It seems we've been mentioned rather disapprovingly on PZ Myers's blog, and we expect that skeptics who are interested in studying the evidence before drawing their own conclusions will be clicking over here to see what the fuss is about.
So, hello and welcome.
To address the issue: two things have happened which connect you to us directly to us. Somebody posting under the name 'PZ Myers' made a couple of comments linking to Dr Myers's old site; a bit suspicious, we e-mailed Dr Myers to find out if someone was spoofing his name. We haven't heard back, so we cannot make the presumption that this commenter was actually Dr. Myers absent any data to verify that hypothesis. Second, Dr Myers made a critical comment about us on his own blog:
At least since Fred turned his blog with its unique voice into a hostel for simpering accommodationists and incompetent fools, that’s [the allegation that we are hypocrites] true.
I used to read it regularly — at least a few times a week — but completely tuned out as those other weirdos turned it into a halfway house for confused blitherers.
I used to read it regularly — at least a few times a week — but completely tuned out as those other weirdos turned it into a halfway house for confused blitherers.
We hope that if you read the blog here, you will come to a different conclusion.
We do not consider our position to be confused or weird. It is simply this: we believe that it is important to maintain bonds of friendship, communication and respect between people of different philosophical and metaphysical positions. (It's worth pointing out, for instance, that our administration team consists of one atheist, one Christian and one agnostic.) We are not a 'safe space' for any one group; instead we aim to be a 'safe-ish space' where the only major rule is that people do not fall below a basic level of courtesy to one another. We enjoy being a pluralistic place where we can hear worldviews that do not match our own because we feel that even if we disagree with those worldviews, it's best to hear about them from people who actually hold them. We like to learn from each other.
You could, if you like, call this accommodationist, but we do not think we're confused.
Of course we no longer have a unique voice: we no longer have a single blogger. This is now a community blog with a multiplicity of voices. We do, however, feel that we have preserved the spirit of Fred's original blog. Fred was notable for criticising what he saw as bad behaviour within his own group. The article that kicked off this fuss - a piece in which an atheist was strongly critical of atheist activist Greta Christina's stated goals of the atheist movement - was, we believed, in the same spirit. It was strongly worded, but Fred's pieces were often strongly worded as well; we did not necessarily agree with its position, but we don't refuse to publish articles just because we don't agree with them. We saw it as an article that fell just on the right side of the civility line that deserved to be put out there for debate, and which could be balanced out by other articles stating a contrary position if people chose to write them.
Well, debate happened, and attention has been called. We'll be publishing many other articles in future that express completely different worldviews. If you'd like to stick around and are prepared to abide by the community standards of 'don't be a jerk', you will be most welcome.
The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)
@Deird: For instance, the Sherlock Holmes movie with RDJ. I watched that and spent the entire time thinking "my goodness, the slash - could it be any more blatant?"
I watched it and... c'mon! The ENTIRE train set piece! They were BALLROOM DANCING together! It was anything but subtle, and I definitely don't have "slash goggles."
Posted by: picklefactory | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Aha. Thanks for the explanation.
I guess I have a limited slash awareness. Slash monocle, perhaps? I don't tend to pick out the pairings, but I can usually see them when someone else calls it; and the obvious ones like in the Sherlock Holmes film I can spot for myself.
Posted by: Slow Learner | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Slow Learner: see above definitions.
picklefactory: slashy ballroom dancing?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:50 PM
X-Men: First Class. The slash pairing was so overt that even the actors and directors joked about it in interviews.
Husband maintained I was reading too much into the movie, but I felt vindicated when I read the interviews after. :D
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:51 PM
What was originally after the closing em tag: I OWN THIS MOVIE WHY HAVE I NOT YET WATCHED IT. Unless you mean the second one?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:52 PM
@MercuryBlue: I do mean A Game of Shadows, yes. I recall that the first one was pretty obvious too, but maybe not quite as much. Of course I haven't seen it as recently, so no examples spring immediately to mind.
Posted by: picklefactory | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:57 PM
When you're not particularly a slash fan, and yet your first thought on seeing the Doctor say "Master" into the phone is "wow, they're definitely an ex-couple", and you can list all the different moments that would obviously be used in a Spike/Angel fanvid, and you have a long-standing disagreement with yourself about whether Crichton/Harvey counts as a canon couple, and you don't have any internal disagreement about whether Giles/Ethan counts as a canon couple because they were SO CLEARLY doing it, and when people start talking about Angel's love-interests in season 2 you say "apart from Lindsey, you mean?"...
*shrugs*
Slash goggles. I has them.
Posted by: Deird, who actually isn't all that into slash... no, really... | Jan 30, 2012 at 05:58 PM
It has been bad enough that at this point I'm feeling strongly alienated from both atheism and the term "atheist." I am a non-believer who finds the intolerance of the most vocal parts of atheism to be intolerable.
I wandered over to your blog.
My take on the shouty atheists is that all human endeavors contain a certain quantity of bullshit by volume. I think that sometimes I start to lose sight of that, and that's when I'm most frustrated.
I think there are a bunch of harmful things that people do for ostensibly religious reasons that they are really doing for "human" reasons. These things need to be criticized, definitely, but sometimes the atheist "nukers" ** get all exercised and make a category error, then overreach and start in with the friendly fire!
** I am thinking back to the ancient thread on here about appeasers vs. nukers, terms which IMHO paint both sides in the worst possible light
Posted by: picklefactory | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:18 PM
appeasers vs. nukers, terms which IMHO paint both sides in the worst possible light
I think that was the point.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Ehehehe. Slash goggles, I haz them. I haven't seen any of the things you're referencing, but it sounds like I should investigate. :3
Posted by: Sixwing | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Picklefactory said:
Yes, and this is why exactly why I remain unmoved when I encounter folks who say, "Atheism is the new awesome! May it permeate the globe with wholesome, rational goodness!" I look at the level of bullshit in the online communities and shudder at the thought of that variation of being gaining world dominance. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
Every group has its BSers and they often yell the loudest.
*sigh*
Posted by: timberwraith | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:37 PM
I hope I'm not feeding a troll, but a lot of the simplistic objections to Froborr's piece remind me of a common trope in Chick tracts. The unbeliever starts off asking "Who is this Jesus of whom you speak?" and after a brief explanation gets down on their knees to pray and convert.
The people who act as if Froborr said just sharing their views was evil seem to have a similar idea of what it would take to turn a believer into an atheist. That people only believe in gods because nobody ever told them what a silly idea this was, and that if they just sit down and explain it to them they will drop their belief just like that and become a well-adjusted atheist in a second.
This is completely at odds with everything I know about people, from reading books like "Fooled by Randomness", from listening to people describing their faith, from thinking about my own experiences of loss of faith. It's also rather frightening to me because I've had far too many painful conversations with people who thought they knew better than me what was happening in my mind, or who thought they could persuade me out of feeling emotions with the power of their pure logic.
I don't think there's a persuasive argument that would turn hapax (for instance) into an atheist any more than there's a persuasive argument that would turn me into a woman. It feels like the idea there ought to be comes in both cases from the same extremely unpleasant set of assumptions, which is why I recoil.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Nick Kiddle said:
I'm thinking about what it's like to have someone try to convince me that I'm really a man (I'm a trans woman). Ugh, that scenario would be pretty darned objectifying. I never made that connection before.
Conversion therapy for the "theologically incorrect"... an interesting and horrific notion.
Posted by: timberwraith | Jan 30, 2012 at 06:55 PM
That's it. That's exactly what I felt like Greta Christina was advocating. Technically not violent, but incredibly dehumanizing and othering.
Thank you, Nick and timberwraith, for finding the words for it.
Posted by: Froborr | Jan 30, 2012 at 07:26 PM
There's a big difference between trying to convince someone that they're not gay or transgender and trying to convince them of a theological position.
Being gay/straight/trans/cis is determined by fundamental brain architecture which can't be changed by verbal arguments or even conditioning. We know that orientation 'conversion' therapy just doesn't work.
Religious affiliation is less fundamental than sexual or gender orientation. People can grow up in heteronormative, homophobic cultures and nevertheless have a deep-seated gay orientation. But if you grew up in a culture which espoused Islam, and weren't exposed to Catholic ideas, you wouldn't find yourself ineluctably drawn to Catholicism. The idea would never cross your mind because you wouldn't have learnt the relevant ideas in the first place.
People *do* convert between faiths through discussion. I know of Christians who became atheist, atheists who became Muslim, and atheists who became Christian.
