• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does society say a straight person can turn gay but a gay person can't turn straight?

noonereal said:
Science does not support this. We are all on a spectrum.
Click to expand...
There are 20% that are completely gay or heteros that have no bisexual urges. I have no bisexual drive or lesbian drive.
 
Lisa said:
There are 20% that are completely gay or heteros that have no bisexual urges. I have no bisexual drive or lesbian drive.
Click to expand...

I understand. I repeat, we are all on a spectrum.
 
Like this?



​


Where the Scale is Off​

Current scholars of sex and sexuality don’t deny the Kinsey Scale’s place in history, but can easily identify its blind spots today. “The Kinsey scale ... served a really important purpose in moving the field forward at a time when people thought about sexuality in a simplistic, binary, two-categories kind of way,” says Brian Feinstein, an associate professor of psychology at Rosalind Franklin University, whose research focuses on bisexuality and sexual and gender minority health. “But I think at this point that it is largely kind of outdated, and I don't think it's sufficiently nuanced to capture the complexity of sexual orientation and sexuality.”







A More Complex Understanding of Sexual Reality​

Today, it’s generally understood that sexuality exists in shades of gray, but modern frameworks go beyond the single-line continuum Kinsey provided toward a concept of sexuality that contains much more. New tools have emerged in the years since his breakthrough.

One is called the Storms Sexuality Axis from 1980, which expands Kinsey’s concept to a two-axis scale that accounts for attraction to same or opposite sexes, but also levels of “asexuality” and “bisexuality,” thus partially accounting for what Kinsey overlooked.
Click to expand...

www.discovermagazine.com

Is the Kinsey Scale of Sexual Behavior Still Valid?

The decades-old classification system for the study of sex may still have value, but new frameworks offer more.
www.discovermagazine.com www.discovermagazine.com
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
I find it interesting that the OP makes an assertion as if fact, but doesn't provide a source or a link.

I guess "I heard" will have to substitute for fact.

View attachment 67414438
Click to expand...

A post claiming 'facts/statistics' without a link to source? Must be a conservative.
 
lwf said:
You are arguing over social labels that don't actually exist outside of language and tradition. "Gay" and "straight" are not scientific categories, any more than "friend" and "acquaintance" are scientifically defined. They're loose social labels we apply to certain kinds of relationships for communication purposes, buy these labels have no reality outside of social interaction. There is no measurable point where a person transforms from being "straight" into being "gay," or vice versa. Sexuality is a spectrum, which is why the LGBT community uses rainbow symbolism. People we call "straight" simply have a tendency to be attracted to the opposite sex, people we call "gay" tend to be attracted to the same sex, people in the "middle" tend to be attracted to both sexes or different sexes at different times, but we all move through and exist somewhere on this spectrum.

Who we choose to be involved with romantically doesn't change anything about who we are. It just has the potential to confuse people who need labels in order to better understand how human sexual selection works.
Click to expand...
A science fiction author whose name I can remember right now had a line in a story in response to a question about the answerers sexuality.

He replied, “You love who you love when you love them.”

Which sounds about right to me.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
A post claiming 'facts/statistics' without a link to source? Must be a conservative.
Click to expand...
That’s the more formal version of “Lots of people are saying…”
 
Lisa said:
As you know heterosexual people dont turn gay. They were only asssumed to be hetero because of the fear of coming out or relgious progresming that they rejected. Trans people are the same. They were only asssumed to be CIS.
Click to expand...
Did you even follow the conversation? Here:
Maccabee said:
No one is saying straight people can turn gay.
Click to expand...
maquiscat said:
Haven't you been paying attention? Most of the anti-gays seem to believe that.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that there actually are people out there saying that straight people can turn gay, despite Maccabee's claim otherwise. And then you and Phys come in with:
Phys251 said:
Except if you go over to one of our endless transgender threads, vile righties are slandering LGBTQ people and their allies with the claim that they are trying to convince young people to go trans or gay.
Click to expand...
Lisa said:
Back that train up. Who said that? Ive never heard anything so stupid, when I am not reading replies by........*****,..........******, and ....................*****.
Click to expand...
You all supported my point but were addressing it as if you were countering it.
 
Aristaeus said:
Surely the orientation is changing from opposite-gender attraction to same-gender attraction.

Remember, gay doesn't mean homosexual. Gay is same-gender attraction and homosexual means same-sex attraction. So the transwomen remains heterosexual, but is gay once they start identifying as a woman.
Click to expand...
Not yet it hasn't. So far gay and homosexual has not been separated out in the same manner as sex and gender, or male and man. Not saying that we won't see that lingual shift, but it's not happened yet. Do you have some kind of evidence of the LBGT community going to this particular lingual shift? I'd love to see it.
 
