5 Questions I Want to See Discussed en Masse

You could be first. You were interested enough to view the thread.

I can only offer my opinions on these matters.
1. I believe the use of the "N" word is never acceptable. The black community does itself a disservice allowing it's use by anyone, period.

2. I believe sexual orientation is genetic.

3. Trans is a world I am not familiar with, but I take a "live and let live" attitude towards.

4. Valuing our time is something we choose to ignore in our pursuit of "the perfect life." When you get my age (79) you learn different. I enjoy every minute on this Earth, especially those minutes spent with family.


5. Religion, or lack thereof, is deeply personal. However, far too many are convinced theirs is the only right choice, and have the need to convince others. Perhaps this is inborn fear that they may not be correct.

1. Fair.
2. Interesting. Anything you read to make you believe that?
3. Fair.
4. Fair.
5. That last sentence speaks volumes.
MSG Stan Hutchison

SGT (Join to see) -
Sorry, I got busy yesterday or I would have responded earlier. I am taking your response as an invitation to reply, as long as I do so tactfully. I promise to be tactful in my response, and in my replies (unless someone decides to get personal with me, then I tend to respond in kind, but usually slightly less extreme).

As a warnins to anyone reading this, I remain tactful (as promised) however I also primarily use clinical terminology. There is some instance of slang thrown in where necessary. My answers are tactful, but also frank. I will call a spade a spade - "garden tool designed for digging," but also not "the shovel's worthless cousin." Most of this discussion is not appropriate for the dinner table or for children.

I welcome discussion, disagreement, and/or debate. If you have a problem with my terminology, or believe I stated something incorrectly, please let me know. Now that we have the Edit function back, I will do my best to correct unintentional pejoratives, misrepresentations or misstatements - but I will not change things simply because you "do not like" a word.


1. I do not believe it is right for anyone to use that word, but I also understand the concept of "taking it back." As I am not directly affected by use of this word, I will continue to refrain from using it myself, but make no judgments on others who choose to use it, especially those in the black community.

2. These are two separate, but related issues.
2a. Homosexuality was once in the DSM, but is no longer listed (I believe - my DSM is years out of date, and I am not in the field). This means that it is not, technically, a mental illness anymore. Homosexuality is seen in multiple species, not just humans, so the concept that it is something that we made up for shits n giggles is likely not correct. Also, the concept which I have seen bandied about that people do it for attention is likely balderdash. Those folks who *do* get attention for their homosexuality are almost overwhelmingly in receipt of negative attention. Even the folks like Ellen DeGeneres who get praise and acceptance, still get far more criticism and hate from the public than they get love or praise. Which leaves us with homosexuality simply being a thing about a person. The debate of nature vs. nurture is still open (although there appears to be a lot more evidence to support nature than nurture at this point), but IMHO the debate is irrelevant. I have a "thing" for redheads. It doesn't matter whether the red came from God or a bottle - red hair is hot. It doesn't matter whether someone was born homosexual or something they decided upon based on society, inner turmoil, too much porn, or "why not?" They are homosexual, so let them be homosexual. It is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Additionally, this touches on the concept of the sexuality spectrum. Some folks are 100% heterosexual; some are 100% homosexual. Some are directly in the middle, and perfectly bisexual. However, IMHO, most people fall somewhere between the extremes. Most straight people might have a homosexual experience in the right circumstances. Most homosexual folks might have a straight experience in the right circumstance. That is, again, neither right nor wrong, it simply is.
So.... mental illness? I don't believe so. No more than green eyes or a preference for Screamo is. Probably less of a mental illness than a preference for Screamo, to be honest.

And none of that is a reason to disrespect anyone. People deserve respect as human beings, at a minimum. And up until they take actions which are unworthy of being respected, they should be granted that basic human respect.

I didn't touch on the religion aspect of it, mostly because I have a highly individualized religion. One of the many reasons I have a highly individualized religion is my problem with organized religion telling people not only what to believe, but how to believe. I do not support any religion being used to spread or cause hate - but I am also not involved in any of those religions. And I refuse to hate on others because they are - because that would be hypocritical of my objection to hate.