People *don't* change their sexual orientation or become trans/cis through discussion, and it's a disgusting act of appropriation to compare proselytism with anti-QUILTBAG 'conversion therapy'. Somebody knocking on my door and handing me a leaflet about their faith is NOT ANY WHERE NEAR AS DAMAGING as somebody sending a gay person to a "conversion therapy" camp to change their sexual or gender orientation.
TRIGGER WARNING: Describes the physical and emotional mistreatment of children -- including rape.
Furthermore, if you do think that changing someone's "theological orientation" is "incredibly dehumanizing and othering", then presumably you are against religious schools of all kinds. Surely the Jesuit maxim "Give me the child until the age of seven and I'll give you the man" is far more sinister than Greta Christina's advocacy of atheism. There aren't special New Atheist schools which specialise in indoctrinating children, but there are faith schools, church schools, madrassas, not to mention the many Catholic "children's homes" that were little better than combined indoctrination centres and child rape camps.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 07:52 PM
EA: it is obligatory, on this board, to put the words "trigger warning: child rape" before any mention of child rape.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Sorry - how do I edit a post?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 07:57 PM
//People *don't* change their sexual orientation or become trans/cis through discussion, and it's a disgusting act of appropriation to compare proselytism with anti-QUILTBAG 'conversion therapy'.//
Wait ... when I describe how the language and attitudes of proselytism are uncomfortably reminiscent of attempts to convince me out of my own knowledge of myself, that's appropriation? How does that work?
//People *do* convert between faiths through discussion. I know of Christians who became atheist, atheists who became Muslim, and atheists who became Christian.//
I know a gay man who became bisexual through discussion ... well, internet sex, which is a form of discussion. The fact that identities can change in some cases is not evidence that they should change in all cases.
//Somebody knocking on my door and handing me a leaflet about their faith//
See what I said about Chick tracts. Handing over a leaflet is fairly harmless - it's the underlying attitude that it will only take a few simple facts to overturn a worldview completely that is objectifying.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:10 PM
EA,
I cannot state strongly enough how offensive it is for you to explain to people, including QUILTBAG people, who just told you they experience two things as similar, that they can't possibly be so.
There are significant socio-cultural components to spiritual feelings and religious practice. The same goes for sexuality and gender identity. That does not mean that there aren't also innate, biological aspects as well. And it certainly doesn't mean that the only aspects of a person's identity that should be respected are those that meet some arbitrary level of "scientific" justification.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Y'know, Froborr, I'm just about at the point of creating a FAQ for your post, cutting and pasting from the comment thread.
@hapax - I know this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but speaking only for myself, I would personally be delighted if someone were willing to put in the work to do this.
I found Froborr's original piece straightforward, compassionate and sensible. The ensuing outrage has left me more than a bit befuddled, and I tried hard to follow the comment thread, but to be honest I was eventually defeated by two things: 1) my own lack of understanding (there was some presumed knowledge inherent in many of the comments that I don't have, and I had to concentrate hard to figure out what people were trying to advocate from context), and 2) a simple lack of time and mental resources on my part to devote such concentration to reading it. I hope to eventually read and comprehend the whole thread, but it won't be anytime soon.
Obviously it's no one's duty or responsibility to fill in trolls or curious lurkers like myself on what happened there, so I'm not suggesting anyone should actually do this unless they wanted to do it. But if they did, I would read it with gratitude.
Posted by: Phoenix | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:12 PM
@Evil Atheist: Before anything else -- I'd suggest you check the FNE and FAQs of the site -- some of your post should have been behind Trigger Warnings.
I hope that you have gone back and read the entire discussion on the original posting thread before chiming in here -- but I'll just type of few words back at you:
Being gay/straight/trans/cis is determined by fundamental brain architecture which can't be changed by verbal arguments or even conditioning. We know that orientation 'conversion' therapy just doesn't work.
Don't state as a scientific fact something that is still a matter of scientific controversy. Especially, don't lump every single person who is a member of the QUILTBAG community into the same category. Not all agree with you that their orientation is a matter of "brain architecture"
Religious affiliation is less fundamental than sexual or gender orientation.
If you mean by this that few people claim that one is "born" into a certain religious "orientation" then I would agree. However, if you were to ask many people that I know -- religion for them is not an "affiliation" it is a basic element of their self-identity.
People can grow up in heteronormative, homophobic cultures and nevertheless have a deep-seated gay orientation. But if you grew up in a culture which espoused Islam, and weren't exposed to Catholic ideas, you wouldn't find yourself ineluctably drawn to Catholicism. The idea would never cross your mind because you wouldn't have learnt the relevant ideas in the first place.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Presumably at least a few notable characters in human history (thinking here of individuals such as Guru Nanak Dev) have actually been drawn to beliefs that did not exist before they "perceived" them.
People *do* convert between faiths through discussion. I know of Christians who became atheist, atheists who became Muslim, and atheists who became Christian.
No one is stated that no one converts through discussion. But Froborr was not (as you would know if you read through the discussion) referring to friendly, reasonable and respectful conversational discussion that is withdrawn from when the "intended recipient" signals they are no longer interested.
People *don't* change their sexual orientation or become trans/cis through discussion, and it's a disgusting act of appropriation to compare proselytism with anti-QUILTBAG 'conversion therapy'.
The only act of "disgusting appropriation" here was yours. One of the people who was stating this viewpoint upthread identifies as a trans woman. You are appropriating from her the right to compare proselytism to something that is a real and personal threat in her own life.
Furthermore, if you do think that changing someone's "theological orientation" is "incredibly dehumanizing and othering", then presumably you are against religious schools of all kinds. Surely the Jesuit maxim "Give me the child until the age of seven and I'll give you the man" is far more sinister than Greta Christina's advocacy of atheism.
This is entirely irrelevant to Froborr's argument (again, as you should know if you read the discussions on that thread) since neither Froborr (nor as memory serves) anyone else on that thread said overly pushy, forceful or objectifying religious proselytism was any less bad than the same type of proselytism when carried out by atheists.
Do you get that? You can bring every example you like of inappropriate, pushy and unacceptable efforts to proselytize on the part of religion and it makes not a dent in Froborr argument -- which is (to radically oversimply) IT IS ALSO WRONG WHEN ATHEISTS DO IT.
There aren't special New Atheist schools which specialise in indoctrinating children, but there are faith schools, church schools, madrassas, not to mention the many Catholic "children's homes" that were little better than combined indoctrination centres......
Again, this is irrelevant to the point. And should have had a Trigger Warning.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:18 PM
No, but it shows the same disregard for you as a person and your identity. It is less severe, certainly, but it is the same crime, just as theft is still theft whether you steal a dollar or a million dollars.
Schools have nothing to do with this conversation, since the rights of children are necessarily different from the rights of adults. Most pertinently to this discussion, children do not have the power to consent to medical treatment, which is the main analogy my article used for conversion attempts.
Unfortunately, only TBAT can edit comments. I am sure they'll be on it shortly. In the meantime, thank you for respecting the request to add the warning.
Posted by: Froborr | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:19 PM
The idea of a "spiritual orientation," for lack of a better term, is fascinating. It seems to me that whether you identify as Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish (and others) may have a great deal to do with cultural identity, and the ideas you are exposed to at certain points in your life. On the other hand, there are many cases of people learning about a belief system and knowing it's for them. And then within a given religious tradition, different people will practice/not practice, believe/not believe in accord with their own personalities and ways of thinking.
Legalists have a lot in common with legalists, and mystics have a lot in common with mystics, etc., across traditions.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:20 PM
EA: you say 'please, TBAT, edit the comment at such-and-such to say such-and-such', and the Board Administration Team will get right on it. And then you say 'thank you, TBAT'.
I have a feeling your comment actually requires more than one trigger warning, but that was the obvious one.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:22 PM
@Evil Atheist: Sorry - how do I edit a post?
You either request that it be done in a comment on the board or you email slackmods at gmail.com and ask that it be done.
TBAT is not always around and we don't usually edit --- but we will edit in TRIGGER WARNINGS (as has been done above.)
Also, it is the practice of this community for TBAT to edit in TRIGGER WARNINGS at the request of those triggered.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:24 PM
Wait ... when I describe how the language and attitudes of proselytism are uncomfortably reminiscent of attempts to convince me out of my own knowledge of myself, that's appropriation? How does that work?
Not every QUILTBAG person has had the same experience of attempted conversion that you have. To link all proselytism to the broad category of 'conversion therapy' is to appropriate the experiences of many other people whose experience of attempted conversion is different from yours.
