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

[maquiscat]

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.

You are wrong in your splitting of the label sets. Right now they are still synonymous. Currently, straight/gay/lesbian refer to both sex and gender. Which, I agree, does make it confusing when the two do not match in the statistical normal fashion. And you may even be making a prediction of how they will be used in the future. After all, sex and gender started out as not synonymous and then became synonymous, and are now in the process of shifting to be no longer synonymous again. So your use could end up the common use in the future. But it isn't now. Right now the best definition of lesbian is a woman or female sexually attracted to women or females.

The problem is that we are shifting from a concept that sex nd gender are always the same to one being different, with certain combinations being a statistical norm. While we are seeing the labels of sex and gender split, and even almost to the point of solidification (I'm predicting within the next two decades), the label sets for them are still muddled, although the separation of them is happening. But the label sets for sexual attraction (meaning an attraction to a person that turns you on sexually, not an attraction to a sex as some want to claim it) have yet to really go through that separation, at least on a large enough scale to be a lingual shift. Who knows? You might be on the cutting edge of that separation. But for the moment they are not separated. And with that point, it means that your argument doesn't really have a premise to stand on.

 

[Aristaeus]

You are wrong in your splitting of the label sets. Right now they are still synonymous. Currently, straight/gay/lesbian refer to both sex and gender. Which, I agree, does make it confusing when the two do not match in the statistical normal fashion. And you may even be making a prediction of how they will be used in the future. After all, sex and gender started out as not synonymous and then became synonymous, and are now in the process of shifting to be no longer synonymous again. So your use could end up the common use in the future. But it isn't now. Right now the best definition of lesbian is a woman or female sexually attracted to women or females.

So that definition means a male woman (transwoman) attracted to females is both heterosexual and a lesbian, agree? You seem to be agreeing with my original argument that gay/lesbian and homosexual are not the same thing. It's really the next logical step in the process: we've changed the word woman to include males in order to make trans people feel comfortable, now we are changing the word gay to include heterosexual trans people in order for them to feel more comfortable.

Now the question turns to whether a transwoman was straight or lesbian before they identified as trans - when they still identified or regarded themselves as a straight cis man.

 

[digsbe]

Hardwired? Ok show your work please? That is a bold assertion that deserves at the very least a creditable link to the science.

And before anyone just assumes I'm taking some inane right/Christian bullshit position, I am not. My position is that our own sexuality is our own liberty, that cannot be challenged by anyone. And being Right or Left is a myth. And I am ignostic (not agnostic). So no, I am not even the slightest opposed to anyone's sexuality.

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492513/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
http://overthebrainbow.com/blog/2017/1/7/wired-this-way-sexual-orientation-and-gender-in-the-brain

 

[grip]

All sex is mostly nasty dicks and holes. What combination of these you end up with doesn't really matter to others not involved.

 

[maquiscat]

So that definition means a male woman (transwoman) attracted to females is both heterosexual and a lesbian, agree?

Under the premise that you have presented, yes such would be the case. But I do not agree with the premise, and as such your conclusion is wrong by error carried forward.

You seem to be agreeing with my original argument that gay/lesbian and homosexual are not the same thing.

You may be onto something as far as concepts go, and the need for a paradigm shift. But currently they are not separate things as far as the labels go.

It's really the next logical step in the process: we've changed the word woman to include males in order to make trans people feel comfortable, now we are changing the word gay to include heterosexual trans people in order for them to feel more comfortable.

I'm not disagreeing that such is not a needed or a logical step. I am disagreeing that the step has been taken and not positive that it will be taken. And even if taken that such will be the label sets used. My use of the labels (wo)man and (fe)male as separated as well as sex and gender as separated stem from the current use among the LBGT+ community and its supporters, which is common, although not universal. Your use of the labels of homo/hetero-sexual and straight/gay(lesbian) as separated is not, yet at least, in anywhere near common usage. So its use as part of an argument over current events is false premise at best. Now as an argument over what should or could happen in the future, it's sound thinking.

 

[Aristaeus]

Under the premise that you have presented, yes such would be the case. But I do not agree with the premise, and as such your conclusion is wrong by error carried forward.

Which bit do you not agree with? That transwomen attracted to women aren't male, that they aren't heterosexual, or they aren't lesbians?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492513/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
http://overthebrainbow.com/blog/2017/1/7/wired-this-way-sexual-orientation-and-gender-in-the-brain

What do you make of this below from your links?

"While these findings may imply a greater probability of innate encoding of reproductive and self-preservation behaviors (including sexual orientation), we cannot rule out the contribution of plasticity in shaping sexual interests and orientation in that, for instance, steroid hormone profiles can shape the development of male versus female neural phenotypes8. Morphological and functional bases of sexual behavior, however, are scarcely investigated."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z

"It becomes clear that we are not completely stuck with the cards the nature dealt us: It is still possible to update some of them (and this will not even be considered cheating). The brain reflects our environment, our decisions, emotions and life style and it is never too late to change it a bit, really."

Neuroplasticity: Remodel your brain! — Stuff about brains

Our brain is extraordinarily plastic. Not in the Tupperware and Barbie doll kind of way -- in the neuroscience field plasticity means the amazing ability of our brains to change and to adapt to pretty much everything that happens to us. There were times when scientists believed that once you’re out

overthebrainbow.com

Back in the 80's I was around a very active alternative lifestyle community. Their main point was "our choice!" Modern day activists like Bill Sullivan want to take away all what they fought for because welp he, is giving in to the assholes.

He asserted: "Nonetheless, misconceptions persist that same-sex attraction is a choice that warrants condemnation or conversion, and leads to discrimination and persecution." He is making an argument against certain assholes. Those asshole's are not relevant. He does not need to lie, yes I said lie to argue against discrimination and persecution. He and you do not have an actual science that makes a definitive conclusion that everyone is born a certain way.

It is my experience that not everyone feels they were born that way. Yes, there are asshole who will make the arguments that he alluded too, but that is no reason to dogmatically tell everyone what they should think and feel about themselves. What is good and true for you isn't the same for everyone? Honestly, none of your links say that everyone is born that way. Except Bill but he has a bad dose of cognitive bias going. Noble as he sounds science is science.

The first quote from Nature above shows merely that what you asserted isn't as definite as you made it sound. In other words for some yes for some no. The people who do not feel the way that you do are just as important as you.

My opinion is that too much emphasis is put on what is at best subjective gender rolls. People are just people. We do not need to make excuses fro being ourselves or try to deny are persons choice based on what assholes think.

 

[maquiscat]

Which bit do you not agree with? That transwomen attracted to women aren't male, that they aren't heterosexual, or they aren't lesbians?

I disagree with the premise that the labels homosexual and gay/lesbian have been divorced from each other such that they mean sex and gender respectively. There is no evidence of such even starting a lingual shift in the same manner as (wo)man and (fe)male or sex and gender have been separated from each other.

 

[Aristaeus]

I disagree with the premise that the labels homosexual and gay/lesbian have been divorced from each other such that they mean sex and gender respectively. There is no evidence of such even starting a lingual shift in the same manner as (wo)man and (fe)male or sex and gender have been separated from each other.

Plenty of people say transwomen that are attracted to women are lesbians, which requires that separation.

 

[maquiscat]

Plenty of people say transwomen that are attracted to women are lesbians, which requires that separation.

And they also say that cis women that are attracted to women are lesbians as well, which means that separation has not yet occurred in the common use language. Again, I am not saying that such a separation should not occur. Only that it hasn't happened yet, and that makes your argument based upon a false premise.

 

[Aristaeus]

And they also say that cis women that are attracted to women are lesbians as well, which means that separation has not yet occurred in the common use language. Again, I am not saying that such a separation should not occur. Only that it hasn't happened yet, and that makes your argument based upon a false premise.

As well? Fine, if you want to argue that the term lesbian has expanded to include heterosexual males who identify as women, then that still requires an element of separation from the definition of homosexual female.

Heck, defining a lesbian as a gay woman is regarded as TERF rhetoric in some LGBTQ circles. The one thing we can agree on is that homosexual females no longer seem to have a voice in defining what a lesbian is.

 

[maquiscat]

As well? Fine, if you want to argue that the term lesbian has expanded to include heterosexual males who identify as women, then that still requires an element of separation from the definition of homosexual female.

I do not deny that there should be such a separation. I am only pointing out that such a separation has not yet occurred within the language, as it has with other aspects of the issue, and as such your argument fails, because it was based solely upon that premise of a separation. And in the end it still doesn't matter. The orientation does not change. The cis man who was attracted to women that becomes the trans woman attracted to women, is still attracted to women the whole time. The orientation remains the same even as the label changes.

Heck, defining a lesbian as a gay woman is regarded as TERF rhetoric in some LGBTQ circles. The one thing we can agree on is that homosexual females no longer seem to have a voice in defining what a lesbian is.

No one actually has a voice in definitions per sé. Language evolves from society as a whole, not just from the "interested parties", although they may have influence. Your concept of different labels for who is attracted to what based on a separation of sex and gender might actually come about. But even if the LBGT community as a whole tried to do that on purpose, that doesn't guarantee it will hold within the language.

 

[Aristaeus]

I do not deny that there should be such a separation. I am only pointing out that such a separation has not yet occurred within the language, as it has with other aspects of the issue, and as such your argument fails, because it was based solely upon that premise of a separation. And in the end it still doesn't matter. The orientation does not change. The cis man who was attracted to women that becomes the trans woman attracted to women, is still attracted to women the whole time. The orientation remains the same even as the label changes.


No one actually has a voice in definitions per sé. Language evolves from society as a whole, not just from the "interested parties", although they may have influence. Your concept of different labels for who is attracted to what based on a separation of sex and gender might actually come about. But even if the LBGT community as a whole tried to do that on purpose, that doesn't guarantee it will hold within the language.

"The cis man who was attracted to women that becomes the trans woman attracted to women"... and in doing so goes from being straight to being lesbian.

The question is can people turn gay. Gay is a label that can be applied to heterosexual people in certain instances. A male attracted to a female is heterosexual by definition, but if that male identifies as a woman, they are also lesbian. The orientation remains (heterosexual) but the label changes.

 

[maquiscat]

"The cis man who was attracted to women that becomes the trans woman attracted to women"... and in doing so goes from being straight to being lesbian.

The question is can people turn gay. Gay is a label that can be applied to heterosexual people in certain instances. A male attracted to a female is heterosexual by definition, but if that male identifies as a woman, they are also lesbian. The orientation remains (heterosexual) but the label changes.

Yes, but that question was based upon the premise of both of the labels of gay and homosexual meaning the same thing. Unless you can show me that the OP intended for the two labels to be different, we have to go with the context. Linguistically, it will always be possible for a straight person to be gay, especially if the previous use comes back into common use. And that previous definition is the only way gay can be applied to a heterosexual right now. As noted, that aspect of the language hasn't changed yet. The question of the OP is one of the orientation itself changing, not one of labels changing.

 

[Aristaeus]

Yes, but that question was based upon the premise of both of the labels of gay and homosexual meaning the same thing. Unless you can show me that the OP intended for the two labels to be different, we have to go with the context. Linguistically, it will always be possible for a straight person to be gay, especially if the previous use comes back into common use. And that previous definition is the only way gay can be applied to a heterosexual right now. As noted, that aspect of the language hasn't changed yet. The question of the OP is one of the orientation itself changing, not one of labels changing.

