This Month is the beginning of Pride Months and I am Proud as well.

The month of June will launch the LGBT Pride Months throughout many places in the Western World. It will be a celebration for many and the parades/dances will be ongoing in many places. This is the celebration of not needing to hide being abnormal or atypical for fear of being hurt by others. However, I too am proud of my own story and my own character as well. It is not just LGBT people that get to be proud of themselves and their being a good person despite misconceptions about their orientation. I think it is time that it is acknowledged that straight does not equal narrow minded and does not equal being homophobic. I think it is time that Straight allies be allowed to celebrate their pride as well in whom they are. 

For this reason I am including some Straight Pride symbols in the side bar for the Summer Months. As a showing of my own pride at being a good man that is into women. This should not be mistaken for the Family Pride Flags used in places like Russia to denounce gays. This is purely about self-interested self-esteem and acknowledgement of my worth as a man still living on this Earth. This is absolutely a rationally selfish endeavor that I am going to fly my Pride on the side of my site all Summer long. Happy Straight (Ally) Pride Fuck Yeah all!       

Caution; Objectivists should never try to mimic or live like Ms. Rand's fictional characters.

Back in the 1960's the vile and odious Nathaniel Brandon proposed a special kind of psychology based on people mirroring the characters in Ayn Rand's novels. Note; Ayn had nothing to do with this and it was all Nathaniel's own doing. He thought that the characters in Ayn's books were so perfect (and they are) that the idea was to make the average client as perfect. This is very dangerous to make therapy based on conditioning someone to try and meet the expectations of a perfect character which is fictional.

Ayn justly stopped all association with Nathaniel Brandon over this and other devious behavior which showed he was a scoundrel unable to be trusted. Please; this is a warning Ayn paints a picture of what she called the Ideal Man and Woman and her characters are not intended to be realistic. They are not to be role modeled you are you and you are not John Galt or Dagney Taggert please do not try to emulate these people. Trying to copy fiction into real life could be deadly. 

Did the Titanic Really Sink? The Olympic Switch Theory Debunked

Missing Flight MH370 Conspiracies Debunked

Liberty lovers should stay clear of Libertarians politically that they have failed to vet.

I want to start off by saying I do not mean this within the context of someones personal life. I am friends with libertarians despite our disagreements. I am referring to aligning with people on a political level to bring about change. This also does not mean one cannot ally on a ad-hock basis with individual libertarians to put forth policies they agree with. However, this is a warning about the broader libertarian movement and to my chagrin a lot of the Capital L Libertarian Parties out there. That is the problem of accepting unreality as real. Accepting that philosophy and ethics does not matter when it comes to defense of liberty. That ones defense of liberty does not need to be based or grounded in objective reality or reason in some way. 

Again, I restate individual Capital L Libertarian members might not be like this and that you do need to vet them. Some Capital L Libertarians are Libertarian in party only and not actually in broader philosophy. Some Libertarian Party members are even Objectivists themselves. However, the broader movement as a whole is a horrid stew between those whom are immoral and those whom are amoral. Neither one of these things are good to associate with and only certain Libertarians will not bring toxic sludge to your life. For example; I know the leader of the Ontario Libertarian Party (on the way to being former at this time). He is a good fella and he is not one of the immoral or irrational ones. He is especially big against Anarchist factions in the party. 

However, even within Canada there are way too many immoral, amoral and even completely anarchistic Libertarians and the non-L Party affiliated libertarians with a "small l" are even more immoral and completely out of touch with reality. I am not against as I mentioned allying with well vetted Libertarians on issues with which Objectivists and Libertarians can agree. However, one should let irrational and amoral or immoral libertarians know you are not one of them or their movement. Even the good Libertarians should know where you stand and that it is only for political expedience of allied issues that you are working. Not working with them because you think they have a coherent worldview or defense of liberty minus reality in general. That support of said individual is not support of the broader movement or its intellectuals in anyway. 

Even if you were as a matter of expedience in your area to join your local Libertarian Party to get like-mind policies passed you should state your antithesis to the broader movement of "the lower case l" loons. You should tell people to stay away from any other Libertarian that might for example either be or be supportive of anarchism. You should tell people to vet their Libertarians in their area for understanding and knowing objective reality is real. They should test them for their level of actual rationality VS rationalization. Rationalization of the very much puddle of mess that is the libertarian position can lead one to assume one needs no actual philosophical bulk-work to underlay their views. Many a libertarian rationalizes the Axiom of the libertarian NAP. 

In essence Objectivism + Plus reason based Libertarians is the good, but, an Objectivist condoning or even supporting the broader movement of loons is not good. I used too have much more hope for more Libertarians out there, but, I have seen time and time again good people become part of the loony-bin and accept unreality as their new reality as they get deeper into the libertarian muck. The current leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada is an out and out Anarchist he has swallowed the poison pill whole his own reasoning mind will now pay the price of his poisoned mind. I am saying a strong vetting process is needed to pick which Libertarians are worthy of letting into your lives and into the Government. Unfortunately the number of reason based Libertarians seem to slowly be dwindling.  

Sex differences are real; there is a male and female brain. No that does not mean All Gender assumptions are true.

Recently it has come to my attention that some people mistake not making gender assumptions to mean there are no sex differences between the average man and the average woman. This would be a big mistake and the fact that Countries with some of the highest amounts of equalization in the society still have massive gaps in different areas between the sexes proves it is incorrect. There is clearly a brain that gets created generally from XX or XY chromosomes combined with the hormones released based on this during brain formation in the developing fetus. Certain differences between the sexes in even the most just society no doubt come down to certain differences that having a different brain gives the average male or female.

Agreeableness for example is one of the things found in cross cultural studies of men vs women. Women tend to on average be more agreeable and men not so. This means that even if you change the cultural environment women still tend to be more agreeable than men. This explains why less women tend to speak up in request for things like pay raises. Or are less likely to argue in board meetings and let the others verbally joist (mostly men). This does not mean women are determined to be more agreeable as a woman can learn to be more assertive just as much as men can learn to be less assertive and more agreeable. However, it does show that if girls are not taught how to be more assertive they will tend to be more agreeable than a boy will be when they become a man.

This shows differences within how the female brain and the male brain develops over time. Both within the womb and without of it. We can also see this in cross cultural research on work preferences between the sexes as well. Women and men tend to pick different jobs even in Countries with the highest amounts of equalization legislation on the books. In fact, counter to what Radical Feminists would have you believe in Countries where things are equal under the law and in opportunity women/men splits in job types is even more extreme. The more you allow both sexes to be themselves without outside pressure forcing them to be either the same or different it is the differences that become quite apparent in the case of occupations.