Lisa said:
No, it doesn't change because it is not a choice. People were just assumed to be heterosexual. They were never heterosexual. Many people tried to fake being heterosexual but that doesn't last.
Click to expand...
You once again are not bothering to read. He is addressing a matter of language and label use. IF indeed the terms gay/straight were to refer to only gender attraction and homo/heterosexual only to sex attraction, then as a trans woman they are a male woman and thus still heterosexual but go from straight to gay as they transition from man to woman. Now that is all premised on the IF of the words actually having undergone that lingual shift, which I have seen no evidence of. So he is wrong, but not on the premise you are arguing. He's making an argument based upon labeling, and you are trying to counter on concept.
 
noonereal said:
Science does not support this. We are all on a spectrum.
Click to expand...
Prove that. And that is not a claim that there are not people at many places along that line. But prove that there are no people fully on one end point or the other.
 
What if...? said:
A science fiction author whose name I can remember right now had a line in a story in response to a question about the answerers sexuality.

He replied, “You love who you love when you love them.”

Which sounds about right to me.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a Heinlein type of saying to me. However I found a reference to that line attributed to Kim Stanley Robinson in the novel Red Mars. But authors borrow from each other all the time.
 
maquiscat said:
That sounds like a Heinlein type of saying to me. However I found a reference to that line attributed to Kim Stanley Robinson in the novel Red Mars. But authors borrow from each other all the time.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t Heinlein. I’ve read them all, many more than once. It was an author known for weirder stuff than Heinlein. Phillip K Dick maybe. There was a p in the name. Well known.
 
What if...? said:
It wasn’t Heinlein. I’ve read them all, many more than once. It was an author known for weirder stuff than Heinlein. Phillip K Dick maybe. There was a p in the name. Well known.
Click to expand...
Still, you have to admit, it is something one would expect from the Senior.
 
maquiscat said:
Still, you have to admit, it is something one would expect from the Senior.
Click to expand...
Yup.

One of my favorite things is he’s a hero to the right based on his early work. And they obviously don’t know anything about his later work.
 
maquiscat said:
You once again are not bothering to read. He is addressing a matter of language and label use. IF indeed the terms gay/straight were to refer to only gender attraction and homo/heterosexual only to sex attraction, then as a trans woman they are a male woman and thus still heterosexual but go from straight to gay as they transition from man to woman. Now that is all premised on the IF of the words actually having undergone that lingual shift, which I have seen no evidence of. So he is wrong, but not on the premise you are arguing. He's making an argument based upon labeling, and you are trying to counter on concept.
Click to expand...

Classic gender = sex fail. The gender one has is immutable and not subject to one's sex. So a trans man was always male despite being assigned female at birth.
 
maquiscat said:
You once again are not bothering to read. He is addressing a matter of language and label use. IF indeed the terms gay/straight were to refer to only gender attraction and homo/heterosexual only to sex attraction, then as a trans woman they are a male woman and thus still heterosexual but go from straight to gay as they transition from man to woman. Now that is all premised on the IF of the words actually having undergone that lingual shift, which I have seen no evidence of. So he is wrong, but not on the premise you are arguing. He's making an argument based upon labeling, and you are trying to counter on concept.
Click to expand...

If I'm wrong, then a transwoman can't be lesbian, because the only way a male transwoman could be lesbian is if lesbian doesn't mean homosexual.

My argument is based on people like Lisa saying a transwoman attracted to women are lesbians.
 
Phys251 said:
Classic gender = sex fail. The gender one has is immutable and not subject to one's sex. So a trans man was always male despite being assigned female at birth.
Click to expand...

Male in what way? Because clearly they were/are biologically female.
 
Phys251 said:
Classic gender = sex fail. The gender one has is immutable and not subject to one's sex. So a trans man was always male despite being assigned female at birth.
Click to expand...
Not what I said at all. If we are to make the claim that sex and gender are two different things, then they need two different label sets, at the least to avoid confusion when discussion the two together. Thus sex=male/female and gender=Woman/man. So in that context, no, a trans man was never male and was always a man. He is a female man. That biology never changes and is as immutable as his gender is. The only way for it to "change" is to later discovered that he are intersex and then is intersex instead of female or has AIS and it's discovered that they have actually always been male, despite the birth phenotype. And this has been where the language has been shifting slowly, starting with the use of sex and gender as two separate things.

Which then brings us to the point that Ari was trying to make. If we are separating out sex and gender, then it is possible to separate out whether one's attraction is to sex or gender. And on that point I agree. I can tell you that I personally am attracted to women, regardless of whether they are male or female. My attraction is to gender not sex. @Aristaeus is saying that means that I am straight and bisexual; straight referring to my gender attraction and bisexual to my sexual attraction. He is making the claim that the two label sets, heterosexual/homosexual and straight/gay, refer sexual attraction and gender attraction respectively. It is on that point I said he was wrong, since the language has not ... yet ... shifted in that direction. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom