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...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I still go back to the hermaphrodite argument. What "true sex" are they?
There are natural physical biases, such as hermaphrodites and others as well. How then are psychological biases not even more plausible? They are. They have existed forever, and they will continue to exist. If one has such a bias, and they compel no one else to support it, how is the practice of this bias nonobjective?
There is no valid argument, that any LGBT can not be an Objectivist.
First, why would anyone care about another's choices, until they compel one to support them or into involuntary servitude. That element of the LGBT "movement" is inappropriate, as is the media-tarian PC position.
Separately, the arguments presented that LGBT is "wrong" or nonobjective are subjective. Quite simply, homosexual behavior exists in nature, in a variety of animals, including humans. How is a desire "wrong" if no one is harmed by it or its practice?
In addition, there are clearly natural conditions (many snails and slugs for example) and mutations in animals and people causing them to be hermaphrodites (with both sex organs). If "One's sex is determined at birth." (the most upvoted, but unsupported comment herein), which sex is a hermaphodite?
Further, if there are physical conditions causing real physical differences, then how is the far simpler mental/physiological bias not even more plausible. If this bias exists, how does it hurt anyone, including one's self, and how does it "...reject reality...", if it is real.
If one is naturally biased in one of these directions, and gains comfort or pleasure from its practice, without compelling another, there is no evidence of subjectivity.
Requiring others to fiscally support LGBT behavior or to unwillingly participate in it is a different question, than can an LGBT be an Objectivist.
I believe that the Objectivist Newsletter of the early 1960s published a favorable review of the works of Dr. Thomas Szasz, who advocated against labeling people who are different as crazy.
in life requires familiarity with the range of sex- or
gender-related points-of-view. . by pushing myself,
a good part of that range has been explored in my
67 years. . there has never been any faking of reality
nor non-voluntary behavior. . people are wonderful
and knowing their abilities to experience joy is itself
a value. . while I am male, sometimes I love as a
female would -- because it achieves better results.
gentleness and sentimentality give my marriage a
stronger bond, as well. . love is best served flexibly. -- j
.
I'm a male in every respect, but I am educated enough to know that homosexuality exists in nature with other species, and it certainly exists in humans too. I don't have any choice about my sexual preference, so I infer that others don't either.
I don't understand why anyone is so threatened by people with sexual preferences that are different than their own. Whatever they are; they are. The most rational position is to assume it is not a choice but a factor of many things. Genetics is one component but as living beings with hormones and environmental factors it is ignorant to presume that biology is going to be consistent and "neat" with everyone in a species, especially for matters that are tied to our psychology.
I have no problem accepting people on their word that they fall somewhere other than 100% heterosexual on the gender identity and attraction spectrum (even though that is me). They are still individuals with their own unique identity that deserves our respect and recognition of their rights to live as they choose best. Enough with the closed mindedness and arrogance, I say.
That said, I do believe evidence is strong that there are efforts to use the LGBT movement for evil purposes. But that's a different issue. I'm sure there can be LBGT Objectivists and I don't see why any other objectivist should have a problem with it. Unless they aren't willing to learn something.
I have to say one of my early memories involves a gay neighbor, who is the only reason I have childhood photos, his hobby. It was known in the 50s, and I knew by grade school, but her was like family. He was caring and made me laugh, and enjoyed my birthdays as much as I did. To this day, I have a gay pal, with whom I e-mail almost daily. He and I share an interest in Wright architecture and Corvettes. Somehow, we all seem to survive if we feel we are responsible for ourselves. If we don't dwell on the bad parts, but go forward and do the best we can, life is fine. There is nothing worse than victimhood which is then forced upon everyone we meet, with the expectation everyone should make it up to us. That is the real issue I have with the LGBT movement, politicians who foster that kind of thinking and encourage any group to think like victims. If people just go forward, maybe learn some philosophy, and interact, they will find life will embrace them.
When the Founding Fathers set up this nation they certainly didn't want the despotism of a monarchy or the tyranny of the majority as in pure democracy mob rule, so they created the constitutional republic that has managed to survive successfully so far. They, however, never saw this coming and offered no provision for it. That is, the TYRANNY of the MINORITY as fostered by a run away legal system in a PC social environment where even an aberrant sliver of the population can force all others to obediently genuflect in submission.
But above all...there is a reason why North and South Attract...Particle bonding and Electricity...It's just how things are held together...it doesn't work any other way. I am not ashamed or any less objective by reflecting that image naturally.
(Aside: The whole concept of a mental disorder is more dangerous than it's worth and ought to be purged from the language. Once you decide that such a thing exists, it's a slippery slope to deciding that anyone whose priorities are different from yours is by definition crazy, and then we no longer have the rule of law. If Objectivism insists on such judgments then that's one more reason I'm not an O.)
As far as bathroom issues, I'd rather just remodel all bathrooms to be single-user than have rules about who can go into which one, especially since the only way to enforce the rules would be to have someone at the door checking people's actual sex parts.
I'm an 'Individualist' and happen to agree with AR that the smallest minority is the Individual and that gov't's only duty is to protect Individual Natural Rights in society, as determined by man's nature and identity, and his needs to live successfully as he determines for himself. I also agree that some rare number of individuals are born with a 'birth defect' in their sexual identity and even a rarer number in their genital development. It's not something they have a choice in, it's simply a mistake of nature, and in my mind it is no different than any other 'birth defect', except that their individual burden to deal with their defect in order to develop into full consciousness and success in life is much less than other more physical and mental function 'defects'.
But I detest those that have taken a word (gender) that until sometime in the 60's was defined as a description of words and word usage, and have re-translated it in an attempt to make physical mutilation an acceptable form of mental disorder or defect treatment, very similar and on the same level of those with such 'self hate' that progresses to the point of self directed amputation or other mutilation of body parts. It makes as much sense as brain mutilation to treat mental disease or disorder, or tribal genital mutilation (clitorectomy) of young girls in an attempt to control possible promiscuity in later life.
I also find it abhorrent that society and/or gov't tries to make rules and laws to control the activities and behaviors of those afflicted with such birth defects or to control others' reactions to those birth defects, or to force others to 'accommodate' those afflicted by making their Individual Rights subservient to the afflicted.
And I can't leave out my disgust for the 'ignorance and stupidity' of those that use their religious teachings/beliefs to express their biases against the afflicted. I can also state that as a 6 or 7 yr old, I played 'Doctor' with a girl playmate, had to change the diaper of a baby girl in my teens and was the only person available to help a 70 yr old neighbor lady escape the clutches of her washing machine wringer, discovered at 30 that my 3rd youngest brother was gay and had been his entire life and apparently everyone else in the family but me knew it, and in my 20's learned to share public restrooms with women. I wasn't accosted in any of those 'traumatic incidents (well there was the rather persistent B-girl in Sasebo) nor did I develop into some form of perversion or decadence from those shocking and traumatic exposures, except to find enjoyment at some nudist beaches and natural hot springs until my stomach got bigger than my chest.
edit for clarity
I'm ok with acceptance and integration of TG people. I'm aware of research showing the brains of TG people have a structure far more consistent with the opposite sex, so sadly such people are born with a cruel and crippling contradiction which they address with very difficult measures.
But what I'm NOT ok about is anyone who criticises me for choosing to embrace the masculinity I was born with, or for choosing to be with a woman who was born female and embraces her femininity. I know that a lot of "masculinity" and "femininity" is culturally programmed. But a lot of is is NOT. The differing hormone levels, the differing X vs Y chromosome, form a primal foundation stone of who we are. To be objectivist, we must honour this in ourselves and each other.
The jury is still out on whether the "true transgender" scenario of a person in a XY-chromosome body with masculine features but the brain structure of a woman, or vice versa, is natural, or a product of serious medical disorder, demands a lot more research.
And I suppose Lynchin' Loretta of the DOJ and other more than equal betters of King Barry's regime
view my point of view about that as being as criminal as my denial of man-made climate change.
Old Dino is an uppity lizard! Uppity! Uppity!
Load more comments...