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

Is it how it is done or the fact it exists? (Reality, Reason, Morality and Rights with regards to S.O.C.E.within a therapeutic practice)

Let me begin by painting a picture of a hypothetical situation for you to explain the context for this article. Now let us say there is a grown up man and he was abused as a younger man. Let us say maybe he suffered a horrible thing like molestation or rape. Now let us say that following this raping he becomes confused and he begins to re-enact the scene of the sexual crime by adopting a homosexual/gay or in his confusion possibly bisexual identity. Now one day he decides to go to therapy for help with his issues this has caused.

While at a perfectly legitimate and non-religious standards following psychotherapist he is told that he can be assisted in elevating his stress and issues. This might or might not require an actual anxiety or anti-depression medication depending on if it will help or not. However, the therapist mentions an after effect a possible, but, not in anyway guaranteed byproduct of working on and repairing the damage of this man's mind. He has in his experience seen quite a few men whose erotic code and arousal patterns changed when they have began to heal their internal wounds.

He tells you how he has seen many of his patients go from gay or bi to being mostly or even completely straight in their self-identity and their orientation as a result of dealing with the deeply confusing reaping wound of how their male anatomy responded to being violated and broken. He makes it very clear his therapy is not intended to cause such a change, but, nonetheless via the therapy to repair their broken brains their brains healed/changed themselves. Sometimes midway through and other times a year or so in as their client they turned out to be heterosexual after the therapy.

That his clients reported not being able to even get an erection in some cases from men anymore and all same sex attraction or desire vanished in these men as an unintended side effect of healing their wounds. He or she stresses that it is not the intended outcome of his or her therapy, but, an unintended consequence not in all, but, many men. That in essence a side affect of his or her therapy is a form of unintended sexual orientation change effects within a therapy framework. That it is also seems in follow ups to not go back in not all, but, again a great deal of the men he or she helps. That is seems stable and fixed once said person goes straight. He or she then asks you if you are OK if this did happen?

Is the above scenario immoral or wrong in anyway? The person clearly in most cases became or at least took on the identity of a non-heterosexual not from internal from birth longings about being different or being Born that way naturally if you will gay. This person seems to have been born as heterosexual as most people and the abuse was the reason for his adapting in this case the homosexual or bisexual orientation not their nature as a being. If this was the case and therapy for simply helping their other issues causes a mostly or even complete sexual reorientation experience in that person is that by its very nature what is wrong with said therapy? I want to argue no and that S.O..C.E. Or sexual orientation change effects in therapy is not immoral it is the context which changes the nature of things.

There is at least 4 different ways sexual orientation changes could take place within a therapy setting and only one is really immoral and wrong. The first one would be the immoral version which is someone pressured by society, their church and or possibly even fully coerced into going to a Ex-Gay based therapy. This would be the immoral, wrong and evil version of this story. However, 3 other possible scenarios exist which I would argue as long as within the bounds of reality, reason, morality (self) and consent can be perfectly moral choices for a therapy with such affects involved.

The first moral version is actually not that controversial if you really think about it. Someone in the scenario specifically that I described in my own article. Someone whom is trying to get help whom is a victim of an injustices and whom adopts their non-heterosexuality due to abuse, rape or other forms of abuse which caused them to adapt this identity as a way of not dealing with the true issue as a band-aid. Whom is not going into therapy for the change, but, for whom change might happen when in therapy. Thus it is an unintended consequence and not at all from trying to will a change.

The second moral version is someone whom is suffering due to abuse and knows his mental state is not that of a gay or bi man. Whom knows that his rape caused him to adopt homosexual or bisexual orientations and wants to using the Spectrum/Continuum view of human sexuality go towards a lower place on the spectrum if not get to 0 on a Kinsey scale of possible. Not that he thinks persay he can become heterosexual through therapy, but, does understand sexual fluidity and wishes to see how flexible he truly is, but, needs professional help in the process.

A third possible reason for such therapy is to through honoring reality, reason, self and consent honestly ask for assistance with natural orientation shifts. If you find upon inspection that you are sincerely happier being heterosexual and you are among the people whom are capable of natural orientation shifts therapy helping to affirm and nurture your straightness I do not see an issue with. I am going to cause some people to want to barge out of the doors of my blog right now for saying that. However, standardized and properly controlled therapy that did have such an effect if proven to work would be fine if the man or woman was doing so through self-determination. By this I mean without social pressure or coercion and of appropriate age range.

The problem with the Ex-Gay movement is not that some people are naturally flexible and able to switch teams after time. The problem is the methodology and the reasoning behind its existence is one of "curing" homosexuality and not that people can change teams or reorient themselves in various ways naturally over time. The problem is that it uses things like touching therapy or at least it used too. The problem is the calling gay a sin and evil. It is not that there are therapists that dare to say natural change over a life cycle with same sex behavior happens a lot and maybe, "maybe" you are one of those people and just need a little help with your "potentiality." It is because they do not support "natural" change or sexual fluidity they support a "cure" in therapy.

The true evil of the Ex-Gay movement is that it is a form of faith based gunk. It is anti-mind and anti-reason. It preaches that if efforts do not work not that the therapies methodology was wrong, but, to instead just turn to Jesus and a nonexistent man in the sky for help. It is the reasoning behind the movement and not the idea of change. Or the idea of sexual fluidity or flexibility in a person even within some more standardized and seriously tested form of therapeutic assistance. It is the idea that it was started due to being anti-gay and pro-Evangelical Christianity. I am fine with reasonable, rational, reality based, self-determined, non-pressured and non-coerced fluidity or flexibility inspired therapies existing for people that desire them. I agree with the article quoted below from Scientific America.

If we define being gay as engaging in homosexual behavior (the concept of “gay” as an identity is a Western cultural concept – people who have sex with both men and women may call themselves gay, straight or bisexual, depending on the rules of their culture or subculture), then people stop being gay as soon as they stop engaging in this behavior.

I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone. Therefore, people who are gay by choice have the right to remain that way

(Of course, there are abusive and unhealthy gay relationships that should not be tolerated, just as there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships that should not be tolerated.)

If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.

There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness. 

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”.

In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”

It might make these critics unhappy to hear this, but that’s not how science works.

Science doesn’t change in order to support political opinions.

Scientific beliefs change as we gain new information, and sometimes science tells us things that we would rather not hear.

Get used to it.

The emphasis and the code word is consensual change and not cure. (With no shame for not being able to or choosing not to want to change either.)

Michael J. Bailey and the Gender Fucked up model of bisexual/homosexual behavior among men

If we were to travel back in time to a more primitive place in time one can actually pinpoint one of the oldest ideas for the reason for men shagging other men. The idea was simple that all men that engage in same sex behavior do so because of a major gender fuck up in their brain. There is a reversal of the sexes if you will and this person is literally playing the woman as a means of survival within his sex life. He is a different almost 3rd Gender/Sex altogether made up of the constitutions not of mere men, but, of women covered up in a mans veneer. He looks like a man, but, inside he is essentially a woman's brain or a womanly brain with a mans body. The brain being basically female, but, the body being male. The mind is not like the body and from this comes non-heterosexual compulsion and identity.

This would seem to any sane person whom knows how biological sex is determined and then composed within a Mother's womb roll their eyes. Or at least to any person whom has read any sort of human biology textbook it would make them facepalm and maybe even hit their desk in rage. I can hear homosexual and bisexual fans of this blog screaming. "How dare so-called science say I am a basically acting out the symptoms of a disorder of sexual development by shagging another man!"
Well, if you think those days are gone I ask you to look at the so-called state of sexual sciences these days and you will find one of the leading so-called authorities on orientation and gender identity is in fact saying just that. In fact, anyone that endorses any of his work is saying just that and it is insanely unscientific.

The hypothesis of Michael J. Bailey for orientation is basically just that and it states that homosexual behavior in men is due to a reversal of the gender in the male homosexual brain. Or a reversal or fucked up error of sexual identity development due to Androgen's in the Mothers womb. That along with a never proven "Gay Gene" on a special form of a malformed Y chromosome which only gay males have given to them from their Father. Both combine to determine several things. One being that you will be born a cross-sexed child whom will grow up to the the most flaming gay around. The second being that you will be gay and are determined to be so. It is not only 100% true that every single stereotype of gay or even bisexual men is true. It is 100% because they are basically men with a fucked up sex inverted female brain. 

However, this is hitting a snag when brought into real life and it has never been shown nor duplicated using proper scientific method on a wide enough scale to prove at all scientifically significant. The truth is that most people with same sex behaviors are not even homosexual. The norm for humans is either exclusive heterosexuality or highly heterosexual with some either slightly or moderate levels homosexual/bisexual activities throughout the life time. This means that any sort of "genetics" or Womb Environment influences on homosexual activity is merely a predisposition to a possibility of homosexual/bisexual behavior not of removal of heterosexual possibility altogether. Unless of course this is only for the exclusive homosexual male. However, even if that were the case there is a serious error in this hypothesis that homosexuality or bisexual curiosity is an inherently feminine or sex reversed trait. 

