lgbtq_plus

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

drwho, in Many LGBTQ+ people are religious. Why don’t we have more data about them?
@drwho@beehaw.org avatar

Because we have enough to worry about already.

sculd, in Many LGBTQ+ people are religious. Why don’t we have more data about them?

Being religious does not mean believing in Abrahamic religion, right? Buddhism?

gk99, in Many LGBTQ+ people are religious. Why don’t we have more data about them?

As a religious LGBTQ+ person, I don’t feel the need to flaunt that or give that data. My FAFSA application asked questions about my LGBTQ+ status, and I lied my ass off because I’m scared of what the Nazi so-called-Christians in my government will try to do with that information. I’m a “real” Christian whose favorite Leviticus line isn’t the one about not being gay, it’s 19:18. That part, somehow, slips their minds when making decisions.

hungrycat, in Many LGBTQ+ people are religious. Why don’t we have more data about them?

I think having this data would be interesting, but to say

Proof of religious LGBTQ+ people pushes back against hateful movements

in the context of what the article is discussing is a big assumption. Hateful movements gonna hate. I’ve seen individual hearts and minds change once people realize that LGBTQ+ people aren’t “boogeymen” that must be watched out for, but are instead their neighbors, coworkers, sons and daughters (and I’ve seen those hearts and minds harden too…). But at the group level, in my experience, people who buy into those hateful religious movements don’t usually view their group actions as hateful—they view them as necessary to save themselves and others in the name of their beliefs.

Instead of shouting “those people are unlike us and we must fight against sin” in the direction of non-religiously affiliated LGBTQ+ people, it becomes “bless their hearts they want to be on the righteous path but we must help them overcome the scourge of sin” directed at religious in-group LGBTQ+ people. Maybe the hateful vitriol is softened, but the outcome tends to be the same.

But maybe I’m just jaded because I think organized religion is largely a scourge on humanity.

flora_explora,
@flora_explora@beehaw.org avatar

This, plus being queer isn’t inherently making you or people accepting you necessarily less bigoted. For example, even queer TERFs side with Nazis. Of course it is more likely that if a movement is more accepting of one minority, it may be also accepting to others. But it may also use one minority group to pit against another…

hungrycat,

Exactly. Minority groups that are tolerated within larger, harmful movements are often manipulated and leveraged in some way that negatively impacts that minority group or other minority groups. See also the Log Cabin Republicans.

treble, in Many LGBTQ+ people are religious. Why don’t we have more data about them?
@treble@beehaw.org avatar

Walking cross-legged makes about as much sense to me, but whatever floats your boat.🦦

LegionEris,

I’m a Discordian and once walked backwards for several days as a child. Idk what that does for your data pool.

RadioRat, in Let’s Take a Journey Through the Secret Queer History of Studio Ghibli Films
@RadioRat@beehaw.org avatar

One notable flaw in the analysis is that it blindly examines Cob from Tales of Earthsea in the context of Ghibli instead of in context of Ursula K. Le Guin (the author).

Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness features a nonbinary race and was published in 1969. A good chunk of her work includes critique of gender and queer themes.

So it’s inane as hell to complain that “It’s unfortunate then that one of Ghibli’s very few unquestionably evil roles is also one of their only transfeminine characters” when Cob is transfeminine in virtue of Le Guin’s original material and decidedly not the only trans* character in her body of work.

However, a valid critique is that Ghibli never goes beyond allusion to queerness with the exception of an adaptation of another’s work. Yeah, Japanese culture/media yadda yadda but someone needs to have some nerve and practice prefigurative politics already.

crank, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

If this was a correct idea then there is no need for anyone to transition because their gender isn’t real anyway.

This is not a toxic idea if you stay here temporarily on a path to somewhere else but it is actually anti-trans so try to move on to the next brain wave.

hellfire103,
@hellfire103@sopuli.xyz avatar

That’s…a good point, but not at all what I meant. I am trans, btw.

Other commenters have improved my point and my understanding.

Kamirose, (edited ) in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea

Gender expression and gender stereotypes are societal constructs. A person’s sense of their own gender is (probably) not. There have been many times where people have tried to raise their child as a different gender than the child was assigned at birth, and the child 99% of the time identifies with the gender assigned at birth, at the same rate as the general cisgender population. There have also been studies of identical twins where if one twin is trans, the other twin often is as well, at a much higher rate than fraternal twins.

There is a genetic component and a constructed component to gender.

Edit: wording.

Edit 2: See my comment below with sources on the twins study - it’s possible I was misinformed on this. The results of studies are mixed.

cumberboi,

This is really interesting if these stats are true. Just to comment on the raising child as different gender, I personally would put this down to wider societal influence as the parents of course dont have full control of what their child is exposed to - they can only control so much. This could be things like bullying, advertisements, minor subtleties present in society (such as the signs used on gendered toilets) and probably others. But just want to be clear that i dont think your conclusion is invalid by any means, just wanted to give my viewpoint on that specific stat in case you hadn’t considered it already and maybe we can learn from each other :)

The identical twin study specifically sounds really interesting and I’d love to read about it if you get the time to link it, thanks!

