Carrol writes:
> The same thing that made jewishness being biological so threatening in
the Germany of the 1930s. The dogma that queerness is biological is
setting you and other gays up for internment in death camps.
What sets up danger for queers is homophobia.
> You do know (you should know better than I do) that many gay activists
are even harder on this than Miles is.
There are many anti-progressive queers who along with reparative therapists support the idea that being queer is a choice. I have been queer since 6 (Terrance since he was 5). It was no choice. I have always been attracted to boys.
Kelley writes:
>Miles criticized the metholodogy of the study. That's not homophobia.
But how can Miles criticize something that I did not post and has yet to be published? There was no methodology in what I posted and the article has not been published in a journal yet. So I ask: what prompted Miles' hostility (which if you look at the archives he expresses when I post about almost anything: Buddhism, no-self, democracy). Is it simply that I am just always wrong?
> He criticized the study's methodology and the reasoning used to make
conclusions based on evidence.
Again, where did I post any methodology?
> Miles' comments were about faulty logic -- correlation is not causation.
It's a concept you learn in introductory statistics class.
Sorry, they didn't offer statistics where I went to school. My college was the piers at the base of Christopher Street; my graduate school the meatpacking district (before it was transformed into a middle-class playground).
> That they don't seem to have asked them is a big problem.
How do you know they didn't ask them? Aren't you taught in all those years of college that you should find out what the methodology is before you attack it?
Christian writes:
> The point is that there are probably unobserved characteristics of moms
> who
take these kinds of drugs (as opposed to those who don't) that might have as
much to say about the sexuality of children as the drugs themselves.
"Probably unobserved?" So you posit the existence of something which may or may not exist in order to discredit fact. That's scholarship?
Miles writes:
> I "can't argue the data"? My point is that the data here are ambiguous,
> and
I'm pointing out the fallacious logic of anyone who treats these ambiguous
correlational data as clear evidence of cause and effect.
How is it ambiguous? Women who took thyroid medicine had more lesbians than those women who did not take that medicine. Seems pretty clear to me, but then I am just an unschooled queer street kid.
> The question of whether or not sexual orientation is influenced by biology
> is
completely irrelevant to the question of equal rights for queers.
No it is not. If being queer is among the natural possibilities of being human, then there is no basis for queer discrimination. If you do support discrimination against queers, then you could also support discrimination on the basis of eye color, hair color, or handedness.
> I know that you may not believe this, but I'm one of your political
> allies.
I do believe that. But you do seem to have huge problems with the ideas I post: Buddhism, no-self, the negative effects of increasing choice, democracy.
Michael writes:
> Brian also thought "The Incredibles" was pro-gay. He just has templates
> on
this topic.
What do you mean that I have templates on this issue?
Did you ever think that maybe the problem is with you and not me? Plenty of people I know (both queer and non-queer) recognized the queer text of The Incredibles. Maybe you never developed the capacity to recognize queer content. Isn't that a possibility or is it definitely a case of my seeing something that isn't there?
Maria writes:
> "The Incredibles" is pro-gay? Gee, I really missed *that* subtext. <G>
Does that mean it isn't there? Are you capable of seeing all subtexts? Isn't this the type of thinking Miles criticizes: Maria and Michael do not see queer text so, therefore, it isn't there. Isn't that correlational thinking? Couldn't one of Miles' confounds be that Maria and Michael lack queer sophistication?
> That said, it's my observation that Brian has such a siege mentality about
> his sexuality/alternate sexualities in general . . .
Well, considering the attacks against queers is it surprising? Is life so wonderful for queers and I am missing something? Can I marry my husband? Get him health insurance? Deduct the thousands I spent this year on doctor's bills on my taxes? Did the revolution happen and I miss it?
I will admit that if you are a middle-class queer you are much better off than working class queers like Terrance and I. Hence you will join the retrenchment gang at HRC and start placating non-queers immediately. It is like most gay white men: they are not interested in equality. They just want the stigma of being gay removed so that they can go ahead and enjoy the benefits of being white and male without intereference.
> For my credibility,
I am not a university. I am not worried about degrees or number of publications. You are a human being, credibility enough.
> . . . I can only assert many relationships and acquaintences over the
> years with people who are anything but vanilla sexually...and not one of
> them acted or acts like Brian when you disagree with them.
Just as there are house n-words, there are house faggots (Andrew Sullivan anyone? Log Cabin Republicans? HRC?). Many queers (too many in my opinion) play the go-along-to-get-along game. I don't. Stonewall happened because queers got fed up and acted.
Pace Miles: have you investigated whether these people were of a similar class background that might have caused them to act this way no matter whether they were queer or not? Were they seeking some kind of social, academic, professional advancement that caused them to act in a more compliant, agreeable manner? (This confounds stuff is fun).
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister