Pro-choice is pro-transgender?

I read this interesting post by transgender activist Marti Abernathey on the Transadvocate blog, June 28:

marti.jpg

Years before my transition, when asked how I felt about abortion, I would jokingly I would say, "personally, I'd never have one." It was my way of wiggling out of this very sensitive hot button issue without really answering the question. I don't have the reproductive ability to carry a child to term, so I always felt the issue didn't concern me.

marti2.jpg I've come to realize over the years that a woman's right to choose isn't just about reproductive choice. At its core, it's about who should be sovereign over your body. If the state can choose who can decide who has an abortion or who has access to birth control, is it that much of a leap to think the state wont try to stop me from modifying my own body?

My own statement, that I'd never have an abortion, misses the point entirely. I'm sure many people would never have sexual reassignment surgery, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to do so.

Please confine comments to the points Abernathey raised. Any comments disparaging Abernathey personally will be deleted.

[Photos of Abernathey courtesy of blogher.org and writers.meetup.com.]


Comments:

I think Abernathey misses the point entirely - there is not ONE body involved, but rather, TWO. And so the real question of abortion is not, who is sovereign over the woman's body, but instead, who is sovereign over the child's body. If any member of our population is disposable, than ALL of us are at risk of becoming disposable, especially those that choose lifestyles out of the mainstream. If the child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be subjugated tand considered inferior to someone elses, than any one of us could also find OUR right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness curtailed.

Also, transgender surgery doesn't involve deliberately ending a life. The analogy doesn't hold - allowing someone to change the shape of their body is NOT the same as allowing an abortion. Abortion is not the same as getting a tooth pulled, or even a mastectomy. The child is an individual - different DNA, sometimes different sex, different bloodtype, different phenotype. It is not a benign, or malignant extension of the mother's body, but an individual with its own inalienable right endowed by the Creator, as the famous document says.

Posted by: Milehimama at June 29, 2007 8:50 AM


Great thoughts, Milehi.

Unrelated asides...

... GLBTs and pro-aborts are flip sides of the same coin. They both want the freedom to commit illicit sex with no consequences.

... And in any autocratic, theocratic society, GLBTs are among the first to be rounded up and killed. You'd think they'd they'd be sensitive toward preborns, who are considered nonpersons, inferior, expendable.

... GLBTs are against the concept of aborting preborns if that elusive gay gene is ever discovered. Again, self-serving.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 9:27 AM


There's no secular reason to be against homosexuality, transgenders, or transsexuals. There just isn't. For that reason and that reason alone, there is a difference between abortion and GLBT people. As the United States is not a theocracy (repeat as needed until it sinks in), there is no reason to deny GLBT the same rights as the rest of us, so I've never understood why that should even be a debate. I suppose it's a sign of how far this country has sunk in terms of freedoms that we argue back and forth on this.

I think abortion will be a hot button issue until it's not necessary any longer. I will never understand why GLBT rights are.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 11:39 AM


She's absolutely correct that the same right is at issue - one's right over one's own organs - one's own body. The difference is that the right of a pregnant woman who does not want her pregnancy is being violated. But if sexual reassignment surgery were banned, the same right would be denied as if abortion were banned - the right to bodily autonomy.

And Jill, I understand that you depend on being closed minded, so I'm not all that shocked about your comments, but I am pissed off. My support of abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals, transgenders, etc have nothing to do with wanting to "commit illicit sex without consequence" and everything to do with wanting my rights and the rights of others to be protected.

So I ask you, Jill, to quit poisoning the well and actually engage in a rational debate. Or are you still more concerned with "persuading" rather than seeking out the truth?

(By the way, I'm not sure you can "commit sex". Might want to check your verbiage there.)

Posted by: Diana at June 29, 2007 12:06 PM


Why do GBLTs want sex without consequences? That statement is wrong, in my opinion. It's not like two women can get pregnant having sex together. If a GLBT gets an STD most get it treated--that is being responsible for the consequences. It makes no sense.

And less is right about the main issue-there is no reason in our society to not allow GLBTs rights. None at all. Nothing but religious dogma can back up the reasoning behind the "debate."

I do however agree that these are separate issues, because abortion involves killing a separate human being--there are two people at stake here, not just one, and the unborn has no choice in the matter at all.

Posted by: prettyinpink at June 29, 2007 12:15 PM


Milehimama ,
"If any member of our population is disposable, than ALL of us are at risk of becoming disposable, especially those that choose lifestyles out of the mainstream."


Ah, I can see the pro-aborts childrens slogan now "Every parent a wanted parent" as they push to euthanize them.

Posted by: Rosie at June 29, 2007 3:38 PM


Diana, PIP, what I meant by these statements, "GLBTs and pro-aborts are flip sides of the same coin. They both want the freedom to commit illicit sex with no consequences," was exactly that.

This is their tandem political, social, and physical agenda. They want it disallowed to say either is wrong. They want there to be no physical consequences. If there are physical consequences, they want it disallowed to speak of them as "consequences."

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2007 3:50 PM


This slays me!

Posted by: Milehimama at June 29, 2007 08:50 AM: "I think Abernathey misses the point entirely - there is not ONE body involved, but rather, TWO. And so the real question of abortion is not, who is sovereign over the woman's body, but instead, who is sovereign over the child's body."

Our hi altitude breeder seems to think that she's somehow acknowledging that it's about the rights of "two" people, and I was amazed she'd actually say that. However she histerically misses her own point and is just switching authority from one to the other.

It is this asinine sort of stuff that advance prochoice more than anything we could say.

Posted by: Cameron at June 29, 2007 4:27 PM


"...freedom to commit illicit sex with no consequences."

LOL

Translation: It won't be half as exciting for us pious freaks to engage in hypocritically duplicitous lives if the deviancy is considered OK.

Posted by: Cameron at June 29, 2007 4:32 PM


It quite true about GLBTs being rounded up in theocracies and dictatorships. GLBTs were sent to the extermination camps of Nazi Germany.
Personally, I have no strong feelings one way or the other toward GLBTs and its been my experience that they lend their support to both ends of the political spectrum, and everything in between. I remember the one wheelchair bound woman demonstrating her support for the feeding and hydration of Terri Schiavo outside the nursing home where Terri lay dying, who described herself as a liberal, lesbian, agnostic Democrat who voted against Bush, but as an activist for the rights of the disabled, she supported him where Terri was concerned.
I will also say that the gay people I know at work are considerably more discreet about their bedroom activities than are many of the heterosexuals.

Posted by: Mary at June 29, 2007 4:37 PM


But Jill, you just avoided my question rather than address it. How is pushing for marriage rights fighting for sex without consequences? How is advocating safer sex practices and testing avoiding taking responsibility?

In fact the movements on the GLBT front has mainly been, "please let me marry my partner and don't beat me up." If they fight for abortion rights it is the individual fighting for abortion rights. I simply don't see how the two relate, unless you spell it out, Jill.

Posted by: prettyinpink at June 29, 2007 11:45 PM


"I think Abernathey misses the point entirely - there is not ONE body involved, but rather, TWO."

I didn't miss the point at all. It isn't two bodies, it's one. 88 percent of all abortions happen within the first 12 weeks, and last time I checked, that was well under the 24 week period that a fetus can survive outside the mother.

Life begins at the same point it ends. One is considered dead (taken off life support) when they have no cardiac or brain function.

The fetus has no dendrites, no axons (with synapses between them) to conduct any kind of brain activity (which aren't developed until 20-24 weeks of gestation).

"If the child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be subjugated tand considered inferior to someone elses, than any one of us could also find OUR right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness curtailed"

A corpse has no rights, even 1 minute after death. A fetus, under 20-24 weeks old, isn't "a life." After death, your body is not yours, but your next of kin's property.

Isn't it curious how so many Christians will fight for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of a fetus yet will deny gays and lesbians their liberty to marry. There's no such thing as selective liberty.

PS. Remove the photos of me from your server. Not that I mind, but if you're going to glofify me by using my image, use them off my server. You're stealing content, and that's a violation of the DMCA. Also, I think Jesus mentioned something about theft.

Posted by: Marti Abernathey at June 30, 2007 6:33 AM


Marty, you are way off base. Typical pro abort. Wa wa wa! You haven't a clue.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:36 AM


Marti, thank you for participating in this discussion.

As for the photos, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I have rewritten the "Courtesy of..." section of the post to clarify.

I found your photos on google. One came from a publicly posted photo you used to accompany a public comment you made on a public blog, and one came from a publicly posted photo you used to join a public blog roll of women bloggers. Neither came from your server.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 8:37 AM


Marti,

88 percent of all abortions happen within the first 12 weeks, and last time I checked, that was well under the 24 week period that a fetus can survive outside the mother.

I find it interesting that you feel completely justified in deciding that a child under 24 weeks gestation is not fully human and therefore has no rights. You, have decided this. You have made a subjective decision that affirms the death of millions of children in this country. Yi>You have decided that this particular person, a child under a certain age, does not meet the criteria that you believe a person should have in order to retain the right to life.

If one of us decided the same thing about you based on a subjective viewpoint that people "born in the wrong bodies" do not have the same rights as the rest of us, simply because we don't think they do, you'd be all over us.

When life begins is an objective fact. Even the most hardened pro-choicers on this site have agreed that life begins at conception. They disagree on when personhood begins, but acknowledge that "LIFE", human LIFE, begins the moment an egg and sperm meet.

You claim that Christians are hypocrites and yet you feel you have the right to decide when a person has value, yet refuse to give others the same right!

Hmmmm...so by your own rules, we have the right to decide that transgender people don't fit our criteria of those worthy of life...

(For the record I don't actually believe that, and I'm pretty sure no one else here does either...but the point was worth making...)

No one has the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't based on their subjective beliefs.
If they do, then we are in a whole lot more trouble than with the scenario that you put forth...

Isn't it curious how so many Christians will fight for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of a fetus yet will deny gays and lesbians their liberty to marry. There's no such thing as selective liberty.

Isn't it curious how so many GLBT's will fight for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of gays, lesbians, bi and trans sexuals, yet will deny unborn children their liberty to live. There is no such thing as selective liberty. Unless of course your a transexual selectively taking away the liberties of the unborn...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 8:40 AM


MK is back YAY!!!!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:55 AM


Long time no see, MK. How have you been?

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 8:57 AM


Jill and MK, go to the Gerri Santoro post. Dr. Defense is giving out info again.

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 8:58 AM


Why not just ignore him? I mean, it's not like anyone really takes him seriously, right?

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:01 AM


Yes, I agree, MK's name is a sight for sore eyes!

Heather4life, thanks. I deleted the post and warned DoctorDefense, i.e., SOMG, I'll alert the FBI if anything happens to these people.

Heather B., I take assassination threats seriously.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:07 AM


Jill,

I just kind of figured he was being...extreme, I guess...for some ridiculous reason, you know? I haven't seen many of his previous posts, so that might be why. I 'unno.

So he and SOMG are the same person...?

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:12 AM


Ignore him? If someone on this site threatened to bomb an abortion clinic would you ignore it????!!!! You guys would be on us like white on rice!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 9:14 AM


Heather,

Actually, I wouldn't. I don't tend to take people too seriously online.

From what I gather though, he's posted comments that are out of line before, so I'll give you that.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:18 AM


Anyway, if Jill thinks it's something to be concerned about (and it is her site, after all), then that's that.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 9:35 AM


Heather B., yes, they're the same person. SOMG goes by a number of aliases. He has encouraged the assassination of specific people time and again, including children, listing their names and known geographical locations.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:38 AM


...Wow.

That's...yeah.

I'm sure the posters on here ignore him for the most part, but I doubt we're the only ones who read your blog and there are some crazies out there =/.

Posted by: Heather B. Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 10:45 AM


Claiming that a fetus is not a person before 24 weeks because of viability issues is illogical. The 24 week timeline defines the status of our medical technology, not personhood.

Actually, the switch from defining 'death' from brain function to cardiac function is, in itself, a controversy. Right now, as I understand it, someone is 'dead' when they no longer have cardiac function- that's when the coroner is called, that's the time put on the death certificate.

And, one is taken off life support when SOMEONE ELSE decides that their life support is not worth continuing - whether by advance directive or not.

I'm not sure that you are intending to posit that people on life support are not 'persons', but that's how it comes across - are you saying that someone who cannot support their own cardiac function is not a person?

I'm not talking about dead fetuses - I'm talking about the state they are in pre-abortion (i.e., not 'dead', whatever you want to call it. I call it 'alive').

Is your position that a child, when in its mother's womb, is her sole property for the term of the gestation? Are we talking about owning living people here?


Posted by: Milehimama at June 30, 2007 11:25 AM



"I find it interesting that you feel completely justified in deciding that a child under 24 weeks gestation is not fully human and therefore has no rights. You, have decided this. You have made a subjective decision that affirms the death of millions of children in this country."

They aren't children. They cannot exist outside the mothers womb. As far as me deciding this, it's not I that decided it, but the courts.

"When life begins is an objective fact. Even the most hardened pro-choicers on this site have agreed that life begins at conception. They disagree on when personhood begins, but acknowledge that "LIFE", human LIFE, begins the moment an egg and sperm meet."

Well, then it is a life before that. If you're going on that basis, plants have life as well, under your context but I'm sure you're not at the grocery store protesting in the produce section. In the context of personhood, human life should begin at the exact opposite of where it ends.

"Actually, the switch from defining 'death' from brain function to cardiac function is, in itself, a controversy. Right now, as I understand it, someone is 'dead' when they no longer have cardiac function- that's when the coroner is called, that's the time put on the death certificate."

No, it isn't. I'm not sure where you get your "controversy" at, but I am a health care provider. I've seen how death is dealt with in the health care setting. You can remove a person from life support once brain death is determined (Dority v. Superior Court of County). Why? Because they are clinically dead. See also: the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

"And, one is taken off life support when SOMEONE ELSE decides that their life support is not worth continuing - whether by advance directive or not."

What? A mother decides to have an abortion, what's your point?

"I'm not sure that you are intending to posit that people on life support are not 'persons', but that's how it comes across - are you saying that someone who cannot support their own cardiac function is not a person?"

Without brain activity, it isn't human life. It's a living organism, but so are white blood cells.

"I'm not talking about dead fetuses - I'm talking about the state they are in pre-abortion (i.e., not 'dead', whatever you want to call it. I call it 'alive')."

It isn't a living human being. It has "life" in the same context as a plant does, but it isn't human life until it begins having the characteristics of human life, ie. brain and cardiac activity.

"Is your position that a child, when in its mother's womb, is her sole property for the term of the gestation? Are we talking about owning living people here?"

A 12 week fetus isn't a person, and isn't a living human being in the context of personhood. That isn't me just me talking, that's Roe V Wade.

"Claiming that a fetus is not a person before 24 weeks because of viability issues is illogical. The 24 week timeline defines the status of our medical technology, not personhood."

How so? You can claim the fetus is living (ie the plant example), but it does not have personhood. 20-24 weeks is when a fetus has brain activity, not before.

"I'm not sure that you are intending to posit that people on life support are not 'persons', but that's how it comes across - are you saying that someone who cannot support their own cardiac function is not a person?"

See the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

Oh and Jill, both those photos are mine, taken by me. Where you found them is irrelevant. My photos are mine and are copyrighted. If you buy stolen items off the street, it's still stolen.

If you insist on keeping them up on your server without my consent, I will contact your hosting company and have them removed via a under a TOS violation and DMCA.

Posted by: Marti Abernathey at June 30, 2007 12:44 PM


.. GLBTs and pro-aborts are flip sides of the same coin. They both want the freedom to commit illicit sex with no consequences.

Oh, so it's all about sex? Congratulations, you've just demonstrated how little you understand about transsexuals. (Or the GLB people for that matter)

While we are all sexual beings, it's only in the world of the porn film that transsexuals are sex-obsessed. Most are amazingly average people, worried about paying the mortgage/rent, and tonight's dinner, not the next sexual experience.

But then again, I have never understood the right-wing notion that sex must be followed by punishment of some sort. (and for that matter why a basic biological function like pregnancy is treated as a "punishment" at all)

... GLBTs are against the concept of aborting preborns if that elusive gay gene is ever discovered. Again, self-serving.

Typical double-speak. You claim some knowledge of the politics within the GLBT communities, and then claim hypocrisy because of what you _think_ the position is. Brilliant. That's right up there with claiming that _ALL_ Christians are represented by the insane rantings of Fred Phelps.

Political views among the GLBT communities are as varied as they are among the rest of the population. Some a stridently pro-life, others are just as firmly pro-choice.

What many fail to understand is that GLBT people will often sympathize with those who are stigmatized by others in society for whatever reason. (and the hostility and stigmatization that many women face after an abortion is similar in many ways to that which GLBT people face daily at the hands of those who accuse them of gross immorality) That they would find common cause in such circumstances should come as no surprise.

Posted by: Michelle at June 30, 2007 1:20 PM


Jill,

You are very wise to take threats of any kind seriously and to trust your instincts. Two of "my friend's" golden rules. I read on another thread that one of our posters, Diana, got a restraining order against someone she feared might be an internet stalker. Good for her! She was concerned she may have overreacted. No way!! She trusted her instincts, and she acted. "My friend", may he rest in peace, would give her a standing ovation. Following your instincts and taking threats seriously will go a long way toward protecting your life. Jill, I hope you and others on this blog will always follow these precautions.

Posted by: Mary at June 30, 2007 1:26 PM


Mary,

Thanks so much for showing your support for that decision. You know, you worry that you're overreacting, that you're being paranoid, and that you'll offend people in the process, but I'm slowly but surely learning that when it comes to your own safety you just have to trust your gut, and that it's much better to be safe than sorry. Your supportiveness about the decision really does increase my confidence in my ability to make good choices about protecting myself.

I'm very sorry about your friend.

Posted by: Diana at June 30, 2007 1:55 PM


Diana,

You're entirely welcome. "My friend" was a former convict and devoted family friend who was fiercely protective of our family. He would always give us advise on how best to protect ourselves, and who would know better? Believe me, I heard about it if he thought I did something unsafe. I am grateful for his advise and miss him terribly. We had such great talks!
Diana, I'm very relieved and happy this situation didn't become more dangerous, and you cannot assume it wouldn't have. You most certainly took the best course of action. Always trust your instincts, and yours seem very sharp. Like I said, my friend would give you a standing ovation.

To Diana and all my other friends on the blog, especially the women:

Another rule of "my friend's". Never have a set routine, i.e. don't jog every day at the same time, or do your shopping the same day and time of the week. Vary your routine as much as possible and avoid being alone, or isolated,i.e. jogging a distance from any buidings or people, especially when it is dark. He said this is just what predators are watching for and plan their actions accordingly.

Posted by: Mary at June 30, 2007 2:59 PM


Michelle said

"That's right up there with claiming that _ALL_ Christians are represented by the insane rantings of Fred Phelps."

A lot of Christ-hating liberals actually think that Michelle.

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at June 30, 2007 4:59 PM


And I'm pretty sure most Christ-loving conservatives think you, Zeke, are insane.

Posted by: Rae at June 30, 2007 6:03 PM


Diana, Who was harassing you? Did it happen here? Jill, I'm so glad you finally kicked SMOG where it counted.[ you know what I mean] This man sounds like a danger. He has threatened your life as well as the lives of other innocent people! He is giving out info that ANY wacko could get a hold of. He also does this on Operation Rescue's blog from time to time. He's nuts!

Posted by: Heather4life at June 30, 2007 6:06 PM


Marti,
Respectfullly, the definition of "death", that is,
"brain death" is:

However, I would not rest solely on the LEGAL definition of personhood, death, etc. because that changes - and is not always right. This is one reason that the prolife movement has often identified with the Abolitionist movement. Just because a court says a slave is not a person, or a fetus is not a person, doesn't actually make it so.

But I will have to bow out of this discussion for a while. We are moving and I will not have internet access until next week. I'll be happy to continue this and any other discussions once I pop back in again online!

Posted by: Milehimama at June 30, 2007 6:07 PM


Marti,

I don't know if you ignored the fact that I specified "human life", or simply didn't catch it.
But I made a point of saying "human life" because we've been through the cell/plant/leach all equal "life" many times already. A plant is not "human life"...

and I'm curious why you stopped your rebuttal there and didn't continue...if you have the right to say that a 12 week old unborn child is not a human being because you don't want it to be, then you have given me the right to say that you are not a human being because you don't fit my criteria of a human being worthy of life.

Roe vs Wade is hardly a credible source for objective proof that life begins at twenty four weeks and does nothing to convince me that you are therefore right. Honestly!!!
***************************************************

Well, then it is a life before that. If you're going on that basis, plants have life as well, under your context but I'm sure you're not at the grocery store protesting in the produce section.


When life begins is an objective fact. Even the most hardened pro-choicers on this site have agreed that life begins at conception. They disagree on when personhood begins, but acknowledge that "LIFE", human LIFE, begins the moment an egg and sperm meet.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 7:18 PM


MK, sperm and eggs are alive as well. Life doesn't magically pop into existence at conception: it was already there well before that. Every cell in every bit of every human body is technically "alive."

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at June 30, 2007 11:31 PM


Yes, Less. But as you also know, neither the sperm or the egg are complete human organisms, having the ability to grow and develop as a human being. They have one purpose, and if they do not fulfill that purpose, they die. Once united in fertilization, the sperm and the egg (neither of which is a human being) break down and together become a complete human being, needing nothing but nutrition and oxygen to survive until birth- and beyond.

marykay, it is so good to see you again! I missed you while you were away.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2007 3:56 AM


Michelle, 1:20p, rhetorically asked: "Oh, so it's all about sex?"

Yes, Michelle, it's all about sexual behavior. If not that, what's the point of being GLBT?

To my comment, "... GLBTs are against the concept of aborting preborns if that elusive gay gene is ever discovered," Michelle responded, "Typical double-speak. You claim some knowledge of the politics within the GLBT communities, and then claim hypocrisy because of what you _think_ the position is. Brilliant."

Michelle, I don't claim brilliance, but I know what the position is. Apparently you don't:

http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/03/glbt_group_oppo.html

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/03/is_your_baby_gay_1.php

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 6:14 AM


Less,

MK, sperm and eggs are alive as well. Life doesn't magically pop into existence at conception: it was already there well before that. Every cell in every bit of every human body is technically "alive."

Is there something wrong with the computer or are you just refusing to read what I wrote...?

They disagree on when personhood begins, but acknowledge that "LIFE", human LIFE, begins the moment an egg and sperm meet.

Human life, Human life, Human life...Good heavens people, could it be any clearer? Not life, HUMAN LIFE...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 6:47 AM


Jill,

A few thoughts:

1) Those articles put forth an ethical and moral debate that needs to go on within the body of society, and not something which the greater body of GLBT people have necessarily taken any position on.

2) I would be very cautious about inferring any kind of unity of position on such a matter based on an opinion piece in a blog.

3) The very topic remains highly speculative, since no reasonably complete picture of the causality behind human sexual orientation has yet been put forth and held up to scrutiny.

4) The broader question is whether medical intervention "in utero" is valid to alter an otherwise viable baby in some way. (While few would argue against intervening to prevent Cystic Fibrosis, it's a much more troubling notion to intervene to prevent left-handedness or other variances that are otherwise benign)

5) In matters of ethics, one can, and often does, take positions that are at odds with one another for various reasons. The reality is that such positions represent a natural tension between the various issues we all face in day to day life, and our experiences will influence how much one position influences another.

6) It is not logically inconsistent to be pro-choice and anti-eugenics, even though abortion may be a tool that pro-eugenics people would use. (I suspect the GLBT community would come around to arguing from a eugenics perspective on this matter - at least as far as any population is "unified")

My original stance is, and remains, that it is unreasonable to accuse a population group of hypocrisy on the basis of an single person's opinion on a topic that is so hypothetical at this time.

(Similarly, assuming that someone who is "pro-choice" is also "pro-trans" - few people would confuse the two issues in such a manner - they are distinct topics for many, and for good reasons)

Posted by: Michelle at July 1, 2007 10:49 AM


Jill...you DO realize that being GLBT is not a choice, right?

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 1, 2007 12:23 PM


Pip,

Homosexual? I'll give you that it might not be a choice.
Transexual? Well obviously the actual "surgery" was a choice, but I agree that there are people "born with the wrong parts or without the right ones", sometimes with both...

But Bisexuality, not a choice? C'mon, you've got to be kidding!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 12:30 PM


True bisexuality may be rare, but I wouldn't presume it to be a matter of choice simply because it is easy to believe so.

Posted by: prettyinpink at July 1, 2007 12:46 PM


As someone who has previously identified herself as bi, I can tell you: it's not a choice. I'm simply attracted to both genders. That's how it is. I didn't wake up one morning and "decide" to be bi any more than people wake up and "decide" to be straight. I am how I am. I've never been in a position to act on it, but that's always how I've been.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 1:00 PM


My male friend became a woman. He told me that he doesn't have sex. I asked him why, and he replied "It doesn't work" Meaning his new vagina.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 1:08 PM


I think that's transsexual.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 1, 2007 1:12 PM


Less,

By your own words you have shown that you DO have a choice...

As someone who has previously identified herself as bi

How can you identify as bi one minute and then change? Either you are or you aren't. And apparently, you aren't because you are "engaged" to a man...not to mention, if you've never acted on it then how can you be sure it would be a positive experience. You don't want to get married without test driving the merchandise first, yet you're willing to define your entire sexuality without actually experiencing it?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 1:53 PM


Pip,

While I do believe that there are people out there who are born with their wires crossed (I think someone brought up left-handedness) and have desires that are different from the majority, I also believe that much of homosexual behavior has more to do with a distortion of the sexual experience than it does with any predisposition to a particular gender.

It appears to have become quite trendy, and with the amount of partners many GLBT's have, I think it is closer to a sex addiction than an actual genetic dispostion. NOT ALWAYS! I want to emphasize that. But more often than you'd think.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 1:57 PM


MK,

"I also believe that much of homosexual behavior has more to do with a distortion of the sexual experience than it does with any predisposition to a particular gender."

You make about as much sense as someone vehemently denying that the universe just happened to have popped into existance for the purposes of advancing the notion that a supreme being just happened to make it pop into existance.

Would you care to explain why people who like anal sex and oral sex come in the heterosexual flavor?

"It appears to have become quite trendy, and with the amount of partners many GLBT's have, I think it is closer to a sex addiction than an actual genetic dispostion. NOT ALWAYS! I want to emphasize that. But more often than you'd think."

I don't know what's more foolish here. Thinking homosexuality is a contemporary fad, or that sex addiction = homosexuality.

Posted by: Cameron at July 1, 2007 4:58 PM


Cameron,

I have to agree. I don't know what's more foolish either. (not stupid mind you, but certainly foolish) since knowing the ramifications of multiple sexual partners would indicate that only a "fool" would engage in them.

NOT ALWAYS! Did you miss that? If you don't think that experimenting with homosexually is considered cool in some circles, then I think I know who the fool is.

And as for sex addiction=homosexuality, again I emphasized (and you conveniently ignored) the fact that this is not ALWAYS the case. But it often is. When you 30 or more partners in a year, I would say that you were wading in the waters of addiction, yes.

As for heterosexuals having/enjoying anal/oral sex...what does that have to do with it? Are these heterosexual people having anal/oral sex with dozens of partners. Then I would say they might also have an addiction to the sexual act itself, and I might add, I think they are foolish.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 6:25 PM


MK,

"I have to agree. I don't know what's more foolish either. (not stupid mind you, but certainly foolish) since knowing the ramifications of multiple sexual partners would indicate that only a "fool" would engage in them."

Nice strawman.

Yes... I cought the "not always" part, and I also caught the most of the time "often" suggestion, which is not the case either. If you can't advance your notions without exagerating and hyperbole, maybe you don't have a good argument. Let the reader decide for themselves with the facts absent your loaded and judgementally presumtious adjectives and adverbs, or you otherwise look desperate.

"And as for sex addiction=homosexuality, again I emphasized (and you conveniently ignored) the fact that this is not ALWAYS the case. But it often is. When you 30 or more partners in a year, I would say that you were wading in the waters of addiction, yes."

Again, another strawman intended to shift your goal post from homosexuality as innate/genetic, with "promiscuity is bad", the latter being a far softer target and more easily defended position. Seriously, HTF does what you just said lend any support to your sexual distortion argument?

You're such a coward.

"As for heterosexuals having/enjoying anal/oral sex...what does that have to do with it? Are these heterosexual people having anal/oral sex with dozens of partners."

Again... another strawman.. conflating promiscuity. WTF does promescuity have to do with homosexuality being more a result of "sexual distortion" than a genuine attraction to the same sex?

You keep advancing the asenine notion that people are OFTEN gay simply because they want to have lots and lots of sex, while ignoring the fact that high frequencies and certain acts are not exclusively homosexual phenomena. When and if you're through with your pitiful attempt at demogogary, perhaps you could advance you argument with something substantive and that actually has something to do with your tenuous argument.

Posted by: Cameron at July 1, 2007 7:36 PM


I no longer identify myself as bi, MK, because I tend to believe that no one is perfectly gay or straight. I also don't particularly enjoy labeling myself one way or another. I just don't particularly care about the genitals of someone that I love. So long as sexual needs are met and basic comparability exists, gender is irrelevant. The attraction to both genders never went away, the labeling simply changed.

Believe me, I would have acted on it. As all of my previous partners have been male and none were open to the idea of open relationships, it was a choice not to act on it. I value my relationships above testing out a sexuality I am already fairly sure of: I don't have anything to prove to myself.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 1, 2007 9:46 PM


I tend to believe that no one is perfectly gay or straight.

LOL!

Posted by: Bethany at July 2, 2007 8:19 AM


Less,

it was a choice not to act on it.

Well now, that's all I'm sayin'!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 2, 2007 8:22 AM


Mk, right on. I was going to say...it's like Less is trying to prove the point that we choose who we have sex with.

Posted by: Bethany at July 2, 2007 8:50 AM


Bethany, ever heard of the Kinsey Scale? I tend to agree with him. There are people who are perfectly homosexual or heterosexual, but I don't believe they're the majority. There are also more sexual orientations than homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Asexual and pansexual individuals aren't common, but they exist.

Mk. You aren't understanding. It's not a choice to be attracted to both genders. It's a choice to act on it: and frankly, the only reason I didn't is because my significant other is way more into monogomy than I.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 2, 2007 11:14 AM


Less, you do realize Kinsey was a pedophile, don't you?

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2007 6:31 PM


I've already shown you this info before (when we discussed it here: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/04/blogger_inaccur.html
But thought I'd post it again, to show you who's research you support:

"Kinsey's "trained observers" tested babies "5 months in age," for repeated orgasms via:

...empirical study and statistical procedures... which resulted in...reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age.[18]

Orgasm was defined as follows:

Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.[19]"

[18]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

[19]Ibid., pp. 160-161.

Kinsey's Research on Child Orgasm
Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: "Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."

Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:

[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys....[T]hey were trained observers.[8]

Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:

[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.[9]

Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:

Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"

Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in it!"

Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to...."

Dr. Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."

Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal."

Dr. Gebhard: "Oh yes."[10]

[7]Key pages from Kinsey's 1948 Male volume, pp. 157-192, "Early Sexual Growth and Activity."

[8]"The Donahue Show," transcript, December 5, 1990.

[9]The Lancet, March 2, 1991, p. 547. Emphasis added.

[10]Audiotaped phone discussion between J. Gordon Muir, editor of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, and Paul Gebhard on November 2, 1992.

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2007 6:36 PM


Less, can pedophiles make a choice not to be attracted to little children?

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2007 6:41 PM


Child interviews were unusually long. Kinsey said after two hours, "the [adult] becomes fatigued and the quality of the record drops."[22] Still, Kinsey reported 24-hour orgasm "interviews" of a four-, a 10- and a 13-year-old;[23] a four-year-old for 10 hours; a nine and 13-year-old for eight hours; and so on.[24] Dr. Gebhard's taped phone interview further details some of these techniques.[25]

Dr. Kinsey even reported that some observers "induced...erections [in the children]...over periods of months or years,"[26] but that the Kinsey team interviewed no "psychotics who were handicapped with poor memories, hallucination, or fantasies that distorted the fact."[27]

What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team? The question remains: Who did these experiments? As noted, the Kinsey team reported on a cadre of "trained observers." In Kinsey's own words...

Better data came from adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Unfortunately ....[only] 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal....on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self- masturbation or....with other boys or older adults.[28]

There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? (See Table this article.) How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects of Table 34?[29,30] Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play.

Further, Dr. Gebhard claimed in a letter to me, that they did no follow-up on these children since it was "impossible or too expensive."[31] Later Gebhard said Kinsey was correct, some children were followed up and "we do have some names" of the children.[32] There is still no answer to the question, "Where are the children of Table 34?" It is finally in the hands of Congress to determine what really happened at the Kinsey Institute.

H.R. 2749, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act of 1995, is a bill to determine if Kinsey's two principal books on human sexual behavior "are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." Clearly a useful step would be the gathering of facts on the work of Kinsey and his colleagues and a public disclosure of these facts in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Congress is in a strong position to carry out this kind of fact-finding as a precursor to legislation. An attempt should be made to answer certain questions that bear directly or indirectly on H.R. 2749:

* Did Kinsey and his colleagues behave in an ethical fashion in the way they collected and published data from human subjects, especially children?
* Apart from the ethical considerations, did they analyze and publish their data correctly from the scientific point of view?
* Were federal funds solicited, used, and accounted for appropriately?
* Do the answers to the preceding three questions indicate any violations of federal law?

If the information collected and published by Kinsey proves, on examination, to be badly flawed or to involve fraud or criminal wrongdoing, what are the implications for the use of this information in science, education, law and public policy? Specifically, to what extent should the federal government[33] fund or recall the dissemination and use of this information?

22]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 181.

[23]Ibid., p. 180.

[24]"Was Kinsey a Fake and a Pervert?," The Village Voice, December 11, 1990, p. 41.

[25]Op. cit. fn #9.

[26]Kinsey, Male volume, p. 177. Moreover, as Lewis Terman pointed out in his critique of Kinsey, "The author lists (p. 39) "many hundred" persons who brought in "delinquent groups: male prostitutes, female prostitutes, bootleggers, gamblers, pimps, prison inmates, thieves and hold-up men. These, presumably, would have brought in others of their kind, but in what numbers they did so we are not told." Terman also notes "a dozen prison populations" included "a state school for feeble-minded, two children's homes, and two homes for unmarried mothers....plus "more than 1,200 persons who have been convicted of sex offenses." (Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: Some Comments and Criticisms," Lewis Terman, Sexual Behavior in American Society: An Appraisal of the First Two Kinsey Reports, NYC: W.W. Norton & Co., 1955, p. 447).

[27]Ibid., p. 37.

[28]Ibid., p. 177. Emphasis added.

[29]After I asked these questions in 1981, the Kinsey Institute launched a 12-year-long national campaign to undermine my investigation. The 87- page Kinsey Institute "confidential" package mailed worldwide, and especially to those who might interview Reisman on the issue are available.

[30]Beyond Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), the recently released video, The Children of Table 34, narrated by Ephrem Zimbalist Jr., is a very important tool for understanding the way in which the Kinsey data have been used to mislead the nation. This half-hour video documents the history of the Kinsey fraud and establishes Kinsey as the foundation of current homosexual advocacy and classroom sex education and AIDS Prevention.

[31]Gebhard letter to me, March 11, 1981.

[32]In the Male volume, Kinsey describes the children's trauma (which he saw as orgasmic), claiming to also have data on "a smaller percentage of older boys and adults which continues these reactions throughout life," p. 161. Gebhard also says they have the names, Op. cit. fn #9.

[33]In most of their recent news releases, Indiana University denied they received any federal money which served to support Dr. Kinsey's research efforts. [

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2007 8:10 PM


First off, the one source you site is from a ministry site. Biased much? The site is used to discredit Kinsey due to his opinions and scientific data on homosexuality. He's been dragged through the mud with no evidence, and until some actual evidence surfaces, I don't really see the point in continuing to respond to posts such as these.

I don't believe there's anything at all wrong with being homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, autosexual, heterosexual. I don't care, so long as there's legitimate consent between both parties. I honestly don't believe most people are 100% one thing or another. You don't have to believe what I do, but for Gods' sake, don't push your beliefs onto everyone else.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 12:19 AM


Oh....pooor ppooorrr misunderstood Kinsey. My bad, even though his own writings reflect the abuse the children endured....

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 8:01 AM


Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.[19]"

Cause, you know, this doesn't sound disturbing at all, when you imagine this happening to a little child. Oh no, of course not. All happy little kids must do this routinely...uh YEAH right.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 8:06 AM


Dear God Bethany,

That is unbelieveable...
They wouldn't let people do that to a dog!

I can't get over how people on this site not only cite sources like Kinsey and Tiller, but actually
laud them...

No, we're not sick as a society...whatever you want to do to each other is just fine as long as you don't do it to "me"...

Less,
Why do you get to shove your theories down our throats but Bethany can't?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 8:24 AM


Isn't it sick, Mk? That's what I don't get either...not only do they not get outraged by these things...but they actually support them and demand that they be treated with the ultimate respect! Kinsey was a disgusting pervert!

The ONLY reason that Less wants Kinsey to be a hero is because he makes her feel good about the way she lives her life. He doesn't put any restrictions on ANY sexual behavior. That makes her feel good about herself, so of course she likes him.

She isn't concerned with the welfare of all those children who were described in the interviews, being timed with stopwatches! But Kinsey denied those charges....Oh no, of course, the pedophile wouldnt LIE!

Obviously, Less's concern begins with herself and ends with herself!

Yeah, I would also love to know why she can shove these disgusting theories down my throat, trying to make them accepted as the "ultimate truth" while my ideas and theories are rejected as "intolerant".

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 8:33 AM


"The ONLY reason that Less wants Kinsey to be a hero is because he makes her feel good about the way she lives her life. He doesn't put any restrictions on ANY sexual behavior. That makes her feel good about herself, so of course she likes him."

Bethany, this is just the sort of assumption that I was railing against when we had that very long drawn out argument. You ASSUME that because Less makes different lifestyle choices than you do that her reasons for taking an interest in the science that Kinsey did is just to justify her lifestyle. But how do you know?

Bethany and MK,

You two are engaging in the ultimate ad hominem argument. Yes, Kinsey did some experiments that were twisted and wrong. Yes, Kinsey and his fellow researchers were led into a lifestyle that many of us would not choose for ourselves. But that has nothing to do with the actual scientific data. We still rely on medical knowledge gained by the Nazis! Are you going to say that the science was bad because the Nazis did it? That doesn't follow; it's nothing more than an ad hominem argument. It's akin to saying to me "Diana, you had an abortion, and that's abhorrent and wrong, therefore, every argument you make, or any data you might collect, is crap". Does that sound like a good argument to either of you?

Also, you have to put Kinsey's research methods in the context in which they were used. We're talking 'round about the same time B.F. Skinner was allegedly putting his daughter in a skinner box (kinda like a birdcage) as an experiment. We're talking about the same time that they were doing experiments on depression and empathy by keeping animals in cages with metal bottoms and shocking them in various ways. I don't say this to justify Kinsey's more outrageous experiments or the experiments of other scientists of the time, merely pointing out that this was a time when there were no boundaries on experimentation, and people could, and often did, go too far. We still rely on data from their experiments, though, despite the fact that we think their experiments were wrong.

Oh, and the scale Less sent you to was actually developed out of what was the bulk of Kinsey's work - in depth interviews with thousands of americans about their sexuality.

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 9:19 AM


*despite the fact that we think their experiments were *morally* wrong.

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 9:22 AM


Diana, what I assume about Less, I assume based on the things I have read from all of Less's posts for the last few months. (plus, many of her words on other sources besides this blog)
I don't assume it simply zbecause she considers herself bisexual or any of that other stuff.
Where do you see her acknowleding anywhere that Kinsey's methods were wrong? She is defending Kinsey, not only the results of his experiments!
It's like saying that I can't tell someone who defends Nazi's that they're being disgusting. If you want to defend medicine that came about through those horrible experiments, be my guest. But to defend the very Nazi's who did them or allowed them? And to defend the methods they used? Come on...this is much different.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 9:35 AM


I realize there is a difference between defending Kinsey and defending the science that Kinsey did, but I don't see Less defending him OR his methods AT ALL. She said there is no point in entertaining attacks and defending him until actual evidence surfaces from an unbiased source. You and MK then begain to slam her, Kinsey, and pro-choicers on this site in general - on the basis of a bad argument.

As for your drawing conclusions based on Less's posts in the past few months, well, I guess you and I are just working from different background assumptions, since I've never seen Less say anything that would indicate to me that she is interested in science only because it justifies her lifestyle. From what I've seen, she's interested in facts, which is a darn good reason to be interested in science.

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 10:01 AM


We still rely on data from their experiments, though, despite the fact that we think their experiments were wrong.

Please do tell me what the data derived from sexually molesting children, and telling others that the children had "orgasms"....how does this help anyone? What medical good can this accomplish for any person, any child?
I see this as disgusting, and it is absolutely breathtaking that anyone would not only support it, but support the method by which the person did it. There's absolutely no reason that I can see that we "need" to know that pedophiles can cause these kinds of reactions in children. Of COURSE the little children are going to be Gasping, Fighting, struggling, screaming, etc.... this isn't orgasm, this is a fight for survival!!

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:01 AM


And doesn't Less (and others like her) consider Kinsey the "father of the sexual rights movement"? Would you give a Nazi such an 'honorable' title? Maybe the Nazi's should be called the "Fathers of Medical Science"? Do they really deserve credit when their methods were to brutally torture the people they derived their science from?


Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:01 AM


Sorry about all the extra posts...I was trying to post and it kept locking up. Looks like the problem is fixed now.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:03 AM


She said there is no point in entertaining attacks and defending him until actual evidence surfaces from an unbiased source.

Diana, all the evidence I need to know that he was hurting children was to look at his own work! From the horses mouth...look at the "Table 34" and you explain to me how this data was collected?
http://www.rsvpamerica.org/TABLE34.htm

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:08 AM


Bethany,

I personally don't know what conclusions were drawn from those experiments. I hadn't even heard of such experiments. I don't know if they really happened, honestly. I'd have to look around for info froma non-biased source. The vast majority of his conclusions are drawn from interviews with adults about their sexual histories and feelings.

And I don't support those experiments. I don't support the method. Chill. I was just pointing out that calling Kinsey a pervert isn't sufficient to discredit his scientific conclusions.

"And doesn't Less (and others like her) consider Kinsey the "father of the sexual rights movement"? Would you give a Nazi such an 'honorable' title?"

Dunno. Depends I guess. 'Pope' seems like a pretty honorable title, doesn't it?

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 10:10 AM


Diana,

He's been dragged through the mud with no evidence, and until some actual evidence surfaces, I don't really see the point in continuing to respond to posts such as these.

Sounds like defending Kinsey to me. Not just his results, but the man himself. Also sounds like when the evidence is presented, it's dismissed...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:10 AM


Dunno. Depends I guess. 'Pope' seems like a pretty honorable title, doesn't it?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean?

And I don't support those experiments. I don't support the method. Chill.

I am thankful you don't support the experiments, Diana, really...but I have a hard time being able to 'chill' when it comes to children being hurt and then someone being given credibility after doing such horrific stuff.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:12 AM


Diana, suppose Eric Rudolph came up with several scientific experiments and published them for the public. What the scientific experiments would be is irrelevant. Would you place ANY credibility on his evidence, or would you immediately dismiss them because they came from a person who thinks it's okay to bomb abortion clinics and olympics stadiums?
Don't you think that his warped mind may analize data a little differently than the average mind?

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:16 AM


Sounds like defending Kinsey to me. Not just his results, but the man himself. Also sounds like when the evidence is presented, it's dismissed...

That's exactly how I read it too, Mk. Appears that Less is pretty miffed about her hero being "dragged through the mud".

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:18 AM


Diana,

The Children of Table 34

Produced by Family Research Council. This 30 minute video presents the story of Dr. Reisman's discovery of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's systematic sexual abuse of 317 male children, some as young as 2 months of age for his study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The information is vital to understanding the fraudulent "scientific" basis for American sex education being taught in public, private and parochial schools with devastating results. Kinsey's research fueled the sexual revolution and 50 years later "anything goes" sexuality has captured all of America's institutions.


If Hitler studies, valid or not, resulted in the rest of the world snuffing out undesirables in gas chambers, would you just ignore it?

Well, Kinseys studies have resulted in grade schoolers being taught that homosexuality, pre-marital sex, birth control and abortion are all perfectly viable moral options. Many of us disagree. This does not belong in our schools and it's there as a direct result of folks like Kinsey.

Accepting his data is one thing. But brainwashing our children based on his theories is another!

"I don't say this to justify Kinsey's more outrageous experiments or the experiments of other scientists of the time, merely pointing out that this was a time when there were no boundaries on experimentation, and people could, and often did, go too far. We still rely on data from their experiments, though, despite the fact that we think their experiments were morally wrong."

You mean like chimeras, embryonic stem cell experiments, selective reduction due to litters being created for IVF clients...hmmm...sounds like things haven't changed much...

But hey, anything for science, right?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:19 AM


It's also amazing that when we cite "biased" sources we're called on it because "Hey, consider the source"

But when scientific data is presented by a crazed pervert we get yelled at for saying "Hey, consider the source..."

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:22 AM


"Sounds like defending Kinsey to me. Not just his results, but the man himself. Also sounds like when the evidence is presented, it's dismissed..."

Well, I guess we just hear it differently, then, because it sounds like a statement that there is no need to defend the man or the experiments on the basis of biased sources. That's not a defense, but a statement of not giving a defense. And evidence from biased sources should be dismissed.

"Dunno. Depends I guess. 'Pope' seems like a pretty honorable title, doesn't it?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean?"

The current Pope was a member of the Hitler youth. That was a bit of turn about's fair play- more a jab than an argument. Sorry. But at the same time, it does go to show that we will give titles to people who do horrible things. The "founding fathers" of this country, it should be remembered, were sexist slave owners. I'm sure our honored Washington whipped slaves. Jefferson had children by one of his slaves (sally hemmings). And raping black women was common among slave owners. But we still revere them for the good that they did do. Ben Franklin was a womanizer. Mother Teresa accepted money from and was friendly with terrible dictators. Gandhi was a racist who denied his wife access to medicine, resulting in her death, and then took that same medicine to save his own life. No one is perfect, so if we are going to be able to laud anyone at all, we have to laud the good that people do while acknowleding the bad.

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 10:25 AM


That's not a defense, but a statement of not giving a defense. And evidence from biased sources should be dismissed.

Wouldn't Kinsey himself be a biased source? I mean, really!

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:27 AM


Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth ó membership being legally required after December 1939[4] ó but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5]. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics. In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945.


Talked about biased sources and making assumptions based on them!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:30 AM


"Don't you think that his warped mind may analize data a little differently than the average mind?"

Undoubtedly. That's why we have peer reviewed journals, and why things aren't accepted until they are verified through multiple sources (as Kinsey's conclusions have been).

"If Hitler studies, valid or not, resulted in the rest of the world snuffing out undesirables in gas chambers, would you just ignore it?"

No. And whether or not certain things should be taught in schools is a completely separate matter. You can't get around having made a bad argument by changing the subject.

"But when scientific data is presented by a crazed pervert we get yelled at for saying "Hey, consider the source...""

It's not the same thing. There is a difference between science that has been verified by multiple sources, sent through the peer review system, etc, etc, and stuff said on religious websites (or other sites with obvious agendas). Surely you see the difference.

Anyway. Got to jet. Have a wonderful day, ladies.

Posted by: Diana at July 5, 2007 10:32 AM


No. And whether or not certain things should be taught in schools is a completely separate matter. You can't get around having made a bad argument by changing the subject.

But I'm not changing the subject. Less has made decisions in her life (belief that you can be purely homosexual) based on Kinseys findings. Our schools have been influenced based on his findings. What if Hitlers theories were being taught in our schools as mainstream? Would that be on topic? Kinsey's findings have been having an effect on the world and how it views sex for years now and it is changing the moral fabric of our world. Pope John Paul II also had some WONDERFUL theories on sex, but if we tried to teach those in mainstream education we'd be massacred!

We disagree with the morality of his findings and therefore are calling into question the validity of his findings.

You are saying that this is irrational. But it is affecting our lives and the lives of our children.

Exactly what "scientific data" has Kinsey contributed? He reports on sexual behaviors in people which are extremely subjective and he tortured small children to get other information.

You think the results he got from molesting infants is not biased. They weren't exactly willing participants. And I'm unsure not only as to what he accomplished, but as to what he was trying to accomplish!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:42 AM


Mk, I think we may not understand what he was trying to accomplish, but I think NAMBLA knows!

"NAMBLA's Website Thanks Kinsey
June 26, 2007 ďGay liberationists in general, and boy lovers in particular, should know Kinseyís work and hold it dear. ... Implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today.Ē "

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 10:51 AM


The reason I entertain the theories of Kinsey, actually, is because I find them interesting. I donít particularly apply them to myself, as I donít need justification for how I live my life. I donít need to prove or rationalize anything to myself: I am how I am, and Iím not particularly concerned with how you or others perceive me. Your concern about my religious beliefs, my sexual antics, and my life in general is ignored, to be honest, as Iím perfectly content with how I conduct myself. Kinsey is interesting. Thatís the beginning and end of why I put forth his notions. I do happen to agree with him with regards to the scale, but believe that it has serious flaws. Heís not my hero, the father of sexual rights, or anything but a scientist whose work I happen to find interesting. I donít know about you, but I happen to find it annoying when one takes a single biased source and bases the entire post around it.

Skinner was a behavioralist. He once borrowed a young boy out of an orphanage and taught him to be terrified of fluffy white animals, as well as various other objects, by associating said objects with the excruciatingly loud bang of a gong. Unfortunately, someone else adopted the boy before he could be desensitized: so there was a boy out there who was inexplicably terrified of fluffy white animals and other objects. We still rely on Skinnerís research into behavioral learning for most of psychology. Wanna change that? The man undoubtedly did other horrible things: as Diana said, he put his own daughter in a skinner box, supposedly. Iím defending what Kinsey did or did not do. But your site was biased, and Iím not going to bother doing any defending from a biased source. Itís a waste of my precious time. I didnít cite anything of Kinseyís: I simply said that I happen to agree with his scale. I didnít ask you to agree, I didnít use it in an argument. I just put it out there.

Bethany, where, exactly, are you getting things from me beyond this blog? I have my blog listed in the links section, I realize, that thatís it. And as that particular blog doesnít deal with much of anything, why, exactly, do you assume that has anything to do with what I type here?

Honestly, I am so sick of posting and immediately being jumped all over as a moral degenerate.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 10:56 AM


Really? I thought you really didn't care, seeing as this forum is a game to you, and all.

Honestly, Less, I've just had it with all of this defending sickos and stuff. Someone should take a stand against disgusting people like this instead of patting them on the back and saying, oh well you did some good, so that outweighs all the atrocities you've committed. Not just bad stuff, Less, we're talking about some perverse stuff.

Less, why dont you explain to me, since you obviously feel my source is biased..why don't you explain to me yourself how the data was collected for the children of 34? If you're tired of Kinsey's name being "dragged through the mud", why not try defending him based on his merits and allow me to see why he's not to be looked at harshly?

Oh yes, and all those scientists and psychologists are interesting. So was Hitler. This doesn't make them credible.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 11:12 AM


I am how I am, and Iím not particularly concerned with how you or others perceive me. Your concern about my religious beliefs, my sexual antics, and my life in general is ignored,

Honestly, I am so sick of posting and immediately being jumped all over as a moral degenerate.

which is it?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 11:16 AM


You know, lots of people that are serving life sentences in prison also did some good things in life. But when John Gacy was sentenced to death, the judge didn't say, "Well, we can't discredit everything good that he did, like making little kids laugh while dressed up as a clown, or being a great alderman, just because of a little thing like murdering 30 teenage boys..."

Kinsey was a scary man, and has had a great influence on our society as a whole.

Your outlook on sex is a perfect example. Whether you realize it or not you have been either directly or indirectly influenced by him.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 11:23 AM


I can think the forum is a game, Bethany, and still not enjoy being treated as though I am the devil incarnate. I doubt anyone particularly enjoys that sort of treatment. As I said, Iím not particularly interested in explaining it: I donít particularly care. I find his theories interesting, the man is dead, psychologists know better than to do such things now. As I was not present at the time, I can never know what actually happen. Iím not interested in going through and defending his methods when the methods arenít going to be repeated and donít comprise the bulk of his research. I find some of his theories interesting, and Iím afraid thatís all: reading more into it than whatís there is going to waste your time, not mine, so feel free to psychoanalyze me all you need.

MK, as I told Bethany, I can not care what you think about my lifestyle and still not particularly enjoy being held as a demon. As you are someone who seems to believe everything is black and white, I donít expect you to understand that, but then again, I donít particularly care.

I think the Pope is a scary man, and he holds great influence. Guess we all have our opinions, donít we?

As I was Catholic during my teenage years, when I first began to be interested in sex, I highly doubt Kinsey had undue influence upon my opinions. Iíd never heard of the man until I moved out and went to college. My outlook on sex is based upon the fact that sex is a natural process, just as natural as eating or drinking, and shouldnít be restricted based on an outdated and religiously-based set of morals that not everyone follows.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at July 5, 2007 1:55 PM


I don't particularly like the word particularly. :-P

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 2:57 PM


The Pope is a scary man? LOL!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 5, 2007 3:38 PM


Oh yeah, Heather...apparently Mother Theresa was quite the dictator herself! :-P

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2007 5:54 PM


Less,

Iíd never heard of the man until I moved out and went to college.

And that would be why I said that you were influenced whether you were aware of it or not...

By the time you hit your teens, Kinsey and PP's way of thinking about sex was already infiltrating the minds of every young person in America. Lucy and Ricky used to sleep in separate beds. Now Lucy would be sleeping in multiple beds with multiple partners and no one would bat an eye! Why? Because of the "sexual revolution" (translated, men get sex with no repercussions while women take all the responsibility and men make them feel like they should be grateful for the privilege!) due in great part to the likes of Kinsey, Margaret Sanger and their ilk, our children have slowly become brainwashed into believing that when it comes to sex, if it feels go, do it. No worries about consequences. We've taken care of that. Birth control and abortion.

I keep saying that womens lib as it is now, was a mans idea.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 6, 2007 6:35 AM


Diana, I realize that it may have seemed like I was overreacting to Less's post when you haven't been here long enough to see the previous posts we've made about Kinsey, and in general.

I think the difference between you and Less is that, while your philosophies on life are very much the same, to Less, this is all fun and games. She doesn't actually care about debating, in my opinion...she has admitted to us several times that there are basically three reasons she posts here:
1.) She is bored
2.) She loves conflict and posts actually seeks purposefully to be contradictory, looking for a fight - a way to vent her frustration in her real life.
3.) She likes to think of the blog as a game.

When I keep hearing her say these things, that she WANTS to fight, she DESIRES conflict...well, she's gotten her wish. I feel no sympathy for her if she wants to feel like she's a victim when someone calls her out on something she says.

Now the difference I see in YOU is that I believe you come here with sincere intentions of discussing and debating. You don't come here just to vent frustrations and find someone to annoy just because it's a game to you. I feel that you are genuinely either seeking truth, and trying to explain your point of view to others.

This is why I can respect you as opposed to Less, regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with your philosophy on life and do hope one day that we can see eye to eye on these things.

Do you see where I am coming from?

Posted by: Bethany at July 6, 2007 9:55 AM


Bethany, I sure do! I asked Less why she doesn't blog on pro choice sites. She replied "I do." "They just don't give me the debate I crave." See! Actually, pro choice blogs are a bore. There is NO debating. Pro lifers comments are deleted promptly. They probably agree with everything Less says. So there is no arguing or debating. Less, I'll give you points for honesty on this one.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 6, 2007 1:20 PM