The Psychology Behind LGBT

I'll be frank.

If you do not understand the psychological underpinnings behind the definitions of sexuality and gender, then you have no business talking about homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, or anything of the like. You have come into the conversation with a fundamental lack of understanding. Let's resolve that.

From the American Psychological Association's definition of terms*:

Sex refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex
(i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female). There are a
number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal
reproductive organs, and external genitalia.

Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a
person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as
gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations
constitute gender non-conformity.

Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American
Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not
congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf.
Gainor, 2000).

Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted.
Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex
(gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to
members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research
has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and
instead occurs on a continuum (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993;
Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shiveley & DeCecco, 1977) In addition, some research indicates
that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g.,
Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000). ​

So, let's go from there and try to clear up some misconceptions.


When a person is referred to as homosexual, what is being addressed is their Sexual Orientation. That is, it comes down to more than just "who you have sex with" – it has to do with who one is sexually attracted to (which is not a choice). Someone could go gay-for-pay, and unless he was attracted to his partner, he would be no more homosexual than any of the other straight porn actors who go into gay porn because they need the work. Sexual Orientation is not equivalent to how you have sex! While sexuality can be fluid, swing in both directions, and there are always exceptions, one generally cannot change it. Attempts to do so have, historically, had absolutely miserable results. Sexuality is, with few exceptions, an immutable quality, akin to one's skin color.

When a person is referred to as transgendered, what is being addressed is their Gender Identity. That is, the key component is not "What is my biological sex" but rather "What does my brain feel about the body it's in". A transgendered person has incongruencies between their gender and their gender identity, further known as Gender Identity Disorder. Gender Identity is an immutable quality of a person, much like skin color, and while Gender is similarly immutable, one can resolve a Gender Identity Disorder by surgically altering one's gender and sex. This is the only known cure for GID, as no psychological methods are known to change one's Gender Identity. Gender is also technically immutable, but can be changed through surgery and hormone therapy to a point where GID is resolved.


Regarding the sexuality of Pedophiles, I could not find the direct source from the APA, but I did find this, from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Essentially, sexuality in the traditional sense plays less of a role among pedophiles; pedophilia is most often classified as its own sexuality. I'm unsure of the validity of this; if anyone can clarify, I'd appreciate it.


Hopefully that cleared up a few things, and helped put some myths to rest...

...Aw, who am I kidding.



*If you reject the APA as biased, I welcome you to offer what you think of as a more "reliable" source than one of the largest psychological institutions in the world.

 

This:

I agree, but good luck convincing the usual suspects (I could identify one particular individual in this forum who uses this as their stock argument all the time, but that would be trolling. He knows who he is, and he knows I'm talking about him. So let me end my message to that person with a big fat )

With regard to pedophilia (and hebophilia and ephebophilia), it may be simpler to understand these as substituting an orientation toward certain qualities of maturation (or the lack thereof) in the place of an orientation primarily toward other adults or age peers of the same sex. That said, it's true that some pedophiles manifest this attraction through behavior (molestation) that targets one sex more than the other, but the driver for that differentiation is not likely the same as for typical sexual orientation. It may have more to do with opportunity and access to children of one sex, as contrasted with a sexual orientation comprised of attraction toward characteristics associated with one sex or the other. In this, it may have more in common with something like a prison setting where access and opportunity are limited to one's own sex. If we looked at behavior only, we would assume that an incarcerated person's same-sex oriented behavior has the same drivers as the same-sex oriented behavior of a person who has access to a broader range of partners.

Note the 'gotcha' above. We can indeed talk about behavior being same-sex oriented, but that's not the same thing as one's feelings of attraction being same-sex oriented. Behavior can be chosen; feelings of same-sex or opposite-sex attraction are not.

So the debate almost without fail breaks along the same lines: Those who insist on classifying homosexuality strictly in terms of behavior, versus those who differentiate between behavioral orientation and the orientation of attraction. It is clear to me that those in the former camp have no desire to acknowledge attraction as a driver of behavior or the disconnect between attraction and behavior - because it doesn't fit their attempt to malign people experiencing same-sex attraction. It especially doesn't fit their attempts to paint gay people as homosexual pedophiles and child molesters.

Thus:

...is indeed fitting. No amount of explaining the differences between sex, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, maturation-based orientation, and the connection to/disconnection from behavior is going to make a dent with people who purposely don't wish to get it.

 

Yes. That's kind of why I made this thread. Talking to unnamed poster X is like talking to a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing brick wall. -.-

Got a citation for this? It makes sense, but still - good practices and whatnot.

So those who are wrong and those who may very well be right?

 

No, outside of actually starting a thread, I generally don't waste my time looking up supporting sources for the simple reason that opponents tend to completely ignore or dismiss them anyway. I figure people will either find the argument itself persuasive, or not. I would rather spend my time debating the points raised in the argument than pointlessly arguing over whether a source is unbiased, persuasive, etc.

If people want, they can have a look at what the DMV says:

http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/content.aspx?bookid=22&sectionid=1891601#10252

The trouble with that is that the DMV is coming at this from the viewpoint of helping people who find their orientation to be a problem. It does little to address the question of how orientations differ from each other, or the circumstances in which behavioral orientation and the orientation of attraction work in concert or opposition.

So people can either choose to accept my arguments as representing 'truth', or reject them as flawed. I only care about whether or not they can support that decision with a persuasive argument. I have little interest in people propping up their opinions with biased sources that confirm their personal biases.

 

brick wall here and you know what they say about opinions don't you. Psychologists are full of opinions and you can get different opinions from different psychologists.

So, feel free to cherry pick what you may as long as it serves your agenda and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The moment I take a delivery or do a reach around is when I am gay/homosexual

But who gives a flying leap. I am viewed as "the enemy" within this subforum and I find that to be quite amusing.

What bothers the folks here is that i do not view you as being any different from me other than how you have sex. I could care less what you do in your bedroom (as long as the other is of adult age and consents)

If I need a new salesman and you had the credentials and came highly recommended then I would do everything possible to try to get you to work for me. I could care what you do at home. I just want you to sell.

If you are a dentist, I just want you to fix my tooth. Again, I could care if you have 6 girlfriends or 6 boyfriends. As long as you can do the job that is all that concerns me

For some reason, which goes beyond all rational reason, that is not enough.

johnnyc: you know what to do

 

Excellent post!
But I agree. . .those who don't want to hear the truth and want to continue to reside in their bubble of "righteous outrage" will probably not even read these factual and very clear descriptions.

Oh well. . . .thanks for trying!

 

well, at least you know how I feel when trying to communicate with those of you in this section. You are so heck bent on following your agenda and talking points that reality is lost on you.

 

If you actually believed that, you would request deletion of this thread and refrain from further posting on the subject.

 

I've always considered sexuality to be too complicated for us to understand fully at this time. Though I've generally never put much care into what other people do as consenting adults or what people are into sexually.

 

You aren't making any sense here.

 

Psychology is not purely opinion, any more than economics or sociology is. Yes, it's not a hard science, but you can still get a fairly solid view of reality by looking at what the top scientists in the field think. The APA is an organization comprised, essentially, of the best scientists. I noticed how you simply discredited my source. Notice how my post had something to say about that...
"If you reject the APA as biased, I welcome you to offer what you think of as a more "reliable" source than one of the largest psychological institutions in the world."

So... What makes you think what you think? Is it some alternative psychological research? Do you have some legitimate source for your observations, or are you just talking out of your ass? I have a slinking suspicion that it's the latter. You see, psychology is still a scientific discipline. They still conduct experiments and do research. And in the past, people used to think exactly like you: homosexuality is just who you have sex with. And then we researched the issue, and came to the conclusion that that's actually a load of hogwash.

Why don't you offer anything, aaaannnyyyythiiiinnng to show me that I'm wrong? I mean, if quoting the exact statement of the largest psychological organization in the world is "Cherry-picking", then call me guilty! But you have offered exactly nothing. You have stated your personal opinion, and that doesn't mean anything to me; partially because I personally know that it's wrong, given my sexual experimentation, and partially because virtually every psychological institution in the western world will disagree with you. So again I ask, what makes you think what you think? Why do you think that sexuality is defined not by attraction, but by action?

What makes you think this? I find that far more intriguing than anything else right now, to be honest. Is it just your intuition?

You'd be vied as the enemy within any subforum whose inhabitants hold truth, decent debating skills, or half a brain at a premium. I try my best to fight ignorance (in particular about LBGT, because that ignorance can be extremely dangerous; Uganda just passed a "Kill the gays" bill), and you are offensively ignorant, and seemingly willingly so! Have you looked at your posting style recently? Most recently I completely destroyed your argument that homosexuals were the ones bringing sexuality into the boy scouts, and you responded by completely strawmanning my post, saying, "I see the hidden message here". There was no hidden message. It was really straightforward, and directly explained in the post, but you refused to address my post and instead pretended I said something entirely different. That's the debate tactic of either a troll, a coward, an idiot, or some combination of the three.

And that's just not accurate. Seeing gays as equals is good. Seeing us as equivalent is false. There are real psychological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, much in the same way that there are real physiological differences between blacks and whites. In the former, it's the difference of who one is romantically and sexually attracted to; in the latter, it's the difference of what one's skin pigmentation is. These differences don't matter for everyday society, but (especially given the utterly dishonest arguments you posited in your last thread) are still important to understand. Because if you think people identify as homosexual males for the sole reason that they sleep with other men, then you'll make false assumptions about what that means about these people.

It's about accuracy. The fact is that you are wrong. Dead wrong.

Our "agenda"? You know what? Let's assume you're right. Let's assume that the only reason a whole bunch of us here make arguments like this is because of our innate "agenda". Never mind that a good number of us aren't gay or lesbian or bi or trans. But even if the only reason we argue this is our agenda... Guess what: it's still our cites of major psychological and psychiatric associations against your cites of... no cites at all, just your own intuition, which flies in the face not only of all research on the subject, but also what any gay or lesbian person will tell you is the case.

You want to know the truth? Just ask. Any homosexual will be happy to tell you, so long as you seem like you're actually interested in knowing the answer. I'll tell you that I don't identify as bisexual simply because I've had sex with men; but rather because I feel a sexual attraction towards both men and women. Almost every other lesbian/homosexual/bisexual will tell you something analogous. Sexuality is not just who you sleep with.

Oh, please, by all means, tell me why I'm wrong. I'm here to fight ignorance, not propagate it, and part of that is admitting where one is wrong. I invite anyone to try and show me where I'm wrong. Not just fling (*)(*)(*)(*), mind you.

 

being gay and race are 2 completely different topics and unrelated. Inf act, it's insulting to try to draw similarity between race and being gay.

How many gay white men were refused service at a lunch counter?

Why can't you get through your skull that most people could give a rats behind who or how you diddle. You don't care how I do it any more than I care how you do it.

But, for some strange reason you want to elevate your sex into more than what it is. Why is that?

Why can't you be happy being like the rest of us schlubs, you know, the 96.8%

 

good grief, it means to dislike my post

 

It's amusing that you think being homosexual is defined by actions alone... but you show a very clear inability to even so much as consider things any other way.

But anywho, let's take interracial relationships as an example - action based. This is a choice. A choice protected by law and by a Supreme Court decision. Why shouldn't same-sex couples receive such protections?

 

Yes, and that's not what this discussion is about.

 

You have some psychologists say what you want to hear and you focus on that as proof, and dismiss the others as ignorant.

Same goes with global warming.... if you agree everything is fine....but if a scientist dares goes against the agenda that gets more money in their camps....you are met with fierce opposition, hatemongering, name calling......

Wow....sounds just like what the gay community does when they start calling everyone who disagrees "homophobes and ignorant"


So i'll disagree witht the original post unless someone calls me a bigot. And since i dont want to be libeled, i'll just keep my opinion to myself.....

Nice bully tactic.

 

With this logic you could dismiss anything as being a conspiracy by the scientific community. Sadly for your argument that's not how the scientific community works, though when all of the major scientific groups who are actually experts in the field come to an overwhelming consensus this usually says that there might be something to it and that you should probably look at the evidence now this can apply to sexuality, climate change (which was a massive scientific area before it became political), evolution etc.

 

You try to come off like someone who believes in science, when in fact you are merely a believer in the pronouncements of authority figures, who in this case have a vested interest in the maintenance of a pool of subjects who are mentally ill, and whose existence is therefore increasingly justified by an increase in mental illnesses which in turn are increasingly complex and bizarre, which gives them more reason to produce endless reams of pseudo-scientific rubbish.

You're welcome.

 

No. The psychological organization which makes the DSM and virtually every other respectable psychological and psychiatric association say something, so I take their word, rather than the word of those who offer nothing. This is a repeating pattern; you, sec, and yguy have all done exactly the same thing: you've dismissed the APA as "just some psychologists" (which is kind of like calling the American Medical Association "just some doctors" or Steven Hawking "just some dude in a wheelchair") with no reasoning or citations of your own.

They are not met with hatemongering. The fact is, there are virtually no legitimate scientists going against the "agenda", because science isn't about agendas. It's about facts. And the facts do not support the alternative hypothesis. Most scientists who oppose the current climatological models get torn to shreds in peer review - not due to agendas, not due to bias, but because they were doing crap science. Because their papers show, for the most part, glaring flaws, or have been proven wrong by new data.
And in this case, if you disagree, you are going against the scientific consensus of all the relevant fields, one that was s.

