65%... What does it mean?

[franceslievens]

There isn't much that gets me on the barricades, that makes me want to scream out the injustice that is done to me and my peers. I don't like barricades. It gives others the opportunity to pound you in the face and you can loose a tooth or two. But some things I can't let pass without commenting, without spitting my venom on what is the product of sheer stupidity of humankind.

According to a resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention* I'm guilty of "influencing our children to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and silencing those within the schools who disagree". Moreso I brand anyone who tries to speak up as a "narrow-minded bigot with outdated values".
Yes I do that. When talking about creationism with my students I warned them about two things they shouldn't do for their exam or they would flunk it: (1) forget to think about their argumentation before they started writing and (2) take creationism seriously. I got some remarks about that, from both my students and some online friends, that I was being judgemental and that I didn't let my students think for themselves. Autonomy and enlightenment should be the goal of the course non-confessional morality I teach. I shouldn't tell the students what to think or say and still I do it sometimes, for some things make me furious and some arguments are better than others, or better disguised than others.

Here's an argument, by a Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.S., M.D., Departement of Politics, Princeton University and Laboratoire de la Physique de Matière Condensée, Université de Nice (Nice title, isn't it? They even provided his email-adress: jsatinov at princeton.edu):

"Data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that for boys and young men in North America who identify themselves as homosexual even if the identification is only temporary, which as has been documented in numerous large-scale sociological studies in America, France, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, as is the case with the majority of such self-identified homosexuals - the risk of being either HIV positive or dead by age 30 may now be as high as 65%."

So what is Mr. Satinover actually saying? The hasty reader will retain two things:

1. Large-scale sociological studies have proven that most of the self-identified homosexuals deny being gay later in life.
   
   
2. 65% of those self-identified homosexuals either have HIV or are dead by the age of thirty. (In other words: an eighty year old queer is a statistical abberation. Hey candlelightfrot, shouldn't you be dead yet?)
   

The hasty reader, unfortunately, isn't the critical reader. For where does Mr. Satinover get his information? I still have to meet the first gay man that declares he was only gay for five minutes in his puberty. And that 65% risk? That's a very bad case of completely wrong use of statistics.
What does a 65% risk actually mean? For one thing it doesn't mean the same as a 65% chance of getting HIV as a gay or that 65% of the gay community will have HIV. No, it's a probability ratio for a risk and to be quite frank any probability ratio below 200% is considered as statistical buzz and not relevant. What Mr. Satinover actually says, is that if the chance to get HIV or be dead before the age of thirty in the control group is n, then that chance if you're gay multiplies with 1.65 (so would be 1.65n). This higher chance isn't relevant and can even be considered the product of the enquiry in itself.
That long run-on sentence Mr. Satinover uses to make his point is a load of bull's crap. He uses statistics like he feels and doesn't even say where he got his information. Numerous large-scale sociological studies? I want names, facts, dates and numbers that mean something. The hair on my back stands up straight if I see, hear or read stuff like this. It is dumb, it keeps people dumb, it makes them believe they know, but they don't, for what they are told is plainly wrong. So I try to enlighten, try to teach, but you must use your mind for that, make up arguments, try to understand, take your time. It takes time to be critical. Lots of people don't want to take that time, want to make up their mind before they have read it all. For they are Christian, and they will use everything that's in their power to convince you from their righteousness.

I'm born and raised a Catholic. I've been a practicing Catholic till the age of 13 or 14, 15 maybe even, but not much longer. I don't remember for certain when I lost my faith, but I know for certain that the possibility to know had a lot to do with it. There was the certainty that I didn't need a god to guide me in my life, that I could make it very well on my own, thank you very much. It's a very marxist view of what religion is for and does to people, but whenever I read something like the above link, I know this view isn't such a strange one. I rage against the ignorance of these people. I stand on the barricades and wave my pink flag over them, yell at them with my words of truth. Or my words that try to be more truthful, for they didn't come from god. They came from mankind and will die out as soon as you can give me an even more truthful alternative. For now, though, I have my truth, according to scientific methods we all agree upon, so why don't these people agree with me?
I know knowledge isn't everything. It's practice that teaches us most. So why can't we practice being critical thinkers? Why can't we practice using scientific methods? Why can't we practice being intelligent?