2b. Gender Dysphoria (GD) is in the latest DSM, so technically transgenderism is a mental illness. However this directly ties into the next question, so I will tackle 3 here as well. Gender is defined by society, sex is defined by biology, at least those were the definitions back when I was in school. When a boy prefers the color pink, Barbies, and EZ Bake Ovens to the color blue, GI Joes, and Hot Wheels, he is showing transgender tendencies. When an adult female prefers a three piece suit and being the primary breadwinner, and having a husband stay at home with the kids, she is showing transgender tendencies. Gender is defined by society - so when a person takes on the roles that society says should be filled by the opposite sex, that is transgender. And in today's society, this is increasingly nebulous to the point of being *almost* eradicated. Nowadays, we think nothing of female politicians, doctors, lawyers, bankers, CEOs. They are still too RARE, to be sure. But we don't criticize them for doing "a man's work." (At least not as a society - there are still plenty of folks who do individually). What we currently refer to as transgender is REALLY transsexual. People who feel like they have the wrong biology. People who are physically male, but believe they should not only fill female roles, but have a female body - and even some of those feel like they should be filling stereotypically male roles in a female body (Caitlyn Jenner still wanted to be the head of family, for instance). Or the opposite - people whoa re physically female who believe they should have a male body. They are more properly called transsexual, IMHO. I think partly because of this dichotomy, and folks like me insisting that the proper term in transsexual and some belief somewhere that "transsexual" is pejorative, while "transgender" is less so, many have decided it is simpler to use the word "trans." It is more inclusive (transgender, transsexual, transvestite all can fit), less confusing, and less pejorative.
But circling back around to the mental illness aspect, I can understand why the DSM includes it. Regardless of *why* someone feels trapped in the wrong body, this feeling is going to be highly distracting, at the least. Like, distracting to the point of making everyday living difficult. Which is where the current thinking of the DSM and the field is. If *anything* affects you to the point where you have difficulty functioning (or worse, are unable to function), then it is a diagnosable problem. Gambling addiction, porn addiction, online gaming addiction are all now listed as diagnosable mental illnesses. I have never personally experienced GD, but I have heard it described many times as "living a lie." (OF course, many other things have been described as such, but I digress). If you live everyday of your life feeling like you are not the person everyone thinks you are, and that you are forced to conform to someone else's concept of who you are and who you should be, I can see how this will cause a metric ton of stress, anxiety, even depression and suicide. Yes, this can ABSOLUTELY be debilitating. (Similarly, before homosexuality was as accepted as it currently is, I imagine many homosexuals experienced the same "living a lie" issues, which is why it *was* in the DSM, but no longer is. At least that is my theory.)
So, GD is a mental illness, but IMHO it only a mental illness insofar as society is unwilling to accept someone for who they are rather than who society insists they are. I have heard many arguments regarding GD being a delusion - a person with a male body believes they are female, which I disagree with. It isn't that the person with a male body believes they ARE female, it is that the person with a male body believes that they SHOULD BE female. And they feel uncomfortable living life as a male.
For the final part of 3, regarding porn and search engine optimization, there are two answers. First, what is commonly referred to as a shemale is usually a male who may or may not have breast implants. This male may or may not be trans - there is a wide world of kinks out there on pron sites. In the very rare occasions (more often in animated porn, as you can draw things much easier than you can find them in the real world), the shemale is actually a hermaphrodite. Which is its own can of worms completely separate (although somewhat related) to trans issues. The second answer is that the porn sites are going with what "the people" use. And people searching for porn generally are not taking the time to research and type politically (or anatomically) correct terminology. It is the same reason "tits" and "dick" will be used more than "breasts" or "penis."

4. "You can spend all your time making money; you can spend all your love making time." (The Eagles, "Take It to the Limit").
We don't value our time more, because we value our time so much. I think most of us know that we have a limited amount of time on Earth. And we have SO MUCH that we want to do before we die. But MOST of those things costs money. Even if the experience is free or almost free (hiking the Grand Canyon), it costs money to GET THERE. So we have this inherent desire to earn, earn, earn; work hard to build up the resources to go DO THINGS. I know of very few people who when I ask them why they are working state something along the lines of "I like being miserable." People either respond with "I love what I do" (in which case, they ARE making good use of their time) or they respond with the goals of the money they are earning.
Which all ties in to the work-life balance AND the delayed gratification concept. I believe you have the equation backwards, though. You discuss people working too hard because they want it *now.* I see people working their butts off so they can have it *eventually.* When we talk about folks with an unhealthy work-life balance, we talk about the folks who have used none of their leave days or their sick days. They are working and saving FOR THE FUTURE.
I am currently retired from the Army, and I am also rated 100% by the VA. My wife has a decent job making around $35K / year. I can afford *not* to work. But I am still working. Why? Because I have two homes (the second one is rented out) and I am paying two mortgages - and paying extra on each of them. In about 4 years, the rental home will be paid off. About 10 years after that, the home I live in will be paid off. So in 14 years, I will have NO mortgage, and rent coming in off the second home. That rent will pay insurance and taxes on both homes, with a little left over for incidental repairs. At that point my retirement plus disability will not only pay for daily living, it will pay for travel and adventure. We still tuck away $150 / month for a small (1 week somewhere in the US) vacation every year, so we aren't completely failing to live, but we are working hard while we are young and our bodies can do it so that when we are older (when I am 59) we will be able to not work AND travel regularly. The alternative would be for me to not work now and us to scrape by both now and in the future. But my wife is working, so what would I do with my time, since I prefer to be with her? Or we could both work part-time and spend more time together - but we would be scraping by now and in the future - and we would be continuing to work into our 70s.
It isn't a question of valuing out time, at least for most people I talk to. It is a question of which time do we value? And how much do we value it? As I get older work is more and more painful. I would prefer to do as much of it as I can while I still can, rather than still be trying to hold down a job in my 60s. Because I value relaxing when I am in more pain more than I value relaxing when I am in less pain.

As far as being supported doing the one thing I really loved, that wasn't really applicable to me. I still haven't found one thing I really love doing. There are plenty of amusing or entertaining things to pass the time, but nothing that I love doing or wish I had never stopped. My parents supported me and my endeavors, and I just naturally stopped doing pretty much everything I did as a child. Even now as an adult, I used to be an avid reader, but just haven't been able to get "into" a book for the last decade; I used to be big into video games, now I can't remember the last time I booted up Skyrim. Of course, my depression likely has a lot to do with that, but that is a completely different topic.

5. As far as people respecting religious beliefs, I think the answer, in part, is because people are people. The answer, in part, are because people are tribal. And the answer, in part, is because power corrupts.

People are people: We tend to disbelieve things we do not understand. If I do not understand your religion, I will not believe it, and since religion is ALL ABOUT faith, if I don't believe your religion, your religion is OBVIOUSLY fake - at least as far as I am concerned. And yes, this includes atheists - there is one rather militant atheist on RP who consistently tells Christians they are wrong for their beliefs. There is another who is less prominent but I have seen him tell Christians they are delusional. You may not see people telling Christians their religion isn't real, but it happens.

People are tribal: We are wired to trust people who are like us and not trust people who are not like us. "Us vs. them" is a biological imperative. It is one we can overcome with thought and work, but it MUST be overcome. Religion is simply another way to sort the tribes. People who believe the same things I do are more likely to be in "my tribe," people who believe differently are far less likely. (And this tribalism and "othering" is a key part of military psychology - it is why we have had a pejorative term for every enemy we have faced throughout history.) When we see someone or a group of people as being different from our group, it means that we inherently do not trust them. We can overcome our natural instinct and CHOOSE to trust them anyway, or our trust can be earned through actions, but either way, these "others" are outsiders. Until we can find a way to make them part of "our tribe" (and there are many ways to do this, nationalism is one key way it has been overcome in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries), then we do not trust them, we respect them less, and we are always on gaurd against their attacks (whether real or perceived).

Power corrupts: Almost every religion has been faced with (and many are currently facing) the dilemma of the power of the priest. (And I use priest here generically. Insert Imam, Minister, Cleric, Rabbi, Lama, Priestess, Druid, etc.) The priests *must* have power over the people, because they are the messengers of the gods. If the people do not obey the priests, then they do not obey the gods, and the religion disintegrates into nothing. But once the people start obeying the priests, the priests start to realize that people will do what they say. And power corrupts. When people will obey you, as long as you say their gods told them to do it, all of a sudden, the gods start wanting the people to do more and more things. And most religions *have to be* the one true religion for their religion to work. Christ cannot be the only Son of the only God if Zeus is real. Allah cannot be the one true God if Bast exists. And so on. So, you have powerful priests who exert undue influence over the people. They will lose their power and influence if their God is *not* the true God. And you have a rival religion who claims *their* God is the one true God. In order for these priests to maintain their power and influence, they MUST destroy the other religion. So they order their followers to attack the other religion, either physically (Crusades, anyone?) or through words (anyone up for some missionary work?) and ideas (helloooooo internet!). But regardless of how it is done, the priests MUST exert the supremacy of their religion if they wish to maintain their power and influence.

(See also: Why I am in an individualized religion, above.)



Anyway, those are my answers. I hope they prove illuminating, if nothing else.

0. Where are you seeing an edit button? I thought it was gone. That's the one RP feature I miss.
1. Fair.
2. I forgot about the argument of people being gay for attention. Seems to be a new thing (within the last 5-10 years).
2b. "When a boy prefers the color pink, Barbies, and EZ Bake Ovens to the color blue, GI Joes, and Hot Wheels, he is showing transgender tendencies." This sentence made me think of the first time I enjoyed playing with girls toys. I got nothing. Screw that EZ bake oven.

" Regardless of *why* someone feels trapped in the wrong body, this feeling is going to be highly distracting, at the least." While much of what you said about the GD vs transgender vs transsexual vs trans confuses me, this statement I fully agree with. I'll have to reread it later. Definitely a topic I'd like to better understand. Anything you'd recommend reading on the topic?

I like your theory on why homosexuality isn't in the DSM anymore. I know many gay people in straight relationships/marriages wanting to live a socially accepted or normal life.

About the porn/trans stuff, I buy that.

4. "I believe you have the equation backwards, though. You discuss people working too hard because they want it *now.* I see people working their butts off so they can have it *eventually.* " I forgot about that mindset. Thanks for bringing it up.

"It isn't a question of valuing out time, at least for most people I talk to. It is a question of which time do we value?" Agreed. I assumed I'd covered it somewhat in my "see death" link. I didn't. And "Being better at prioritizing tasks would mitigate issues with spreading focus too thin" doesn't hone in on the most important things in life.

5. "in part... people are people... people are tribal... and... power corrupts." Could put that on shirt.

I know you're right about aggressive atheists. I've had a few conversations here regarding the topic and that extremism kills the ability to keep a thoughtful conversation quickly. It's rare that I can have a healthy conversation with a devout christian that truly has deep understanding of their beliefs. I try to make the most of chances.

I won't ask your religious preference, but I will ask: any recommendations on learning more about religions?

SGT (Join to see) -
0. I stand corrected. The edit button *is* there - but only for the "main reply" not for replies to replies. So I *cannot* edit my post (which is a shame because I see typos).

2b. Honestly, I couldn't tell you. I have taken a few courses in my Master's program (Adult Education) that got pretty heavy into the psychology side of things. I always try to apply new learning to the wider world, and see how it can work beyond the classroom. What I wrote is kind of incorporating some of that stuff with some of the blogs / essays / statements of people in the trans world and also with discussions of best practices in treatment for GD. It is an amalgamation of disparate data as synthesized through my very weirdly wired brain processes. I think the best bet would be to read through some of the blogs and essays from the therapists treating Gender Dysphoria (I don't have any in mind, and I can't remember which ones I have read. Google?). They can give you a pretty good idea for the experience of those with GD. The good ones also address some of the stereotypes and myths (and truths) involved with the public's perception of trans folks.
Sorry that isn't a good answer, but it is the best one I got.

5. To be perfectly clear (and fair): There are aggressive folks in just about every religion (I haven't met an aggressive Buddhist, yet, though). I was not trying to single out Atheists, just replying to your "imagine if someone said that about Christians" part, because people DO say it about Christians. No religion has a monopoly on genuinely good people; nor does any have a monopoly on jerks. And none is immune from being persecuted (although many have a much lower chance of being persecuted in certain parts of the world - in America Christians enjoy a very low rate of persecution).

I have no problem stating that I am Christian. But I am non-denominational, and do not really hold with organized religion. In no small part because of the whole "power corrupts" diatribe posted above. I was raised Catholic, so my understanding of Christianity is necessarily shaped by that upbringing, but I am definitively *not* Catholic.

As far as reading, I would recommend going to the source material. The Bible (which encompasses most, but not all, of the Tanakh), the Qu'Ran, the Tao Te Ching, the Sutras, etc. One of the reasons I am non-denominational is because I got tired of the priest class telling me what the holy book means - especially when they twisted the words to fit their agenda. It is true the the Bible addresses how slaves should be treated (Colossians 4:1, for example, although there are many), and even how slaves should be obedient to their masters (such as Ephesians 6:5-8). And many priests of the Civil War era used this as an endorsement for slavery. They completely ignored Jesus' instruction to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39).

A long while back, I embarked on a bible study that consisted of exactly one person. I went through the 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and Acts (also sometimes called Acts of the Apostles). I would read my chapters, research any unfamiliar concepts, words, or settings (like where exactly DID the Israelites wander for 40 years), and then process what those chapters meant for the world today. For the OT, I did 4 chapters a week, because I was less concerned with applying to today's world - many of the concepts just did not transition. For the NT, I did two chapters a week. It still took me QUITE a while to get through everything (and I didn't even do most of the Bible!). But when I was done, I had a pretty good idea for how I believed the Bible should be applied to my life and to today's world. It is the foundation of my personal beliefs and faith (although I have also read the Tao Te Ching - which has a lot of good concepts, and incorporated a little bit of *gasp* secular humanism). IMHO, this is the type of in depth research and study necessary to truly understand a hold book - and the religion founded upon the holy book. And if you *do* that type of research and apply the learning, then it makes your faith pretty unshakeable - because you have already questioned your faith yourself and worked through these things.

But that is just how I did it. I do not want to fall into the trap of hubris and appoint myself into the priest class and tell you how to walk your path.

I am not often all that humble. But when it comes to personal journeys, I refuse to even contemplate asserting expertise.



I hope this was at least mildly helpful.

SFC Casey O'Mally - 0. No "edit" button... it truly is the end of times.

2b. Fair. Only book I can think of was "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier but reviews make it sound more like a huge rant blog than a book based on objectivity and peer-reviewed studies.

5. Those bible verses you mentioned were interesting. Now I have a browser tab for "secular humanism." That's new to me.