Where does this leave all the non-stereotypical homosexual and bisexual men? It leaves them as erased and as not existing is where it leaves them with no science supporting they even exist within human male biology. It erases millennia of same sex behavior between very much stereotypical macho macho men like the great warriors of places like Rome and Greece. The history of human same sex behavior is as it is now one of bisexuality and a mix between heterosexual/homosexual behavior without any sort of erasure in the men of heterosexual procreative possibility. Most of them just like now went onto be in opposite sex couplings with their genes passed onto their own children. Most people with same sex behavior is in fact not homosexual, but, in the mostly heterosexual category. Most people even identifying openly as bisexual end up in mostly straight pairings as well, but, simply retain the bisexual identity label for themselves. As well, you would not know whom most these people would be just by looking at them from afar.

Let us move onto the exclusively homosexual male now and away from the majority of men all of whom enjoy the sexual company of the opposite sex. What can we know about such a person? Well, not that they are all sex or gender reversed at all. What about all the gay 6 packed policemen? The muscle bound gym bunnies? The bears? Or how about the existence of the Power Top that dominate their bottoms with a massive warrior passion that would make both Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele blush? The stereotype of homosexuality is just that a stereotype. Does it exist? Yes, for sure. However, Michael J. Bailey is biologically collectivizing all of the homosexual population as belonging to one very small subset of an already small subset of biological males that shag other men. Completely ignoring all of the others for the sake of claiming this is the primal cause of gayness in men.

How does Michael address this? With a very Social Justice Wonk idea of internalized femphobia. According to Michael the reason some non-stereotypes exist is due to them pretending to be more manly than they are when really they all want to be little Shirley Temples just bursting out in Tutus. The gym bunnies do not love working out because they really do. They do not want to get ripped because they love having muscles and definition. No, they only want to do it to hide they really want to give up the barbells for a Barbie Pink purse and high heels on Friday Nights. Anyone whom says they do not identify or feel womanly in the least or effeminate is told they are lying to themselves and the world. He does believe in Lipstick Lesbians though because he has gone on record stating that women are able to be sexually flexible and thus have a broader range of expression and identity to them.

It is really all tied back to an underlying belief of Michael's which is not even scientific nor factual. Which is that absolute hard determinism with no sense of free choice is the norm for human nature. That free will does not exist and the mind is impotent. That reason does not exist and that no one can be rational. That all thought is programmed life long by your genes and womb environment with no ability to choose anything including attending his lectures. He is an insane quack with 0 credentials prior to claiming to have found the "Gay Gene," which he did not , but, he gets lauded as doing even in mainstream news. He is not a scientists he is as much of a quack as Deepak Chopra or some New Age Guru. In fact, he is downright cult-like claiming no evidence could ever prove his views wrong and that his horribly disproved hypothesis is the theory in science for sexual orientation.

He was one of the loudest voices against The New Atlantis report on Sexuality and Gender Identity because all the sources other than his sheds doubt on the existence of a "Gay Gene." As well as showing that there is very little evidence that homosexuality is some sort of disorder of sexual development in the womb as his hypothesis paints it to be. It also said that 80-90% of all same sex acts occur between people women and men that are not homosexual, but, some level of heterosexual by the time longitudinal studies have followed the same individuals into their thirties. Which means that it is far from clear cut to be "deterministic" to be "born that way" for most people. Far from it, for it is only a part of their overall determination of sexual identity as they age. This does not mean none of it is nature, but, as the American Psychological Association has stated;

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Notice what they say above no "scientific" findings have emerged which permit one to say what actually determines homosexuals of the exclusive kind, or bisexuals that are life long two team players to emerge. With the recent flurry of evidence that most humans have some potential to commit acts without mental instability or in-congruence of heterosexual reproduction this actually shows the APA were right to not sign off on the "Gay Gene" theory. The truth is we have no scientific theory of exclusive gayness, or bisexuality or even why some mostly life long heterosexuals engaged for a time in homosexual experimentation or experience. We definitely do not have a Scientific theory that states gay men and lesbian women have the brains opposite from their bodies. 