It's not the only way. You yourself believe that a heterosexual person can be gay when you say a transwoman (male) attracted to cis women (females) is a lesbian. A male attracted to females is by definition heterosexual.

Heterosexual/homosexual is the orientation, which doesn't change; gay/straight is the label which can and does.

 

[maquiscat]

It's not the only way. You yourself believe that a heterosexual person can be gay when you say a transwoman (male) attracted to cis women (females) is a lesbian. A male attracted to females is by definition heterosexual.

Heterosexual/homosexual is the orientation, which doesn't change; gay/straight is the label which can and does.

I understand your logic, and I agree with the logic chain from the point of the premise, but not the premise itself. It is simply not how the labels are being used right now. A heterosexual is one who is attracted to another person of their own sex or gender. That is the current common usage. You see it here on DP all the time, especially from LBGT supporters.

Further, and this just occurred to me today, the person still never changes their orientation. Even in the gay lesbian straight sense. Since sexual orientation and gender identity are supposed to be innate traits, a trans woman (male) who is attracted to women has always been a woman, and thus always been gay. Remember that gay covers both men and women while lesbian only covers women. Actually seems rather sexist now that I think about it. But back to the thread, with that concept that the transwoman has always been a woman and has always had that orientation and that the question uses "straight" and "gay", even by your argument, we still do not have someone "turning gay" as the question implies.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It is very obvious that environment can impact and influence sexuality. Just as a murderer can be "created" by the way a child is raised - if he is abused, taught that murdering is right, exposed to killing and violence, etc. - so too can different sexual proclivities be created -- if a child is exposed early on to sexual acts by a same sex person, that child is more likely to grow up and be an abuser, and also is more likely to grow up and be sexually attracted to same sex. The idea that there is no way to influence someone's sexuality is a myth, and it is fostered by this idea that either something is "in born" or it is a "choice." Those aren't the only two options. Sexuality has much to do with psychology, and human psychology is malleable.

 

[vegas giants]

It is very obvious that environment can impact and influence sexuality. Just as a murderer can be "created" by the way a child is raised - if he is abused, taught that murdering is right, exposed to killing and violence, etc. - so too can different sexual proclivities be created -- if a child is exposed early on to sexual acts by a same sex person, that child is more likely to grow up and be an abuser, and also is more likely to grow up and be sexually attracted to same sex. The idea that there is no way to influence someone's sexuality is a myth, and it is fostered by this idea that either something is "in born" or it is a "choice." Those aren't the only two options. Sexuality has much to do with psychology, and human psychology is malleable.

It is often a mix of both

 

[Aristaeus]

I understand your logic, and I agree with the logic chain from the point of the premise, but not the premise itself. It is simply not how the labels are being used right now. A heterosexual is one who is attracted to another person of their own sex or gender. That is the current common usage. You see it here on DP all the time, especially from LBGT supporters.

Further, and this just occurred to me today, the person still never changes their orientation. Even in the gay lesbian straight sense. Since sexual orientation and gender identity are supposed to be innate traits, a trans woman (male) who is attracted to women has always been a woman, and thus always been gay. Remember that gay covers both men and women while lesbian only covers women. Actually seems rather sexist now that I think about it. But back to the thread, with that concept that the transwoman has always been a woman and has always had that orientation and that the question uses "straight" and "gay", even by your argument, we still do not have someone "turning gay" as the question implies.

You're saying lesbian=homosexual, but you're also saying that a male transwoman attracted to females is a lesbian.
How can a male attracted to females be homosexual? I don't understand how you can't see the flaw in your argument.

I'm also not convinced that a transwoman attracted to females could be described as lesbian even when they identified as cis straight.

