Rob Ford and Pride

[MileHigh]

that's an example. Not really referring to any specific event.

okay... some may be offended at the wording though. And I'd argue that there are no events in Toronto specifically for "black people".

 

[canmark]

okay... some may be offended at the wording though. And I'd argue that there are no events in Toronto specifically for "black people".

Didn't there used to be a "Black Pride" event in Toronto for Black LGBT people?

Many American cities have Black Pride events that are separate from the main LGBT Pride event(s), and held on a different date.

http://www.ifbprides.org/

----------

Edit to add: I was pretty sure there was an event(s) in the past. A Google search turned up this, Toronto Splash 09 "THE BLACK PRIDE OF TORONTO - CARIBANA WEEKEND."

 

[MileHigh]

^^^
Toronto doesn't have any major "black people" events. If you're referring to events that are more grassroots and considerably smaller then there are a few (e.g. Natural Hair Expo). Maybe then it would be feasible to call it a "black people event", but I doubt the promoters be happy with that term.

To my knowledge Toronto doesn't have a Black specific Pride event as referenced in your link.

 

[RC8]

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm trying to understand your point of view. I confess I'm not sure I do...

From the above two points I get the feeling that you are saying that homosexuality is solely environmental (in-utero and social), whereas heterosexuality is genetic.

Based on this I still come back to a fundamental analytical flaw in your position:

The very exercise of trying to understand what 'causes homosexuality' is in and of itself heterosexist (and thereby subjective) because it takes for axiomatic the assumption that we do understand what causes heterosexuality (which we don't, even if we understand what causes reproductive acts). This assumption implicitly normalizes hetersexuality and marginalizes that which isn't, in that it links the biological imperative of reproduction to the social construct of the male-female pair bond.

I must cry foul here! On the one hand you claim to be citing 'verifiable' and 'empirical' facts yet criticize me for 'nit-picking' when I question the verifiability and empiricism of the conclusions you draw from ancient Greece... and this debate reaches stalemate unless you can actually cite a scientific and 'peer-reviewed' reference that claims to have discovered what causes homosexuality... heck, go ahead and cite one that claims to have discovered what causes heterosexuality for that matter. To my knowledge there are still only theories out there, a gene that determines 'sexuality' has yet to be identified.

The problem here is that you stick to very inadequate terminology, which betrays you in the end:

As we know, the word 'normal' has two meanings in common usage (normal as natural or normal as most commonly occuring), and I can't help but feel you are being coy in playing around with these double entendres because you know very well what an albino means when they say 'their skin in normal', or by extension what a homosexual means when they say their sexuality is normal. To deliberately skew these things is disingenuous.

Also, you indicate that a 'particular' case for bisexuality could be made but isn't this really just to admit that the reality of human sexuality doesn't fit tidily into the accepted, socially constructed view of sexuality as a binary opposite of heterosexual-homosexual?... and really, isn't this just 'Kinsey' stuff that you are referring to??

Agreed. To be fair though, if gay people are touchy about this it is largely because the vast majority of society seeks to normalize heterosexuality (conferring genetics to it) and marginalize that which isn't. At the end of the day the jury may be out on whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but it's still also out when it comes to heterosexuality and it is this hypocrisy that is so frustrating.

Yes and no. Again, if we get rid of the archaic terminology (gay/straight, hetero/homo) we may understand that sexuality lays on a spectrum (Kinsey) where at the polar ends some people may legitimately self-identify as 100% exclusively homo or exclusively hetero, no matter what the circumstances.

Kinsey, like Freud, made many valuable observations, but wasn't sure what he was describing at all. Kinsey said 10% of people were gay, but if he had performed his studies in New Guinean tribes he would have come up with a different percentage in each tribe - meaning that this spectrum he describes is subject to environmental variations and isn't some sort of hard-wired genetic pattern. To say that there will always be solely heterosexual and solely homosexual individuals is not incorrect, but to then assume that the current patterns of sexuality we see in Ontario (for arguments' sake) are therefore a reflection of some unchangeable pattern is wrong on every level. Biology tells us that as much as 95% of the population may comfortably engage in bisexual behaviour under different social standards (which is nothing like what kinsey described).