This does not mean the hypothesis of people like NARTH or Exodus International of the Ex-gay movement have any legit basis nor backing of their origin of orientation ideas either. It means that the "Gay Gene" hypothesis and "gay Brain" hypothesis based on Gender or Sex inversion has not been backed or found to be true by any credible scientist anywhere. In fact, in a 2017 paper of homosexual, heterosexual and gender dysphoric brains the differences were so small between the heterosexual and homosexual brains studied that there could scarcely be considered a difference in their brains at all. Considering how blending in both groups tend to be when you remove the stereotype population this makes perfect sense. It also explains how so many people whom have had same sex behaviors in their past can change naturally over time without any in-congruence or mental anguish and come out the other side of the possible teams heterosexual.

The idea that gay, lesbian or even once bisexual now heterosexual is a matter of a reverse sexual psychology due to biological sex inversion harms the very people that use the idea as their defense for rights. For it says gays and lesbians are born genetically defective and they are of such a low value, such a fucked up genetic mess that their own Mother's find them to be parasitic and begin releasing Androgen's in levels depending on that fuck up. This is the literal Bailey idea. That boys with this gene make the Mom release an atypical and female brain creating level of Testosterone which makes their brain like women, but, their body/genitals male. Basically, all gay men have a Trans brain without the Dysphoria.

However, not a single look at homosexual and heterosexual male brains reveal a sex inverted brain let alone a female brain in a mans body. Gay men and lesbian women are not people with the same brain as folks with Gender Identity issues. That is just not the case not a single credible study has found it to be so. What he is saying essentially is Trans you have a opposite mind to your body and are dysphoric over the difference. Gay men and women have the same brains without the Dysphoria. They have grown up with the same brain, but, are congruent with their body instead. However, their acting like the opposite sex, their interests of the opposite sex and so on are because their mind/brain is their opposite of their body's sex or gender. Which is ludicrous and dangerous. It makes it seem like there is an equivalence to having the mental and medical condition of GID or Gender Dysphoria and gayness. You are one stone throw away from calling Gayness a mental illness, but, in politically correct. wording.. "the Mom messed with the brain" 

I resent Michael Bailey for more than just his views on gayness though. His view on gender non conforming children in general is troubling. He thinks it is all a sign of future orientation or GID issues and he says so quite loudly. It is no secret he has engaged in studies of men for example looking over childhood videos and picking apart the littlest thing as a sign of being "born homosexual." Even to men that state they are bisexual and not gay. He admits to not believing any of the participants whom come to him to be tested that deny they are homosexual, but, match the characteristics of a pre-gay child. He has stated himself if someone says he is bisexual or even mostly heterosexual and the one test with men he does makes them erect even an inch more than when he shows them a woman he thinks he is proving they are gay. This is silly beyond belief and not at all scientific. He will then include said people in the category of pre-gay child and gay adult male. Despite their self identification to him in the study he will remove them from the category and switch them around.

What this means is anyone whom is not truly homosexual, but, whom for them the men in the study does happen to be the odd man out that makes them rock hard he calls them homosexual and his experiment proven. There is no bisexual or mostly heterosexual men in his studies because he first ignores them and then erases them from existing in his studies; thus erasing any sexual plasticity in male human minds. Then he claims that men in his study are all gay and that his studies prove pre-gay child is a proper term and will become gay men. However, the studies of gender non conformity and even people whom have suffered in-congruence between sex/gender and came out the other side congruent is not the homosexual population. It is 85-90% heterosexual which means it is not the life long unchanging homosexual that sees this pattern. Which given that non-heterosexual for most humans means a form of bisexual this means that most people that did have such an issue and then stabled as it were have some extent of heterosexual attraction. This is according to information taken from the one Non Bailey involved study which was done in 2012.

So, if you remove the bias what seems clear is that there is no causal link between even brains that might experience GID like symptoms when younger and exclusive adult homosexual attraction. Far from most pre-gay children turning out to be gay most children period turn out to be some form of heterosexual even if a mixed bi-possibility form of one. The majority of humans just turn out like this and again why some do not we do not know and might never actually completely know due to the complex nature of the issue. What we do know is it is not a "gay" as in exclusively homosexual gene. Nor does such a gene make sense to anyone that understands how important breeding is to our species and evolution evolving a deterministic form of a "born this way"exclusive one way ticket to ending the spread of men's seed literally makes no sense.

However, a combination of a bunch of things that in some people leads to an adaptation of exclusive homosexuality which once adapted unless it naturally changed as a different form of adaptation later are 100% bonified for life gays makes much more sense. This would explain why some people do go from identifying as 100% homosexual to some level of bisexual. Which does happen by the way. There are even some whom naturally change from 100% homosexual to eventually 100% heterosexual, but, again it is not through will and is the least likely to occur. However, in the longitudinal studies about 18% of exclusive homosexuals in wave 1-3 by Wave 4 were 100% complete heterosexual in their orientation if you add both the 8% men and 10% women together. They re-adapted differently once through their 20's into their 30's from whatever caused them to adapt in the other direction until their thirties. These were not ex-gays and the people that did the study denounced forced or therapeutic change practices like the ex-gay movements.     

I need to point to this data to show the "findings" much as The New Atlantis stated and Michael ain't no sexual plastic or fluid men Bailey denied. Admitting that there is much more evidence that gayness is an evolutionary adaptation and not "born this way determined to be," is not an anti-gay statement. It is a statement of the facts as we currently have them. It does not mean there is not some combination of nature and nurture for those whom end up acquiring this adaptation either. For one could end up adapting this way due to that combination of all kinds of factors mentioned by the American Psychological Association. However, one thing is for sure we have no "gay genes" that we have ever actually legitimately found to this point. Nor do we have some definitive atypical "gay brain." It is all a narrative spun by quacks that think to shag another man must mean a genetic difference from other men and must mean you are less than male. If anything it is the most demeaning thing a gay man could hear. You are not part of a brotherhood of men of value; no, you are a sexually disordered freak that belongs shoved aside and put in a "no specific gender box."

 

The Reaping and Raping of Mind & Body --- Land of killed dreams and crushed souls ---

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The so-called science of human sexual orientation and secular sexual morality

Lately I have been seeing numerous articles showing up in my news feed on my phone about "gay genes," and "birth order affects." It seems that the media is filled with this new so-called science experiment which claims to show what is said to be genes linked with homosexual traits. It looks interesting and may even pass under some peoples bullshit detector, but, not mine. There are so many issues with this most recent study it is hard to narrow them down. 

A lot is made of the so-called science of human sexual so-called orientation when it comes to arguments for homosexuality/gayness being OK. However, I contend that you do not need to be innately such to defend ones rights to behavior of a same sex nature. Moreover, I contend that a lot of the science we have is actually a mixture between decent science and a bunch of junk pop-science with no actual backing in the overall information we have. Yes, you occasionally get something worthwhile, but, it is under a mountain of bullshit the size of a Hawaiian volcano. 

It is often said that there is a consensus on the issue of human sexuality and desire. This is not correct as we do not have any sort of actual concise full scientific theory for human non-heterosexuality at this time. We have lots of hypotheses, but, not an actual scientific theory of causation of the exclusively homosexual male nor female. Nor do we have have any scientific theory on bisexuality either on any scale. The truth is the issue is not as easily investigated as one might think it is. Numerous times previous studies which claimed to show things like a so-called "gay gene" have failed to be able to be reproduced successfully and thus cannot be validated using the scientific method.

When it comes to the latest study on genes it was done in only European Countries and was only done on about 1000 men. This is only one Country and it is a very small sample. In fact, it is really too small a sample to be meaningful scientifically at all. Their gay genes were some genes related to this sample of men's male chromosomes. Some of them were differently expressed in the gay males from the straight males. This was than interpreted to be linked to the orientation difference in these men and nothing else. Not only that, but, it was not a random sample either. The scientists chose their subjects from various Gay Pride events. They also screened out all women (yes, all women) and all bisexual males (yes all) from participating in the study. In the end scientifically this is once more a meaningless study that shows us nothing new. As well as being something that has not at all been reproduced in any other Country. 

However, when it comes to the search for the common cause of homosexuality in males looking for certain genes on the male chromosomes is only one hypothesis for causation. There are also other ideas such as the birth order affect which talks about hormones and antigens in the womb. Where people with older brothers the younger ones will tend to be gay due to the fact the mom's womb will fire off these antigens and it will feminize the fetus and thus give the new born boy a gay brain which is female typical and thus homosexual. The only thing is this too does not always hold up every time. How many large families exist with lots of brothers where all of them are 100% heterosexual? Quite a lot actually. Which makes it hard to actually be able to say this is duplicated in the real world. This does not mean there is nothing to the research simply that it is not a 1 to 1 cause and affect scenario. 

However, the real issue lies in the numbers of the demographics when they are added up. Cross-culturally in many Countries the numbers come up the same and that is most same-sex attraction is happening in a mostly straight or mostly heterosexual population. This means that the actual driver or drivers of same-sex desire is not something that effects most people to the point of it becoming a part of their identity nor their main attraction and desire. Most Androphile (man for man) attraction in males is found as a side component to a larger Gynophile (man into woman) attraction and desire. Which means that if it comes from birth order it does not equal most of the time anything more than a passing fancy that comes and often by the time one is in their 30's is all, but, fleeting. 

All the studies in the world can be done on genes, epi-genetics and womb environment. However, if one does not test this massive majority of same-sex individuals and sticks only with exclusive homosexual males the research will never be broad enough to be conclusive. This is why excluding any form of bisexual identifying and also mostly straight identifying from tests means you cannot have the broadest sample nor the most accurate one. Not only that, but, it is important to include these people as a control group of sorts to see what is the actual genetic make up of the cross section of orientation of desire. There is also the possiblity that there is no "gay" genes at all and defenders of LGBT rights are grasping for a naturalistic fallacy straw. 

In fact, the more research tries to find this gene or these genes the more it seems they are shooting fish in a barrel. Why do I say this? I say it because it makes no sense from a scientific standpoint of evoluntary biology for their to be a part of the human gnome dedicated to making any man or woman gay. See nature is not like some creationist god that molds us into her or his creation. Any gene or genes that did have an influence on ones future same-sex desires would have this as an unintended affect of some sort of unrelated cause. The same goes for in Utero womb developement. Antigens and androgens in the womb are not intended to stop procreation between the sexes intentionally. It is an unintended consquence of a broader sexual dimorphism between the sexes. 

In other words there is no gay gene or genes coded specifically with the purpose of inputing into the human brain to create the output of same-sex behavior in that person, Any gene or genes infuences only a part and a small one at about 30% according to the studies we have. The rest is envinromental and whether one becomes homosexual exclusively, bisexual in some form, mostly heterosexual or even completely heterosexual despite containing the gene or genes is a combination of both biology and envinronment. Yes, that is right according to even the American Psychological Association and American Phsyciatric Association sexual orientation is a combimnation of numerous factors and biology is only one part. 

Not only that, but, out of what consistutes biology "genes" are one of the smallest parts. Even in the Utero hypothesis it is the Androgen and Antigen bath that really molds the predispositional "gay" brain and wiring. With the genes playing really the most minor of part which is either anywhere between 20-30% depending on which research is looked at. Not only that, but, it is predispositional and not predeterminisitc of orientation as well. We know this because if same-sex desire comes from this experience and these genes most people do not have the disposition at the expense of an even greater outcome of being at least mostly straight. If having "gay" genes meant you always were determined to be gay there should be no bisexuals nor mostly heterosexuals. The disposition for the same-sex drive would be there exclusively always and bis and mostly heteros would be a myth which they are not. 

Further more the amount is so small even if the genes hypothesis is found to be the case that it is meaningless. You could just as easily have such an amount of genes prone for alcholism, but, not become an alcholic. Genes might drive dispositions and impulses, but, they do not drive outcomes of those impulses. It does not give any justification for or against the idea that homosexuality is ok. Someone whom was anti-gay can simply say that genes drive impulses, but, not acting on those impulses and point to alcholism for example as a reason to not act on said impulses. I do not agree with said conclusion, but, they would have a point. 

The true answer is to keep looking, but, to not have a care about if there is such a thing. The samething with the Utero hypothesis it does not need to be true for ones orientation to be considered moral. For it is sexual behavior that is moral and not orientation of ones desires. It is whether or not you are harming others or yourself that is at the heart of sexual morality. Although even that is too simplified. It is not moral to cheat on your seginificent other for example. The truth is the both complex and simple ideas that make up overall sexual morality do not matter on your genes. Or on your in womb environment. Or whether something is nature or nurture. Or whether it is chosen or unchosen. Or whether it has changed or stayed static all your life. Whether it is mutable or immutable. It matters on the actions you take based on those desires.

At the end of the day there could turn out to be 96% nurture and 5% nature to ones overall sexual desires with no change to the morality or immorality of being being gay or lesbian, or bisexual. What matters is if you are an overall good person and the content of your character and moral compass. Ones moral compass is the crux of all of this to me and one does not need scientists to find anything innate at all to show how one can be a moral being and be non-heterosexual. Just like someone whom is heterosexual is not devoid of one like radical nutcases shout about in their nonsesnse academic circle jerks. Whether you are straight, gay, bi, open to trying anything once, mostly straight, mostly gay, once mostly gay now mostly straight, experimented when young now not interested. Whatever you are has 0 impact on your ability to be a moral person. 

Digit Ratio/Gender Non-conformity and sexuality -- A Meta-Analyses of the actual research

There is a word that is often thrown about in our society called "Gaydar." and it is prevalent throughout various areas of science too. It is not just a term bandied about by people that come off as stupid, but, people that seem quite logical as well. They point to studies which claim that all the stereotypes about straight people and gay people are correct. That straight equals being a gender conforming god and gays being gender queer and atypical aberrations from the norm in ways other than their sexual desires. 

However, is it really true that Gaydar exists and is it also true that straight people never are gender-non conforming? Oh and does a difference in your ring finger really tell you anything about your orientation? Most people will point to studies mainly by the people associated with Michael J. Bailey and his studies. However, how correct are these studies? Are they consensus building? Are they even scientific or are they quackery? Looking at the Meta-Analyses of the data shows serious holes in the idea that Gaydar is a consistently true phenomenon. 

Moreover it shows some serious flaws in the idea of what is manly for men as well. Especially when it comes to activities like dancing. If you look at the studies gay men played game show and performance more than straight boys did as children.. However, there is a serious flaw in all these studies. No straight people are even given a chance to take part in the research. Of course you will have a majority of gay boys and lesbian girls being sissies and tomboys. There is no control sample of straight people or even just mostly straight people in these studies to see how many of them have videos of non-conforming home movies. 

If you saw my Moms old photos of me back at her place one of them is me in a very flamboyant coat that has a color in it a mix between purple and pink. Yet, I am straight I am not gay. I both danced when I was younger, was in a play "Twelve Dancing Princesses," and played with guns too. I was the 1 of only 3 boys in a play and was also playing Chris Bond with my toy gun at the same time. As long as there is no control group in any of these studies I call unscientific BS on them all. I call them quackery and Michael J. Bailey is himself in denial about the existence of sexual fluidity. He did not even acknowledge male bisexuality exists and still denies it is prevalent to this day in the male sex.

If Michael J. Bailey is not a good source and even denies evidence he does not like where can we look outside his inner circle for information on the markers of being gay? Is there any studies on Gaydar related traits that is not by Bailey and what do they show? Well, they show that most people in our species that are men do have a conformism and so do women. However, it also shows much more importantly the demographics of actual non-conforming people no matter how small the number. The top tier of people whom had gender non-conforming childhoods are in fact heterosexual as adults. 

Not mostly heterosexual, but, self-identified complete Kinsey 0 heterosexuals are the most to have had moments of various levels of non-conformism in life. This was according to a wonderful study done outside of Bailey's narrative back in 2012. However, there are other ideas out there trying to tell people certain factors tell you what orientation you are. That being your ring to index finger ratio with the length of your ring finger being longer meaning you are more likely straight than not as a man. While supposedly gay men have digits similar to women not straight men. Yet, in meta-analyses shows there is not enough evidence to show any sort of connection. 

I think the meta-analyses of non-conformity makes perfect sense. As meta-analyses of orientation identification overtime shows heterosexuality as being the most stable and the most likely to be where people with any sort of same sex play to end up. The two most taken up identities are either mostly straight or completely straight for most men and women by the time they are in their 30's and going into their 40's. This is shown in the studies that took a scientific and objective eye on human sexual orientation. Every single Longitude based tracing of populations done since around 2002ish shows a bisexual or a just curious at one time direction. Lisa Diamond a very out and proud Lesbian Psychologist for the APA cites this among other things in her research which shows a lack of any real evidence for the biological determinism or existentialist etiology for bisexual or homosexual attractions. 

So, it would make sense that most men and women irregardless of behavior or interests to be not gay and to be at least some variant of heterosexual. Only 2-3% of any human population is steadily gay or homosexual over their entire life without change to at least at bisexual identity. People with non-conformism with actual Gender Dysphoria (Transsexualism) is less than even 1% of the population. Most people whom have at some point gone through non-conformism or continue to be non-conforming are Gender Concordant and heterosexual. There is no reason to assume someone is gay just because they act a certain way, talk a certain way or have certain interests. 

Gaydar is a false pattern which does not help when dealing with people as individuals and not collectives. You should never collectivize all people with certain traits together into one mind. Individualism is the answer and to think first about if someone is a good person and treat them by their character. Do not prejudge about people before getting to know them. Gaydar is collectivism and it should be shoved off as the Pseudio-science it is for it is quackery at its finest. 

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

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/07/25/2d4d-ratio-masculinity/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/news/la-heb-gender-identity-kids-20120223

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

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289524/

http://www.adhdld.com/pdfs/Grimbos_et_al2010.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-005-3122-x

http://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2969161_code835085.pdf?abstractid=2965179&mirid=1

In honor of this being Pride Month my views on Pride continues...

This is Pride month in many places and also Pride week here in Charlottetown. I did a recent article mentioning my views on the organized Pride movement which included the parades. However, this might have made one think that I think someone having personal pride is a bad thing. However, that would be wrong. What I have issues with is the idea of a collectivized pride based on nothing more than some single character trait. Especially given the narrative of Pride that your orientation being some innate thing. Which means you did nothing to earn being proud if it is simply based on an innate characteristics. 

I think individual people whom are gay, bisexual can have personal pride, but, that is not based only on ones sexual orientation, but, the content of ones character. Which means that whether or not you should be proud remains largely on your character as a person. So, just being gay, bisexual or whatever is not an accomplishment in itself. The issue with the collectivized Pride movement is that it assumes Gay equals good and worthy of pride over being based on ones character,. In fact, the toxic world of Pride and LGBTQ+  which exists shows the sort of character of the organized Pride. 

I do know gays and bisexuals that like me swear off the Pride movement and the LGBTQ+ nonsense altogether. I am not the only person that has issues with the concept of Pride as it exists at this time. Myself, I do not plan on doing anything for nor with Pride this year. Even though I support the individual rights of people I still want nothing to do with it. In fact, as I mentioned previously I have not had anything to do with Pride in quite sometime. However, I do think that there is a glaring hypocrisy with the whole Pride month and week. The whole movement or idea in general really. 

The hypocrisy I mean is that gays and bisexuals seem to be able to have Pride, but, heterosexuals and/or mostly heterosexuals or bisexuals that just prefer the opposite to the same are left out in the cold. There is s serious blindness to the fact if there can be Gay pride then heterosexuals and hetero-leaning people can have their own personal Hetero or Straight pride. I do have personal pride because I am a good man. I am a heterosexual male with pride in being a good man whom is into women. I have Straight Pride, but, based on being a good man that is straight and not because I am straight period. I refuse to cower and be small in the world because I ended up a 30 year old heterosexual male. 

Since Pride should be based on individual character and being a good person all heterosexuals that have good character should be able to be proud to be such a good person. Straight Pride does not mean hating on gay or bisexual people. It is properly speaking something all Straight people of good character can and should have in themselves. In the same vein gays and bisexuals that have good character and are accomplishing something in life to be proud of can have their own sense of personal pride. However, that pride does not equally get to denounce others orientations and act like fascist or Maoist extremists. Getting to trash the broader world using terms like heteronormative and pushing bullshit. 

The world is mostly heterosexual in nature or at least bisexual in nature. It is a mammalian norm due to it being how our species survives and reproduces. Penis is crafted by Mother Nature to go into vagina that is the natural norm. Males getting hard over females and females getting lubricated over males. Heterosexuality is not the normal due to "hatred of gays." It has the norm due to the Tyranny called nature and how our species evolved to keep living. This does not mean homosexuals or homosexual activity is bad or immoral or anything. It does not justify actual bigotry or religious hatred of homosexuals. It just means that it is not the overall norm for our species. Most homosexual activity exists in most species in a bisexual manor. As it does as well in ours, but, that does not mean exclusive homosexuals need to change or need "cured." 

However, that also means that by denouncing "heteronormativity" Pride groups are in fact denouncing the vary process by which our species keeps living. As well as the process by which they themselves came into existence. To denounce that there should be pride in heterosexuals for being good men and women is antithetical to the existence of pride on a personal level at all. It makes Pride a worship of a collective group and a hive mind that does not exist. I support us heterosexuals, us straight people having personal pride and an abundance of it and self-love for being good people. Good people should be proud and evil/vile people should not have pride. Positive should be proud and negative people have nothing to be proud of one could also say. 

Pride is an achievement of being a good person and not something that falls out of the sky like rain drops. Pride is a virtue and so is self-esteem, but, pride does not just jump into your lap. Much like respect actual pride is earned by matter of your virtue as a person and your accomplishments of character. It is not just something you have out of nowhere. Most LGBTQ+ people whom support Pride and attend Pride events have not really thought of what pride means epistemologically. Just being born is not enough to have Pride and this is why I do not support "Pride" organizations. You earn pride, you earn respect it is not benevolence. There is a difference between having a benevolent outlook at others and respecting them.