Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

[suebee]

If we can glean one small positive thing out of this - my girl's first comment was: "Well at least they seem to be agreeing that orientation is biological in nature."

[Soon]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

If we can glean one small positive thing out of this - my girl's first comment was: "Well at least they seem to be agreeing that orientation is biological in nature."

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

I do think we tend to see the "gay gene" as the answer to all our problems. There is a dark side to this as the quote above states. Finding a gay gene won't bring about an acceptance of homosexuality because many will argue this gene can be fixed or changed. The social norms will trump the biological facts in many cases.

Melissa

[Manul]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I don't know if that is automatically a good thing as was pointed out in a quote posted by Melissa from the Bioethics article:

..."suggests a reason why activists for gay and lesbian rights should be wary of believing that claims for the innateness of homosexuality will lead to liberation. Evidence that homosexual orientation is inborn could, instead, very well lead to new means of pathologization and prevention, as it seems to be in the case we’ve been tracking."




Anyway, I take issue with sexual orientation being ALWAYS deemed a biological fact for everyone in the LGBT community. Sexual fluidity (especially in women) has been been proven and, for me, I have made some pretty solid choices as opposed to being swept along by any
predetermined biological or innate orientation.

Also, to attain equality, one shouldn't have to prove the innateness of sexual orientation.

Absolutely, one should claim human right to choose one's partner in life.

[Heart]

I have been saying for YEARS that hammering on the point that orientation is purely biological is only going to lead to a Nazi-like focus on purification. Terrifying.

[Gemme]

Sad and disgusting.

[EnderD_503]

I consider sexual orientation as a whole to be biological in origin. While the biological nature of sexuality may be a piece of the puzzle as far as what spawned this research to eliminate homosexual and bisexual tendencies, I can't see any scientific basis for such an elimination to occur.

Instead of saying that people shouldn't so insistantly claim homosexuality and bisexuality as biological, - which almost seems like a form of self-oppression for the sake of self-preservation - we should be questioning what scientific basis there is for such a "cleansing," if any? Personally I can't see one, and the desire of certain scientists to limit humanity to one sexuality solely for the purpose of procreation and "normality" seems like it is far more influenced by the remnants of monotheistic religious ideology than science itself.

Edit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?

[Medusa]

Im trying to find the research but this "Doctor" is apparently known for doing ridiculous experiments??

[chefhmboyrd]

wouldn't be more productive to find the gene that causes people to kill other people over stupid bullshit.
now that would improve our overall global community..
fuckwads......

[Heart]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I consider sexual orientation as a whole to be biological in origin. While the biological nature of sexuality may be a piece of the puzzle as far as what spawned this research to eliminate homosexual and bisexual tendencies, I can't see any scientific basis for such an elimination to occur.

Instead of saying that people shouldn't so insistantly claim homosexuality and bisexuality as biological, - which almost seems like a form of self-oppression for the sake of self-preservation - we should be questioning what scientific basis there is for such a "cleansing," if any? Personally I can't see one, and the desire of certain scientists to limit humanity to one sexuality solely for the purpose of procreation and "normality" seems like it is far more influenced by the remnants of monotheistic religious ideology than science itself.

Edit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?

Well, I'm in favor of self-preservation.

On another note -- what if there isn't a biological basis for same-sex orientation? What if it is a "choice?" What's evident is that neither option is going to "solve" homophobia or legitimize queer folks.

The liklihood is that orientation is some combination of biology and choice -- like most of human sexuality.

Heart

[xxfemmexx]

Wow.......... Thats all I can really say! Its not very often I end up speechless!

[LediskoLove99]

Ridiculous!

Oh boy this is going to turn out horribly. I can feel it.

[*Anya*]

If there is ever found to be a "gay gene", watch how fast the forced pregnancy folks (or as some call them: right-to-lifers) decide abortion is actually a sacrament and that they were wrong to try to get the abortion law overturned by the Supreme Court. Legislators in states with more restrictions will change them lickety-split.

It is a scary fucking world out there these days.

[Chinajewelry]

This is a female doctor? Wow... She's probably a Christian. You'd think that males would be doing this kind of ridiculous devolving, but no, even worse, a woman!

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

IEdit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?

YES. I can hear Atwood having a seizure right now and for some reason I want to burn anything resembling a red cape all of the sudden

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I consider sexual orientation as a whole to be biological in origin. While the biological nature of sexuality may be a piece of the puzzle as far as what spawned this research to eliminate homosexual and bisexual tendencies, I can't see any scientific basis for such an elimination to occur.

That's because there is absolutely no scientific justification for such an elimination. Homosexuality is almost certainly biological--I would be absolutely stunned if it were not because, just off the top of my head, I can think of two paths Nature might take to get there--and there is no reason to treat it as a pathology since it is not.

Instead of saying that people shouldn't so insistantly claim homosexuality and bisexuality as biological, - which almost seems like a form of self-oppression for the sake of self-preservation - we should be questioning what scientific basis there is for such a "cleansing," if any? Personally I can't see one, and the desire of certain scientists to limit humanity to one sexuality solely for the purpose of procreation and "normality" seems like it is far more influenced by the remnants of monotheistic religious ideology than science itself.

It is. Science can help us understand why homosexuality occurs (and it IS an interesting question) but it cannot tell us what our ethics around it should or could be. This woman's research is *entirely* motivated by religiosity with absolutely no basis, none what-so-ever, in any kind of scientific rigor.

Edit, speaking of dystopian fiction, has anyone else just got a Handmaid's Tale flashback?[/QUOTE]

I have been having Handmaid's Tale flashbacks for about two years now. Every time I see the Tea Party or hear conservatives Republicans going on about 'restoring America', I think that we are blithely cruising toward the world that Atwood described.

Cheers
Aj

[Soon]

The Anti-Lesbian Drug

..............


<snip>


....Both cases—cutting a clitoris surgically, feminizing a brain through hormone treatments—reflect an almost desperate attempt by some doctors and scientists to keep their patients from straying from gender norms. It may all be well-intentioned, a reflection of the view that a nail that sticks up will be hammered down and so it is better to conform. What makes both the clitoral surgery and the prenatal steroids so cringe-inducing, however, is that they seems like throwbacks to the 1950s, not only culturally (when there was really only one way to be female, and it came with an apron and kids) but scientifically (when anatomy and biochemistry were destiny). If the hue and cry over what Dreger has uncovered shows anything, it is that although many of us thought the modern, scientific west had moved beyond those views, many in the medical and scientific community have not.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Heart

I have been saying for YEARS that hammering on the point that orientation is purely biological is only going to lead to a Nazi-like focus on purification. Terrifying.

Here is a piece I wrote, a couple of years ago, which is a chapter in the book I am writing on this very subject:

http://www.dreadedmemes.org/Dreaded_...the_Genes.html

The long and short of it is this:

Is homosexuality biological? Almost certainly. Does it mean what we think it does for gay rights--perhaps, perhaps not. Strictly speaking, from a rights-based perspective, it does not because we *routinely* protect people's choices. Religion, for instance, is one of the most sacrosanct of protected classes and religion is *entirely* a choice. No one is born a particular religion--into a religious family, yes or a religious culture, yes, there may even be a biological basis for religiosity but being Buddhist or Pagan or Christian is entirely a choice and we protect that choice.

Cheers
Aj