I suspect your understanding of genetics and perhaps biology in general may not go beyond what you are taught in high school (nothing wrong with that). But you don't actually need to find a gene to determine that something is down to genetics. For decades biologists worked with genes without being able to see any. We know for a fact that there is a huge genetic component to heterosexuality (not necessarily to exclusive heterosexuality, but to heterosexuality regardless of alternative behaviours). 95%+ of men (even many who consider themselves gay) respond with increased sexual drive to a number of stimuli produced by women. 95%+ (being very conservative) of sexually reproducing animals know what to do, how to do it, and to whom in order to reproduce - and they do so for joy and through impulse. There is no need to identify any gene that determines this, for there isn't one gene - there are thousands. The 'jury' is not 'out on that', and I would please encourage you to find a single source that says 'they' are. Exclusive heterosexuality in most of the population, just like exclusive homosexuality in most of the population, can only be explained through post-birth environmental factors. Neither genetics nor in-utero factors could explain this.

Twin studies on the other hand show that about 40% (much less in women) of gay people's genetically identical brothers are gay. And that the link is strongest between brothers who shared a placenta, and next to non-existant in brothers who did not. In other words, such studies demonstrate that there most likely is a genetic component (though the gene could actually be expressed in the mother and not the offspring - this is MASSIVE), but that there may be nothing in the brothers' genome that makes them shun women and prefer men. Rather, developmental processes while they were inside their mothers may have altered their brain development and affected their sexual behaviour permanently.

There is no hypocrisy in stating that heterosexual sex can be much more easily explained through basic genetic theory than both exclusive heterosexual behaviour and exclusive homosexual behaviour. Exclusive heterosexual behaviour does occur in many species, so there's a bit more material on that (which right wing fundamentalists unfortunately hang on to), but as far as apes and humans specifically are concerned, simple genetics doesn't seem to cut it at all for an explanation either.

I'll refrain from speaking about normality since you are very sensitive to that word for socio-cultural-historical reasons. I don't understand how you think I'm using it and frankly I don't care too much. It should be pretty clear that I'm not passing any subjective ethical judgement on any sexual preference.

You say it's heterosex-centric (or something) to focus on what causes homosexuality, but biologists have been trying to figure out what causes heterosexuality in all animal species for about a hundred years. Once again you are just being defensive (you really need not be with me). That you are not following it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and as you can imagine it's fairly controversial too as we understand that societal factors play a huge role in stopping most of the population from engaging occasionally in behaviours that'd be considered 'bisexual' by modern standards. The religious right, much like the defensive left (who are ultra happy with the '100% genetic always for everyone' train of thought), aren't very pleased with what serious biology has found so far. They also aren't very pleased with how everything points to humans not being a monogamous species (note how biologists once again focus on explaining monogamy as well as polygamy regardless of a social bias).

To a biologist, listening to some of the "homosexuals are always born gay due to genetic factors and you need not to worry because your kid will be exclusively straight regardless of any environmental factor" feel-good propaganda is very frustrating. It seems to imply that the only reason why homosexuality isn't evil is because it's not contagious, too, which I find ethically questionable!

I'd rather we started out by saying "having monogamous consensual sex with anyone else provided precautions are taken is never wrong regardless of the factors that led to it, but exclusive homosexuality is so rare in nature that in all likeliness your kid will probably go on to date members of the opposite sex regardless of whether he/she can find members of the same sex attractive or not". But in a civil society so immature that we have people claiming 10% of people are exclusively gay and 80% are exclusively straight due to some mythical unsupported genetic factors while the religious right claim whatever is convenient for them instead regardless of anything else... we have a long way to go.

 

[hawc]

If I was gay I wouldn't even want him there. One he would be a distraction, two it would be forced, and three he would not want to be there and it would show in his body language which is bad for spectators.

That's the thing I find so funny. The LGBT community hates him but at the same time is mad that he's not coming to their event. If I hated someone I wouldn't want them at my party. I get that it's his job, but they hate him! Too funny.

 

[Tewder]

That's the thing I find so funny. The LGBT community hates him but at the same time is mad that he's not coming to their event. If I hated someone I wouldn't want them at my party. I get that it's his job, but they hate him! Too funny.

It's not funny at all. People want the mayor at Pride. They may despise the man but they don't despise the office.

 

[Tulse]

And the community wouldn't hate him so much if he hadn't pointedly avoided Pride last year.

 

[doug]

The LGBT community hates him but at the same time is mad that he's not coming to their event.

Have you interviewed all members of the gay community, or are you just generalizing because you think you know something?

 

[hawc]

Have you interviewed all members of the gay community, or are you just generalizing because you think you know something?

We're all generalizing. That's what we do. Have you interviewed everyone?

I don't know anyone in the LGBT community who doesn't think Rob Ford is a total joke. Hell, look at this website which is both straight & gay and nobody on here likes him. Nobody.

I absolutley agree the 'Office of the Mayor' should be at Pride. I fully support Pride and all that it represents. But Ford would just be booed and made fun of. He's a total joke to that audience and you know it.

 

[doug]

Have you interviewed everyone?

I don't attempt to speak for anyone, like you often do.

But Ford would just be booed and made fun of

...and you know this because...this is how you'd behave?

 

[PinkLucy]

I don't know anyone in the LGBT community who doesn't think Rob Ford is a total joke. Hell, look at this website which is both straight & gay and nobody on here likes him. Nobody.

There are actually a couple of posters here who DO like him. Strange but true.

 

[Mongo]

All serious research and even common sense point otherwise. Same-sex relations were for example very widespread in ancient Greece. In modern Greece much less than 5% of the population participates in same-sex relations. Genetically, modern and ancient Greeks are similar enough so that if homosexual acts were a product solely of their genes they'd still be at it today. The reason why they don't is because social factors dictate it doesn't happen.

I just want to point out that most of the genes in modern Greeks originated from the Slavic invasions of the early Middle Ages, when there was an almost complete population replacement, with much of the rest of the modern Greek genetic inheritance coming from the various ethnic groups under the Turkish rule of the late Middle Age to Early Modern era.

The genetic contribution of the Classic Greeks is actually quite small, as can be seen by reading the descriptions of the Greek people in Homer and later Classic authors -- a lot of blonds and redheads, typical of the earlier Indo-European chariot tribes, but quite unlike the modern population.

Not that I am disputing your argument, I'm simply correcting a small matter of fact.

 

[RC8]

I just want to point out that most of the genes in modern Greeks originated from the Slavic invasions of the early Middle Ages, when there was an almost complete population replacement, with much of the rest of the modern Greek genetic inheritance coming from the various ethnic groups under the Turkish rule of the late Middle Age to Early Modern era.

The genetic contribution of the Classic Greeks is actually quite small, as can be seen by reading the descriptions of the Greek people in Homer and later Classic authors -- a lot of blonds and redheads, typical of the earlier Indo-European chariot tribes, but quite unlike the modern population.

Not that I am disputing your argument, I'm simply correcting a small matter of fact.

Sounds like you are right. My assumption comes from what greek people have told me, but there's no reason to believe they'd be particularly knowledgeable regarding such things (really). I withdraw my greek 'common sense' argument (which was never intended to fall under the empirical evidence category) and ask for it to be replaced with the Papua New Guinean evidence I provide, which I'm much more formally familiar with.

Thanks Mongo.

 

[Tewder]

Kinsey, like Freud, made many valuable observations, but wasn't sure what he was describing at all. Kinsey said 10% of people were gay, but if he had performed his studies in New Guinean tribes he would have come up with a different percentage in each tribe - meaning that this spectrum he describes is subject to environmental variations and isn't some sort of hard-wired genetic pattern. To say that there will always be solely heterosexual and solely homosexual individuals is not incorrect, but to then assume that the current patterns of sexuality we see in Ontario (for arguments' sake) are therefore a reflection of some unchangeable pattern is wrong on every level. Biology tells us that as much as 95% of the population may comfortably engage in bisexual behaviour under different social standards (which is nothing like what kinsey described).