I know a gay man who became bisexual through discussion ... well, internet sex, which is a form of discussion. The fact that identities can change in some cases is not evidence that they should change in all cases.
Sexuality *can* be fluid, that's true. I don't agree that internet sex is a form of discussion. If you're engaging in hetero internet sex, then you already had the desire to explore that. Presumably he wasn't *argued* into becoming bisexual through evidence and logic? Still, the fundamental difference is that religious identity is down to cultural indoctrination, whereas sexual/gender identity is far less contingent, and far less fluid in adulthood. Gay people occur in all cultures. Catholic people don't occur in all cultures.
See what I said about Chick tracts. Handing over a leaflet is fairly harmless - it's the underlying attitude that it will only take a few simple facts to overturn a worldview completely that is objectifying.
I don't think anybody who has tried to convert more than three people to their religion would believe that simply quoting a few simple facts would actually change anybody's mind. Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way, even if the facts quoted do actually demonstrate a serious problem with the person's worldview.
There are sexual orientation conversion camps that do real harm to the people subjected to them. I don't believe that there are camps where convinced religious believers are subjected to atheist indoctrination. (There are atheist summer camps aimed at children as a reaction to religious summer camps, but that's not quite the same thing - choosing not to indoctrinate your children with a religious belief doesn't preclude them picking up religious beliefs later).
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:29 PM
//And it certainly doesn't mean that the only aspects of a person's identity that should be respected are those that meet some arbitrary level of "scientific" justification.//
Oh yeah, that's another incredibly unpleasant implication. "OK, I'll respect your gender because I've been convinced of it, but you don't have a diagnosis for your interesting brain so I'll just call you a bunch of ableist slurs to try to shame your brain right." I don't believe in god, but the shit EA et al are flinging around is spattering on me as well.
//One of the people who was stating this viewpoint upthread identifies as a trans woman. You are appropriating from her the right to compare proselytism to something that is a real and personal threat in her own life.//
Plus the person who brought up persuading people into a different gender is a trans man. Yes, oddly enough this is a sensitive issue for many of us. (Sarcasm directed at EA, not you.)
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:31 PM
Catholic people don't occur in all cultures.
This is the kind of thing where I think a Christianity roundtable with Bonus History/Culture facts would be soooo good.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:35 PM
I'ma call that a spambot, right there, the 8:35 that's not Lonespark.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Also, I don't know if this would be an idea for a roundtable or...or what, but I was thinking about parenting as a subject. Originally in the context of parenting as a an animist/theist/atheist/agnostic, and to what degree you include your child(ren) in your community/practice/identity.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Yes, I have often thought this as well.
It's one of the reasons that I am very careful to say that my religious beliefs are simply *MY* understanding of *MY* relationship to a Divine that *I* experience.
I cannot fathom myself not experiencing that Divine in some manner. I would be so radically different a person that -- to all intents and purposes -- the "I" that I recognize would no longer exist.
However, I don't have any doubt that if I were brought up in a different culture, the words and and stories and images I use to express that experience would be quite different.
As it is, I have to tug and stretch and pat and fold "mainstream" Christianity to properly channel that understanding. I've often mentioned elements in Islam, Judaism, and various pagan traditions that I respond to with and "Oh, yes, THAT!" sense of instinctive recognition.
(Fortunately for me, Christianity is a tradition of two millenia of practice in borrowing, copying, smuggling, and simply stealing any religious ideas or practices it finds compatible, to the degree that it's not only respectable, but almost obligatory for each practicioner to do the same.)
Note: I am not at all trying to say that "all religions are really the same" or "we all worship the same god(s)." Not only would that be incredibly disrespectful to people in other religious traditions (because who says that without really meaning "all YOUR religion is really MY religion"), but I frankly don't think it's true.
My religion isn't the same as Mark Driscoll's. I don't think I worship the same God as Tim LaHaye.
I don't think I *could.*
But I *do* think, that whether I called upon MY God under the name of Jesus or Allah or Logos or Visnu or Sophia or Isis or some combination of sounds I've never learned to pronounce, that Divine character and my relationship with it would be remarkably similar.
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:41 PM
@Evil Atheist: The expression that we use when grading undergraduate papers is "read it again, this time for comprehension."
Nick's claim was about Nick -- not all people who are QUILTBAGS, everywhere. It is you who keep totalizing statements that are implicitly conditional. Then you wrap yourself in the mantle of outrage and accuse others of the thing that you yourself are doing.
Sexuality *can* be fluid, that's true.
What happened to your claim it was an issue of brain architecture?
I don't agree that internet sex is a form of discussion.
Again, read for comprehension. The statement was I know a gay man who became bisexual through discussion ... well, internet sex,
In other words the statement wasn't that internet sex was a form of discussion but that the sex itself was "internet sex" -- for all we know the discussion took place down at the local pub.
Presumably he wasn't *argued* into becoming bisexual through evidence and logic?
How the hell do you know?
Gay people occur in all cultures. Catholic people don't occur in all cultures.
My first (rather sill thought) was "say that first sentence to Ahmadinejad." My more serious response is that there are stunning, amazing similarities between religions of different times and cultures. And also, the theologians in the Vatican would have something to say to you if you gave them a chance (this is a complex theological point about the state of souls who existed before the birth of Christ.)
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:43 PM
//Not every QUILTBAG person has had the same experience of attempted conversion that you have. To link all proselytism to the broad category of 'conversion therapy' is to appropriate the experiences of many other people whose experience of attempted conversion is different from yours.//
Sounds like a great argument for complete individualism and refusal to ever engage with underlying dynamics. I don't think I want to play that game.
//Unfortunately the human brain doesn't work that way, even if the facts quoted do actually demonstrate a serious problem with the person's worldview.//
In which case, why are so many people talking about persuading people through discussion as if it was as simple as offering a few facts? If you know that the human brain isn't friendly to what you're trying to do, why spend so many pixels defending it as a goal?
//There are sexual orientation conversion camps that do real harm to the people subjected to them. I don't believe that there are camps where convinced religious believers are subjected to atheist indoctrination.//
You're missing the point. The attitude is present in both cases. What, we have to wait until there are indoctrination camps before we can say "Hey, wait a minute..."
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:46 PM
//In other words the statement wasn't that internet sex was a form of discussion but that the sex itself was "internet sex" -- for all we know the discussion took place down at the local pub.//
Sorry mmy, EA read me right. "well, internet sex, which is a form of discussion" I was trying to flippantly summarise a discussion which at some point became a seduction and an exploration of possibilities ... but this was likely a mistake because opening my sex life up to EA's piercing examination cannot possibly end well.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Being gay/straight/trans/cis is determined by fundamental brain architecture which can't be changed by verbal arguments or even conditioning. We know that orientation 'conversion' therapy just doesn't work.
Don't state as a scientific fact something that is still a matter of scientific controversy. Especially, don't lump every single person who is a member of the QUILTBAG community into the same category. Not all agree with you that their orientation is a matter of "brain architecture"
There are certainly members of the QUILTBAG community who argue that sexual orientation is a choice. For example, fundamentalist Christians who are secretly gay often argue that. However, we don't have insight into our own brain architecture.
The lived experience of most gay people is that sexuality isn't a choice. The lived experience of most transgender people is that gender orientation isn't a choice. Perhaps there is a minority of people whose brains are wired so that they can consciously choose their sexual orientation. However, that must be fairly rare.
I'm pretty sure that I don't consciously choose to be heterosexual, any more that I consciously choose to be right-handed. There are certainly people who think that, say, transexual men are "confused" (the fundamentalist Christian Right) or "choosing to parody women" (certain third-wave feminists). Do you agree with them?
Religious affiliation is less fundamental than sexual or gender orientation.
If you mean by this that few people claim that one is "born" into a certain religious "orientation" then I would agree. However, if you were to ask many people that I know -- religion for them is not an "affiliation" it is a basic element of their self-identity.
Sure, people will *say* that religion is a basic element of their self-identity, but that doesn't make it so. It's not as basic an element of their identity as being left-handed or straight or trans-gendered.
People might have a basic level of "openness to religious/spiritual experience", but they don't have a basic "Catholic/Muslim/Jain" orientation.
People can grow up in heteronormative, homophobic cultures and nevertheless have a deep-seated gay orientation. But if you grew up in a culture which espoused Islam, and weren't exposed to Catholic ideas, you wouldn't find yourself ineluctably drawn to Catholicism. The idea would never cross your mind because you wouldn't have learnt the relevant ideas in the first place.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Presumably at least a few notable characters in human history (thinking here of individuals such as Guru Nanak Dev) have actually been drawn to beliefs that did not exist before they "perceived" them.
A very few people invent their own religion. Do you think that a person born in the third century BC would find themselves drawn to Catholic doctrine? Or is it more likely that the vast majority of people who are "Catholic" believe in Catholicism because they've been indoctrinated with it?
This is entirely irrelevant to Froborr's argument (again, as you should know if you read the discussions on that thread) since neither Froborr (nor as memory serves) anyone else on that thread said overly pushy, forceful or objectifying religious proselytism was any less bad than the same type of proselytism when carried out by atheists.,
Do you get that? You can bring every example you like of inappropriate, pushy and unacceptable efforts to proselytize on the part of religion and it makes not a dent in Froborr argument -- which is (to radically oversimply) IT IS ALSO WRONG WHEN ATHEISTS DO IT.
Sure, it's just that atheists don't do anything like as much proselytism as some theists do. They don't knock on doors and hand out leaflets; they don't control most schools; they don't declare a special 'atheist law' which supercedes national laws and justifies them covering up [TRIGGER WARNING: child rape] child rape, whereas the current Pope did use 'canon law' to do that. And when atheists do something as harmless as putting an advert on public transport, it attracts controversy, whereas theist adverts pass without comment. So it's false equivalence to pretend that atheist proselytism is just as much of a problem as theist proselytism. Theist indoctrination riddles almost every civilisation like cancer.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:57 PM
@Nick Kiddle: Actually, your statement was ambiguous...and his quote removed the ambiguity....which is what was annoying me.
But I would also disagree with him and state that sex most definitely can be a form of discussion :)
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 08:57 PM
TW: Cursing, misgendering
//transexual men are "confused" (the fundamentalist Christian Right) or "choosing to parody women"//
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? Please tell me this was a typo.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:00 PM
I think what EA is getting at in the part you quote is that people who think that are examples of people who don't feel sexual orientation is innate. (I think they often mostly don't care, since they view certain sexual acts as immoral either way.)
Whereas what I was referring to was more something along the lines of "gender identity and sexual attraction may be innate, but the understanding and expression of these things is strongly linked to cultural paradigms." Not all cultures have just two genders, or define people as "gay" vs. "straight," etc.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:05 PM
No.
This is a good example of what is considered disrespectful conversation at this site.
You may make as many pronouncements about YOUR identity as you like.
YOU do not get to tell ME what is a "basic element of my self-identity."
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:07 PM
@Evil Atheist: There are certainly members of the QUILTBAG community who argue that sexual orientation is a choice. For example, fundamentalist Christians who are secretly gay often argue that. However, we don't have insight into our own brain architecture.
The lived experience of most gay people is that sexuality isn't a choice. The lived experience of most transgender people is that gender orientation isn't a choice. Perhaps there is a minority of people whose brains are wired so that they can consciously choose their sexual orientation. However, that must be fairly rare.
First of all, you were the person who brought up brain architecture. STOP TOTALIZING. No one here has said that sexual orientation always IS or IS NOT a choice. You are the person reading universalities into every statement.
A very few people invent their own religion. Do you think that a person born in the third century BC would find themselves drawn to Catholic doctrine? Or is it more likely that the vast majority of people who are "Catholic" believe in Catholicism because they've been indoctrinated with it?
Again, you made a sweeping statement (no one) I pointed out exceptions and you apparently feel a need to take my "some people" to mean most people or many people.
I was just saying -- there are exceptions to that sweeping statement. So don't treat it law of nature.
Sure, people will *say* that religion is a basic element of their self-identity, but that doesn't make it so. It's not as basic an element of their identity as being left-handed or straight or trans-gendered.
AHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See that (mmy jumps up and down and points at Evil Atheist). EA apparently knows better than other people what other people are feeling. The fact that some people tell me that their religion is a more basic element to their identity than anything else in the world -- but what do they know? EA knows better than them.
This is the naked face of identity appropriation -- Evil Atheist apparently believes that Evil Atheist knows better than poor misguided religious people what their "real" self-identity is.
it's just that atheists don't do anything like as much proselytism as some theists do.
First of all you are historically and culturally incorrect. At different times and in different places atheists have started with knocking on doors and ended by taking people's children away, destroying their religious artifacts, and killing people who refused to abjure their religion.
Second even if a single atheist was yet to do that -- Froborr is utterly correct in making the argument that to do so would be wrong.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:07 PM
Hapax: I don't think I worship the same God as Tim LaHaye
I don't think I *could.*
That god is so small compared to the inflated self-righteous egos of his "preachers" you'd likely have to find him, first. I can empathize with why their god is so angry - I'd be angry too, if I had people misquoting me and shoving words in my mouth every day.
Unless the "god" is Mammon. In which case, yeah. He's not hard to find at all. Last I heard, he was crashing with the megachurch crowd over at Olsteen's place while sharing Chianti with Blake and Hagee and flying on Copeland's private jet.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:08 PM
There are certainly members of the QUILTBAG community who argue that sexual orientation is a choice.
Dammit I know I just read about a woman who identified as straight, identifies as lesbian, swears she chose to be lesbian and neither is nor was bisexual...
No I don't know what my point is, why do you ask?
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:10 PM
//I think what EA is getting at in the part you quote is that people who think that are examples of people who don't feel sexual orientation is innate. (I think they often mostly don't care, since they view certain sexual acts as immoral either way.)//
My WTF-o-meter was pinged by use of "transsexual men" where context clearly indicated trans women. I'm prepared to believe it was a sort of unmarked quote, as in "this is the attitude I'm describing", but it slapped me in the face anyway.
//Whereas what I was referring to was more something along the lines of "gender identity and sexual attraction may be innate, but the understanding and expression of these things is strongly linked to cultural paradigms." Not all cultures have just two genders, or define people as "gay" vs. "straight," etc.//
I keep thinking of an analogy that gender and sexual orientation is like a big pot of soup with all sorts of things bubbling away. Each culture dips a ladle in, serves out a bowlful and applies whatever labelling system it considers appropriate. Every bowl is different, even though they all come out of the same bubbling pot.
...It makes sense to me. Does it to anyone else?
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:12 PM
@MercuryBlue: Are you thinking about the Cynthia Nixon kerfuffle?
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Nobody claimed that it was.
Nobody claimed that it was.
Nobody claimed that it was.
NOBODY CLAIMED THAT IT WAS.
Is there any other way I can make this clear.
The entire POINT of the original post was that aggressive proselytism itself -- atheist, religious, or for Dr Who -- is a problem because it all stems from the same attitude, one that reduces other people as objects to be manipulated.
Can we put that line of argument to rest now?
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:12 PM
TRIGGER WARNING: Statements about gender orientation, rape and sexuality which may offend / trigger many members of the community
Sexuality *can* be fluid, that's true.
What happened to your claim it was an issue of brain architecture?
Brain architecture has some degree of plasticity. However, statistically, most gay people can't be converted to be straight. And most straight people can't be converted to be gay.
Again, read for comprehension. The statement was I know a gay man who became bisexual through discussion ... well, internet sex,
In other words the statement wasn't that internet sex was a form of discussion but that the sex itself was "internet sex" -- for all we know the discussion took place down at the local pub.
*You* failed to read for comprehension, since Nick confirmed my reading was correct. If you're annoyed that my interpretation (which was confirmed by Nick as correct) "removed the ambiguity", then I can only conclude you prefer ambiguous statements.
If you think that "sex can be a form of discussion", and discussion can change sexuality, you're endorsing the ideology of corrective rape where a lesbian can be made straight with correctly applied sex. That's pretty disgusting.
Presumably he wasn't *argued* into becoming bisexual through evidence and logic?
How the hell do you know?
Superior reading comprehension.
Gay people occur in all cultures. Catholic people don't occur in all cultures.
My first (rather sill thought) was "say that first sentence to Ahmadinejad."
So you take Ahmadinejad as an authority on the occurence of gay people across cultures? When he says there are no gay people in Iran, you believe him?
Presumably you don't, because you acknowledge that it's a silly thought. So I'm not sure why you would even type this.
My more serious response is that there are stunning, amazing similarities between religions of different times and cultures. And also, the theologians in the Vatican would have something to say to you if you gave them a chance (this is a complex theological point about the state of souls who existed before the birth of Christ.)
Well, that's pretty dismissive and minimising of the differences between cultures. Do you believe that there were Catholics in civilisations before the first century BCE? Do believe that there were gay people before the first century BCE?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:14 PM
@Lonespark: Whereas what I was referring to was more something along the lines of "gender identity and sexual attraction may be innate, but the understanding and expression of these things is strongly linked to cultural paradigms." Not all cultures have just two genders, or define people as "gay" vs. "straight," etc.
There people working (mainly in Queer Theory) to appropriate the word heteronormative and recast it as the description of the presumption that sexual partnerings are always made up of two individuals and that the individuals must "complement" each other.
It is really exciting stuff -- I had a student to a major research project on it and it was just....well eye opening.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:15 PM
I feel like these conversations keep revolving around the same issues.
1) Equivalence: Froborr is not saying "atheist proselytizing is as big a societal issue as theist proselytizing" or "atheists exert the same level of social control in the US that theists do." Froborr is not saying "everyone should be just as bothered by atheist proselytizing as by theist proselytizing." Froborr is saying (as I understand it - I shouldn't just speak for him) "the attitude that underlies proselytizing is a toxic attitude and that attitude is just as bad when atheists demonstrate it as when theists do."
2) Principle vs effect: We're not talking about ranking outcomes here. As Froborr said, theft is theft whether it's one dollar or a million. Shoving a tract at someone is unlikely, in and of itself, to do them great harm. But the underlying attitude is a dehumanizing and othering attitude, and it is not so radically bizarre to say that that's evil.
Also, why is it so difficult to accept other people's take on their own experiences? I am not at all trying to equate Evil Atheist with Ben, but I've seen this happen multiple times. Someone says "I experience these two things as similar," and EA accuses them of appropriation. Someone says, "I experience religion as a core part of my identity" and EA says "you may think it is, but it isn't really."
EA, who the hell are you to say such a thing? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that other people might actually know what they are talking about when they talk about how they experience the world? When I was in middle school, one of my best friends was a Southern Baptist, and she tried desperately to convert me, because it upset her so much to think that I would go to hell. She cried over it. As an adult, I have heard people say that bisexuality doesn't really exist. There was one commenter back when Fred still ran slacktivist who tried to argue that everyone has a religion, even atheists (does anyone else remember that guy?) I have plenty of experience with someone saying to me, "Not only do I think this really important part of your identity is wrong, I fundamentally do not respect what it means to you, and I'm going to either deny it outright or try to talk you out of it." It doesn't matter if it's an inherent characteristic or a chosen one; that is still a fucked-up thing to say to someone.
Posted by: burgundy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:17 PM
TW: Cursing, misgendering
//transexual men are "confused" (the fundamentalist Christian Right) or "choosing to parody women"//
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? Please tell me this was a typo.
TRIGGER WARNING: Offensive names for members of the QUILTBAG COMMUNITY
Sorry, I meant that fundamentalists and some feminists have a problem with transwomen/M2F transsexuals. I certainly don't share their views.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:19 PM
EA's comment above needs a TW.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Depends on your definition of "Catholic."
I assume you mean "members in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church as it is currently constituted." In that case, nope.
By some other definitions ("people who were united with God through faith in the saving power of the Second Person of the Trinity"), yep, I do.
Now I don't believe that there were anyone who self-identified as Roman Catholic, but you've already shown your contempt for self-identification, so...
Well, once again, it depends on your definitions. There wasn't a word in any culture that I'm aware of that meant anything like the modern word "gay" (in terms of sexual orientation), so there wasn't any way to so self-identify.
There certainly wasn't anything like the modern understanding of QUILTBAG culture or community.
If you were asking me if I believed that there were persons who were primarily attracted to other persons of the same gender, well, yes I do.
But some questions don't leave themselves open to simple "yes" or "no" answers.
(see motto, above)
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:23 PM
EA's general arguments would seem to possibly need a TW for...
Um...
Use of slurs and references to sexual violence to score "I'm more rational/supportive than you" points/cookies.
Posted by: Lonespark | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:23 PM
@Evil Athiest: Superior reading comprehension.
The original statement was ambiguous. You misquote it to remove the ambiguity.
So you take Ahmadinejad as an authority on the occurence of gay people across cultures? When he says there are no gay people in Iran, you believe him?
No, I was pointing out that you make overly broad statements that many people would disagree with. It is a habit the makes you deserve mockery. That is all.
Well, that's pretty dismissive and minimising of the differences between cultures. Do you believe that there were Catholics in civilisations before the first century BCE?
Sigh, you really have trouble reading don't you. NO I am not minimizing differences among cultures -- I am saying that there is a theological argument it is not necessary for someone to have met a Catholic priest ever in their lives in order to met Christ in their soul. That is all.
TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE
If you think that "sex can be a form of discussion", and discussion can change sexuality, you're endorsing the ideology of corrective rape where a lesbian can be made straight with correctly applied sex. That's pretty disgusting.
Well, you really do have a mind in the gutter don't you? Corrective rape can't a conversation any more than screaming invective in a person's ear while beating them with a sledge hammer is a conversation. Consensual sex with someone you love can be.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26 PM
@Burgundy: Exactly on both points.
Lessson Zero: People care about what they care about, and they care about them just as much, and with just as much justification, as you care about what you care about.
Posted by: Froborr | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26 PM
TW: Rape
//If you think that "sex can be a form of discussion", and discussion can change sexuality, you're endorsing the ideology of corrective rape where a lesbian can be made straight with correctly applied sex. That's pretty disgusting.//
Why does believing that CONSENSUAL sex can be a form of discussion have anything to do with the ideology of corrective RAPE (=non-consensual sex)? The only disgusting thing I can see is your invocation of every atrocity you can think of in an attempt to bolster your argument.
//Sorry, I meant that fundamentalists and some feminists have a problem with transwomen/M2F transsexuals. I certainly don't share their views.//
Thank you for clarifying. Just fyi, many trans people prefer it written as trans women (with a space) and M2F etc can sometimes come across insulting.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:28 PM
@Evil Atheist: It is actually getting hard to figure out which TRIGGER WARNINGS to add to your comments and exactly where.
Your general propensity to use vivid (and unnecessary) sexual examples is extremely triggering to some and offensive to many others on the board.
Please rein it in.
If you can't think of the right tone -- imagine you are having a conversation in a park filled with children and adults of different ages and cultural backgrounds.
Posted by: The Board Administration Team | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Rot13
Trigger Warning: Ana swearing vehemently, Rape, Corrective Rape
RN: Vs lbh guvax gung "frk pna or n sbez bs qvfphffvba", naq qvfphffvba pna punatr frkhnyvgl, lbh'er raqbefvat gur vqrbybtl bs pbeerpgvir encr jurer n yrfovna pna or znqr fgenvtug jvgu pbeerpgyl nccyvrq frk. Gung'f cerggl qvfthfgvat.
Nan: JUNG GUR SHPXVAT SHPX. Lbh jrer whfg gbyq gur pbaprcg bs gevttre jneavatf. Guvf vf ABG SHPXVAT UNEQ hayrff lbh'er gur fbeg bs crefba jub guvaxf gung encvat jbzra gb pher gurz bs fbzrguvat vf fhpu n gurbergvpny bppheerapr gung ab bar pbhyq or gevttrerq ol fhpu n guvat. Naq/be lbh'er tbvat sbe fubpx inyhr. Shpx. V qvq abg arrq gung gbavtug.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:33 PM
ROT13'd because this member of TBAT is too tired right now to check to see if specific trigger warnings are necessary.
Svefg bs nyy, lbh jrer gur crefba jub oebhtug hc oenva nepuvgrpgher. FGBC GBGNYVMVAT. Ab bar urer unf fnvq gung frkhny bevragngvba nyjnlf VF be VF ABG n pubvpr. Lbh ner gur crefba ernqvat havirefnyvgvrf vagb rirel fgngrzrag.
V'z abg gbgnyvfvat, fvzcyl dhnagvslvat. V npxabjyrqtr gur cbffvovyvgl gung fbzr crbcyr ner jverq fb gung gurl pna pubbfr gurve frkhny bevragngvba pbafpvbhfyl. Ubjrire, gung tbrf ntnvafg gur infg znwbevgl bs uhzna rkcrevrapr gung V'ir urneq be ernq nobhg.
Jbhyq lbh fnl gung zber guna 10% bs crbcyr pna pubbfr jurgure gurl ner fgenvtug be tnl? Qb lbh nterr jvgu gur Puevfgvna evtug, be zr?
Ntnva, lbh znqr n fjrrcvat fgngrzrag (ab bar) V cbvagrq bhg rkprcgvbaf naq lbh nccneragyl srry n arrq gb gnxr zl "fbzr crbcyr" gb zrna zbfg crbcyr be znal crbcyr.
