[–] GCRadFem 21 points (+21|-0)

Made, Not Born

Homosexuality is a developmental condition, not principally about sex, but about gender identity. In short, homosexuals are made, not born.

Here is the key factor: A person is always attracted to the biological sex that is the opposite of his or her psychological gender identity. A male gender-identified person (either male or female) will be attracted to a female body. Likewise, a female gender-identified person (either female of male) will be attracted to a male body. Opposites always attract.

We are back to the dark ages for homosexuality. I read half of this article and could not read any more.

My life would have been so much easier if it were only a choice to be lesbian.

[–] ifelifelse 9 points (+9|-0)

A person is always attracted to the biological sex that is the opposite of his or her psychological gender identity.

This doesn’t even make sense to me. If that were true, according to their stupid theory wouldn’t straight men (male gender identity) be attracted to gay men (female gender identity)? Since opposite gender identities attract?

[–] GCRadFem 5 points (+5|-0)

The first rule of gender identity is that there is no gender identity.

Unfortunately, as shitty and gross as this is, the logic is actually more sound than anything from trans activism because they center everything around attraction to tangible biological sex and not gender identity. By their explanation, a straight man has a male gender identity and would therefore be attracted to the biological sex opposite to that identity which is female; therefore gay men being male, do not fall in that category.

Obviously the concept of gender identity from conservative Christians and TRAs are unsurprisingly very similar and rooted in sex stereotypes that bleed out into homophobia. For both of them, failing to be opposite sex attracted means you have failed in your expected gender identity and need to be "fixed" either through traditional conversion therapy or transition. It is sexual inversion theory played out with a right or left spin depending on the group.

[–] ifelifelse 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

I'm still not sure I get it.....My brain hurts. So the conservatives replace same-sex attraction with gender identity, while TRAs replace biological sex with gender identity?

That's why, in the conservative view, a gay male (with a conservatively imposed "female gender identity" but biologically male) is attracted to biological males, but a straight male (with a "male gender identity") won't be attracted to gay males (since they--the gay males--are biologically male despite their "female gender identity")?

But in TRA land it's "transphobic" for a "cis" lesbian (biologically female and not trans, so presumably comfortable with a "female gender identity") to turn down a TIM (biologically male but with a "female gender identity")? Meanwhile, it's okay for a "same-sex attracted" TIM (read: straight man) to turn down another straight man because presumably the straight man has a "male gender identity". Edit: WAIT it’s the same thing because straight TIMs (so, “transbians”) are attracted to women (biologically female) but not each other (biologically male) because of “dysphoria”. They’re doing the conservative thing with extra steps / faux progressivism (pretending to be open about same-sex attraction but not really)?

[–] Stealthygal 0 points (+0|-0)

And gay men would spend their lives moping over straight men. All of them.

It comes down to giver/taker male/female and it's so inaccurate and wrong.

[–] [Deleted] 9 points (+9|-0) Edited

In fairness these evangelicals have always been saying this. It’s more that the TRAs have adopted evangelical talking points than the other way around imo. I know these materials do unfortunately have real world influence but I can’t help but laugh. Where are your sources broo. Name a source, any source?? It’s so brazen. Absolutely no sources for any of these claims yet writes as if scientific consensus has shown that we’re all ‘inverts’ (that’s an actual term they used to use to try and sell this bizarre view of homosexuality way back in the 19th century). Maybe God decided to regurgitate debunked 19th C psychosexual analysis and whisper it into Alan Shlemon’s ear one night and that is why he feels so confident that he can get away with shitting out this unsourced pseudoscientific article?

[–] Stealthygal 3 points (+3|-0)

is always attracted to the biological sex that is the opposite of his or her psychological gender identity.

Well that sounds like it was written in 1898.

That's because it is straight from Sexual Inversion theory out of the late 19th and early 20th century that claims homosexuals are just heterosexuals born in the wrong body.

[–] Stealthygal 1 points (+1|-0)

I've been struck by the parallels between this way of tbinking and the current ways of looking at gender.

[–] Hollyhock 21 points (+22|-1) Edited

Good. Keep it up conservatives, we American feminists have been arguing forever that gender ideology is a patriarchal, regressive belief structure that puts women into narrowly defined boxes. You conservatives LOVE that shit. Go on, take it.

[–] visits_radio [OP] 12 points (+12|-0)

I prefer that they drop the conversion rhetoric entirely. I don't think we should root them on in order to make transactivists look bad.

[–] Hollyhock 17 points (+17|-0)

I was mainly being facetious, but agree. Conversion therapy has harmed so many LGB people, mainly teens.

[–] destroyyourbinder 14 points (+14|-0) Edited

These kind of talking points are actually fairly old, probably at least 15 years or so-- they have a name which I can't remember off the top of my head for the newest wave of conversion/reparative therapy so gay people aren't scared off by it, and so people don't immediately find the criticisms of it. The ex-ex-gay movement of the late 90s and early 2000s, which got a lot of public media attention and led to the first conversion therapy bans, exposed a lot of their bullshit techniques and lies. The extant organizations had to quickly regroup and adjust their claims to basically the kind of shit that TRAs do, which is trying to get wiggle room in gay people's heads-- trying to make this about failure of gender or masculinity/femininity, ask gay people why they're so "afraid" of the opposite sex, redefine sexuality to make gay people feel like they must be denying the fullness of their sexuality, break gay people's personal identities, etc.

The key difference between the two (despite that they use very similar techniques) is that trans stuff works by appealing to gay people's tendency to identify with cross-sex or gender nonconforming behaviors and the Christian strategy works by claiming that those tendencies are caused by trauma, pathology, etc. and changing homosexuality requires changing gendered patterns of behavior. Both TRAs and Christian homophobes believe that homosexuality comes from a kind of gender identity and can only be healed through "correct" adoption of gender beliefs, roles, etc.

[–] Mikkal 6 points (+6|-0)

This isn't the correct background on how homosexuality was recognized as an orientation and not a paraphilia.

In order for something to be classified as a mental illness, it has to cause problem functioning - such as participating in education, work, or personal relationships.

Homosexuality became an "orientation" after it was proved it didn't meet the criteria for a mental illness.

Evelyn Hooker connected with 30 gay men living in the closet. She found 30 heterosexuals to match with them. All 60 were evaluated for mental illness by trained clinicians, and they found no difference. They weren't dysfunctional. If you search her name you can find write ups about it. Homosexuals can have normal relationships.

Well - what about other paraphilias? To be diagnosed as a paraphilia, they have to cause significant distress and disrupt people's relationships. If you're "kink" is ruining your ability to have healthy relationships, it's crossing the line from kink to a paraphilia.

That's why disorders like Autogynephilia are mental health conditions and not "sexual orientations". That's why Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness.

This is why LGB awareness was actually effective.

People start coming out, and suddenly you discover you know a lot of extremely normal, functional gay people.

That's not been happening with TQ. And it's been dragging all of LGB with it.

[–] InfiniteGames 2 points (+3|-1) Edited


IMO, all attractions are sexual at the very heart of it, but we apply all kinds of filters and limits to what attractions we will act on, sexually.

"Born this way" arguments are easier to make than when You are in a country where so many people claim to believe in God

[–] worried19 1 points (+1|-0)

The article's from 2013, so maybe this type of thinking is on the way out.

It's just illogical all the way around. It's basically saying gay men have the "gender identity" of women and lesbians have the "gender identity" of men. Which is complete nonsense. It also fails to account for GNC straight people.