Stargeezer,

There's apparently no way of 'correcting' homosexuality. That has been tried for centuries by religious organizations and psychologists. Many young kids ended up killing themselves thanks to the pressure for results... But you say it's curable? Could you please provide me your source for that claim?

As an objectivist gay man, I actually spent most of my life trying to 'convert' myself haha. It didn't work. I suppose it's practically impossible, in the same way you can't make a straight man feel sexual attraction for other men, no matter how much you try to prepare him for that. That's just denying reality, isn't it?

If gay people are really unable to change, then the natural rules for straight males do not apply to them. Our genes must have a different function in nature, I suppose, since we didn't go extinct after so long, and we're not exactly as rare as most genetic mutations. Who knows, maybe increasing the chances of our sibling's offspring of surviving by providing them with an extra layer of protection is actually our real purpose in nature? If that's the case, we're not deviants at all. We're excelling at that function, apparently.

Now, I may be wrong, as I'm not well-versed in this field, but isn't something considered a disease only if it brings distress to the person? Additionally, would you allow some sort of treatment to your own son if you found out he had homosexual tendencies? Is that something that you, as an objectivist, would do?

And now the last one: do you think that homosexuality and objectivism are actually irreconcilable? Can't a person be both without being rationally inconsistent?

-X-

Sorry for the amount of questions, sir. It's just that I never had the opportunity to ask another fellow objectivist what he thinks about this particular subject.

Take care.

It's his personal boogy man gang. Nothing to see here except an attempt to covince people that a deviancy is "normal" because he says it is.

Asking any true believer whether or not their pet deviance is "normal" will result in the same result.

I'm special, I am normal, because I've found people who think like me who say I'm normal.

Good grief. What a waste of electrons.

I disagree. And you're a lover of force AND big government.

>>"Puberty blockers don't actually start the process of transition. They just delay puberty."<<

And that isn't chemical treatment affecting the normal physical and mental development?

>>"It's the hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which doesn't begin until around age 14 or so, that actually induces the changes. If the child hasn't grown out of the whole transgender thing by then, they're not ever going to, and prohibiting transition would be cruel."<<

It still begs the point, how do you justify the induced changes before the age of self determination of 18?

>>"And yes, I have watched the lesson. Why do you ask?"<<

Because you keep trying to go back to genetic causes. The only causes identified to date are errors in the sex hormone triggers pre-natal. Genetic conditions that last through out several generations implies inheritability. I don't buy that.

It's a choice to correct or not to correct a deviancy from the successful norm. Declaring that I have no option is not validation for demanding the service be provided. The comparison is valid.

As for the link you supplied, I really don't consider data from a position oriented lobby group as being untarnished in their point of view. Hardly a source that would stand up to pier review.

Apart from you personal obsession on this subject, from which I deduct you are involved personally at some level, I remain uninfluenced from my opinion that like sex pairing will not result in reproduction. Therefore I maintain it is deviancy, and curable - but I don't think I should be forced to pay for it.

It appears that one man's abuse is another's compassion.

Kind of reminds me of the reverse, of the deaf communities fight against hearing implants for deaf children.

Yes...yes I would.

I hope you understand a couple things about this entire "confused gender thing. It was all settled millennia ago. You know, that pesky evolution thing, where male/female problems were all worked out. If you generate sperm, you're a male. I you generate a egg, you're a female.

Deciding that your body is not what you really are is called psychosis. Not too long ago homosexuality was classed as a disease in that thick book of diagnostic medicine doctors use. Then the AMA (I think) bowed to political correctness

People involved in that movement don't want to be classed as being sick, BUT the simple truth is that two men or two women, or whatever combination you want to select cannot reproduce. ONLY male/female pairing will. Therefor, the solution is medical treatment for the disease OR live with the impairment.

And before anybody jumps on me saying I don't have a clue, remember that I live in a wheelchair. I could decide that living in this chair is a violation of my civil rights and that somebody HAS to pay whatever it costs to "fix" me into a cyborg that can walk. Stupid, oh yeah, but no more so than saying the things all these groups are saying.

Have you watched the lesson you refer me to?

>>"I'm well aware of the physical changes that these medications have on a person's body. The whole point of taking them in the first place is to induce such physical changes."<<

So you're saying it's OK to begin the physical and neuro-physical changes in the child at 10 or 12 until age 18 or so giving "plenty of time for the kids to work out(sic) who they want to be." Starting the changes in a 10 to 12 year old, chemically, before (s)he's had time to 'work out who they want to be' without informed consent (which a 10 to 12 year old can't possible give) sounds pretty abusive to me.

May surprise you, but I happen to understand and agree with the professor. It's been fairly well studied in Europe for a number of years, that the hormonal environment in-utero results in these changes and differences. And the resulting defects cause further errors in sex hormone generated developments at least twice more during child-hood development including puberty. Politically, it was not acceptable for discussion or publication in the US until sometime in the 80's, much as the red wine-heart disease findings from France.

But all of that reinforces my statement above that it is not a genetic condition. It is a pre-natal defect that affects many areas of normal human development. i still don't see any justification for medical mutilation.

I love your bottom line there. Good one. I will remember that one in future arguments.

But by regulating business to force certain behaviors ie: who a business has to hire (or consider hiring) is not freedom. A business owner is a risk taker...and they should be left alone to take that risk...THEIR risk, on their own...no one elses. Their business belongs to THEM. A basic human right to own your own business and run it whatever way you want...the market and customers will decide it's success. Stop trying to regulate forced business transactions. If I don't want to do business with you I shouldn't be forced to to save your feelings. If someone doesn't want to do business with me they are free to NOT do business with me. I will take my money elsewhere, thank you very much.

You can't have it both ways. Freedom means you're free to do business with whomever or NOT to do business with whomever. The patrons (people...individuals) will decide if a business survives...NOT laws. There are business who survive without catering to the majority... plenty of businesses have a small niche they cater too. I still think you just want to force people to change their opinions.... we have a right to form our own opinions and decide who we want to deal with.