Wow....sounds just like what the gay community does when they start calling everyone who disagrees "homophobes and ignorant"

Where did I call you a bigot? Please, be explicit.

Citation needed. I cited the APA, a major psychological organization. When talking about scientific issues, where those involved in the discussion are not demonstrably PhD scientists, the correct way to do it is to defer judgment to those who know what they're talking about. Ideally, peer-reviewed literature, but I am having trouble finding the original papers, because finding peer-reviewed papers from decades ago on the internet is just not doable. So instead, I cite what may be the most respectable psychological organization out there. You know, the guys you'd ask about this. Then there are places like the AMA, the APA (psychiatric)... You want to debate here? Fine. What's your source? What makes you think these guys are wrong? I mean, given your own statements, you'd think they'd have every motive to consider homosexuality a mental illness, right?

Wait, hang on.

I just read your post again.

Are you saying that the entire discipline of Psychology is a total sham?!

 

Scientists with death threats..... yeah...glabal warming agenda is all about science.... just like when they threw galeeo in prison for saying the wprld was round

 

Funny. I google "Climate scientist death threat". I don't get anything about those of the dissenting view getting death threats. I do, however, stumble upon article after article about those on the other side threatening violence. And as Robert Park said, "It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right."

 

Misrepresenting homosexuality(or anything for that matter) in the way they do is on purpose. It's an internal debate tactic used to eliminate the possibility that things are not controllable. If homosexuality is innate, then it's much harder to demonize and attack, especially for those who try to come at it from the religious angle. For them, it HAS to be a choice, because there's simply no other way to maintain the status-quo of their worldview if it isn't. It's denial pure and simple.

Good thread though. I think it's important to educate those who repeat nonsense, whether on accident or purposefully, even if they don't want to be educated. Can't hurt to try because you never know, you might reach one person, and if you do that, it's a good thing.

There will always be those who seek to shape reality to fit their own prejudices. It's not about reason or logic, because most times, these people are making a conscious decision to ignore both of those things.

 

The problem being...?

Oh, but I have. You , OTOH, have given no reasoning in support of your assertion that this organization is particularly credible.

What for?

To be sure. What we're lacking, of course, is some reason to believe APA members know what they're talking about.

How many peers review a paper? A dozen, maybe? And whatever the number is, why would their stamp of approval impress anyone but disgracefully credulous culls?

I would remind you that in Nazi Germany, no one was more "respectable" than Hitler.

Speak for yourself, if you don't mind.

Common sense.

See above.

No, because much more confusion is created by casting insanity as sanity and vice versa, and confusion is the lifeblood of the career therapist.

Pretty much, yeah. Not that there aren't exceptions here and there, but for the most part they're parasites who treat symptoms so as to keep the cause alive.

 

Not one person I know, who are for the most part Christians, go after gay people in any way shape or form so your quick waving of the hand as if it's fact it contemptable.

Why do gays see evil when none exists


Why is it that I can go through life being a man but for some reason, if I engaged in sex differently then all of a sudden I need to go through life as a gay man.

By having sex differently do I all of a sudden put my pants on different or drive my vehicle more erratically? It's as if you need to create villains and issues when none exist. You have sex differently than 96.8% of the population........so what. Why aren't you happy being like the rest of us? That is the underlying issue

 

Why do you behave as if there is absolutely no discrimination against LGBT people when we have one poster here who even openly admitted to discriminating against people he 'thinks' are gay in the workplace? These people don't even have to mention their sex life or how they have sex or if they're having sex at all for him to think that they're gay. He discriminates on them based solely on how they talk or behave or how they sound, whether they might have more effeminate gestures for a man or more butch gestures for a woman. It's social cues he's picking up on to make this determination to discriminate. It doesn't even matter to him if that person is IN a relationship or are sexually active, it's because they don't follow social gender norms and he just assumes they must be gay and gay = bad in his mind.

Discrimination against LGBT people is the true underlying issue, one that you wish to completely ignore. It's not just about how they have sex, in fact most of the time that's not it at all and this has been pointed out to you more than once. What it's mainly about is people within the LGBT community going against society's expectations of them regarding social gender norms, or the gender binary. Because they behave differently than what is expected of them based on their gender they are often discriminated against for that reason alone, not because of who they want to 'diddle' as you continue to put it.

You're the one who is stuck on the sexual aspect of the issue, the rest of us can actually see past that and see the real issues. Why can't you stop thinking about sex?