic studies can reveal predisposition genes, and experience in the past can account for aggravations leading to a manifestation of these predisposition genes, then the majority of personal attributes (sexual preferences, personality, diseases, psychological disorders, fear, intelligence, etc.) can all be explained by this argument.
...that "sexual preferences, personality, diseases, psychological disorders, fear, intelligence, etc." may all be explained using the clinical methodology. Perhaps you have missed this part?
Is the "etiology of sexuality in general" you mentioned covered in either "sexual preferences" or "etc.", or have you just falsely accused me of something?
*********************************************************************
What was the point of saying that methods of examining psychological disorders would be appropriate in the examination of homosexuality if not to imply that homosexuality is a psychological disorder?
Because they're not psychological disorders and thus those methods would not be useful. Since that method, by your own words, is only used on psychological disorders, why would they be used on homosexuality if not to say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder?
See knife analogy above. I said "has only been used", not "can only be used". A knife has unlimited uses, but so far, it's most famous for stabbing and cutting. It doesn't mean that under suitable circumstances, it cannot be used as a pen or hammer.
The fact that the "methods of examining psychological disorders" can (I believe) explain almost all personal attributes (as explicitly stated in post 203) means that examination of psychological disorder may not be the only arena it is useful for. I have supported the universality of the clinical methodology by using it to explain heterosexuality in a subsequent post. The "implication" of homosexuality being a psychological disorder is far from obvious.
Using knife analogy against the second quote: Just because the knife has only been used to cut fruits, doesn't mean I can't suggest you use it to kill people.
Using the tree/tire analogy against the second quote: Just because we have only been buring trees in the past, doesn't mean we can't try and set a tire on fire.
But we burn trees for specific reasons. If you're going to talk about burning tires in the language of burning trees, then you're invoking those same reasons.
What? To get warm? Just because they're both flammable? Then in my comment, both homosexuality and psychological disorders could be examined by the clinical method because they are both personal attributes. And it just so happens that the clinical method could (I believe) be applied to almost all attributes (just as we can set all flammable substances aflame). Is this the "common language" you're referring to?
If A, then B.
A, therefore B.
What is your A and B? Stating this alone is not very helpful and may cause confusion or even (gasp) misinterpretation! *ominous music*
********************************************************************
So long as you keep insisting that somehow referring to homosexuality as something amenable to the investigation of psychological disorders, we will keep coming back to it.
I think that's a misunderstanding. Change "the investigation of psychological disorders" to "the usual methodology adopted in assessments of psychological disorders". If you cannot see the difference between the two, tell me and I'll elaborate.
The implication that because you're using the method for examining psych disorders to examine homosexuality means that you are comparing the two is NOT evident because I have stated that the common ground between all elements examinable by the clinical method is the fact that they must be a personal attribute. Homosexuality is an attribute, psych. disorder is an attribute, but so is intelligence, personality, preferences, etc. They are all on equal grounds. I stated this clearly in post 203.
I am pushing forward the notion that although the method described is commonly used as part of clinical assessment, it is actually useful for examining all (or almost all) personal attributes. Since homosexuality is a personal attribute, it may be examined with this method. What's so hard to understand?
(Note: I haven't ignored the remainder of your post, but it seemed to be a summary of the points discussed above, so I didn't feel like repeating myself. If I have missed an important question you wanted answer to, say so in your next post and I will reply ASAP. No offence intended. ^_^)
Patiently awaiting your reply.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
™ Version 4.2