Richard Lippa did a survey of men and women that crossed several Countries and all of them seemed to show the same sort of split. A split that is coherent with what we see in new born babies between the sexes as well. Boys tend to look not at people, but, at things when first born. On the other hand girls tend to look at people. Following this when you test babies play preferences. Babies as in before socialization in any particular direction the play differs across sex lines. Boys play with things classified again as more object oriented and girls with more social oriented.

Sometimes boys and girls do differ in this, but, these are the people whom show differences in general temperament altogether as they get older from the norm for their sex/gender. Individual temperaments sometimes not matching the norm does not mean there is no norm it does not negate the majority that a minority exists that differs from the majority. Also, those with this difference are not as some would assert and have asserted signs or signals of being future homosexuals or bisexuals.

The vast majority of children born with individual temperaments outside the norm turn out to be the norm sexually for their sex and are heterosexual. A homosexual or bisexual orientation can come from how one is nurtured on top of said individual differences once this child develops their Erotic Codes in puberty. For more on the American Psychological Associations view on the development of abnormal and atypical sexual attractions click here. Nor does individual temperament differences mean your brain is not male or female.

It does not mean that you are trapped in the wrong body nor does it mean you will be someone suffering from Gender Identity Disorders or Dysphorias as you grow up. The vast majority of cross-sex playing or temperament children grow up to be body/brain congruent and not gender identity confused. The norm for our species is own sex identifying and opposite sex arousing. That is the natural norm for the human species it is how procreation happens and how our species keeps existing. I only bring this up as this article is all around sex and sex differences.

This detour is because it explains the differences in jobs found by Richard Lippa in his research. It showed that women tend to take people jobs and men less so. This makes sense the more social jobs like Social Workers for example would be something someone with a brain geared towards people things would want to work at. Whereas jobs geared around the object related would attract most men. This would be why careers such as programming are filled with men and not as many women. We can see that this core temperament if you will is linked to the job by also seeing the reverse. Those men that are actually different and unique in their temperaments take social jobs and women unique in their temperaments take object oriented jobs. This is very much the case in Dr. Lippa's research on the matter.

This means that most women and most men have core differences that bearing a unique and different from the norm temperament difference does affect your urges, desires and instincts if you will. However, we also have evolved the ability to be a rational animal (by choice) and we have free will. So, just because someone might be born with an instinct or urge does not mean that it is good to listen to said instinct. One needs to think, think, think, and be rational when picking a career. So, not everything to do with career choices is merely some deterministic instinct following either. The point is that there is some level of influence based on your biology being male or female. Brain differences do exist they are not made up from the "Patriarchy."

This does not mean one should assume anything particular about any given man or woman that you meet based on these generalizations found within nature and within the data we have. It simply means the differences are real and not imposed on people. Males are males and females are females. There is a male nature and a female nature. That does not mean we do not learn things on top of this nature. It does not mean we should listen to said nature either. We need to think, think, think about if any particular instincts or desire that arises is good for us to act on or self-destructive to act on.

We also need to think about how our actions will affect those around us. It is a fallacy to say just because something is Natural it is good. In the end Free Will and Seizing the Reins Of Your Mind helps us rise above or embrace depending on the context our First Nature in the development of our Character and our Second Nature if you will throughout the course of our lives.

Trinity of Liberty Q&A by Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle on Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights

What are rights? Where do they come from? And how do we know it? Ayn Rand's answers to these questions form the indispensable foundation of a fully free, fully civilized society. In this talk, Craig Biddle presents the essentials of Rand's theory of rights, showing how its principles are derived from perceptual reality; differentiating it from traditional theories, including "God-given" rights, "government-granted" rights, and "natural" rights; and explaining why advocates of liberty and laissez-faire capitalism must embrace Rand's theory if they wish to succeed in establishing and maintaining freedom.

The Trinity of Liberty by Craig Biddle

"The Trinity of Liberty: Individualism, Individual Rights, and Independent Thinking" by Craig Biddle — delivered at Hungry Minds Speaker Series, Denver, CO, Feb 2, 2013 What are the essential principles that give rise to and support a free society? This is the most pressing question mankind faces today, and its answer is the least understood. In this speech, Craig Biddle argues that a free society depends on the recognition and acceptance of three key principles—individualism, individual rights, and independent thinking—and that each of these is a part or manifestation of one deeper principle: egoism. Biddle then discusses crucial ways to conceptualize and advocate these principles, including understanding and upholding Ayn Rand's morality of rational selfishness, clarifying the nature of independent thinking vs. second-handedness, and identifying the fallacies of "package-dealing" and "the frozen abstraction."

Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It, a highly concretized, systematic introduction to Ayn Rand's ethics. The Objective Standard: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com Loving Life: http://amzn.to/L01X9P

Reality is an Absolute and so a Reality based Philosophy would be likewise.

One of the biggest criticisms of Objectivism is that it is too black and white. That is is a philosophy of absolutes and thus is dogmatic, insular, and, causes schisms between people. However, this is to not understand why the philosophy is very much indeed steeped in the black and the white. Reality itself is black and white. Something is either true or it is false. It is real or it is delusional. Is evolution true? The answer is yes or no there is no grey. Is the Big Bang a fact? Yes or no there is no in between. It is due to this that Objectivism is an absolutist in this sense form of philosophy. It is not all of philosophy, but, it is based on objective reality being real and our rational faculty being our means of survival both. 

Existence does exist and your consciousness is what is perceiving that which exists not creating it. If you agree with this you agree with a core of Objectivism as a philosophy and ultimately with the philosophy of Ayn Rand on this point. It is this outward view; this objective reality stance that makes Objectivism an absolutist philosophy in the sense that it requires accepting, and, not denying reality. Thus on matters of what is true or false in reality it relies on the absolutes of both of these concepts. This is why one can be and is totally consistent in both using Objectivisim as their philosophy; using the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but, also disagreeing viciously with her output and her application of her own philosophical methods. 

I do not want to go into another Objectivism is not Randroidism rant, but, it is not Randroidism. Objectivism is Objectivism; objective reality, reason as mankind's means of knowledge, rational self-interest and politically individual rights. This is what makes you an Objectivist and it is not agreeing dot and toddle with Ms. Rand on everything. This is also why you can be an absolutist on matters of Objectivism and also not be dogmatic, insular or cause schisms. For your outlook if you understand the philosophy is always looking outward to what evidence exists for what. Then taking your conclusions from there. Objectivism is the philosophical system discovered and named by Ayn Rand, but, it is not "whatever" Rand ever thought the application caused as an outcome. 

For example; you can truly say that sex is a good thing for mankind, but, what positions or types of partners is up to what is best for the interests of said individual person and the context of the situation at hand. Objectivism is absolutely correct on a fundamental level about the goodness of the nature of the act, but, how you apply it is up to the individual and their own contexts. Thus, Objectivism being used properly with full thought and not with hasty rationalization can indeed help you discover objective/absolute black and white truths about the matters of most importance to an individual human. The reason I am an Objectivist is because I find that the very core matches the absolute reality we call the objective reality. People might disagree with the ethics or the politics, or even the art. However, the epistemology and metaphysics is concretely true and well absolute.  

Camille Says What? The Demographics Prove Ms. Paglia hit the mark in "No Law In The Arena."

For a primer let me start by saying that Camille Paglia is in her own words a "amazonian, drag queen and dissident Pro-Sex and Pro men Feminist." She is also an openly LGBT person whom has identified both as bisexual or a lesbian from the time around Stonewall. Recently she has even said she is a Trans being. She is not an anti-gay bigot or a member of the Theocratic Moral Majority cause. However she said something which could be seen as antithetical to my description of the woman, in her book "Vamps and Tramps," in 1994.

Homosexuality is not “normal.” On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein resides its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the idea of a norm. Queer theorists — that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders — have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina: no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.

The above statement was quite controversial at the time and continues to be today. However, if you sit back and think through what she is saying it is not hateful at all. Nor should it be considered controversial. Obviously heterosexuality in some form must be the norm for our species or it would have gone extinct long ago from lack of procreation. This is all she is saying and that because it is the norm to procreate it is not the norm for a member of our species to be same sex oriented as a primary identity. She never said anywhere in this passage that those whom are not normal a homosexual needs to change or that not being normal is worthy of any moral or character judgments.

In fact, she is correct in the numbers. I have crunched the numbers based on two figures; the amount of the so-called LGBT are actually B VS L or G. If you remove the vast majority of LGBT people you narrow it down to under even 1% of the average human population with a total of 00.12% of the species that is as far from normal in numbers and demographics as you can get. It is thus not "normal" as in the average or the mean or the norm or odds of you falling into that category. Admitting what is normal does not provide one with a means of a moral or character evaluation in anyway nor does it say anything about the rights of actual gay or lesbian people.

In fact, her views as expressed of the background of gay and lesbian people in the same book is also very apt with what the American Psychological Association says in their addressed hypothesis for the causation of orientations other than heterosexual.

No one is “born gay.” The idea is ridiculous, but it is symptomatic of our overpoliticized climate that such assertions are given instant credence by gay activists and their media partisans. I think what gay men are remembering is that they were born different.

Exactly, what LGBT people are recalling is the difference in temperament and interests not the orientation that eventually gets Fetishized as a homosexual or bisexual orientation. This is what the evidence definitely points to and she was correct on this score. She has been lambasting the ideas of the gay gene and gay brain since the mid 90's. In the most recent studies from June 2017 homosexual and heterosexual male brains were shown to be basically indistinguishable from each other. Far from the sex reversed ideas some have of a non-male man's brain. Camille was correct back then and she continues to be on this score despite pseudo-scientists arguing against the point.

This is not a case of me trying to defend her by putting words into her mouth or head about being unashamed of being whom she is. I give you the official explanation of her continued norm comments bellow right from the horses mouth herself.

Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature's best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate. [From Playboy interview, May 1995]

Well, this one was sure to enflame. But who am I to mince words when I have valuable cultural commentary to offer the world? People are ready to jump on me for this comment, accusing me of being homophobic—but that just is not true. I am not making a moral judgment—I am a lesbian and some of my best friends are gay men.

What I am talking about here is plain and simple nature—an entity of force that cannot be fought. Nature wants what it wants and has its own drives and motivations. So I think it's pretty obvious that nature meant for men and women to be together and didn't intend or plan for the development of homosexuality. Don't make me get all graphic and give you an anatomy lesson. Look: we are supposed to procreate, have babies, perpetuate the species—that's doesn't mean we have to, but that's why our bodies are the way they are.    

So, you see it is all about that reproduction and passing on genes stuff. So, she is not being anti-gay in stating a fact that procreation is why a penis and vagina evolved to work like they do. She is 100% correct and I agree with her here as well. Nature did not "plan" for the development of homosexuality as that is not how nature works. I have gay, lesbian and bi friends I have no hate for these people. However, heterosexual procreation and straightness is the norm for the species and Camille is correct. Sorry, but, facts do not care about your feelings they are what they are and reality trumps your narratives.

Trump is not a Rightist and he is no Republican either

Before I go ahead with writing this article I need to provide definitions on what I mean by rightist and what I mean by Republican. By a Republican I mean someone whom is in favor of a government limited to the functions vital of a functioning free society. Specifically, limited to the use of defensive force against those whom are harming others and their property. With all of the proper limits, checks, balances and separations of powers. By rightist I mean in favor of the elimination of the initiation of a breaking of consent among society. To me to be "right" is the equivalent of being an Auberon Herbert "voluntaryist" or in the modern day equivalent to be for Capitalism.

Whom is on the right? Auberon Herbert based "volunatryists," Constitutional Republicanism, Classical Liberalism, Capitalism, better and consistent Right-Libertarians (fiscally responsible/socially tolerant types VS actual libertarianism philosophy or movement which is an ammoral and immoral mess). It also includes anyone that would consider themselves a radical for capitalism.

I find the best way to illustrate what I mean by The Right is the below chart/spectrum which shows what I consider leftist vs rightist and why you might actually be on the right on some issues in my definition.

  

In my view pro-same sex marriage legalization is on the right as it is for granting choice to consenting adults to own and use their bodies as they see fit. It is removing force from peaceful peoples lives. However, at the same time so is being pro-choice on abortions as it is about removing force on peoples lives. It is leftist to be pro-government using force in peoples lives. So, anyone that claims to be "right-wing," but, then is for adding more initiation of coercion that person is to the left or even depending on how much force the extreme left on that issue. A lot of you would be on The Right to me in social or personal issues, but, most more to the left on using force in the economy through taxation, regulations and the like. This places you in the degrees of leftism which is considered the moderate middle of modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classical Rightist Liberalism) or modern Conservatism.

I needed to setup the above opposition of views to show why I contend that Trump is not a Rightist and he is not a Republican in any sense of the actual definition. He is anti-Free Trade and pro-Tariffs which means that he is against the Global system of individual rights and thus anti-Capitalist. He has much more in line with classical Fascists and even certain forms of Socialism than he is a Capitalist. He is for initiating coercion into the lives of peaceful "illegal" immigrants whom he does not feel have the individual human rights the government is supposed to defend as their core reason for existing. Individual rights belonging to humans does not stop because they entered your Country through your borders. 

In fact, if he was President in 1920's USA Ms. Rand would be rounded up and deported back to her very likely death in ironically of all places Russia. (Ironic, given how much Trump admires the Communist Dictator Putin.) This is because her way of getting here would not be allowed and she would be deemed illegal in his definition these days. What the US needs is a truly Rational and Reality based means of immigration.

I am in favor of Open Immigration for anyone that is not carrying an infectious disease, is an actual criminal (like the actual gangs of sex traffickers and such) and those whom are connected to/receive funds from organizations connected to or are themselves terrorists or terrorist material. This does not mean no screening at all and absolutely no border control. It means that you have one easy to access and easy to get screened for, and easy to cross border for new citizens to come through Openly VS Closed off borders.

In matters of trade I am for full Unilateral Free Trade globally for all. Capitalism is not a local thing, but, a universal and global thing. It is in essence of the system a Globalist or Globalism system of unfettered lassiez-fair trade across borders. Individuals and groups of individuals get to engage in consensual trade between each other for mutual benefit to mutual advantage, in win/win mutual exchanges or you are not in Capitalism. You get to hire workers from anywhere as well and that is part of trade. Free Trade and Open Immigration are corollary to one another. Labor should be open to as much of  Unilateral Unfettered Lassiez-Fair trade as goods or services are. 

This ironically is also the position Mike Pence used too have before he became Vice Presidential Candidate and then VP with Trump. He used too be much more Capitalistic in that sense, was for TPP and NAFTA for example. The point is that Trump is not a Capitalist if anything he is a Crony and he is actually well modeled in the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Whom used lobbying and pull, connections between the State and Economy to get their way over consensual trade between individuals. He is not as some have called him an Ayn Rand Hero he is someone Ms. Rand would hate and she would be rolling in her grave.

Finally, I need to erase any sort of conclusions you might be making based on a flawed view of what I mean by Capitalism. I do not mean Corporatism, Lobbyism, Cronyism, et cetera. What I mean by Capitalism is not even just the existence of Capitalists either. Capitalism is a form of social system with a distinct identity and character which separates it from all other ISMS. It is in essence consensualism or Voluntaryism. It is a free society it is a true market free of any sort of coercion backed monopolies or anything of the like.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The sort of social system I support does not really exist fully anywhere in any Country at this time nor in anytime in history. Capitalism is not a Conservative idea no matter how Conservatives steal and hijack the term for their own intruding into peoples rights for the sake or religion or tradition or family values. Capitalism is not a system of yesterday, but, as Ayn Rand said is the "Unknown Ideal." The ideal setup and system which has not yet been fully put into practice anywhere on this Earth. It is a forward looking system. In fact, it was the system and vision of the world of the Classical Lassiez-Fair Liberals. Of a world united in Individualism, Individual Enlightenment thinking and Individual Rights. This is what I mean by Capitalism; this is what I mean by The Right and those whom are of The Right and what a True Constitutional Republican would be defending too.

 In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

 
This is what it means to be fully of The Right it means to be for this view of the world. Trump has a malevolent sense of life he sees not opportunity not for win/win solutions, but, only the win/lose. There is no understanding of the need for greater philosophy either. He is a dead end road of pure pragmatism and populism with no sense of underlying principles or code of virtues to guide what he wants in life. He is an amoral at best and grossly immoral at worst human being. He is the kind of savage one dare not meet in a black alley on their own without a weapon to defend you. For he has no underlying code other than to trample others. This is not the code of a proper business man it is the code of the Highway robber, the code of the irrational whim worshiping mystic and a horrific second handed mentality.

Trump is as far from reality, reason, morality and rights as a President could get and he admires dictators of all stripes; look at his gushing over North Korea and Putin previously. This is not a good day for the American Dream and I fear where this is leading the West. USA please wake up you voted in a Wolf in Sheep clothing better snap out of it well you can. Before your Country is changed so fundamentally the World does not recognize Lady Liberty because she is dead in the name of Making America Great Again (for the Cronies.)


 

ENCORE--- This point cannot be made enough... Benevolence VS Altruism

Ayn Rand had a benevolent sense of life to the very end

There is no such thing as Non-Binary Gender

There are so many people out there that spout off nonsense about how they can be neither male or female and these delusional ignorant people really think this is the case. However, they are being unscientific and come off rightfully so like the loon that thinks he is Napoleon. You are either male or female either by birth or through sex reassignment. All entities within the mammalian type of species of which we evolve evolved into male and female. We are all either male or female from the moment we get our DNA and the moment our fetus began developing. There is no non-gender gender when referring to male or female. 

Just because you have some unique temperament does not mean you are not one of the genders AKA male or female. You are of either biological sex whether accepting of your biology or desiring to be the opposite. There is no 3rd or 4th biological entity. Intersex is not a different gender it is a disorder of sex development before birth. If you are quote-un-quote non-conforming that does not make you a biological entity different from your constitution or DNA. It means you have a possibly atypical temperament it does not mean you are not a boy or a girl. It does not mean you have the brain of the opposite sex either. It simply means you are, well, you.

Within your DNA you are something either male or female. There is nothing else that you could be as that is how sexual reproduction and the continuation of the species takes place. You either are coded as the giver of swimmers or as the that which is swam into. Even if you do not feel congruent with that you are that on a biological level. We humanize and rightfully so gender dysphoric people, but, these people are not nothing and not no gender. They are identifying with the opposite sex there is still only two options. It is as binary as the code running this blog... 0 or 1 male or female. It is one or the other or it is a known disorder of sex development. Even intersex is not non-binary it is being born with the genital of each of the two binaries in one entity. 

You are limited to two choices the birth gender/sex or transsexualism/transgender/GID persons whom is transitioning from one to the other. However, there is one or the other and not a third option. You either stay as you were handed by nature your birth sex or the opposite. You only have two options because there is only two options in our species. A human of one kind can only transform into another human of another type. You cannot be non-human and to eschew any sort of gender or sex at all is to want to not be human. To want to get outside not a birth sex, but, outside a sex period. Outside of a living human entity at all. It is to long for nonexistence and I would argue a call for help in need of professional assistance. 

Gender Identity issues; their causes and treatments at present

It can be very controversial in this very Social Justice Warrior age to even dare bring up the question of what causes one to dissociate mentally from their birth sex. Why do gender dysphoric people exist? What causes conditions of Gender Identity in-congruence to occur in a person? The answers to these sorts of questions the SJW types say we know it is like evolution they say. They say it is because you do somehow have the wrong body, but, that is not what the science says or shows.

The science is not settled on matters of Gender Identity related disorders and conditions of Gender Dysphoria. What is settled is that some people "feel" like they are the wrong sex. Why do they "feel" that is still up in the air and there might not even be just one cause of the outcome of this "feeling." There is a whole lot of different reasons why someone might not want to be their birth sex, and it is not so cut, and, dry what the best thing for each person with the condition is.

The causes for some has ranged from bullying all the way to generalized identity dissociation disorders. Some whom gained the condition have said their parents told them at a young age they wished their child was whatever the opposite of their sex was. There is a large overlapping of Atypical Neurological Disorders such as Autism and Identifying with the other sex as well. In addition, there is a very large sample of Sexual Abuse and Rape survivors among the very small population that has Dysphoric issues. This is a very scary thing when it comes to those whom are seriously concerned for peoples mental well-being and their safety from harm.

This article is not meant to denigrate in anyways those whom suffer from Gender Identity related conditions. It is not an anti-trans message, but, instead if anything a calling out that I wish we knew more how to help said population. Gender Identity conditions "formally Gender Identity Disorder" now known as Gender Dysphoria is a very serious and harrowing condition to live with. However, the truth is that we do not know all the causes or all the reasons people develop this condition. We just know some people do.

I wish I lived in a world where no one suffered a condition of not being congruent with their biological sex. However, that is not going to happen anytime soon if it happens at all. So, in the meantime we have other stop gap measures. We do in fact have forms of therapy and counseling specifically geared towards figuring out if one will need hormones or sex change to better their conditions. Most people with Dysphoric feelings do not have them through their entire lifetime and in fact most people do end up being better without even needing hormones or sex changes. Thankfully, it is only the most extreme cases that usually need these things and do not subside.

This was pointed out in The New Atlantis report and was called anti-trans for sating this. However, all it did was state the actual stats given by people like the American Psychiatric Association. According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. Whatever the cause it is not a permanent part of most peoples identities and it recitatives as the term goes in therapy.

Other words much like how most people with same sex attraction change over time (also right from the APA) so too do most people that could have been Transsexual and transitioned if they did not become congruent. Once again I wish I could say we have a 2+2=4 when it comes to dealing with the condition we do not. There are some people for whom with our current level of medical advancement do end up needing transition surgery, changing pronouns and taking hormones. These are those lifetime transgender people. The T in the LGBT, but, the un-PC truth is that there is very little of them in any population even population of people whom have conditions related to their Gender Identity. Most people whom had gender dysphoria related issues as children grow up to be fine.

Lifetime Gender Dysphoria is incredibly rare and I feel very bad for people whom need to go under the knife and fill their bodies full of hormones just to feel comfortable in their life. If it is the only thing that will work than it is, but, I just wish we had other ways to make these people feel comfortable in our society without needing to have surgery or to take hormones. I am your "ally," but, I still wish we could find a less intrusive way to help these people. As having said condition must be a nightmare of the worst order.

Blair White, herself a Trans-Woman once got in hot water when she said she wished she could end the existence of Gender Dysphoria in peoples lives. This was mistaken to mean she meant she wished Trans people were dead or something such nonsense. She said what I am saying that she wished there was a non-surgery, non-hormonal, non-intrusive and less dangerous way to help people with Gender Identity issues heal so as to feel complete. The idea that people thought she was literally saying she should die or something is ludicrous in the extreme. She also said if a gay man wanted to be straight and could change he should be allowed to which I also mentioned I agreed with in a previous essay length post.

Saying you wished for a seriously debilitating mental/medical condition to cease to exist is not saying people with it should die. We all want Cancer to stop existing or at least be minimized. So, what is wrong with saying you wish less people would be inflicted with a medical condition that causes them to literally want to kill themselves at a higher rate than almost any group you can calculate in the population. Ask anyone suffering Gender issues if they wished there was a way to snap their fingers and accept their Birth sex and most of them would say, "sign me up and save my life." I wish I could snap my fingers and all the Gender Dysphoria suffering people would be healed and love their bodies.. not hate them to the point of self-mutilation and suicide. 

They do not need to stop having atypical interests or switch how they express. However, they would lose the condition that made them need to change their bodies to be happy having those interests and those expressions. They would lose the misery of the Dysphoria and just be their unique individual selves without needing to go under the knife, take hormones or anything. That would be my dream for all people with Gender issues and in this way I do wish that the condition did not exist. Not the people that have it. No more than my desire that we conquered the causes of depression means I wished for the depressed to be genocide out of existence. I mean the condition and not the people/

It is because so many amazing and beautiful individuals in this world suffer with this nightmare condition that I would like it gone. I do not hate trans people I want them to no longer suffer. They can be as Queer in their bodies they were born in as they want and be not wanting to remove them. That would be my dream that all Dysphoric people just became the Queer people essentially and it was no longer a nightmare without end for those with serious long term Dysphoric issues. This is my dream a dream of happy, healthy people without a condition. That is not anti-trans that is anti-hell on Earth. Why would I not want a condition with such horrible amounts of self-harm and suicidaility not to be minimized or eliminated? I also hope some day we have come closer to a cure for Autism spectrum disorder as well. Does that make me anti-Autistic people? Not at all.

What I want is for all the people currently suffering any Gender related issues to be healthy, happy and feel whole without making life altering pretty much irreversible surgery be the only hope for them. People with Gender Identity related conditions deserve better from medicine than knives and in-taking foreign hormones whose effects we are still testing out in people. We need to find a better way to make these people able to live flourishing lives without the dangers of sex-reassignment surgeries and hormones. Not because I hate them, but, because I have a good will towards any of them that are sane, rational and good people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-three-gender-identity-sexuality-and-gender
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx
https://www.scribd.com/document/2811816/Gender-Identity-Disorder-Research-Paper
https://www.symptomfind.com/diseases-conditions/gender-identity-disorder/
https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/other-causes-for-gender-dysphoria/
https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm14

Camille Says What? The Controversial Dissident Ways In on Gender Dysphoria treatments.

It is no surprise that Camille Paglia would be one to way in on matters of gender and sex. After all she is often called the dissident feminist due to her heretical views on many issues of modern feminism. Recently she has been getting a lot of press about something she has said to do with transgender conditions and the sex reassignment surgery used for people suffering Gender Dysphoria. What did she say exactly to get peoples ire up so much?

"The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one's birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births." 

However, she is in fact correct and she has said nothing controversial. Sex reassignment surgery is not able to change someone's biological sex. What happens during such surgeries is that a person has their body changed to imitate the body of the sex their Dysphoria is based around. However, no one whom does such surgeries would say they can change the actually biological make up of their client to biologically be the sex they identify with. The surgery is done to at least attempt to stop the horrific mental condition which is the clients Gender Dysphoria from which they are currently suffering.

Camille is correct that your DNA will forever be coded for your birth gender or biological sex. She is correct that a Trans man or woman will never biologically be the sex they wish to live as. However, what we do is to humanize those whom suffer from this condition and then from there should do whatever can be done to assist them relieve their suffering. It is still a Dysphoria and it is in the DSM Manual still regardless of what Special Snowflake SJW types would like to think. It is a mental/medical condition and it is not normal, but, it is something that also should not make a person less than either.

Sexual Reassignment Surgery is like a very much last ditch effort at trying to assist in the process of relieving the sufferers of this condition. It is along with this that we than begin to use their pronoun associated with their new reformed body that is associated with the sex being imitated as a way of again relieving their issues they have. Anyone that knows what actually happens during such procedures knows that one is imitating and not really biologically the sex they identify with still. Camille is correct that ones biological gender or sex really will go to this persons grave as the same biological sex/gender that was ones birth gender. 


 

Debate | Tariffs and Borders

The topic of the debate is tariffs and borders, between an objectivist and a libertarian.

Objectivists Discuss: Individualism vs Isolation

What it means to be an individualist, as well as what it doesn't mean.

Objectivists Discuss: Selfish Benevolence

Explaining Egoistic Benevolence - Philosophy in Action http://www.philosophyinaction.com/pod... Egoism and Harm to Others - Philosophy in Action http://www.philosophyinaction.com/pod...

Taking Responsibility for Your Happiness: Insights from Contemporary Psychology (AynRandCon 2016)

In this talk, delivered at Ayn Rand Student Conference 2016, Gena Gorlin discusses how psychological strategies from contemporary psychology can be of assistance when exercising one's free will to choose and shape the form of one's own happiness. Gorlin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University, spoke on Sunday, November 6, 2016, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Brokeback Mountain was/is an immoral mess not a LGBT Landmark

Back in 2006 the movie Brokeback Mountain was released to critical acclaim and the word on the street was it was an LGBT landmark; a gay cowboy movie. However, I would argue it is not a landmark of any kind. In fact, the main characters of this movie are immoral and vile men whom should not be admired in the least. The truth is that we have no evidence that both of the main men are even Gay let alone that it is a wonderful story one should embrace. 

Take for example the infamous tent scene with the two men having sex. Nowhere in this scene does it seem that we are seeing two gay or even bisexual men. It seems in all aspects of the situation like situational homosexual behavior and not homosexual or bisexual men. When Jack has to leave our other lead does cry at first true, but, he soon gets married and he seems very content. His face is filled with smiles and Jack does not even seem to come to his mind at all to be honest. It seems that he has moved on. 

It is not until Jack Twist starts to communicate with Heath Ledger's character that he seems to even begin thinking about him at all. Although, this does not make the proceeding story anymore moral. As the rest of the movie consists of nothing, but, evasion of reality after evasion of reality. Not too mention that it is all one big game of dishonesty and infidelity. Just because you have same sex attraction does not mean you get to run out all the time to fuck while your wife is at home being left in charge of your kids. To say that the behavior between the leads in this movie is some sort of big LGBT thing is madness. 

It promotes the worst stereotypes of men that like other men and it makes them seem like they cannot be trusted. It makes men that like men out to be promiscuity laden unprotected (Yes, they do not use condoms) male-sluts. Whom cannot control their own manhood and take off at any chance to get away from the world and bed each other. If you are in a relationship with a woman and like the same sex you let them know this and then you make sure they are OK with it. Now, in this case that might have been dangerous, and, not telling for self preservation would be in order. Yet, that does not mean that you do not get a divorce. Which they did eventually anyways. 

The fact that Jack was possibly in love with Heath Ledger's character is not an excuse. He is interfering in a contract between Heath's character and his wife. This is wrong on two fronts; one legally he is interfering in a contract he was not asked to be a part of. On front two he is thinking he is entitled to a man vowed to be a woman's simply because he has feelings for him. Neither of these scenarios are OK in anyway. It is an immoral mess of a story and frankly I no longer even see what the appeal is of this monstrosity of a story. 

On Sexual Reorientation in a Secular Society and the True Scientific and Psychological Origins of homosexuality/bisexuality Erotic Codes.

I fully support the right of any gay man or woman to freely choose to obtain sexual reorientation therapy. Any grown up man or woman of appropriate age and within the context of reality, reason, self and consent should have the ability to change to being straight if that person is able to and wishes to do so.

Religious fundamentalism is not the only means nor source of sexual reorientation. In truth sexuality reorients itself and changes naturally overtime for many people whom has acquired same sex erotic desires in the past. In Longitudinal studies of the same populations of people whom have at some point acquired same sex erotic feelings ended up by the Wave 4 as being mostly or completely heterosexual and straight having more or less lost or dropped said same desires naturally without any therapeutic assistance from a properly standardized secular psychologist or psychotherapist.

One can no longer say people are "born predetermined to be Kinsey 7 Gay." Same sex erotic codes are acquired after birth and they often subside in a lot of people for a replacement by a heterosexual based orientation. I am not anti-gay and I fully support equality of rights and under the law for all peaceful people in a free society. However, the science of orientation is that it is an evolutionary adaptation and not some immutable and hardwired, unchanging life time attribute of most peoples identity and it is not a forever primary erotic code.

Even those that did maintain some same sex erotic codes still obtained an opposite sex erotic code and the largest of the LGBT lifelong demographics is bisexuality. Which is essentially a heterosexual with a cherry on top not a homosexual orientation. With most of them ending up in straight long term relationships. In all long term studies of the LGBT demographics over time the most coherent thing is the most stable identity is a heterosexual one. Not stable as in mentally ill or disorder, but, stable as in same over time without changing. Meanwhile in the same demographics gayness or exclusive homosexuality was the least stable and the most likely to go away was a persons obtained same sex eroticism not their opposite sex attraction.

I know from actual research that has been done following people over time that people with same sex erotic codes can and do go straight without even a single visit to a sexual reorientation therapist. If the people involved are non-pressured and not coerced grown ups then I see no problem with such therapy being available to give gays even more assistance with wanting to change their orientation. I am talking about consenting, fully informed and self-determined grown up homosexuals and bisexuals wanting to cultivate their straight ability. Not wanting "cured" but, simply wanting change.

I echo the sentiments of LGBT rights supporting Marcia Malory on October 19, 2012 whom wrote in Scientific American (hardly an anti-gay periodical and also fairly strongly vetted); 

Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.

I can hear people screaming in the isles of my blog about how horrible I am for saying gays should be able to change and reorient their sexuality to being some form of heterosexual if they so feel it is in their best personal long term happiness in life. However, you are not that person it is not your brain, it is not your mind it is the individual gays mind, brain and very soul to be poetic. Whom are you to dictate what they can and cannot do with it? No one is the answer! The minds owner, the brains between the eyes of the owner of the self that wants to live a straight life and not you.

However, I hear you also shout such efforts do not work and I used too think so too. Before I found some research that showed this is not the case some forms of efforts do in effect work and are in fact humane, and not dangerous. There are forms of sexual reorientation that are not harmful and have actual results behind them. I will link to them at the end of this discussion as well as to all the evidence that sexual orientation is not what people seem to think it is.

If you think I am full of shit about homosexual/bisexual desires disconnecting from ones erotic code for a predominantly or fully heterosexual orientation even without external therapy I give you the following quote from a meta-analysis of all of the Longitudinal Studies of people with same sex erotic codes. It is not being reported by another straight person such as myself. Just to make sure you cannot say I am some nutty breeder this is written by an openly Lesbian Feminist Psychologist Dr. Lisa Diamond.

We review scientific research and legal authorities to argue that the immutability of sexual orientation should no longer be invoked as a foundation for the rights of individuals with same-sex attractions and relationships (i.e., sexual minorities). On the basis of scientific research as well as U.S. legal rulings regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) rights, we make three claims: First, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time. Second, arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unnecessary, in light of U.S. legal decisions in which courts have used grounds other than immutability to protect the rights of sexual minorities.

The best and most reliable data on “naturally occurring” change in sexual orientation come from studies that have longitudinally tracked large, population-based samples of heterosexual and sexual-minority individuals … Several such studies have now been completed, and they unequivocally demonstrate that same-sex and other-sex attractions do change over time in some individuals. The degree of change is difficult to reliably estimate, given differences in study measures, but the occurrence of change is indisputable.

Savin-Williams et al. (2012) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which has been regularly tracking same-sex attractions and sexual identity in a random, representative sample of more than 12,000 adolescents since 1994. We focus here on changes in attractions reported between the third wave of data collection (when respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, with a mean age of 22) and the fourth wave of data collection (when respondents were between 24 and 34 years old, with a mean age of 29). …

At the third and fourth waves of data collection, respondents were asked to describe themselves as 100% heterosexual, Mostly heterosexual, Bisexual, Mostly homosexual, or 100% homosexual. Of the 5.7% of men and 13.7% of women who chose one of the nonheterosexual descriptors at Wave 3, 43% of the men and 50% of the women chose a different sexual orientation category six years later. Of those who changed, two-thirds changed to the category 100% heterosexual. … 8% of the exclusively homosexual men and 26% of the exclusively homosexual women who initially considered themselves exclusively gay changed categories six years later.

  
However, she is not alone in finding the evidence for innate lifelong gayness in most people with some bisexual or homosexual behavior to be scientifically lacking. Take for instance LGBT Advocate John D'Emilio whom says;

The idea that people are born gay—or lesbian or bisexual—is appealing for lots of reasons. Many of us experience the direction of our sexual desires as something that we have no control over. We just are that way, it seems, so therefore we must be born gay. The people who are most overt in their hatred of queer folks, the religious conservatives, insist that being gay is something we choose, and we know we can’t agree with them. Hence, again, born gay. Liberal heterosexual allies love the idea. If gays are born that way, then of course they shouldn’t be punished for it. …

What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.

Furthermore we now have a Longitudinal study of men over a year out from having secular and non religious based sexual reorientation therapy which shows at least a good portion of the clients achieved some level of heterosexual shift successfully with 0 evidence of harm done. As presented in the Peer Reviewed online Journal "The Journal of Human Sciences."

We are presented with a group of self-determined and self-directional men whom together with their own efforts and assistance from a licensed, proper therapist become some level of straight from an exclusively gay starting point. Yes, I said exclusively with them rating themselves The Klein Grid equivalent of a Kinsey 7 homosexual at starting point with going towards anything ranging from some to complete heterosexuality at the end point and the year followed after the therapy.

Following up with Lisa Diamond she has gone on record as saying the Born This Way Hypothesis is wrong and should be thrown out. That is is scientifically not accurate and furthermore that in her mind Attachment Theory plays a much larger role in the process of developing a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Also, she is not the only one that says this. The only official American Psychological Hypothesis is not even that you are born a Kinsey 7 gay identifying person. Instead you are born with certain temperaments.

According to the APA when these temperaments are combined with specific environmental and nurture related forces you at puberty develop an erotic code based on the exotic nature around your own sex due to your temperament differences from other people of your sex making your own sex the exotic turned erotic ones. Essentially it is an overwhelming and devouring Fetish for your own sex that subsumes you. Notice I said Fetish not Mental Illness or disorder. It is in essence a Fetishistic Psychological Adaptation. In other words it is an evolutionary adaptation that can be, could be, but, is not predestined in your future based on your temperament differences and how you learn to identify and fit in with the sexual world and your sex/gender at a young age.

This hypothesis is the only one that makes sense with all the other data we have. Including the fact that in 2012/2013 the only Non-Biased and Non-Michael Bailey associated Gender non-conformity study showed 85-90% of them were heterosexual. What does this mean? Simple, that only when mixed with certain other conditions does one develop the Evolutionary Adaptation of a bisexual or homosexual erotic code while having unique temperaments. Specifically, if you are unique and atypical, but, do not see your own sex as the exotic one than you are less likely to develop an erotic code around Puberty which is aimed at your own sex and more likely to develop heterosexually at that time. Regardless of if your favorite color is Pink or your favorite band is The Spice Girls or whatever.

It also explains why sexual reorientation towards heterosexuality can and often does happen naturally over time and without therapy. It is after all a Fetish that is overwhelming and not an innate and immutable, unchanging thing. So, all you do is reorient yourself, so, the Fetish is simply an amplification of the natural norm for the mammalian species AKA the opposite sex. AKA you restore in a sense the Erotic code you would have gotten if you did not obtain the other one by thinking of yourself as the Exotic sex as a child. This could be done without even trying at all just like the original exotic becomes erotic code was formed without being done consciously.

The young time frame of when the code begins to take shape and the memories of being different explains why gays, bisexuals and lesbians assume they were "born this way." They are remembering their different even if as simple as being sensitive as over rough and tumble play. They are not recalling something called being born "gay," but, being born unique and feeling not like the other the true Origin of the Exotic Becomes Erotic Fetishism towards their same sex/gender. They are in effect recalling being born in the state of the actual causes and not the end point of those causes direction.

So, where does this leave the LGBT? Well, in just as good of a position as ever. I am not arguing here that people whom have cultivated towards the same sex over time and actually stuck there are sinners. Or that they are bad or that they are diseased or anything of the nature. Or that they even all can change even if their DNA did not code them to be Gay or Lesbian as such. I am arguing though that most can change and that it is not immutable, or innate, or hardwired for you to be "exclusively gay." Most people whom have such Erotic Codes are not even Gay when you remove the Mostly Heterosexuals. They are still a variant of bisexual and thus they still retain their opposite sex Erotic code as well.

I am not saying that you need to be or should be coerced, pressured or cajoled to be heterosexual. I will argue that most people by their very nature as a member of the human species have some amount of heterosexual possibility in them. However, if anyone dares to preach that people with your Erotic Code with your Fetish for the same are bad people or evil because you have obtained an Erotic code that is atypical I pray for them to become more Christ like. Bigotry and hatred is not defended by the ability for people to have straight potentiality in them. I love my gay and lesbian friends just as much as if they were "born that way." However, if they switched teams I would not freak out either and act like they lost their value. Good people are good people regardless of which consenting adults they mate with. Whether it is the human sexual norm of our species or not does not matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/APA-address.pdf
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730310-100-sexuality-is-fluid-its-time-to-get-past-born-this-way/
https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship
https://badgerherald.com/news/2017/02/10/professor-strikes-down-born-this-way-argument-for-homosexuality/



In the APA Handbook, Dr. Diamond states, “Hence, directly contrary to the conventional wisdom that individuals with exclusive same-sex attractions represent the prototypical ‘type’ of sexual-minority individual, and that those with bisexual patterns of attraction are infrequent exceptions, the opposite is true. Individuals with nonexclusive patterns of attraction are indisputably the ‘norm,’ and those with exclusive same-sex attractions are the exception” (v. 1, p. 633). Most people who experience same-sex attraction also already experience opposite-sex attraction.


“Although change in adolescence and emerging adulthood is understandable, change in adulthood contradicts the prevailing view of consistency in sexual orientation” (Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 562).


The APA Handbook reviews a highly regarded study by gay researcher Savin-Williams and colleagues (Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 562) that followed the sexual identity of young adult participants when most were ages 18 through 24 and again at ages 24 through 34, about 6 years later. Participants indicated whether their sexual identity was heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or homosexual. The bisexual group was larger than exclusively gay and lesbian groups combined. But the largest identity group, second only to heterosexual, was “mostly heterosexual” for each sex and across both age groups, and that group was “larger than all the other non-heterosexual identities combined” (Savin-Williams et al., 2012, abstract). 

“The bisexual category was the most unstable” with three quarters changing that status in 6 years (abstract, emphasis added). “[O]ver time, more bisexual and mostly heterosexual identified young adults of both sexes moved toward heterosexuality than toward homosexuality” (p 106, emphasis added). Similar change is found in other population-based longitudinal studies, and rates of change do not appear to decline as participants get older (Diamond & Rosky, 2016, p. 7, Table 1). 

For both sexes, a heterosexual sexual orientation identity was the most stable” (SavinWilliams 2012, p. 104), as Diamond reports is true in all of the large-scale prospective, longitudinal studies (2014, in APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 637). For women who shifted away  from exclusive heterosexuality in the Savin-Williams 2012 study, the greatest increase was to mostly heterosexual (Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 562). 

In the APA Handbook, Diamond says, “In every large-scale representative study reviewed thus far, the single largest group of individuals with same-sex attractions report predominant—but not exclusive—other-sex attractions” (v. 1, p. 634). Kleinplatz and Diamond say (v.1, p. 256), “Historically such individuals [mostly heterosexual] have been treated with skepticism and suspicion by laypeople and scientists alike. They have been viewed as either closeted lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (who cling to a mostly heterosexual label to avoid the stigma associated with same-sex sexuality) or as confused or questioning “heteroflexibles.” Heteroflexibles refers to individuals who, given our culture, have had infrequent same-sex fantasies or experimented with same-sex behavior but are not really gay or bisexual (v.1, p. 256). Kleinplatz and Diamond urge that “it is critically important for clinicians not to assume that any experience of samesex desire or behavior is a sign of latent homosexuality and instead to allow individuals to determine for themselves the role of same-sex sexuality in their lives and identity” (p. 257) (emphasis added). Mostly heterosexual individuals do not identify as LGB, and LGB activists have not recognized or represented them well. Some have had therapists wrongly assume they are really homosexual and would be happier leaving their marriage and family for a gay life.  
 
Readers can hear Dr. Diamond review research in her YouTube lecture for an LGBTaudience at Cornell University (2014). She said that excellent and abundant research has now established that sexual orientation—including attraction, behavior, and identity self label—all three—is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders, and exceptions for LGB individuals are a minority.

Further underscoring that sexual orientation is changeable, Diamond reports that some say choice was involved for them, and she says one may choose a context or circumstance that may influence sexual orientation change, such as choice of roommate (2008, pp. 249-250), deciding to live in an ideological, political, or social reference group —as in “political lesbians” (2014, in APA Handbook, v.1, p. 632)

Dr. Diamond has publicly gone on record that she opposes psychotherapy that is open to sexual attraction change. (See Rosik, 2016 for a penetrating critique of her position as expressed in Diamond & Rosky, 2016.) Nevertheless, she says in her book (2008, p. 252) that some same-sex attracted individuals may have more capacity than others to channel the direction of their sexual fluidity in response to their context, and they may for that reason modify it in psychotherapy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41433375_How_do_I_love_thee_Implications_of_attachment_theory_for_understanding_same-sex_love_and_desire

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/situational_homosexuality_S.pdf

https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/download/4282/2137

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-one-sexual-orientation-sexuality-and-gender

Ten percent of kids defy gender norms before age 11, a new study published in the journal Pediatrics found. Boys considered "girlie," because of their activity choices and interests, and girls deemed "boyish" are more likely to face abuse -- both physical and sexual -- and experience post-traumatic stress disorder by early adulthood. According to USA Today, parents or other adults in the home were mostly responsible for the abuse.

Andrea Roberts, lead author of the study and research associate in the department of society, human development and health at the Harvard School of Public Health, told USA Today that children under 11 are very likely to display behavior that has nothing to do with their future sexual orientation -- of 9,000 young adults studied, 85% of the 10% considered gender-non-conforming children identified as heterosexual.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/children-nonconformity-ptsd-sexual-abuse/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2012/02/15/peds.2011-1804.full.pdf