RadioRat, (edited )
@RadioRat@beehaw.org avatar

I searched pubmed and I’m pretty sure this is anecdotal, unfortunately. Hard to say how much of the volume of non-straight/trans and trans/trans twins on social media is selection bias since the trans/cishet twins aren’t eye-catching. There seem to be a lot but gosh do folks love to hear about twin similarities. It’s worth noting most are fraternal but that’s consistent with the general population.

I understand where Kamirose is coming from, but it’s not empirical (unless there’s a study that used some really weird terminology and I missed it).

Edit: I found a review and its citations do not converge well due to small sample sizes (hard with trans + twins - two rare things for births).

crank,
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

I did a websearch for trans twins and found the following 2 links. I did not read them just sharing as it seems you didn’t have good luck searching.

RadioRat,
@RadioRat@beehaw.org avatar

Thanks for the extra legwork! These are cited by the review. I’m hopeful that there will be more research and data available on gender dysphoria as time goes on with more people being able to seek gender affirming care. 🤞 the horrific backlash doesn’t scare too many into staying in the closet or stymie funds/grants to these efforts.

Kamirose,

I was actually repeating what was said in a video I watched yesterday so I went to look at their sources - here is a relevant study that supports this conclusion - www.sciencedirect.com/…/S1743609515339060

However while looking it up in google scholar I did find another study that concluded the opposite, that there’s no significant difference between identical and fraternal twins. That study is here. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17749-0

So it’s possible that I was misinformed.

As a bonus, here’s an interesting analysis about what even is gender and gender identity in an academic setting. academic.oup.com/analysis/…/7204699

FaeDrifter,

There have been many times where people have tried to raise their child as a different gender than the child was assigned at birth, and the child 99% of the time identifies with the gender assigned at birth, at the same rate as the general cisgender population.

How many is “many”? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Where is the study on this?

Kamirose,

That portion is anecdotal. These stories come from either before there were ethics guidelines in psychology so people were studying their own children, or reviews of child abuse cases where the parent was forcing a different identity on their children. This is not something that is possible to (ethically) run an empirical study on, unfortunately.

crank,
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

I wonder if @Kamirose might be thinking of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Reimer was an identical twin AMAB who was raised female due to his penis being mangled during circumcision. The gender was then reassigned as female and the infant had surgical procedures done to align the body with the new female gender. The case was overseen by John Money who made a lot of hay over it, publishing all about how this proved gender was a purely social construction. It was a very famous case study. Ultimately Reimar he felt himself to be male and transitioned to male as an adult. However he was very screwed up by the whole thing and my understanding is his death by suicide is attributed to this whole series of events. There was a lot of weird stuff.

hellfire103,
@hellfire103@sopuli.xyz avatar

It would be good if I could pin comments like this on Lemmy.

raccoona_nongrata, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea
@raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org avatar

Kind of, gender is a manifestation of sex, and we’re sexually dimorphic as a species. Like the people who joke about being an attack helicopter or part fairy and stuff aren’t really talking about gender.

The reason trans people experience dysphoria is due to the real link between sex and gender, if there wasn’t a real basis then conversion therapy would work.

jarfil,

Alternatively: gender and sex could be synonyms, and trans people experience dysphoria because of a mismatch between physical gender/sex and their self-perceived gender/sex, through a mechanism not all that different from other kinds of dysphoria.

BTW, I am physically male, but don’t perceive or think of myself as of any sex or gender (I think the word is “genderless”), so might as well say I have the “gender” of an inanimate object.

hellfire103,
@hellfire103@sopuli.xyz avatar

Yeah, that’s a better way of putting it.

RadioRat, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea
@RadioRat@beehaw.org avatar

It’s mostly just inane that people discriminate and judge others on the basis of pretty minor dimorphic differences. I.e “durrrrrrr no penis no math…” is a baseless, but disgustingly common sentiment that functions to oppress women.

I don’t necessarily take issue with cis, heterosexual folks wanting to simplify personal routines and finding a compatible partner, but can we get over misogyny and the investment in gender being at all meaningful please?

crank, in Supreme Court shoots down a Conversion Therapist's Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy - The New York Times
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

I’m sure it’s fake on principal. First of all, the subheading:

Washington State, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care.

NYT shouldn’t be publishing such misleading headlines but @Wahots why are you repeating their misinformation?

I am less than 50 words in. Still time to be proven wrong.

crank,
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear

first half of the first sentence of the first paragraph and already we have dumb bullshit. This is what happens to 99% of everything submitted to the US spreme court. Rejected.

But thing special. Means NOTHING

crank,
@crank@beehaw.org avatar

“This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and, without the court’s review, I doubt it will be the last,” he wrote. “This court recently reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold a law compelling crisis pregnancy centers to disseminate government-drafted notices.”

Uh “crisis pregnancy centres” in the US context are usually sham medicine covertly religious anti-choice situations pretending to be a low rent planned parenthood. Doesn’t anyone know what is being referred to here? I am guessing the “government drafted notice” may not be so heinous but idk.

curiousaur, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea

Should we just stop using the word gender then? What’s the point?

thumbtack,

i mean just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it has no real effects on people lives or importance in society. money is a social construct too, but it still affects people and society in major ways, and can be an extremely useful tool.

personally, i think that gender is a useful concept to describe a difficult to quantify/describe part of a persons being, and the majority of people identify with some aspect of gender in some way in their lives. because of that, imo, it’s a good word that should be kept around

Kolanaki, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Gender and Time: Both human concepts I ignore.

ristoril_zip, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea

Did you guys know the brain named itself?

t3rmit3, in Gender isn't real: it's just an idea

Literally everything is just a concept humanity made up, informed by our very specific and limited abilities of perception.

Even numbers are represented differently in different languages, and different cultures teach different methods of interacting with them, and aliens could have completely different paradigms for interpreting physical reality than us altogether.

Anyone who tries to make claims about something being a universal or scientific “Truth-with-a-capital-T” that transcends human definitions is pushing an agenda.

peppersnail,

What about the fine structure constant? :P

lolcatnip,

Or pi, for a more well known example that falls out of pure math rather than having to be measured. But I guess OP will say circles are a social construct, too.

Kwakigra,
@Kwakigra@beehaw.org avatar

Do circles exist independently of humans who can perceive them? My instinct tells me yes of course but my instinct also interprets with my human brain some outside stimulus as a “circle,” so I’m biased along with probably most other human brains. The nature of objective truth gets trippy.

jarfil,

Round Earth, confirmed to be a social construct 😆

Kwakigra,
@Kwakigra@beehaw.org avatar

The basic weirdness is that we can’t experience objective reality as due to the nature of our minds we can only possibly subjectively experience it interpreted by our senses and sense-making. Although even the ancients could prove the curvature of the Earth by measuring shadows at the same time in places separated by enough distance, a person born blind would have to trust the sighted that shadows exist for example. Since we are aware of some phenomena we can’t observe without the use of specialized tools and some branches of science diverge significantly from what’s intuitive to us, It’s very likely that there are some elements of objective reality (if it exists) which we couldn’t possibly observe or comprehend. I know all that sounds like star-gazing bs which is completely irrelevant, and in almost all circumstances it is, but approaching facts as most likely to be true given the evidence rather than certainly true can reveal ways of thinking which could be more useful than our current paradigms. Although unlikely in my opinion, it’s possible that in a few centuries the circle may be considered similarly to how the four elements are considered today. I personally can’t imagine how that could be possible, but I’m just some random person in 2023. I see the circle and describe it as a circle because that’s what I know, and what I know is loaded with context and limitations.

jarfil,

Yeah, it sounds kind of weird, but you are right of course. We got an example of that in “atoms”: originally they were supposed to mean “indivisible minimal components”, and for a long time the 4 elements were supposed to be types of atoms… until we discovered that atoms can be divided into even smaller particles (electrons, protons, neutrons), and those particles in turn into even smaller ones yet (quarks), then we had to come with the word “quanta” to mean the new “indivisible minimal component” since “atom” got entrenched to mean “a clump with this number of protons” which nonetheless could vary in the number of neutrons (isotopes) and electrons (ions).

On the bright side, the “quanta” are now a moving target, applicable to “whatever we don’t know how to divide any further”… but we might learn how to in the future.

the circle

IMHO, it is likely going to get explained at some point in the future why the circle is a circle, and why pi has the value we see, for us. It might take some radical explanation of the nature of space-time, which will “naturally” give raise to the value of pi, and at the same time describe spaces where it would take different values.

Anamana,
@Anamana@feddit.de avatar

Absolutist claims about universal truths aren’t always driven by personal agendas. In mathematics or some scientific fields, certain truths are universally accepted based on evidence and testing. These truths aren’t necessarily rooted in personal biases but rather in the pursuit of understanding the world objectively. So while one has to be careful, not all claims of universal truth or objectivism stem from an agenda.

t3rmit3, (edited )

Science is a human paradigm for interpreting the universe. Certain scientific truths are accepted by humans, at this time, which constitutes a very small part of the universe.

I’m not saying none of the accepted scientific principles may be correct (and I’m certainly not saying they should be discounted by humans, since after all, it’s our own paradigm), I’m just saying that they are only coming from a very small and narrow ability to interact with the universe. If they are universally true, it’s not because we exhausted all other possibilities; we literally don’t have the means to say we’ve examined anything in all possible ways that can exist in the universe. We can’t know what we don’t know, after all.

I do think that saying we have achieved anything that qualifies as definitive, objective Truth, beyond the limited realm of human perception and experience, is not true. Nothing within science is universally, unquestionably settled.

For humans? With the instruments and models we have now? Sure, absolutely.

But once again, that’s very narrow.

As a little aside:

These truths aren’t necessarily rooted in personal biases but rather in the pursuit of understanding the world objectively.

That is also an agenda. Agenda doesn’t mean something nefarious, it just means an ideologically-driven plan. Wanting to understand the universe better within a certain paradigm (i.e. science) is an agenda.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines