Homosexuality

First, I flippantly refer to the LGBT community as the Alphabet People, or the Rainbow People. I choose to mock that which I believe is ridiculous.

Second, it’s important to understand that the LGBT community, like Black Lives Matter, is an interest group. It’s an organization, receiving funding and donations to further changes to public policy. Just about everyone equates the interest group with all gay, lesbian, bi and trans people, which is wrong in more than one way. We shouldn’t assume that people with similar characteristics have similar beliefs, as this erases their individuality.

Third, there’s a whole lot of things to discuss, that people aren’t aware of. I’m going to speak of both the interest group and Gay, Lesbian Trans, Etc.

Finally, though it’s irrelevant, I’d like you to know that I cherish freedom, and generally speaking, the more freedom the better (the paradox of choice notwithstanding).
Now let’s get cracking. There’s a lot of bullshit to address.

Homosexuality used to be viewed as a mental illness. Though we claim that we don’t like to stigmatize mental illness, it’s still considered offensive to assert that homosexuals are mentally ill.

It was depathologized (no longer considered an illness) in 1973-1974.

This was largely due to an emotional appeal by Dr. Henry Anonymous (Dr. John E Fryer) at an APA conference. The central argument was that having homosexuality considered as a mental illness, this allowed society to ostracize them, and allowed for open abuse and discrimination against gays.

It should be noted that oppression due to illness should never justify changing the scientific view that it is an illness. Lepers were cast out of cities to live in camps and ostracized by society, but it would be ridiculous to use this as a justification to suggest leprosy was not an illness.

Dr. Anonymous is pictured below.
H A

Theories of homosexuality fall into one of three categories:

Psychopathology
(that it is a mental illness)
It is generally accepted that people are not in fact born gay. There appears to be a strong genetic predisposition, but there is also a strong environmental influence.

To find how much genetic vs environmental influence there is on a mental illness, researchers use genetic twin studies. If a condition were entirely biological and genetic twins have the same DNA, it would be expected that both twins would either have it, or not. For homosexuality, the genetic influence is about half, the other half is therefore environmental. Mental illnesses come with other, predictable mental illnesses (comorbidities) and must have an etiology, and this is true for homosexuality, lending to the theory that it is psychopathology.

Immaturity
(that it is a phase one may grow into and out of)

This is best exemplified by the relatively common experience for young, teenage boys to have one or two homoerotic wet dreams. During adolescence, it is relatively common to have peculiar fantasies, which come and go. Should one be fixated upon for longer than six months, it becomes a sexual fetish (paraphilia). This may also be true for homosexuality. The first three Diagnostic Statistical Manuals counted homosexuality as a paraphilia. My own theory regarding immaturity involves teenage boys who have a homoerotic wet dream, and are distressed by it. As a result, they question their sexuality and overcompensate, lashing out at anything that reminds them of this uncomfortable self-doubt, regularly condemning benign interactions as “that’s gay”. They also lash out at homosexuals and verbally or physically attack them, as a way of reassuring themselves that they are heterosexual, attacking these people as an effigy of themselves and reasserting their masculinity. This is my own personal theory of homophobia.

 

Normal Variance
(that it is natural, similar to left-handedness)This category regards homosexuality as something you’re born into. There’s been a big push in our culture to “normalize” homosexuality, with the expectation that once destigmatized, more people would admit they are gay, and it was expected that they would make up 10-15% of the general population, falling within 2 standard deviations of the mean, within the normal curve. This means it would literally be normal. That has yet to happen. All over the world, studies show only 1-4% of the general population is gay, which means it does not fall within the normal curve and thus is abnormal by definition. Since normal variance also presupposes one is gay from birth, the two biggest justifications for this theory don’t appear to be true.

Rape

Feminists assure us that we live in a rape culture. Do we?

Feminists tell us to teach men not to rape, but what is a major predictor of a boy developing into a rapist?
Being sexually abused by women.
So, I guess the feminists’ campaign “don’t teach women not to get raped, teach men not to rape” should be replaced by “don’t teach boys not to rape women, teach women not to rape boys.”
Rape 1
85% of male rapists, motivated by displaced anger, grew up in fatherless homes
How’s that “Toxic Masculinity” theory working out?
Rape 2
>70% of false allegations (in general, not just rape) are made by women, ~90% of false accusers are white. Whether male or female – false accusations are overwhelmingly motivated by attention/sympathy (~50%), not profit (~10%).
2-10% of rape accusations are false. We hear all the time how rare it is for a false rape accusation – that women should simply be believed – yet the rate is greater than crimes falsely alleged in general – so unless we want to do away with due process entirely, we cannot simply “believe the victim”. Our entire judiciary is constructed on the assumption of innocence, that is, believing the accused/doubting the victim. This is not how most of history operated. These people argue to turn back to the Dark Ages, and even earlier. The real issue is non-reporting and not investigating.
The FBI puts the number of false rape allegations at 8%. These are allegations that were reported and investigated, only to be discovered they are false accusations.
According to RAINN (Rape Abuse Incest National Network), only 6% of those accused are convicted. If both stats are to be believed, this means that men are more likely to be falsely accused of rape than convicted.
A disparate number of falsely accused are black – to some, other races really do look similar, within their group (black people look alike to non-blacks, as is for whites, asians, etc – some refer to this as implicit bias, though I contend it is the novelty effect).

“Judging from exonerations, a black prisoner serving time for sexual assault is three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than a white sexual assault convict. The major cause for this huge racial disparity appears to be the high danger of mistaken eyewitness identification by white victims in violent crimes with black assailants.”

This means ~72% of those falsely accused are black.
Women are raped by men at nearly the same rate that men are raped by women.

If the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, ” rape culture ” is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7% in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7% of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person — usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.” And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate” — either by physical force or due to intoxication — at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1% in 2010, and 1.7% and 1.6% respectively in 2011).

USA Today

Even The Daily Beast found the 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 statistics to be poppycock:
The study clashes with data gathered by the Justice Department between 1995 and 2013, which found that college-age women who aren’t students are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women who are students. The number of victims was significantly lower than those in other recent surveys: 7.6 of 1,000 non-students compared to 6.1 of 1,000 students.
Even Forbes recognizes the 1 in 5 statistic to be what we’d expect in War-Zones.
These are the sort of numbers we would expect to see in war zones…
This sort of language does not promote a mindset conducive to a fair process for accused students or taking the time to look for best practices to prevent and respond to sexual assault. This hurts everybody. We have seen these sort of panics about sexual menaces before and we should learn the lesson that the outcome is often shameful. Panic about black men raping white women led to lynchings. More recently, panic over “sexual predators” has led colleges to endorse overly broad definitions of sex crimes and an over-eagerness to punish perceived transgressors. Overly broad measures often harm the very people they are intended to help. Those who doubt this should read a shocking piece by The New Yorker’s Sarah Stillman about children who end up on sexual predator watch lists.