Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

And biology classes, for example, are more than enough to teach children about various psychological problem, homosexuality among them

It is not, in the opinion of the majority of the scientific community, a psychological problem, as it has been removed officially from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual -- psychology's catalog and classification of disorders).

Calling it one or teaching that in schools despite scientific consensus would be an example of "propaganda" ...

I sympathize with groups of people who have legitimate arguments about some things and the support of solid, logical arguments or a minority of scientists, or whatever. And in some cases like that, it makes sense to teach more than one perspective in a school (history does this a lot, and some uncertain sciences, like string theory or whatever). But in this particular case, there aren't really any fringe psychologists who disagree or splinter sects, it's virtually unanimously not a disorder.

(so homosexuality is a psychological feature?)

[Dutchling]

I love it when Polandball becomes relevant.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also,

The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[136] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[4]

[Sergarr]

I love it when Polandball becomes relevant.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also,

The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[136] There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[4]

(is trans-sexuality a psychological feature, too?)

[GavJ]

Of course homosexuality is a psychological feature. Unless you know of a homosexuality organ or blood type the rest of us don't know about, it's a pretty much purely behavioral/brain thing, and thus in the domain of psychology.

And psychologists are of a consensus that it is an example of non-disordered psychology on top of that.

(nor does being psychological mean it is necessarily able to be changed or taught -- for example, you can't just will yourself to have or stop having schizophrenia, or colorblindness, or to remember or forget a year of your life on demand, etc.)

[Sergarr]

Of course homosexuality is a psychological feature. Unless you know of a homosexuality organ or blood type the rest of us don't know about, it's a pretty much purely behavioral/brain thing, and thus in the domain of psychology.

And psychologists are of a consensus that it is an example of non-disordered psychology on top of that.

(the focus was not on psychological, but on feature, as opposed to problem)

[GavJ]

Ah. I dunno, I don't like the question. "Feature" implies design intent, which organisms don't have.
It just is.

What matters for it not being a disorder is that it doesn't fit the qualifications of disorders in general:
* It doesn't involve self harm or harm to others.
* Gay people don't (typically) self-identify as disordered.
* It doesn't destroy your ability to make or keep friends, hold down relationships, or perform productive work.

[martinuzz]

Nah m8 fuk U.

Thank you!
Finally I can post this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

[BlindKitty]

Yep, this vote was pretty close, by the way, like 60 - 40 (though I don't want to actually look for the numbers now, as it is getting a little late), and it was one of the things that make me not trust the specialist even in their fields. From my point of view, it is just one of many examples of LGBT propaganda working wonders.

That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem. Than again, only talking to people that are easy to talk to closes us in our bubble, doesn't it?

Mind you - I'm not saying that there is a... How to phrase it? A 'solution' to this problem - I mean, maybe homosexuals are stuck the way they are. Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem. Just as, for example, savantism is.

Looking at the Polandball actually makes me feel sorry that it is so blatantly nonsensical...

[Frumple]

(is trans-sexuality a psychological feature, too?)

... what does this have to do with the discussion on sexual preference? Transsexuality doesn't really have anything in particular to do with that. Is an issue with gender identification, not sexual preference, so far as I'm aware. Verra' different things.

Separate discussion being such, I do think some areas are beginning to treat trans as a legitimate psychological issue of some sort or another. With appropriate treatment: Gender reconstruction and hormone therapy, after which the person in question is psychologically normal for their (previously misaligned) gender and operates as well as anyone. 'Course, there's plenty of bigots/ignorant individuals up in arms about nationalized medical systems or anything remotely resembling them actually forking out money to fix the issue in question, but what can you do? You've got people that value what they view as "normalcy" over others' health and sanity in every society, s'far as I know.

Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem.

And here is kinda' the fundamental problem with the way you're thinking, methinks. Something not being biologically normal behavior (though note: Homosexuality is biologically normal, by everything I've seen. Relatively low probability, but normal) does not mean it's a problem. It means it's different, but whether that's an problem is an entirely separate consideration.

E: But nah, the stronger reason why it's not considered a problem is that homosexuality has no meaningful effect on psychological functioning. It is little-to-no more impactful on how you think and how you function than preferring brunettes over blondes. Has no impact on work ethic, morals, intellectual or physical capability, the vast, vast majority of social interaction... it's a non-harmful sexual preference, and that's it. Which is why it's not a problem.

[martinuzz]

Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour, and as such should be considered a problem.

If we all started acting biologically normal, we would be running from tree to tree collecting fruits and nuts, fucking everything that moves, and ripping apart children of people from neighboring tribes, if they were silly enough to stray into our lots, and eating them raw. Now that would be a problem.

[GavJ]

That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem.

Except that you haven't actually produced any argument to convince us of that.

Whereas we have provided evidence to the contrary -- Namely, the world's most prestigious classification of disorders does not include homosexuality as one, and the community of experts in the relevant field agree that it isn't.

Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour

Being abnormal (in the sense of merely not being the majority, which is the only sense I can see here) is not evidence of disorder. Playing dwarf fortress is, statistically, even more abnormal than being gay. Does that make us all disordered? No.

[Sergarr]

Also even more extreme example: Einstein. How many Einsteins there are in the world? Not many. But we don't consider geniuses a "problem", right?

[GavJ]

Again, the definition of a psychological disorder does not at any point include mention of "rare" or "uncommon" behaviors (because if it did, model train building and dwarf fortress and liking pumpernickel bread and even owning cats would all be disorders).

The definition is this:
* It involves self harm or harm to others. OR
* The person self-identifies as disordered and experiences great distress because of it (although in this case, it's really the self convincing that is truly the disorder, not necessarily the underlying situation. For example if a person were a normal weight but was extremely distressed about it, they probably would have some eating disorder due to their distress, but that doesn't mean that their actual weight is a problem) OR
* It destroys your ability to make or keep friends, hold down relationships, or perform productive work.

[BlindKitty]

That said, I would probably be able to take your opinions more seriously, if you *were* considering homosexuality a personality problem.

Except that you haven't actually produced any argument to convince us of that.

Whereas we have provided evidence to the contrary -- Namely, the world's most prestigious classification of disorders does not include homosexuality as one, and the community of experts in the relevant field agree that it isn't.

Well, I'm not trying to convince you to my point of view as a homosexuality as a problem, is what I say. I'm actually all for you thinking otherwise! You are absolutely free to believe the WHO in that, and who I am to convince you otherwise? What is more, I don't use it as a part of any argument, really, just sticking the stick into the anthill (is there such an idiom in English?). I'm arguing completely different case, and I'm actually being ostracised for my views. Which, I should add, don't hurt anyone, not even the discussion.

Still, it is certainly not biologically normal behaviour

Being abnormal (in the sense of merely not being the majority, which is the only sense I can see here) is not evidence of disorder. Playing dwarf fortress is, statistically, even more abnormal than being gay. Does that make us all disordered? No.

Why not? Of course, I'm joking here, but are not even comparing apples and oranges, but apples and mushrooms... Well, no, that's too far. Apples and maple leaves.

Also, since reproduction is one of the major signs of life, homosexuality preventing it is pretty disorderly, I would say. But it is, again, not my point at all to try and convince you to that particular part of my POV.

[martinuzz]

* It destroys your ability to perform productive work.

Now that is a very dangerous classification, in a society where 50% of all labour is not productive, but destructive, yet classified as productive just because it's labour.