V jnf whfg fnlvat -- gurer ner rkprcgvbaf gb gung fjrrcvat fgngrzrag. Fb qba'g gerng vg ynj bs angher.
Cbvag bhg bar rknzcyr bs n Pngubyvp obea orsber gur 1fg praghel OPR naq V jvyy unccvyl nterr jvgu lbh. Bgurejvfr, lbh fubhyq nqzvg gung eryvtvbhf nssvyvngvba vf phyghenyyl genafzvggrq jurernf frkhnyvgl vfa'g.
NUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frr gung (zzl whzcf hc naq qbja naq cbvagf ng Rivy Ngurvfg). RN nccneragyl xabjf orggre guna bgure crbcyr jung bgure crbcyr ner srryvat. Gur snpg gung fbzr crbcyr gryy zr gung gurve eryvtvba vf n zber onfvp ryrzrag gb gurve vqragvgl guna nalguvat ryfr va gur jbeyq -- ohg jung qb gurl xabj? RN xabjf orggre guna gurz.
Lrf, crbcyr jvyy fbzrgvzrf pynvz guvatf nobhg gurve vqragvgl gung nera'g gehr. Jrypbzr gb nqhygubbq. V'z abg nccebcevngvat nalguvat, fvapr V qba'g jnag gb pynvz gnjqel gurvfgvp genccvatf sbe zlfrys.
Vs fbzrbar pynvzf gurve Pngubyvpvfz vf nf vaangr nf gurve yrsg-unaqrqarff, gung'f boivbhfyl evqvphybhf ba vgf snpr, sbe gur ernfbaf V'ir bhgyvarq. Pngubyvpvfz vf gur raq erfhyg bs n ybat cebprff bs eryvtvbhf vaqbpgevangvba, naq lbh xabj vg, hayrff lbh jnag gb pynvz gung gurer jrer Pngubyvp crbcyr va gur Oebamr Ntr.
Svefg bs nyy lbh ner uvfgbevpnyyl naq phyghenyyl vapbeerpg. Ng qvssrerag gvzrf naq va qvssrerag cynprf ngurvfgf unir fgnegrq jvgu xabpxvat ba qbbef naq raqrq ol gnxvat crbcyr'f puvyqera njnl, qrfgeblvat gurve eryvtvbhf negvsnpgf, naq xvyyvat crbcyr jub ershfrq gb nowher gurve eryvtvba.
Pna lbh tvir fbzr rknzcyrf? V thrff lbh'er guvaxvat bs Fgnyvavfg crefrphgvba bs eryvtvbhf tebhcf? Qb lbh unir n gbgny svther sbe gurvfg ivpgvzf bs ngurvfg crefrphgvba, naq ubj qbrf gung pbzcner gb ivpgvzf bs crefrphgvba ol gurvfgf?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:36 PM
hapax: By some other definitions ("people who were united with God through faith in the saving power of the Second Person of the Trinity"), yep, I do.
So you think there were people who had faith in Jesus before he'd been born? How do you figure that?
If you were asking me if I believed that there were persons who were primarily attracted to other persons of the same gender, well, yes I do.
That is what I was asking, yes. Don't you think there were "primarily same-gender attracted persons" throughout history? 4,000 years ago, 8,000 years ago, 12,000 years ago? Do you think there were Catholics in all of those times?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:42 PM
@Evil Atheist:
Please respond to the requests of the people who you, presumably, wish to read your comments that you use appropriate trigger warnings and respect the standards of the board.
I have no wish to have a conversation with someone who is not willing to abide by the most basic rules of comity.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:45 PM
And yet. In the entire time I have followed the Slacktiverse, and in the entire time I have followed the Slacktivist, I have seen us run afoul of atheists who feel justified in trying to proselytize, with the goal of conversion, usually by shame, many times. Who seek the goal of removing religion from the world. Who feel justified in Splaining to theists, to belittling theists, to shaming theists, to accusing theists of mental illness. To ignoring triggers in favor of trying to hurt the feelings of theists. I can rattle off names.
I know that christians are notorious for applying force and coersion to convert others. I know that in the US, there is a strong authoritarian movement that uses christianity as a justification.
But here, in this place? I remember someone coming in and telling us we were all going to hell unless we accepted Jesus Christ as our personal lord and savior like TWICE.
Posted by: Ross | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Are you talking about identity or affiliation?
Nobody in the Bronze Age could claim a Roman Catholic OR a QUILTBAG "affiliation" because the words weren't available.
I do not know what their "identities" were, because unlike you, I do not have the mystic ability to peer into the hearts and minds of others.
However, when people NOW tell me that their fundamental identity is "gay" or "Roman Catholic" or "male" or "artist" or "Otherkin", I tend to accept their word for it.
Because to presume that I know more about them than they do (for example, that their self identity is obviously the result of "indoctrination"), that's a pretty clear-cut violation of Wheaton's Law -- and a violation of this community's standards.
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:47 PM
A general note, because I don't want people to worry: I am/will-be fine. I am going to bed early now, but I will be fine.
TW: Corrective Rape
To Evil Atheist: Speaking as a woman who has been subjected to what I consider corrective rape, I will say that I have never felt anything but unconditional love, respect, and kindness from mmy. I have felt nothing of the sort from you or people like you, who think my experiences are a shiny Pokemon trump card to slam down in the middle of a discussion that should have been informative and interesting until you decided that a torched-earth strategy was more valuable than NOT TRIGGERING people following along with the reading.
There is no way that anything mmy said about sex being a form of discussion could possibly have lead you to believe that she endorses corrective rape. None. You decided to fling it down as the shiny Pokemon privilege card that you see it being, and it never occurred to you -- or you didn't care -- that statistically half the people in this thread are women and statistically one-quarter of those women have been raped in their lifetime.
In addition to breaking the FNE and FAQ, you are arguing in Bad Faith, failing to respect the safety of this space, and consuming the TBAT's valuable time. And for all this, the members of the community get to re-hash the same tired arguments for your privileged ears, we get to have our self-identity insulted, and we get to be triggered because WINNING is more important to you than not sending someone into PTSD shakes.
Oh, and your juvenile "Do you think X? Yes or no?" is tired. Binary is only useful in programming.
End Trigger Warning
I'm going to bed now. Hugs to the members of this community who have to continue dealing with this. My deepest love and sympathy to the TBAT in particular, who I know for a fact will sleep badly (if at all) worrying that trolls are triggering the community further. I wish I could take your burden somehow, but instead I'll just offer my most heartfelt thanks.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:52 PM
ROT13'd because the commenter has again not put in necessary trigger warnings.
@Zzl: Gur bevtvany fgngrzrag jnf nzovthbhf. Lbh zvfdhbgr vg gb erzbir gur nzovthvgl.
Jryy, V qvqa'g svaq vg nzovthbhf, naq V vagrecergrq vg pbeerpgyl engure guna zvfdhbgvat vg, nppbeqvat gb Ibvpr bs Tbq.
Ab, V jnf cbvagvat bhg gung lbh znxr bireyl oebnq fgngrzragf gung znal crbcyr jbhyq qvfnterr jvgu. Vg vf n unovg gur znxrf lbh qrfreir zbpxrel. Gung vf nyy.
V'z cebhq gb znxr fgngrzragf gung nera'g vapyhfvir bs Nuznqvarwnq'f ivrjf ba tnl crbcyr. Vs lbh guvax gung'f qrfreivat bs zbpxrel, gura V'z cebhq gb qvfnterr.
Fvtu, lbh ernyyl unir gebhoyr ernqvat qba'g lbh. AB V nz abg zvavzvmvat qvssreraprf nzbat phygherf -- V nz fnlvat gung gurer vf n gurbybtvpny nethzrag vg vf abg arprffnel sbe fbzrbar gb unir zrg n Pngubyvp cevrfg rire va gurve yvirf va beqre gb zrg Puevfg va gurve fbhy. Gung vf nyy.
Vf gurer nal rivqrapr gung crbcyr "zrg Puevfg va gurve fbhy" orsber Puevfg jnf obea? Creuncf lbh pna vagrecerg eryvtvbhf rkcrevraprf sebz bgure genqvgvbaf jvguva n Puevfgvna senzrjbex, ohg gung vf oyngnag phygheny nccebcevngvba. V qba'g oryvrir gung nalbar unq Puevfgvna rkcrevraprf orsber Puevfg jnf obea - vs lbh pbhyq pbaivapr zr bs gung, V'q orpbzr n Puevfgvna.
GEVTTRE JNEAVAT: ENCR, PBEERPGVIR ENCR
Jryy, lbh ernyyl qb unir n zvaq va gur thggre qba'g lbh? Pbeerpgvir encr pna'g n pbairefngvba nal zber guna fpernzvat vairpgvir va n crefba'f rne juvyr orngvat gurz jvgu n fyrqtr unzzre vf n pbairefngvba. Pbafrafhny frk jvgu fbzrbar lbh ybir pna or.
Jryy, vs lbh ybir fbzrbar naq jnag gb unir pbafrafhny frk jvgu gurz, gura lbh ner nyernql bevragrq gb gung crefba'f traqre. Jung lbh jrer fnlvat vf gung frk pna punatr fbzrbar'f frkhny bevragngvba. Naq fvapr n tnl crefba jbhyqa'g jnag gb unir frk jvgu n fgenvtug crefba naq ivpr irefn, bevragngvba-qvfpbeqnag frk zhfg or encr. Fb vs lbh'er fnlvat frk pbhyq punatr fbzrbar'f bevragngvba, lbh zhfg or n encr ncbybtvfg.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Otherwise, you should admit that religious affiliation is culturally transmitted whereas sexuality isn't.
Why does it matter? Please, tell me why the hell it matters.
Some of the religious right who don't want to grant legal protection for queerness say "well, it's a choice," as though choice means second-class citizenship is justified. To which it makes sense to respond, "well, religion is a choice, and yet we have the First Amendment."
But in this context? The question is not whether a given trait is inherent or inborn, the question is whether a given trait is important to someone. I am a woman, and a Jew, and an atheist, and queer, and vegetarian, and liberal/progressive, and many other things besides. Some of them from birth, some of them acquired later, all of them important to who I am as a person, and anyone who comes along all uninvited and tries to get me to change, and does not accept that I am satisfied with those attributes, and thinks they know better than I do what works for me... that person is an asshole and is disrespecting me in a very fundamental way.
Posted by: burgundy | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Are you talking about identity or affiliation?
Nobody in the Bronze Age could claim a Roman Catholic OR a QUILTBAG "affiliation" because the words weren't available.
I'd say people who were primarily attracted to members of the same sex, or who were transgender, did exist in the Bronze Age.
Whereas people who believed Roman Catholic doctrine, or who believed that Christ died/would die for our sins, didn't exist.
Do you agree?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 09:57 PM
@Ross And yet. In the entire time I have followed the Slacktiverse, and in the entire time I have followed the Slacktivist, I have seen us run afoul of atheists who feel justified in trying to proselytize, with the goal of conversion, usually by shame, many times. Who seek the goal of removing religion from the world. Who feel justified in Splaining to theists, to belittling theists, to shaming theists, to accusing theists of mental illness. To ignoring triggers in favor of trying to hurt the feelings of theists. I can rattle off names.
I know that christians are notorious for applying force and coersion to convert others. I know that in the US, there is a strong authoritarian movement that uses christianity as a justification.
But here, in this place? I remember someone coming in and telling us we were all going to hell unless we accepted Jesus Christ as our personal lord and savior like TWICE.
This blog isn't a representative sample of what happens in the whole world.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM
@Everyone:
Since Evil Atheist has continued to neglect/refuse to abide by the spirit of the FNE and FAQs and use appropriate trigger warnings AND since TBAT may not catch all the offensive posts I suggest that people who normally rely on trigger warnings avoid EA's comments altogether.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM
I don't even know what EA is trying to argue any more. That if something is a result of "indoctrination" (however defined) it isn't a "real" (ditto) part of someone's identity and ... therefore we can feel free to disrespect it inside-out and back-to-front?
TW: Emotional abuse, Nick massively oversharing.
For a long time, I haven't had the words to describe some of the things I went through in my childhood, adolescence and into early adulthood. I'm only just finding the words now, and I'm still afraid to speak them out loud. (Abusing someone by telling them that they always overdramatise everything and their feelings are no to be taken seriously is horribly self-perpetuating.) But many people, some of whom should really have known better, broke my heart in a messy variety of ways.
And of course, that's taken its toll in a million ways large and small. I don't know, any more, which bits of my personality are "really me" and which are "just" reactions to my experience. Except that they're all really me. This is the mind I have to live with all the time, and trying to carve it up into good parts and bad parts is just another way of internalising the abuse. I want to heal, but I'll always have the scars as part of my identity.
So to have EA say that something doesn't count because it's just the result of indoctrination ... no. It doesn't work that way. Even if we accept the premise that a religious upbringing is coercive and harmful, that doesn't give anyone the right to discount the mark it leaves on a person.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Go back and read what I wrote, not what you want me to have written.
Words Have Meaning.
To repeat myself (is this the third time?)
1. No, I do not think that there were persons in all those times who identified as primarily same-gender attracted, because they didn't have that identity culturally available to them.
2. Yes, I think that there were persons living in all those times who, if they had access to the same words and concepts and cultural assumptions as we do, would have identified as QUILTBAG persons.
3. No, I do not think that there were persons in all those times who identified as Roman Catholic, because they didn't have that identity culturally available to them.
4. Yes, I think that there were persons living in all those times who, if they had access to the same words and concepts and cultural assumptions as we do, would have identified as Roman Catholic.
5. No, I do not think I can "prove" assertions 2 and 4. But, despite all your harrumphing claims that "it's OBVIOUS", I don't think you can "prove" the opposite, either.
Ask me a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth time, and I still give you the same answers.
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Oh, and one last thing: if the whole point of this conversation was to show that Froborr's label of aggressive proselytization as "evil" was wrong, you kind of missed that goal as far as I'm concerned.
I mean, we can debate all day whether "deliberately, persistently, and repeatedly triggers victims" is "evil", but it's sure as sand not GOOD.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Why does it matter? Please, tell me why the hell it matters.
...
But in this context? The question is not whether a given trait is inherent or inborn, the question is whether a given trait is important to someone. I am a woman, and a Jew, and an atheist, and queer, and vegetarian, and liberal/progressive, and many other things besides. Some of them from birth, some of them acquired later, all of them important to who I am as a person, and anyone who comes along all uninvited and tries to get me to change, and does not accept that I am satisfied with those attributes, and thinks they know better than I do what works for me... that person is an asshole and is disrespecting me in a very fundamental way.
I'm an atheist, but I could be presented with evidence that would convince me to be a theist (say, a verified miracle) If someone did so, I would be grateful to have had my worldview updated to be more accurate.
Similarly, I eat meat, but if someone presented me with evidence that animals are as conscious of pain as I am, I would stop eating meat.
But there's no evidence that someone could present me with that would convince me to be gay. There's no evidence that someone could present you with that could convince you to switch dominant hands.
That's why it matters.
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:06 PM
TW: Rape, straightsplaining
//Well, if you love someone and want to have consensual sex with them, then you are already oriented to that person's gender. What you were saying is that sex can change someone's sexual orientation. And since a gay person wouldn't want to have sex with a straight person and vice versa, orientation-discordant sex must be rape.//
Neither sex nor sexual orientation work the way you appear to think they do. I assure you, it's quite possible to have consensual sex with someone of a gender you weren't conscious of being attracted to. I did. It's also possible to have consensual sex with someone of a gender you are not in fact attracted to - whether that's straight people having same-sex interactions in prison or gay people having opposite-sex interactions for the sake of appearances or procreation.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM
1. No, I do not think that there were persons in all those times who identified as primarily same-gender attracted, because they didn't have that identity culturally available to them.
I'm not talking about how they "identified". I'm talking about whether they wanted to fuck people of the opposite gender or the same gender.
Do you think that's a modern invention or do you think it happened in the Bronze Age?
Yes, I think that there were persons living in all those times who, if they had access to the same words and concepts and cultural assumptions as we do, would have identified as Roman Catholic.
Well, that's the crux of the matter. You need words and concepts and cultural assumptions to identify as Roman Catholic. You don't need words and concepts and cultural assumptions to fancy boys or girls.
Or do you? Do you think that homosexuality is a 'cultural assumption' that was invented in the modern era?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM
@EA Do you have a logical progression here, after repeating the same argument three times makes everyone agree with you? I can't tell where you're going with this, though I would like to understand.
Posted by: Wysteria | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:13 PM
This may be YOUR definition of Roman Catholicism.
It is hardly the ONLY, let alone the authoritative definition.
And your ignorance of the important theological distinctions between "Second Person of the Trinity" / "Jesus" / "Christ" makes me doubt that your definition is one to be respected.
Really? And when hapaxspouse is presented with a guitar, he does exactly that.
I accept that sexual orientation(and handedness?) are fundamental parts of YOUR identity, and religious worldview and diet are not.
I respect that. I would not try to convince you otherwise.
Please stop trying to tell OTHER people what is "fundamental" to THEIR identity, and what is only "incidental."
tl; dr: Other people are not you.
Note: You are free not to believe that, of course; it is none of my business if you believe that we are all imaginary projections of your unconscious, magically appearing on the keyboard.
While you are at this site, however, it is considered appropriate not to ACT on such a belief.
Can you follow this simple rule of behavior?
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Neither sex nor sexual orientation work the way you appear to think they do. I assure you, it's quite possible to have consensual sex with someone of a gender you weren't conscious of being attracted to.
But isn't that more about discovering a previously subconscious attraction, rather than being "converted" by a "conversation" of sex that you previously wouldn't have wanted?
It's also possible to have consensual sex with someone of a gender you are not in fact attracted to - whether that's straight people having same-sex interactions in prison or gay people having opposite-sex interactions for the sake of appearances or procreation.
Are you saying that someone who has same-sex sex in jail becomes gay? Or someone who has hetero sex for the sake of appearances becomes straight?
Posted by: Evil Atheist | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM
//You don't need words and concepts and cultural assumptions to fancy boys or girls.//
Except how "boys" "girls" and "fancy" are all cultural assumptions, of course.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:17 PM
@Ana and Nick: Hugs if you want them. I'm really sorry for what happened to you, and that this asshole is bringing it up.
@EA: Congratulations, you have provided an excellent demonstration of the way in which the pro-proselytizing attitude leads to trying to erase the identities you don't like in more directly hurtful ways.
Posted by: Froborr | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:20 PM
//Are you saying that someone who has same-sex sex in jail becomes gay? Or someone who has hetero sex for the sake of appearances becomes straight?//
No, I'm just countering your ridiculous and offensive assertion that "orientation-discordant sex must be rape".
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Ding-ding-ding!
YES!
I confess, I'm pretty much a social constructionist.
I'll admit that the theory isn't universally accepted without reservations, but it's certainly widely enough respected that your incredulity seems to be misplaced.
(if you're still confused, "homosexuality" =/= "fancy girls / boys")
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:22 PM
@Froborr, thank you. Not your fault; I am in fact very grateful that you wrote your post because of this very thing.
Oh, and I want to give Nick hugs, too. Nick? Hugs?
And TBAT.
*group hug*
I really am off to bed now. I am sorry for the swearing, but I consider it a small victory that I plugged it into ROT13 first. Yay for accomplishing small tasks! :)
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM
@Ana and Nick -- let me add my sympathies to both of you, for being forced to relive such painful experiences.
{{{hugs}}} if you want them.
Posted by: hapax | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:25 PM
I think there's some miscommunication here about words like "innate". EA, you sound like you're talking about "something hardwired from birth". Most everybody else here is saying something like "a fundamental part of my core identity as I experience it".
It is entirely possible for something non-hardwired to be more important to someone's identity than something that is. For instance, the fact that I was raised as a Mennonite has vastly more to do with who I am than does the fact that my eyes are blue.
You are of course free to disagree, and you are even free to make arguments as though everybody is using the same definitions as you. Just don't expect those arguments to convince anyone who is in fact not using your definitions.
Posted by: J. Random Scribbler | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM
It's certainly possible that someone could present me with evidence that would, for example, get me to start eating meat again. If my doctor gave me a pressing medical reason (validated by a second opinion, etc.) I would do it, although it would be pretty upsetting. But that doesn't mean it's ok for random people to harangue me about my dietary choices (which they sometimes do, and which is obnoxious to me in the same ways that people haranguing me about about changing religion is obnoxious to me. Which is what this discussion was all about: setting out to change someone's mind, about something that they were perfectly happy with, and had not invited discussion on, without their consent.)
Posted by: burgundy | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM
@Nick: Hugs/sympathies
@hapax: I'm pretty much a social constructionist
I have to admit that I am somewhat of a social constructionist myself. I am not sure that I would go as far as some but there are some rather cogent arguments that many identities that we now think of as "fixed," "natural" and automatic are not constructed they are of fairly recent construction.
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM
*Accepts and returns hugs from Froborr, hapax and especially Ana*
Although talking about it can be painful, having people listen and sympathise is a baby step towards healing. So it's not all bad.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:32 PM
@burgundy: Huh, for some reason I thought I was the only Jewish atheist here. Ah well, at least I can still be fairly confident I am the only postmodernist positivist...
Posted by: Froborr | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM
*and mmy*. Curse you, posting lag!
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Nick:
EA:
Me: *boggles* I... wha... how... *blue screen* *reboot*
EA, some of us are trying to have a rational discussion. You're just playing conversational calvinball.
Posted by: J. Random Scribbler | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM
@Froborr (yeah, I was lurking for the hugs, I admit it. *sticks tongue out defiantly*) and Burgundy, may I share with a squee that the protagonist in the next novel I'm writing is a Jewish atheist? I didn't know I knew any Jewish atheists in internet space.
Posted by: AnaMardoll | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM
First, if they are wanted, non-back-pain-aggravating hugs and snugglebunnies for Ana.
Mmy argued that there is a theological argument that people "met Christ in their soul" before Christ was born. She did not argue that that argument is correct. Since Mmy is an atheist, I think I can safely assume that she does not in fact believe it is correct. The point of bringing it up was that some people believe that, to quote hapax, "people who were united with God through faith in the saving power of the Second Person of the Trinity" existed prior to the birth of Christ. If you knew a little more theology, you would know that there are ways for this to be possible other than the people being consciously aware during their earthly lives of Christian vocabulary that did not yet exist. Arguing that this belief is cultural appropriation is feasible, though, IMO.
Trigger warning: "corrective rape"
Nyfb, RN'f ybtvp jvgu gur "pbeerpgvir encr" guvat vf frireryl ynpxvat. "N pna or O, naq O pna or P" qbrf abg zrna "N pna or P". Rira vs vg qvq, gurer'f n uhtr qvssrerapr orgjrra "frk pna punatr fbzrbar'f frkhnyvgl" naq "fb-pnyyrq pbeerpgvir encr vf bxnl". Gur svefg fnlf gung crbcyr'f frkhny vqragvgl pna punatr onfrq ba gurve frkhny rkcrevraprf. Gur frpbaq fnlf gung vg vf bxnl gb nggrzcg gb sbepr fhpu punatr ba nabgure. Gubfr ner gjb pbzcyrgryl qvssrerag vqrnf.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM
No, just that people can and do choose to have sex with people to whom they are not attracted, or to whom they wouldn't normally be attracted.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:46 PM
@Froborr: You know that someone sufficiently conspiratorially minded might accuse you of recruiting ringers to nefariously PROVE the contention of your "controversial" article. I mean first "you know who" and now....
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:48 PM
//The first says that people's sexual identity can change based on their sexual experiences. The second says that it is okay to attempt to force such change on another. Those are two completely different ideas.//
Yeah, considering EA is pretty clear on the distinction as applied to an attempt to change someone's religious identity, I'd say logical consistency is taking second place to "proving EA is right and everyone else is a mean poopiehead".
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:49 PM
And hugs and a bunny for Nick too.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM
There's no evidence that someone could present you with that could convince you to switch dominant hands.
I'm right-handed. Last week I was assembling a vacuum cleaner and putting screws in left-handed, because it was easier to get some of them in that way.
Posted by: P J Evans | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:51 PM
BTW, Froborr, thanks for the original post. I got mad at first, but after reading these discussions I realized I'd missed the point. I don't think you need to feel bad for "starting all this" because "all this" was obviously ready to blow up anyway.
Nick and Ana, hugs from me too. You didn't deserve having your bruises poked like that.
Posted by: J. Random Scribbler | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:52 PM
//And hugs and a bunny for Nick too.//
OMG! *dies from cute*
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM
@P J Evans: [EA]
I'm right-handed. Last week I was assembling a vacuum cleaner and putting screws in left-handed, because it was easier to get some of them in that way.
Rafael Nadal decided to play tennis left-handed instead of right-handed and seems to have done quite well with that.
When my dad joined the Army everything that could be "handed" was right handed so he (and everyone else who was left handed) learned to be right handed.
In the first case the evidence/inducement was "become one of the greatest players of all time" and the second "be able to shoot the other person before they shot me."
Posted by: Mmy | Jan 30, 2012 at 10:57 PM