How then are the findings of biology - as you describe them at least - so different from those of Kinsey? Kinsey identified a continuum of sexuality, but aside from the polar extremes isn't this really just an indication of various degrees of 'bisexuality, which is to say the sexual fluidity that you claim biology attributes to 95% of the population?

... and as you say Kinsey wasn't describing the findings in PNG he was looking at the American male in the 1940s, at a time when same-sex acts were taboo, and at a time when there was no known academic understanding of sexuality conflating in any way whatsoever to personal or community identity. In this sense his findings are interesting to the extent he finds any degree of 'exclusive homosexuality' at all given the most hostile of social environments (whether you find 10% too high or not).

I suspect your understanding of genetics and perhaps biology in general may not go beyond what you are taught in high school (nothing wrong with that). But you don't actually need to find a gene to determine that something is down to genetics. For decades biologists worked with genes without being able to see any. We know for a fact that there is a huge genetic component to heterosexuality (not necessarily to exclusive heterosexuality, but to heterosexuality regardless of alternative behaviours). 95%+ of men (even many who consider themselves gay) respond with increased sexual drive to a number of stimuli produced by women. 95%+ (being very conservative) of sexually reproducing animals know what to do, how to do it, and to whom in order to reproduce - and they do so for joy and through impulse. There is no need to identify any gene that determines this, for there isn't one gene - there are thousands. The 'jury' is not 'out on that', and I would please encourage you to find a single source that says 'they' are. Exclusive heterosexuality in most of the population, just like exclusive homosexuality in most of the population, can only be explained through post-birth environmental factors. Neither genetics nor in-utero factors could explain this.

I think it's important to make a distinction between heterosexuality (as a social idea and ideal in many cases) and reproductive acts. Sexual identities get murky in that they lay at the very heart of the hot-bed nexus that is genetics/biology/behavioralism/morality/religion/societal norms and law, all of which I refer to as the 'politics of sexuality'.

Also, I'm not a biologist but I do understand that if we're talking about 'genetics' specifically then we must be talking about genes, whether we can see or identify them or not. Other aspects of 'biology' would essentially come down to in-utero 'environment', right? The presence of higher or lower levels of certain hormones due to external circumstances etc., for example.

Nevertheless, If I take you to mean that there are probably (as yet) unidentified genetic factors at play in human sexuality, along with myriad possible environmental factors... and that the individual expression of these things is enormously influenced by societal norms and attitudes, I would agree. How about that!

There is no hypocrisy in stating that heterosexual sex can be much more easily explained through basic genetic theory than both exclusive heterosexual behaviour and exclusive homosexual behaviour. Exclusive heterosexual behaviour does occur in many species, so there's a bit more material on that (which right wing fundamentalists unfortunately hang on to), but as far as apes and humans specifically are concerned, simple genetics doesn't seem to cut it at all for an explanation either.


You say it's heterosex-centric (or something) to focus on what causes homosexuality, but biologists have been trying to figure out what causes heterosexuality in all animal species for about a hundred years. Once again you are just being defensive (you really need not be with me). That you are not following it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and as you can imagine it's fairly controversial too as we understand that societal factors play a huge role in stopping most of the population from engaging occasionally in behaviours that'd be considered 'bisexual' by modern standards.

Again, if you separate heterosexuality from reproduction you will find that the concept of homosexuality actually predates heterosexuality in many respects. In other words the exception to the norm is often identified (marginalied as 'other') while the 'norm' is taken at face value and accepted without question (to the point it isn't even named).

Still, I think I understand your position better now, and in certain respects I think we are arguing very similar things, but from different perspectives...

 

[RC8]

How then are the findings of biology - as you describe them at least - so different from those of Kinsey? Kinsey identified a continuum of sexuality, but aside from the polar extremes isn't this really just an indication of various degrees of 'bisexuality, which is to say the sexual fluidity that you claim biology attributes to 95% of the population?

... and as you say Kinsey wasn't describing the findings in PNG he was looking at the American male in the 1940s, at a time when same-sex acts were taboo, and at a time when there was no known academic understanding of sexuality conflating in any way whatsoever to personal or community identity. In this sense his findings are interesting to the extent he finds any degree of 'exclusive homosexuality' at all given the most hostile of social environments (whether you find 10% too high or not).

As I said, Kinsey's observations were valuable, but the fact Kinsey himself did not know (at all!) what caused the varying degrees of sexual-orientation means his spectrum isn't to be taken as a factual description of sexual orientation in human beings beyond the... well... spectrum quality of it.

Frequently I've encountered individuals who say I'm an "X" in the Kinsey spectrum... which is all good. But if I suggested that their position in the spectrum could change through new experiences the response would be outrage (regardless of the direction). Once again the "I was born this way" would ring from both straight and homosexual members of the population. Kinsey's lack of understanding of what he was described allows people to use his spectrum in whichever way they want.

No fault of his own, of course, and his findings were interesting and enlightening.

I think it's important to make a distinction between heterosexuality (as a social idea and ideal in many cases) and reproductive acts. Sexual identities get murky in that they lay at the very heart of the hot-bed nexus that is genetics/biology/behavioralism/morality/religion/societal norms and law, all of which I refer to as the 'politics of sexuality'.

Also, I'm not a biologist but I do understand that if we're talking about 'genetics' specifically then we must be talking about genes, whether we can see or identify them or not. Other aspects of 'biology' would essentially come down to in-utero 'environment', right? The presence of higher or lower levels of certain hormones due to external circumstances etc., for example.

Consider this. The presence of higher or lower levels of certain hormones in-utero may be due to internal (genetic or epigenetic) circumstances in the mother, but external (in-utero environmental) circumstances in the baby. This would mean that if you are gay there may be nothing in your genome that makes you gay, but there was something in your mothers' genome which determined your development was kick-started in a different way - perhaps to enhance the fertility of any potential sisters of yours.

When we talk about genes we are talking first and foremost about heritable traits that are expressed and passed on through our genome (found as a code in our DNA). There is very little (actually, next to no) evidence showing that most exclusive homosexual individuals directly inherited and/or are capable of passing on their homosexuality genetically. I do believe there are genetic factors that contribute to homosexual and bisexual acts, I just don't think they are as relevant as other factors.

Nevertheless, If I take you to mean that there are probably (as yet) unidentified genetic factors at play in human sexuality, along with myriad possible environmental factors... and that the individual expression of these things is enormously influenced by societal norms and attitudes, I would agree. How about that!

Pretty much. I'd put it as:

We understand that human sexual behaviour and the ability to get pleasure from mating through sexual reproduction is to a great extent genetically hardwired in the vast majority of the population. A combination of genetic and epi-genetic factors expressed in the mother of certain individuals during pregnancy (that may or may not be coupled with further genetic or epi-genetic factors directly expressed in her offspring) could tilt their sexual orientation towards homosexuality. A myriad of environmental factors including but not limited to societal norms and attitudes further affects the sexual preferences of all individuals after birth. Biological evidence does not support either exclusive homosexuality or exclusive heterosexuality as being 'hardwired' genetically or not.

Hopefully you can agree to that, too! I still can't help but feel most mainstream LGBT organisations wouldn't endorse it.

Again, if you separate heterosexuality from reproduction you will find that the concept of homosexuality actually predates heterosexuality in many respects. In other words the exception to the norm is often identified (marginalied as 'other') while the 'norm' is taken at face value and accepted without question (to the point it isn't even named).

Still, I think I understand your position better now, and in certain respects I think we are arguing very similar things, but from different perspectives...

It's semantics, but by naming homosexuality and using for instance the term 'sexuality' while excluding any gay behaviour then they are both technically named. When scientists studied sexuality they were actually studying what we would now call 'heterosexuality' to be more politically correct. In biology in particular I don't personally feel we took heterosexuality or sexuality for that matter for granted.