0
Richards

When Feminism and Gay Rights Butt Heads

Recommended Posts

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=43b515fc-51c9-4662-8932-e3aa10fdc826

Quote


When feminism and gay rights butt heads
Barbara Kay, National Post
Published: Wednesday, January 17, 2007
It isn't very often that womens' rights and gay rights collide, but we may be on the brink of just such an interesting moment.

Reports suggest researchers at Oregon State University are having some success in "straightening" homosexual rams -- about 10% of which are "gay" -- by adjusting hormone balances in their brains, after which the ewe-eschewing males start paying their procreative dues in the traditional way.

Such a breakthrough could enormously benefit people in the sheep-breeding business. But further research along these lines might eventually lead to something as rudimentary as a hormonal patch for pregnant women that would reduce or eliminate the possibility of a homosexual child. The Oregon State professor leading the study, Charles Roselli, believes that potentially "the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents prenatal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of the child."


The social fallout from such a discovery is presently incalculable, but imaginations in various ideological quarters are doubtless working overtime on the possibilities.

Take, for example, gay tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who immediately called for a halt to the research at Oregon State, citing "the right of sheep to be gay." She seems, absurdly, to be suggesting that homosexual rams are not driven by hormonal miscues, but rather enjoy some kind of Brokeback-style "relationship" with each other.

I have been anticipating exactly such a bio-genetic plot development for some time. If hormonal adjustments can end the tormenting symptoms of severely afflicted menopausal women (I can happily attest they do), it seemed to me only natural that one day the fetal hormonal chemistry in born homosexuals could be altered as well.

Gay and lesbian umbrage will neither stop nor slow research on this file. For although feminists and gay rights advocates usually march in lockstep on issues of sexual identity and gender equity, here they will divide: Paradoxically feminists' militant commitment to a "woman's right to choose" on reproductive issues has created the exact social and legal conditions under which traditional women's preferences for straight children must be permitted to trump gay exceptionalism.

Thus there is more than a little irony in the gay sheep's story coinciding with the public recommendation by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, henceforth be screened for genetic defects in order to widen the doorway to pregnancy terminations. It reminds us that abortion on demand, for any reason a woman deems worthy, is a settled issue amongst the elites of modern Western society (the parallel U.S. group made the same recommendation).

Technological advances and the problematic consequences in their wake from unfettered access to abortion have thus far not budged pro-choice ideologues. Abortion on demand coupled with sex forecasting, for example, has resulted in a virtual gendercide amongst some cultural communities, but
feminists will not back down from their monolithic political stance.

How then can those who support a woman's unconditional right to kill her own healthy female fetus logically balk at a benign intervention that will optimize the

chances of a living child having the sexual orientation preferred by the parents? Invoking state protection of a fetus's "right to be gay" -- as if the fetus itself had somehow chosen its own sexual identity -- would vitiate the very principle upon which abortion rights depend, namely, that women's wishes must always take precedence over fetal rights.


And so in a few generations, innate homosexuality may become a very rare thing. If a safe, simple and inexpensive method can be mass-produced to ensure heterosexuality in offspring, the vast majority of traditionally-minded parents will leap on it. Certainly fundamentalists of all religions will openly embrace the opportunity. Amongst progressives in the West, there may be an emotional debate, but an individual heterosexual woman's expressed compassion for gays in society doesn't mean she personally will opt for a gay over a heterosexual child.

In the politically correct public forum, sexual identity equity is de rigeur. But if and when it comes down to a personal choice, and more importantly, if that choice is guaranteed to be private (i.e. nobody but a woman's doctor would ever know) -- even most liberal parents will choose offspring who share their most fundamental human characteristic.

Bkay@videotron.ca



I will love to see the controversy this will stir up. I am reluctant to touch this one with a 10 foot pole as anyone who sides with the feminists will be accused of being a homophobe, and anyone who sides with the gay rights groups will be accused of wanting to control womens bodies (particularly here in SC where everything is polarized). I can't see how gay rights groups can oppose this if they also beleive in a womans right to choose. Anyway, opinions?

I would not choose to engineer my childs gender, orientation or any other attribute but I do not see why others cannot.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That thar ram is a gay homosexual!:o


Well, there's all kinds of problems with that article:

1) He's talking about putting a patch on women to affect the fetus. Wouldn't that affect the woman as well? Wouldn't you be screwing with the woman's hormone levels, especially if you were trying to affect a male fetus?

2) There's no evidence that changing hormone levels in an adult ram is the same as changing hormone levels in a fetus.

3) The sex drive in humans is very different from those of other animals.

I don't think anyone knows what causes some people to lean towards homosexuality, but I doubt it is something as simple as giving hormones to the Mom during pregnancy.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



I am reluctant to touch this one with a 10 foot pole .



You just did!



Reluctant, not completely unwilling.:P
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>citing "the right of sheep to be gay."

Given that we eat them, I find that sort of funny. No right to live, but a right to be gay.

>How then can those who support a woman's unconditional right to kill
>her own healthy female fetus logically balk at a benign intervention that
>will optimize the chances of a living child having the sexual orientation
>preferred by the parents?

Keep in mind that if we can determine a hormonal "scale" that determines predisposition towards sexual orientation - it can be used both ways. (And indeed, if it is OK to use it one way, you don't have much of an argument that it can't be used in the other direction.)

Historically, homosexuality has been selected against very strongly by evolution. The fact that it remains at all indicates that it is either serves a societal purpose, or our basic makeup makes some homosexuality inevitable. In either case, there must be strong pressures _for_ homosexuality inherent in the human race. Once parents can make the decision to propagate such a trait, I'd expect it to become more common. (If that is even possible, that is.)

And I'd expect THAT to be the really big stink concerning such a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Messing unnecessarily with hormones during pregnancy just seems like a stupid idea. I wouldn't use that patch, but I understand why some people would, I guess, but part of having a kid is accepting them for who they are. Personally, I don't care if my future kids are gay or straight as long as they are healthy and happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Given that we eat them, I find that sort of funny. No right to live, but a right to be gay.



Never looked at it that way. Rather amusing.

Quote

Keep in mind that if we can determine a hormonal "scale" that determines predisposition towards sexual orientation - it can be used both ways. (And indeed, if it is OK to use it one way, you don't have much of an argument that it can't be used in the other direction.)



Agreed

Quote

Historically, homosexuality has been selected against very strongly by evolution. The fact that it remains at all indicates that it is either serves a societal purpose, or our basic makeup makes some homosexuality inevitable. In either case, there must be strong pressures _for_ homosexuality inherent in the human race.



Would make for interesting research.

Quote

Once parents can make the decision to propagate such a trait, I'd expect it to become more common. (If that is even possible, that is.)

And I'd expect THAT to be the really big stink concerning such a choice.



Oh it will become an issue. I see many a straw man eventually arising from this issue. As I stated above I find any kind of "engineering" of a childs traits to be distastefull, but I do not see why someone should be denied the choice to do that.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Messing unnecessarily with hormones during pregnancy just seems like a stupid idea. I wouldn't use that patch, but I understand why some people would, I guess, but part of having a kid is accepting them for who they are. Personally, I don't care if my future kids are gay or straight as long as they are healthy and happy.



I agree with you 100% in that I see it as being distastefull. But shouln't the choice ultimately be up to the woman?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, at the moment, I think the choice will be up to the FDA, but after that, yes, the choice should be left to the woman and her doctor, and hopefully, her partner.



Agreed. Like yourself though, all I wish is for my child (children) to be healthy and happy.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

That thar ram is a gay homosexual!:o



:D:D


Quote

Well, there's all kinds of problems with that article:

1) He's talking about putting a patch on women to affect the fetus. Wouldn't that affect the woman as well? Wouldn't you be screwing with the woman's hormone levels, especially if you were trying to affect a male fetus?

2) There's no evidence that changing hormone levels in an adult ram is the same as changing hormone levels in a fetus.

3) The sex drive in humans is very different from those of other animals.

I don't think anyone knows what causes some people to lean towards homosexuality, but I doubt it is something as simple as giving hormones to the Mom during pregnancy.



All valid questions/points. Unfortunately I will have to wait for someone more knowledgable to address them . I agree that it might not be as simple as with an animal.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>

Historically, homosexuality has been selected against very strongly by evolution. The fact that it remains at all indicates that it is either serves a societal purpose, or our basic makeup makes some homosexuality inevitable. .



Either that, or the Intelligent Designer likes to have a few gays around to work on the decor.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>citing "the right of sheep to be gay."

Given that we eat them, I find that sort of funny. No right to live, but a right to be gay.

>How then can those who support a woman's unconditional right to kill
>her own healthy female fetus logically balk at a benign intervention that
>will optimize the chances of a living child having the sexual orientation
>preferred by the parents?

Keep in mind that if we can determine a hormonal "scale" that determines predisposition towards sexual orientation - it can be used both ways. (And indeed, if it is OK to use it one way, you don't have much of an argument that it can't be used in the other direction.)

Historically, homosexuality has been selected against very strongly by evolution. The fact that it remains at all indicates that it is either serves a societal purpose, or our basic makeup makes some homosexuality inevitable. In either case, there must be strong pressures _for_ homosexuality inherent in the human race. Once parents can make the decision to propagate such a trait, I'd expect it to become more common. (If that is even possible, that is.)

And I'd expect THAT to be the really big stink concerning such a choice.

I was wondering. If you eat some (a lot of) good lamb chops from a gay sheep will you turn gay?:| And is it only the male sheep or the ewes2
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That thar ram is a gay homosexual!:o


Well, there's all kinds of problems with that article:

1) He's talking about putting a patch on women to affect the fetus. Wouldn't that affect the woman as well? Wouldn't you be screwing with the woman's hormone levels, especially if you were trying to affect a male fetus?

2) There's no evidence that changing hormone levels in an adult ram is the same as changing hormone levels in a fetus.

3) The sex drive in humans is very different from those of other animals.



4) The immediate assumption that simply because someone is "pro-choice" on abortion then they must be pro-choice on any issue of actually altering a child that will be born.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it can be used both ways. (And indeed, if it is OK to use it one way, you don't have much of an argument that it can't be used in the other direction.)



Except for abortion. It's the woman's right to choose, but the father has no say in the matter.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was wondering. If you eat some (a lot of) good lamb chops from a gay sheep will you turn gay



Don't eat lamb chops.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

4) The immediate assumption that simply because someone is "pro-choice" on abortion then they must be pro-choice on any issue of actually altering a child that will be born.



Why though does a woman have the right to choose to kill a fetus but not give it hormones to choose it's orientation. Do not get me wrong, I think people should be happy to accept whatever baby nature gives them, but again the argument is that it is not anyones place to say what a woman can do with her body.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why though does a woman have the right to choose to kill a fetus but not give it hormones to choose it's orientation.



You're really sad that nobody in this thread is actually arguing that side, aren't you?



And he said that where, exactly?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parents should be prepared for the positive or negative repercussions they may face when they inform their child that they modified their genetics to obtain a desired sexual orientation (or some other physical/mental/etc... trait).
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Parents should be prepared for the positive or negative repercussions they may face when they inform their child that they modified their genetics to obtain a desired sexual orientation (or some other physical/mental/etc... trait).



So this brings in to question the parental obligations of a mother after she decides to choose not to abort. I am not sure about that one. Do you have a take on it?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Parents should be prepared for the positive or negative repercussions they may face when they inform their child that they modified their genetics to obtain a desired sexual orientation (or some other physical/mental/etc... trait).



So this brings in to question the parental obligations of a mother after she decides to choose not to abort. I am not sure about that one. Do you have a take on it?



Can you clarify, I am not sure what you are asking.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What do you think of parents manipulating their kids' hormornes not so they become straight but so they're guaranteed to become gay?



Bilvon has already posed this question. As I said above, I personally do not like the idea of manipulating the orientation be it to make the child either straight or gay, but felt it was ultimately a womans choice. If it is to be allowed to make a child straight then I cannot see how you could argue against someone making a child gay. It is a two way street. I am not sure how I would feel about my parents making such a choice for me before I was born be it one way or the other. Is it ethical to decide what your child is going to be rather than allowing him/her to be what fate meant for him/her to be?

Personally all I would want is for my kid to be born healthy.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites