LGBT Objectivists
When I said that I am transgendered, I was being provocative, but not entirely untruthful. It hinges on the definition of “gender.” When our daughter was born in 1979, it was quickly very clear that I knew more about running a home than did my wife whose mother was a lawyer. I was Mr. Mom four years before Michael Keaton. Gender is a role. Masculinity and femininity are learned within a culture. Sex is a physical attribute. Moreover, just as gender roles exist along a spectrum, so does sex. Nonetheless, the mass media and LGBT advocates alike misuse the words "gender" and "sex" with ambivalence and contradiction. I am not responsible for them. Still, the fact remains that LGBT people are found within Objectivism. Objectivists advocate on the same side as LGBT activists for many of the same issues. You can find many discussions of these topics on the Objectivist discussion boards. I point to these:
“What is the Objectivist view …?” by Bridget Armozel on Rebirth of Reason here.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Obje...
(I believe that Bridget was born a male, but you would have to read all of her posts closely to determine that.)
Jeanine Ring is also apparently a transgender Objectivist. She is the author of a collection of poems, “Deck of Cards: A Courtesan’s Book of Illusions.” See Rebirth of Reason here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/R...
She also launched a discussion of this media sound-bite:
"Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.... said 'Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.'"
On Rebirth of Reason here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SH...
On Objectivist Living, this was one of several discussions on LGBT topics:
Seal Team Six Veteran Inspired by Atlas Shrugged Goes TG
Read here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Also on Objectivist Living was this discussion: “Homosexuality: Does Choice Matter?” Not surprisingly, it garnered 170 posts as rational individualists argued their notions pro and con.
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Dr. Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute is against any form of sexual deviation, calling them all irrational attempts to fake reality. That claim, among others, is discussed on Objectivist Living under the rubric, “Peikoff’s Latest Howler.” Dennis Hardin (Ph.D. in psychology and a licensed therapist) commented here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Prof. Deirdre McCloskey started writing about "bourgeois virtues" back in 1990 when she was Donald McCloskey. She now has three books glorifying the middle class values of capitalism. Her website has a tab for Gender Change:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/gende...
McCloskey was fired from his professorship when he changed sex. Fortunately, and not surprisingly, several universities jumped at the opportunity to bring her to their faculties.
It should be clear that LGBT issues are not the monopoly of the left.
The dimensions of gender and sex are not unique to humans. As I pointed out on Rebirth of Reason:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Gene...
The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction
NOTE: These are lecture notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution
For example, in water fleas (crustaceans in the genus Daphnia), which live in ponds, reproduction is asexual -- females produce females asexually -- throughout the spring and summer, but when they are getting ready to produce the forms that will overwinter and hatch out the next spring (possibly in a very different environment, since it will be a different year), males are produced and then they reproduce sexually. So sexual reproduction is timed to occur when the environment is about to change.
http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/b...
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
James Owen in London- for National Geographic News - July 23, 2004
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.
But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
(My comment: According to Objectivism, animals have automatic modes of survival. They cannot choose to be anything other than what they are. We inherited two billion years of evolution from them. Dr. Leonard Peikoff claimed that transgendered individuals are irrational and anti-reality, declaring that their whims are superior to nature. (Did he say nature or "Nature"?) Rather than acting contrary to reality, they seem to be acting in accordance with it.)
Perhaps the best exposition on LGBT issues and Objectivism is the monograph Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation by Chris Matthew Sciabarra with a foreword by Lindsay Perigo. (Sciabarra is the author of several books about Ayn Rand. He also edits the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.)
"Chris Sciabarra's discussion of homosexuality and the moralistic, unreasoning rage unleashed against it--and against Dr. Sciabarra--by a small number of self-appointed guardians of the 'one true Objectivist faith' almost make it embarrassing to admit that one has any past or present association with Objectivism. The booklet is an expose of cultism at its most hysterical." --Nathaniel Branden. (See rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_Rand,_H...
You can find the book for sale on Amazon:
“A combination philosophical exegesis, sociological study, and political tract, this monograph examines Ayn Rand's impact on the sexual attitudes of self-identified Objectivists in the movement to which she gave birth and the gay subculture that she would have disowned.” http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Homose...
“What is the Objectivist view …?” by Bridget Armozel on Rebirth of Reason here.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Obje...
(I believe that Bridget was born a male, but you would have to read all of her posts closely to determine that.)
Jeanine Ring is also apparently a transgender Objectivist. She is the author of a collection of poems, “Deck of Cards: A Courtesan’s Book of Illusions.” See Rebirth of Reason here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/R...
She also launched a discussion of this media sound-bite:
"Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.... said 'Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.'"
On Rebirth of Reason here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SH...
On Objectivist Living, this was one of several discussions on LGBT topics:
Seal Team Six Veteran Inspired by Atlas Shrugged Goes TG
Read here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Also on Objectivist Living was this discussion: “Homosexuality: Does Choice Matter?” Not surprisingly, it garnered 170 posts as rational individualists argued their notions pro and con.
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Dr. Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute is against any form of sexual deviation, calling them all irrational attempts to fake reality. That claim, among others, is discussed on Objectivist Living under the rubric, “Peikoff’s Latest Howler.” Dennis Hardin (Ph.D. in psychology and a licensed therapist) commented here:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/foru...
Prof. Deirdre McCloskey started writing about "bourgeois virtues" back in 1990 when she was Donald McCloskey. She now has three books glorifying the middle class values of capitalism. Her website has a tab for Gender Change:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/gende...
McCloskey was fired from his professorship when he changed sex. Fortunately, and not surprisingly, several universities jumped at the opportunity to bring her to their faculties.
It should be clear that LGBT issues are not the monopoly of the left.
The dimensions of gender and sex are not unique to humans. As I pointed out on Rebirth of Reason:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Gene...
The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction
NOTE: These are lecture notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution
For example, in water fleas (crustaceans in the genus Daphnia), which live in ponds, reproduction is asexual -- females produce females asexually -- throughout the spring and summer, but when they are getting ready to produce the forms that will overwinter and hatch out the next spring (possibly in a very different environment, since it will be a different year), males are produced and then they reproduce sexually. So sexual reproduction is timed to occur when the environment is about to change.
http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/b...
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
James Owen in London- for National Geographic News - July 23, 2004
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.
But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
(My comment: According to Objectivism, animals have automatic modes of survival. They cannot choose to be anything other than what they are. We inherited two billion years of evolution from them. Dr. Leonard Peikoff claimed that transgendered individuals are irrational and anti-reality, declaring that their whims are superior to nature. (Did he say nature or "Nature"?) Rather than acting contrary to reality, they seem to be acting in accordance with it.)
Perhaps the best exposition on LGBT issues and Objectivism is the monograph Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation by Chris Matthew Sciabarra with a foreword by Lindsay Perigo. (Sciabarra is the author of several books about Ayn Rand. He also edits the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.)
"Chris Sciabarra's discussion of homosexuality and the moralistic, unreasoning rage unleashed against it--and against Dr. Sciabarra--by a small number of self-appointed guardians of the 'one true Objectivist faith' almost make it embarrassing to admit that one has any past or present association with Objectivism. The booklet is an expose of cultism at its most hysterical." --Nathaniel Branden. (See rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_Rand,_H...
You can find the book for sale on Amazon:
“A combination philosophical exegesis, sociological study, and political tract, this monograph examines Ayn Rand's impact on the sexual attitudes of self-identified Objectivists in the movement to which she gave birth and the gay subculture that she would have disowned.” http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Homose...
Humans are arguably the most complex animals, and the more complexity can arise, the more potential permutations come to the fore. Whether mutations are natural or a defect is often culturally determined. Societies have an underlying template of behaviors by which individual members are measured. Belief systems that evolved for the preservation of the group make deviants suspect and subject to rejection, sometimes gruesomely so.
In a free and open society that respects individual rights and differences, and the right to be different, it doesn't matter what mutations may arise, provided they don’t affect others’ rights. And if the mutations are successful towards survival, that group will continue to proliferate. Same-sex couplings are not conducive to physical reproduction, though emotionally same-sex couples may wish to adopt others' offspring to fulfill the equally built-in urge to nurture.
When individuals find in themselves a physical anomaly, a sexual preference for an identity other than their physical birth gender, or a preference for a mate of their own gender, that is just a variation natural selection dialed up. It is only cultural memes that tend to dictate or limit what a member of a group should be allowed to want or be.
By the same token, the intolerance of churches for non-generic gender manifestation is a hypocritical denial of their much-touted belief that everything is the will of God. They should accept gender variations as the work and plan of God and stop persecuting people for their inborn natures.
There is no danger of extinction of the species as long as a large enough percentage of individual members are of the reproductive variety. It may well be that a rising number of non-replicators is a natural selection in the face of over-population. And even if only very few members are natural replicators, science can achieve artificial fertilization to produce enough specimens to keep a working population going.
If Objectivists are by name advocates and adherents of principles of respecting an objective reality, and that reality includes gender variety in all its rainbow spectrum, then yes, LGBTQ individuals can certainly be Objectivists, and vice versa. In fact, the respect for individual rights and freedoms that is the hallmark of the Objectivist ethics also requires acceptance of individual differences, including gender identities. Any rejection of gender diversity on the part of individual Objectivists is an aberration, a selective departure from the much-vaunted objectivity of the philosophy, including the pro-heterosexual and “man-worshipping” proclivities of its founder. Is it ironic that she never produced offspring? Nor did her main heroes?
Strictly and objectively speaking, from the standpoint of species preservation, sex aimed only at selfish enjoyment and avoiding reproduction can also be regarded as a deviant practice. Add another letter on the collection: LGBTQS.
Interesting that one more preference, the celibate, is not included among the sexual practices that free individuals may choose, including for dubious religious reasons. Some cultures do put strong pressure on their populations to produce as many offspring as possible to outbreed their rivals.
The fundamental principle for human happiness: “To thine own self be true.”
I agree.
Rand and Peikoff, depending on some not discussed reason, would have some kind of distinction between the scientific 'animals' which would include both humans and non-human 'animals'. It is a kind of 'blank out' in awareness similar to those who use 'pro life' to just mean human life while in the womb and not all life which they proscribe to a trash heap of pro choice.
Rand and Peikoff both seemed to believe that humans with a reasoning capacity, should be able to apply logical thinking at all times. But that takes a very large amount of individual choice and effort, which, as in animals which have evolved with many abilities, should remain, for most humans, learned and automatic for safety, social, and reproductive purposes so that life can get on with living.
I don't care where his selfish--yeah, selfish the world all about him--transgender mind-bender is at.
That includes sharing showers with my grown nieces.
Now should the dude have his male genitalia removed, that is a horse of a different color.
Unremoved chest hair should still freak them out though.
Reality is not that difficult a concept to grasp.
Man is not merely along a scale with animals....
Sex is not comparable with "height/weight..." wrt birth determination.
As for what "sex" is, that, too, is obviously complicated for the entire animal kingdom, of which we are but a natural element of a huge set that can be measured along many axes. It is certainly complicated for us, the apparent crown of creation.
Thomas Paine actually served in the Continental Army.
Moreover, when you go into a public space, you give up a lot of privacy rights. For example, if you have a conversation in a restaurant, you cannot complain that being overheard, your privacy rights were violated. So, too, with a public restroom. The owners of the property set the terms, and in most cases, you agree to share the facilities.
In the case of tax-based controllers who act as "owners" the issues are muddied. But we do have "publicly-owned" parks, roads, stadiums, etc. The highway department sets the rules for the rest stops. We live with that. But, again, no one is violating your privacy rights unless they want to come into the stall or stand at the urinal with you.
As for the majority-minority problem, you are on thin ice. My grandparents came from an empire that was an "apostolic monarchy." Going to church was a civic responsibility. AFIK, in Switzerland, the local governments still collect taxes for the local churches. Only a few object...
(It took me a minute to figure out "stars and bars." I was thinking of generals and lieutenants.... Old times not forgotten is a whole other issue. Stay tuned...)
I agree. Cannibalism and infanticide exist in nature, and they are not acceptable human behaviors.
I think I was unaware how bad my mom's situation was until I read the autopsy -complete self-destruction! Her sister died six months after her, alcohol poisoning. She left behind a young teen daughter as well, who now needs alcohol to relax. I basically lived my life, not speaking of it, but not hiding it, until I started seeing so many young people dying from drug addiction, including my husband's nephew. Why?
Your wife should speak of it, and try to introduce people to easy Rand philosophy, "Anthem" maybe.It has to come from inside them, not from enablers, as happened with my our nephew. They have to feel strong inside. Philosophy teaches one to be strong and to avoid victimhood. That is why altruism is so bad, it weakens the inner person, the recipient. Before I studied Rand, I remember reading history and John Stuart Mill, and how against overhelping he was, saying it made the person less free.Then I moved into Sartre, who made it clear there were always choices, no matter our situations. It was about moving forward, not clinging to the past. That was until the poor guy got overwhelmed and went Marxist!
It drives me crazy that schools teach kids, first to rely on peers over adults, and that there is no "I" in team. Garbage, which makes them more susceptible to follow the leader into drugs, and back in, if they do get off.That is why "Anthem" is so important, the sheer joy of "I", you can't get sucked in. At only 90 pages, it is perfect for teens.
I think I was unaware how bad my mom's situation was until I read the autopsy -complete self-destruction! Her sister died six months after her, alcohol poisoning. She left behind a young teen daughter as well, who now needs alcohol to relax. I basically lived my life, not speaking of it, but not hiding it, until I started seeing so many young people dying from drug addiction, including my husband's nephew. Why?
Your wife should speak of it, and try to introduce people to easy Rand philosophy, "Anthem" maybe.It has to come from inside them, not from enablers, as happened with my our nephew. They have to feel strong inside. Philosophy teaches one to be strong and to avoid victimhood. That is why altruism is so bad, it weakens the inner person, the recipient. Before I studied Rand, I remember reading history and John Stuart Mill, and how against overhelping he was, saying it made the person less free.Then I moved into Sartre, who made it clear there were always choices, no matter our situations. It was about moving forward, not clinging to the past. That was until the poor guy got overwhelmed and went Marxist!
It drives me crazy that schools teach kids, first to rely on peers over adults, and that there is no "I" in team. Garbage, which makes them more susceptible to follow the leader into drugs, and back in, if they do get off.That is why "Anthem" is so important, the sheer joy of "I", you can't get sucked in. At only 90 pages, it is perfect for teens.
I agree with everything you say in your msg above. I would just add one point. Whether it exists in nature doesn't matter. Something existing in nature does not make acceptable, and something being done for the first time by some human, never before seen in nature, does not make it wrong.
Probably. I think she stopped reading it at that point. Some people at that church have some issues in that regard. Every year or two we get an e-mail how we need more parents to volunteer for teaching religious education (RE). They say we know people have other things going on, but they wish they could find some way for parents to make volunteering to teach a priority. I think, "We should come up with a new invention, hey. We could things we're good at like lawyering or engineering, and people would give it us and then we could give some of it to people who love teaching to make them want to teach. It would be awesome!" I'm not sarcastic with the youth director, but it just seems like the obvious solution when they write, "what on earth could we do to encourage people to teach?" As parents, we don't expect the program to be free. I have no clue why they don't simply charge enough money to pay for teachers. The poor could pay for their kids to be in by volunteering in the program. Maybe the issue is some people (not me) see something meretricious about paying someone to provide a loving environment for kids.
I'm sorry to hear that. Both my wife's parents died of alcoholism. Her older brother was the responsible one in the house until his g/f got pregnant and he moved out. Then she was oddly "the parent" in the household, and her parents were the children. It was very unhealthful. She became a successful attorney who doesn't touch alcohol or other drugs to get away from that past.
She too is anti-victimhood. She wonders if it's better to hide the facts or to say it aloud. She wants to be able to say it aloud without people thinking of her as a victim but rather thinking there should be fundraiser walks or whatever to cure alcoholism, along with the ones for cancer and heart disease.
This relates to AS because she feels more comfortable (not happier, but more comfortable) taking care of people who don't have their act together at the expense of herself. She knows it's unhealthy but falls into the somebody's-got-to-take-care-of-his-sorry-ass trap. I'm sometimes amazed at how close stories from the world of the poor are to AS.
I liked hearing your story about the CPA husband and being an ACoA. Sometimes I feel like I'm in this rare situation the world has never seen before.
Gender is not just a "role". There are gender roles or norms for behavior of a gender in a culture. But this not the same at all as gender identity. Nor is it determined entirely in all cases by ones chromosomes. It is unfortunately a biological fact that it is a bit more complicated than that. That approximately 1 in 1000 human beings have some bit of mismatch between whether they are XX or XY (or something other than the normal two choices) and whatever programs part of gender identity in the brain during gestation is a fact. It is not a philosophical question. It happens. Some of us have the gender identity programming out of sync with the rest of our body gender dimorphic body programming. I was born one of them.
While the mechanism is not fully understood it has been understood for some time that people like me exist and it is not a psychological pathology or a matter of low hormones or a perversion or just being gay or any of the other things people and even some doctors have tried to map to it.
I don't want any rights beyond the inalienable rights inherent to being a human being. Neither do LGBT people in general. I am tired of people that really don't understand the facts of these things or what most of us do and don't want falling for the rhetoric spewed by those that want to deny us inalienable rights or continue our harrassment and being treated as second class citizens. Not long ago being gay or lesbian was a felony in many a state. Was is a special right of not being treated as a criminal just for existing?
Armchair philosophers need to actually look into the horse's mouth to see how many teeth it in fact has rather than arguing about it. They need to look at the varieties of human sexuality and human gender identity rather than arguing what is "should be" and condemning all who break what they think "should be" as being obviously "deluded" or "crazy" or "perverted" or "irrational". We are none of these things. And we reject roundly your rejection of the reality of our very existence. Any of your who reject any facts of reality are in that degree not acting like objectivists at all.
Your previous answer ignored reality.
Load more comments...