 

[Aristaeus]

It is very obvious that environment can impact and influence sexuality. Just as a murderer can be "created" by the way a child is raised - if he is abused, taught that murdering is right, exposed to killing and violence, etc. - so too can different sexual proclivities be created -- if a child is exposed early on to sexual acts by a same sex person, that child is more likely to grow up and be an abuser, and also is more likely to grow up and be sexually attracted to same sex. The idea that there is no way to influence someone's sexuality is a myth, and it is fostered by this idea that either something is "in born" or it is a "choice." Those aren't the only two options. Sexuality has much to do with psychology, and human psychology is malleable.

Not sure environment can be attributed to creating gay men in places like Iran where it's completely hidden and punishable by death.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Not sure environment can be attributed to creating gay men in places like Iran where it's completely hidden and punishable by death.

The fact that environment can be a factor does not mean that the issue is mathematical, if then, etc. Human psychology is not mathematics, and an abused child, for example, is not guaranteed to become an abuser - but that environmental income increases the odds.

One's sexual proclivities can be influenced by something as simple as exposure to porn. Some people who would not otherwise feel an attraction to same sex might become amenable to that by watching a lot of porn, in the same way that people become attracted to different sex acts because they get exposed to them. We're talking about likes, dislikes, and attractions. These can be influenced by environment.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You're saying lesbian=homosexual, but you're also saying that a male transwoman attracted to females is a lesbian.
How can a male attracted to females be homosexual? I don't understand how you can't see the flaw in your argument.

I'm also not convinced that a transwoman attracted to females could be described as lesbian even when they identified as cis straight.

The idea that a male transwoman attracted to females is a lesbian runs counter to the constant refrain we hear about not "conflating" sex with gender. Sex =/= gender! LOL. Right, so lesbianism is a sexuality, not a gender. Lesbian means a female attracted to a female. Female refers to the female sex, not gender. Gender and sex are not the same thing. Thus a transwoman (gender) who is attracted to the female sex or female morophology is not a lesbian, but rather is a heterosexual. If transwomen who are attracted only to females are lesbians, then I can be a lesbian. I just have to identify as a woman, and I'm a lesbian.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It is often a mix of both

It certainly seems to be.

 

[maquiscat]

You're saying lesbian=homosexual,

Yep, has for years before the transgender issue was front and center, or widely known.

but you're also saying that a male transwoman attracted to females is a lesbian.

Yes, according to the current common use of the labels.

How can a male attracted to females be homosexual? I don't understand how you can't see the flaw in your argument.

Because the word is not limited to the sex of the attracted. It can be based upon the sex or gender, as far as the current use goes. As noted, the language hasn't shifted to have sex and gender separate for that particular label, even though sex and gender itself and other associated labels have been separated out between the two concepts.

I'm also not convinced that a transwoman attracted to females could be described as lesbian even when they identified as cis straight.

That's because you are too focused on the label of the orientation and not the orientation itself.

And just to throw more confusion into the mix, because the homo/hetero-sexual and gay/lesbian labels haven't been, yet, separated out to sex and gender respectively in common use language, by all rights a person can be heterosexual with respect to the sex of both the attraction(person) and the attracted, and simultaneously homosexual with respect to the gender of both. Again, your point has shown a confusion with the word use with respect to how the whole interplay of sex and gender are occurring, but that still does not change the fact that the language has not caught up with solving that confusion. I personally think what you are claiming would be the best division to change that, but neither you or I can force that change. We can suggest it, and try to use it more in our own conversations, but for now we would also have to make sure people knew that we were using that particular premise.

 

[Phys251]

It is very obvious that environment can impact and influence sexuality. Just as a murderer can be "created" by the way a child is raised - if he is abused, taught that murdering is right, exposed to killing and violence, etc. - so too can different sexual proclivities be created -- if a child is exposed early on to sexual acts by a same sex person, that child is more likely to grow up and be an abuser, and also is more likely to grow up and be sexually attracted to same sex. The idea that there is no way to influence someone's sexuality is a myth, and it is fostered by this idea that either something is "in born" or it is a "choice." Those aren't the only two options. Sexuality has much to do with psychology, and human psychology is malleable.

Prove these dubious claims.