*Thanks to candlelightfrot for providing me with the link. Cheers mate. Seems life as an openminded teacher in a public school is much easier over here.

P.S.: While looking for more information on Mr. Satinover and his ideas I couldn't find him anywhere. The only people that actually link to him are the right-wing Christian incrowd. We can therefore rightly so assume that he hasn't got much to say in the scientific world. Unfortunately the right-wing Christian movement has somewhat to say in the political structures in the U.S. and there might even be some poor Baptist family that decides to take their children away from the public school where they are being taught for the sole reason that this school supports a gay student's group.

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

As a teacher and as a Historian I really don't care about what a Southern Baptist Convention may think or say...

Of course I don't tell my students what to think...I don't tell them what is right or what is wrong. It is not the goal of History. But I guess that I influence them by the way I teach. Besides as a Republic teacher I have a certain mission. For instance I'm supposed to make them understand that la laïcité is the best way to go, which I firmly believe btw. I want them to be able to think, I want them to be free.
There were many reasons for supporting the new law of 2004, wrongly presented as a law against the hijab, those reasons being mostly what we expect from our education and what the principles of our school are, but anyway I would have never accepted girls wearing hijab in my classroom because it's just wrong to answer for something that sexist.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Of course I don't care either about what Baptists might say, but I do care about whom they might influence.

You influence your students in the way you tell your history. They study what you tell them, they interpret texts they way you taught them to interpret them, but you also teach them they can go further than what you tell them and that's important: that they know that what you tell them isn't the only "truth" to be told.

We have a different version of seperation of state and religion, but they are seperated. So no hijab in public schools, or any kind of religious symbols, unless in the classrooms that are used for the religious courses / morality course. Teachers should be neutre (to which I'm an exception, as I represent the humanistic movement...)

[sweet-lil-rach.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not really informed enough to comment on this properly, but I totally see where you're coming from.

In respect to the creationism stuff ... I was taught at church in Sunday School that it was just a story, it wasn't true. My own church told me that there was no such thing (I think as a result I'm now really confused when it comes to the Bible)

I get seriously annoyed with people who take the Bible literally. It contradicts itself too much, so what the heck is true? Plus it is my view that it is not the word of God, since, you know ... it was written by sexist men.
And I always think to myself that if it is true, man should not lie with man ... at least the lesbians are ok!

Seriously not liking religion at the moment. I don't get it. :o(

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

I went to a catholic school and was taught the way you are taught: that it's only a story. It never confused me as such. We also learned that you could be a good Christian and still use birth control etc. Flemish Catholicism is a bit far from the teachings of the pope!

I don't know very much about what it actually says in the bible about homosexuality. I do know sodomy is affiliated with the filthy city of Sodom, which was destroyed by god in the old testament because of it's immoral ways. I should look up if man lay with man in that particular city.

When I read things like this, I don't like religion either, but I do understand people that say to me that there must be something more than this...

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

He toots his own horn here... http://www.satinover.com/
And then there are books he has written...
http://www.satinover.com/hatpot.htm - and - http://www.satinover.com/books.htm
Careful Frances, or you'll end up on his critics page... http://www.satinover.com/critics.htm

Princeton profiles him here... http://www.princeton.edu/~jsatinov/ - he is not on their permanent faculty.

Satinover is somewhat in the vein of other psychologists/psychiatrists who have as a sacred cow their view that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that any physical evidence from the biology is a result of homosexual activity. For instance they have said that the brain can be trained to respond and that physical differences in the brain are a response to that training. My questions then are, first: why are analogous structures in the brains of homosexually oriented rams (believe it or not about 5% of male sheep in the US show a homosexual orientation!) the same as have been shown in gay men? Did these rams choose to be homosexual? When did they make that choice - if sheep can make that choice? My second question is how is it that so many gay men report that as young children they knew of their sexual attraction before engaging in any sexual relations?

I too grew up in a strongly Catholic farm household of German/French/Wallon ancestry. It stuck with me quite a bit longer than you. It is one reason that I did not allow myself that acknowledgement of my homosexuality until late in life. Well, that is what society is geared to doing, you're supposed to conform. That is what Sodom and Gomorrah was about also; the cities did not conform to the Abrahamic views on life. I have a discourse on what I think Sodom and Gomorrah were really about and what actually happened in those cities (they appear to be actual cities which have been found by archeology).

I continue that on in another article that seeks to understand what homosexuality meant to the Israelites and perhaps too what it meant for Mary, the mother of Jesus, to be pure. It all ties in with an idea (a hypothesis?) I have concerning male homosexuality, the genetics (there is no gay gene), and its place in evolution. So if you'd like some 'lite' reading....

...

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

BTW... I in no way believe that the genetic cause is the only cause of male homosexuality. Birth order male homosexuals may have to do with mothers who are in effect attempting to reject a male fetus. There may be other biological reason that lead to male homosexuality. And finally, I don't doubt that some men either simply choose it; or that there are those few who are psychogenic homosexuals and those who are as a result of abuse. Though I doubt that those who are not of biological origin are of any great percentage. Certainly too, those who are biologicaly bisexual greatly muddy the waters of understanding and can easily be taken for psychologically homosexual.

What I am getting at is that the spectrum of homogenic sexualities of both biological and psychological origin is probably quite varied and yet some - Satinover in particular - would use that idea to counter that homosexual orientation is a fiction. Recently this year he said so to World Magazine (http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10331). Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/02/dr_jeffrey_sati.html) had some choice words to say about that. World Magazine is primarily interested in Christian views, and yet the discussion on their blog evidently took a turn against Satinover and the comments were deleted. Satinover name has appeared in 4 World Magazine articles since 2000 and each time he was speaking on homosexuality.

...

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

P. did some digging on Satinover, but only found him on Christian sites that link to him as an expert on all things homosexual. His most famous book dates from 1996 and is still used as an important "scientific" work on the matter.
It seems they state that everything went wrong when homosexuality was no longer regarded as a mental disorder.

I don't know where homosexuality comes from and frankly I don't care. It is there, it doesn't cause any problems in our society, so deal with it that not everyone conforms to what society regards as "the right thing". I've always felt a strong affiliation with any kind of minority group. I have completely no clue where that comes from. Maybe from the fact that I was generally regarded as the geek, freak, queer (take your pick) and felt I had something in common with the other rejects of our society.
If you really ask me to say something about where homosexual and bisexual tendencies come from I can only say that there are biological urges in humans, an urge towards pleasure, an urge towards what is good for us and that is the thing that makes us feel good. Society makes up a morality to focus these urges, to make them into something useful. If we'd all walk around shagging whenever we feel like it society wouldn't work very well, would it? We have all these rules we incorporate from being a little child! For instance: you're allowed to take your clothes off in the mall, they pay you money for it, the police won't come and arrest you, but would you do it, in front of all these people? Standing naked in the mall doesn't harm anyone, except maybe yourself. It's perfectly natural, and still you might not be able to do it. It's part of your socialisation that you can't do such a thing. You can't because you have taught yourself you can't. I think that's partly the reason why there are so many different ways of being a homosexual, why you can't say if it's psychological or biological. Socialisation is very important when it comes to how you think you should have a relationship or in which box you put yourself.

Well, let's hope Satinover doesn't follow his links back home and I won't end up on his critics page. ;-)

Oh, and I love to read your take on things. "Lite" reading is always good for the mind!
Do you consider btw that there is a fundamental difference between male and female homosexuality? I'd say they are regarded differently in most societies (with lesbianism being a tad more tolerated), but do you think it has different biological or evolutionary roots?

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

Wow.... I had to cut this into two posts!!!

Female homosexuality generally baffles me! Though when I was trying my darndest to be str8, I would get the feeling that maybe I should have a sex change and then be a lesbian. Except I would then want to be the 'femme' to some other woman's 'butch' - I was still after the stick. Society is geared towards promoting the norm, not the full range of normality; but that is the way it has to be. Some of those who are non-conforming to the norm then are going to fall thru the cracks.

It's rather interesting concerning female homosexuality that in more primitive, 'naturalistic' cultures such as that of Native Americans that even lesbians were given some consideration in a few tribes. Some females were known to take on the role of the warrior and then were allowed to take a wife. But the treatment of homosexual males in that culture was even more pervasive and also taken to be a part of their religious structure - they would often become shamans. It's interesting that most Native American tribes had a ceremony to determine if their son (and at time their daughter) was of "two spirits," which most often took place early in the boy's life - much the same as most homosexuals and the transgendered report their earliest thoughts about themselves as different to be around 6 or 7.

And yet the incidence of acknowledged female homosexuality even in accepting Native American cultures was negligible. In America, the demographic information puts lesbians at about half that of gay men. I don't know if that has to do with the paternalism of western culture or not. I get the feeling that female homosexuality just isn't that common as that for gay men. As such I am sure that there are differing causes that are simply rooted in the differences of the sexes (and thus also their genetics).

There has been a study that seemed to indicate that women generally had a bisexual response - watching any two persons male or female seems to turn you on! But it would seem that human societies (and the urge to reproduce?) have a way of mitigating that biological response and creating a purely heterosexual woman. From what I have seen in my own lifetime, women have a greater propensity towards bisexuality that might too be rooted emotional needs. And yet there does seem to be a biological cause for female homosexuality which has been demonstrated in other mammals; that is an oversupply of testosterone during fetal development. But why?

I can create a plausible genetics/evolution arguement concerning male homosexuality in most any mammal - but especially herding and other social mammals. Generally, males have the XY chromosomal configuration and the X may be dominant during fetal development. Such dominance is then related to greater female fertility and perhaps also a propensity towards female births. For any mammalian species fertility and more females (more wombs) would logically create an advantage in terms of evolution/natural selection. That necessarily means that homosexual males are something of a 'by-product' as far as evolution is concerned. I don't subscribe to any of the ideas of people like Roughgarden in her Evolution's Rainbow (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139.html), where homosexuality must have a purpose. I don't think homosexuality need have a purpose, it just is. In my way of thinking though, it is interesting to note that social pressure towards heterosexuality in humans would, for my hypothesized genetics, result in any man of homogenic sexuality (the range from bisexual thru homosexual & into the transgendered) passing on that genetics (his X-chromosome) which in his female children would result in that same evolutionary advantage and the possibility to produce a further men with homogenic sexualities. In other words, just as for baldness, a homogenic sexuality would skip a generation and you'd blame it on mom!

CONTINUED BELOW

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

But where in evolution does the plausibility for female homosexuality come? I have a difficult time with that. Why waste wombs? Yeah, I know that sounds awfully sexist, but that is evolution. Part of that which makes one unsure is just why is any one woman engaging in homogenic sex? It may just be an emotional involvement and the pansexual nature of the female. But there is the demonstrated fetal involvement with testosterone; but just why would that happen? One reason might be an accident; another might be some stressor during pregnancy. Could another be genetic? If there were a genetic cause for female homosexuality all I can think it to be associated with in evolution would be a propensity for a female to produce/prefer males - that is prefer, as in her body systems geared for producing males.

As male homogenic sexualities might be a by-product of overall species fertility and thus universal in any environment, female homosexuality is doesn't promote such an advantage and is therefore not as common and might be the product of a specific environment that humans came to inhabit. Now please understand, I'm just writing these thoughts on female homogenic sexualities and evolution off the top of my head. But suddenly the Germanic imagery of Brunhilde, the Valkyries and other warrior women comes to my mind. Though myths the probably have a basis in fact and I wonder if there was something in the environmental makeup which would create a need for a more men or perhaps masculinized women. Does it realate to a colder northern environment? If I remember correctly most of the 'women warriors' who took on the role of the male in Native American cultures were from northern tribe. That doesn't necessarily explain female homogenic sexualities in races in tropical locales, however. That may - if genetic at all - have a completely different causation due to completely differing environmental stressors.

Ahh.... I've written quite enough speculation for one sitting! Most people will think it to be nothing but bunk anyway. Let them! But I am completely thought out!