First published in the Chicago Free Press, June 27, 2007
Allow, if you will, a few dissenting notes from gay orthodoxy. If a writer only wrote things you agreed with, what good is he? And why read him? Better just talk to yourself in the mirror. "Politically correct" originated as an orthodoxy-enforcing Communist Party term in the 1930s.
• Pride weekend and the Pride parade are becoming more like Mardi Gras every year-something we do mainly because a) it is traditional and b) it brings revenue into the city from suburban and regional visitors who buy food and alcohol, shop, maybe rent overnight accommodations, and spend money on other tourist things while here.
• It may be all very well to take government (taxpayers') money for various gay projects-after all everyone else does it too-but there is always the risk that to get the money one's agenda will be compromised or that people will shape their agenda to things the government (i.e., politicians) would approve-avoiding "sensitive" issues, for instance. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." And politicians always want a payback in the form of political support. It is better to rely on private funding from individuals, supportive corporations or sympathetic foundations less subject to majoritarian dictates.
• Gay leaders repeat endlessly that abortion is a gay issue, but it isn't. Personally, I support all forms of abortion: A fetus may be "human" but it is not a "person." Nevertheless, how abortion can be an issue for gays and lesbians whose sexual activity does not produce fetuses is never explained. Yes, some lesbians might want to get pregnant but then abort a badly deformed fetus. Fine. Get an abortion, but don't say doing it is a gay issue just because you are gay. Gay leaders say people have a right to control their own bodies. I agree. But do they mean it? Do they therefore also defend, as I do, the right to assisted suicide, S/M, drug use, ex-gay therapy, prostitution, promiscuity, etc.? And the central issue remains whether a fetus is just part of a woman's body or an autonomous person. That argument is seldom joined.
• The gay left seems terminally afflicted with "mission drift." As if there were not enough work to do to attain gay equality, they want to include other issues as part of our agenda such as environmentalism, global warming, free trade limitations, illegal immigration, government health care, support for unions, etc. To some gays, those issues are more important than gay freedom and equality. Well, fine, there are plenty of organizations working on those issues. Go join those. But don't try to claim that those are gay issues just because they might affect some gays. I may even be on the other side-and I'm gay too.
• GLBT (or more recently-ladies first) LGBT is a relatively young orthodoxy. It originates from a 1995 meeting of gay organization leaders in Washington who decided that we were no longer the gay/lesbian movement but the "gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender" movement. Well, I don't feel bound by what "gay leaders" try to dictate. It was amusing at the time to hear people initially spit out the whole litany (instead of just saying "gay") before the acronym was contrived. But these aren't all one movement and what we have in common is limited.
• I don't have much in common with a man who want to be a woman. Gays can support transsexuals in their political efforts and work together on areas of common concern (e.g., defamation by Prof. Michael Bailey), but by and large their issues are not my issues, nor are mine theirs. Awkwardly, they embody the very 19th century stereotype about gays we have been trying to overcome for 100 years--that gay men are women trapped in male bodies. Even less do I have anything in common with some transvestite heterosexual man who wants to wear a frilly frock around the house. Fine, do it with my blessing, but that doesn't make him part of the gay movement.
• And bisexuals? How many bisexual men are there in our movement? No doubt there are a few-there are always a few of everything. But as the prominent gay psychiatrist Richard Pillard said in a 2003 interview "I think female sexual orientation is more variable than is male. Men seem more often to be fixed from early adolescence, even from early childhood." Some women are no doubt technically "bisexual," but most admit, as one informed me, that "of course" she had a "preference." And years ago, when I wrote something skeptical about bisexuality, I got three indignant replies from "bisexual" women-all of whom admitted that they were in relationships with men.
Let the fur fly.
Corvino, John
{ 83 comments }
Sigh. Yes, as a gay centre-leftist, I do support women’s reproductive choice (ain’t lesbians women?), transgender rights (which parallel ours in many areas), a strong public health sector (so HIV/AIDS has gone away, has it? So there are no such people as low-income PLWAs who can’t afford protease inhibitors?), although I do take the point about bisexuals. They seem to be stuck on identity politics and progressed no further.
I also support physician assisted suicide, SM, use of pot and E (not crystal meth), decriminalisation of sex work, liberal censorship policies, but ex-gay therapy?!! No, sorry. If people want to be proper psychotherapists, let them base their professional practice on proper training and academic certification, from an evidence-
based perspective. I have major problems with the strong likelihood that the perpetrators of this pseudotherapy are unfamiliar with the pivotal medical concept of ‘informed consent’ too, for that matter.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
As a libertarian, I happen to be pro-choice. I have a very good friend who’s trans. As far as bisexuals are concerned, they seem even more likely to be closeted and conflicted than gays are — which means that while they insist on being included in our alphabet soup, they can and do disappear whenever it’s convenient.
All these issues are important, but they deserve — for the sake of truth and clarity in the consideration of each — to be kept distinct from one another. Muddling everything together does justice to nothing.
There’s nothing wrong, as far as I’m concerned, with the simple term “gay.” I never saw the need to insist that it referred strictly to men. Nobody who’s seen me has ever confused me with a man, and when I say I’m gay, everybody seems to understand what I’m talking about.
For the sake of cohesiveness within whatever is actually left of our community, I think some simplification is important.
Teriffic article Paul. This really is why I wanted to come to an “independent” gay forum: to read articles that are based on ideas and thoughts which are independent from the cult-like viciousness of gay culture. And you allude to this viciousness with your apologetic first paragraph. No doubt you have experienced some abuse and hate from some very self-important gays who can’t tolerate any kind of dissent from gay dogma.
My two big gay sins are:
1. I integrate into straight culture and hold “separate but equal” gay culture in contempt.
2. I do not think “HIV” causes AIDS.
If *that* doesn’t make fur fly, then perhaps we really do have hope for an independent gay movement!
Is there any article on this website anymore that’s not just attention seeking grandstanding?
Too many people on this site, including the authors, just want to loudly proclaimm something congtroversial just for its own sake, regardless of what they’re saying is actually valid.
“Too many people on this site, including the authors, just want to loudly proclaimm something congtroversial just for its own sake, regardless of what they’re saying is actually valid.”
And who, pray tell, is going to determine what is “actually valid?”
– You are? Well of course. But that’s not “grandstanding,” is it?
Certainly not, ’cause it’s “valid.”
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Whats actually valid is something that can be defended with a coherent, rational argument.
I see way too many appeals to emotion around here.
I agree entirely with this article!
I disagree with certain parts of this article, or think that they may be taken to an extreme, but quite frankly, I don’t care because the gay movement is so shrouded in leftist lunacy, I’m in full support of a practical, intelligent, libertarian voice.
“I see way too many appeals to emotion around here.”
How, exactly, is it an “appeal to emotion” to suggest that — for the sake of truth and clarity — different concepts and issues that have (as the article rightly states) nothing to do with each other be kept distinct and considered separately?
Quite to the contrary, it is the blurring of lines between these issues that attempts to bypass reason and appeal to emotion.
If this is an irrational argument, then kindly show us how and why. Simply calling it irrational does nothing to prove the point.
“LGBT is a relatively young orthodoxy. It originates from a 1995 meeting of gay organization leaders in Washington who decided that we were no longer the gay/lesbian movement but the “gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender” movement.”
How interesting. Any literature on that?
I agree with most of Paul’s opinions as to what are — and are not — “gay issues.” It seems to me that he reasonably explains the bases for his opinions.
I disagree, however, that there is a “gay orthodoxy” anymore. It seems that the right and center side of the gay community has been much on the ascendency in the past few years, while the left has diminished. Further, if the unified Exalted Gay Leadership has been issuing edicts to those of us in the trenches — I haven’t gotten any. Perhaps my membership card was revoked, and I didn’t even know. So I’m sorry, Jimmy Gatt, but I’m not buying your characterization of the “cult-like viciousness” of gay culture.
And Jimmy, if HIV does not cause AIDS, what does? Can we assume that you believe that those who contract HIV can forego treatment and not worry about ever developing AIDS? Can you cite to a single scientific, peer-reviewed article that documents a case of AIDS where HIV was not also present? If you’ve received vicious attacks for promoting such a belief, it’s because it’s scientifically unsound and potentially lethal — not because the gay left thinks you’re a surburan sellout.
I agree with all of the article’s points. I think this overbroad inclusion of issues not directly related to gay equality policies, is going to become increasingly detrimental to gay politics before the elections: take the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force “score card” for presidential candidates, released recently (June ’07): as Chris Crain points out on his blog (Citizen Crain), some republican candidates received distorted, biased (i.e., lowered) scores because, and only because, the task force asked questions which were not directly related to gay-specific issues. As Crain points out: “The two question marks with asterisks [on the task-force report] are on employment discrimination and hate crime laws. Rudy [Giuliani] is on record supporting the inclusion of gays in both, but he doesn’t get a green check because he hasn’t said if he would protect transgender people, too.” Please note that he didn’t actually say he opposes such inclusion, he just isn’t on the record with a statement that would include transgender people. I encourage you to read Crain’s post, simply to see how the unfortunate conflation and misguided identification of over-broad, liberal causes and concepts with gay-relevant points, distorts the sensible view of which candidates are generally supportive, and to what degree, of gay equality in the near future.
Dale Carpenter’s advise to homosexual conservatives:
“TOLERATE DIFFERENCE. While we’re on the subject, this is probably a good time to repeat the truism that not all gays, not even all gay conservatives, wear suits and ties and act like proper ladies and gentlemen. We should be striving to secure equality for all gays, including those who dress and behave differently from the mainstream.”
How amusing is to see a gay conservative admit that some homosexual conservatives do tend, like their breeder counterparts, to be contemptous towards those whose behaviour doesn’t fix the current definition of “mainstream”.
Unlike heterosexual conservatives, however, I believe gay cons have a more complex motivation to dismiss the more underground “queers”: fear of being taken for one of them, of being indistinguishbly lumped together with them. Thus, instead of opposing the very voice that discriminates against oneself, the gay conservative joins the voice that condemns the most extreme “un-mainstream” – partly in order to distinguish oneself from them. This dynamics is akin to that of internalized homophobia: the closeted homosexual loudly, and truly, despises the “out” ones in order to not be confounded as one of them. – I’ve been there, in my Christian days.
The following piece of Varnell’s article is a perfect example of the process just described:
“I don’t have much in common with a man who want to be a woman. Gays can support transsexuals in their political efforts and work together on areas of common concern (e.g., defamation by Prof. Michael Bailey), but by and large their issues are not my issues, nor are mine theirs. Awkwardly, they embody the very 19th century stereotype about gays we have been trying to overcome for 100 years–that gay men are women trapped in male bodies.”
Varnell has just addressed the short-sightedness of heteronormative concepts, which are unable, or perhaps just uninterested, to comprehend the differences between the gay man and the female transexual (and there are differences, even though I believe they share some psychological and sociological common ground, especially in early childhood). Varnell doesn’t hold this example of utter ignorance as an objection against heterosexuals or the hetero-normative view on sexuality. No, remember that Paul is a mainstream guy. Instead, he holds the very fact the male homosexual and the female transexual are confounded and misunderstood as an objection against the latter. *THEY* make us look weird in the eyes of heterosexuals.
Some gay conservatives are terrified by the thought that gays might be different, in some very essential ways, from heterosexuals, and that heterosexuals might not recognize us as their equals because of those differences. And the most extreme ones of them (a very curious character that inhabits this webiste threads is a comical example of what I’m talking about; I’m not going to name him, but I’m sure everybody will know whom I’m talking about by the following description) may insist that gays be even more mainstream than heterosexuals, by being excessively and unjustly critical of major gay rights organizations, uncritical of Christianity or today’s Christian churches, uncritical of government actions (“you can’t asked to be in the military if you criticize government’s military actions”), etc. I despise this slave mentality that leads these gays to anxiously apologize to heterosexuals for whatever there’s to be apologized.
Well, Paul Varnell, I think the reason some gays and lesbians decided to open their movement to bisexuals and transexuals – as if they were never before a part of our movement and culture – is because they weren’t interested only in hunting rights that make us more similar to breeders, but in ideological questions as well. Surprising as it may be, gay organizations are also about cultural innovation and questioning of moral and cultural standards (it is not only about taming homosexuals, as gay cons would have it), in which our mere existence questions the concept of sexual normality and the rigidness of gender roles. Transexuals and bisexuals also tend to be as discriminated as gays and lesbians because on similar grounds and, usually, by the same motive. By itself, I consider this to be more than enough reason to embrace them as our true brothers and sisters.
Correction: *”(“you can’t ask to be in the military if you criticize government military actions”)*
“LGBT is a relatively young orthodoxy. It originates from a 1995 meeting of gay organization leaders in Washington..”
Another of those orthodoxies that everything starts in the USA. Next we’ll hear that Ancient Greek pederasty is a reference to Athens, Georgia
I am anti-abortion, dismissive of global warming, in favor of enforcing current immigration laws, have difficulty comprehending transgendered issues, and think there’s no such thing as a bisexual man.
Is my membership at risk? Am I going to lose my toaster oven?
If this is the worst of dissents, then LGBT folks probably aren’t in bad shape.
Here’s a challenge: it would be great is the folks (writers, editors) from Independent Gay Forum got together and published a short document called, “Goals and Objectives for 2007″.
This is, of course, a pernicious thing to request, because I suspect it would be like herding cats. But therein highlights the fact that the “dissenters” don’t face the same challenges as do the “orthodoxers”.
It’s always a good idea to periodically re-examine assumptions and premises, except when it starts getting caustic or cheap or done for sport.
Here are seven observations to trade in dialog:
1. “Pride” isn’t on trial, but the people who think they are ‘better-than-Pride’ ought to question that. The force of “Pride” as an annual gathering, a tradition is worth “conserving”. That doesn’t mean that other things aren’t good too, but they may be good in other ways.
2. ?Gay politics isn’t radical enough? Here is a proposition more evocative: let the local groups be more-or-less ‘radical’ as suits the local tenor, and let the national groups be principled in issue advocacy, but gradualist in policy implementation.
3. Civil rights is civil rights.
4. The gay >>Left<< terminally afflicted? Check out the Log Cabin Website – last time I looked, ending the inheritance taxes, a brainchild of the Bush Administration to energize his base, was a priority in the last congress. Mission drift is serious, but the ‘gay movement’ has found little way to impose political discipline, apart from ways that themselves get criticized.
5. They all look like groups discriminated against because of their sexuality. What differences are the important ones?
6. Huh?
7. Let’s just get the numbers, instead of speculating?
whoops, I guess the parser bot doesn’t like “>”:
re-posted:
4. The gay *Left* terminally afflicted? Check out the Log Cabin Website – last time I looked, ending the inheritance taxes, a brainchild of the Bush Administration to energize his base, was a priority in the last congress. Mission drift is serious, but the ‘gay movement’ has found little way to impose political discipline, apart from ways that themselves get criticized.
5. They all look like groups discriminated against because of their sexuality. What differences are the important ones?
6. Huh?
7. Let’s just get the numbers, instead of speculating?
thom,
If the best you can do is make vain appeals to “peer-reviewed journals” and slurring me as an advocate of death, then of what use is it to me to answer your question? You’re obviously much more interested in burning me as a heretic then understanding my point of view.
“Transexuals and bisexuals also tend to be as discriminated as gays and lesbians because on similar grounds and, usually, by the same motive. By itself, I consider this to be more than enough reason to embrace them as our true brothers and sisters.”
F3COJ, I think you’re confusing whether we care about other people with whether we should regard our political causes as identical.
I care very much about people with whom I share little in common. That having been said, politics are about settling the issues about how we shall be governed.
I believe the State should treat us all the same. I believe there should be no difference between the rights recognized for any one individual and those of any other.
But then again, I’m one of those crazy libertarians, so people are more interested in telling me what I believe (usually they claim it’s something wacky) than they are in listening to what I tell them I believe.
An alphabet soup of grievances and lofty causes is bound to come to grief — no matter how many letters you add to it. I don’t believe that transgenders are well suited by that, nor do I believe that bisexuals, gays, lesbians, questioning people, two-spirit people or just plain old queers are well served by it.
In the words of a very famous lesbian, “A rose is a rose is a rose.”
Jimmy ~
Your response is non-responsive. If you cannot back up your opinions and claims with facts, you should reexamine your opinions, before publishing them for others. Especially dangerous opinions like HIV does not cause AIDS.
thom
Some gay conservatives are terrified by the thought that gays might be different, in some very essential ways, from heterosexuals, and that heterosexuals might not recognize us as their equals because of those differences.
Fundamental problem; that which is different fundamentally makes no sense to treat identically, or as gays like to put it, “equal”.
And hence the problem; gay leftists don’t want to be bound by the conventional requirements of sex, public behavior, or likewise, but then whine about why society won’t treat them “equally” in regards to legal structures and organizations that are based on said conventional requirements.
As Erma Bombeck wryly put it, it’s like your daughter saying, as she leaves for college with her car jammed with your bed, phone, toaster, computer, china, silverware, glasses, sheets, candles, tennis racket, skis, and suede jacket, “I’ve got to get away from your shallow materialism.”
“If the best you can do is make vain appeals to “peer-reviewed journals” and slurring me as an advocate of death, then of what use is it to me to answer your question? You’re obviously much more interested in burning me as a heretic then understanding my point of view.
”
You do not seriously dismiss peer reviewed journals as a required standard of scientific knowledge, do you?
Jimmy, please understand from where we’re (or at least I am) coming.
The whole reason we are concerned is because we want to prevent AIDS. Right now, the best correlate and hypothesis we have is that AIDS is caused by an infection produced by the HIV virus, which spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids, and seems to spread especially well through sexual contact.
If you have another hypothesis, I’ll be happy to listen to it. What concerns us is that your remarks may be interpreted by some as license to have unlimited unprotected sex, which seems to spread HIV particularly well.
Exactly, NDT.
This is a fantastic article, Paul.
Unfortunately, in the US, the “gay orthodoxy” cannot understand how any gay person–oh, sorry…LGBT person–can subscribe to center-right beliefs, or, God forbid, be a member of the Republican Party.
Now, I’m not a Republican anymore (and not for lack of trying to hold out hope that the GOP might get its spending back under control and stop alienating entire groups of Americans), but I do consider myself a Log Cabin Republican in that the LCR aims to change the GOP from the inside. I don’t agree with them on everything, but the group is for pro-gay reform in one of the two parties; and aren’t two parties fighting for equality better than one?
Well, that thought didn’t occur to a few people this past weekend when the LCR-Illinois Chapter commissioned a float and marched in the Pride Parade in Chicago. I marched with them, and we had WWII, Korean, Vietnam and Iraq war vets joining us in a “Salute to LGBT Veterans.” We got a warm reception. Still, some folks had the gall to boo at us, even though we had 80-year-old vets on our float.
The point is this: the word “Republican” is toxic in the gay community (and amongst many of our friends), and many cannot fathom how we can be anything other than Democrats/socialists. And besides, how much of the stated support from the Democrats has been realized in all of these years of them “being on our side?” How much will be accomplished? I hope a lot, but I fear that it’s just a load of political pandering.
Challenge the gay-left orthodoxy! Vote for Liberty, social AND economic!
And I’m a Libertarian gay man who agrees with most of Mr. Varnell’s points, and who believes there’s no difference between the despicable bigotry of straight people who refer to gay people as “faggots” and queer folk like F3COJ who refer to straight people as “breeders.”
The solution, as always, is more freedom. Systems that are worth keeping thrive in a free market of ideas — systems that aren’t worth keeping fail miserably.
Unlike heterosexual conservatives, however, I believe gay cons have a more complex motivation to dismiss the more underground “queers”: fear of being taken for one of them, of being indistinguishbly lumped together with them.
I don’t think of much of using third-rate psychobabble to rationalize why other people are dead right. Even if it is true, it’s pretty useless, because there’s just about no one on the face of the earth whose ideas don’t contort on themselves neurotically. Certainly not among those liberals who have been enamored with simplistic, good vs. evil interpretations of politics since the 2000 election. And gays slingshot between different types of overcompensation to discrimination for decades. What is the desire to be out, but a primal reaction against the imprisonment? With all this psychic terror running all over the place I wouldn’t be so eager to dismiss other people as psychologically imperfect.
Anyway, I agree with most of this article, I suppose.
“Well, Paul Varnell, I think the reason some gays and lesbians decided to open their movement to bisexuals and transexuals – as if they were never before a part of our movement and culture – is because they weren’t interested only in hunting rights that make us more similar to breeders, but in ideological questions as well. Surprising as it may be, gay organizations are also about cultural innovation and questioning of moral and cultural standards (it is not only about taming homosexuals, as gay cons would have it), in which our mere existence questions the concept of sexual normality and the rigidness of gender roles. Transexuals and bisexuals also tend to be as discriminated as gays and lesbians because on similar grounds and, usually, by the same motive. By itself, I consider this to be more than enough reason to embrace them as our true brothers and sisters.”
Excellent point here.
Whereas I agree with most of the article, I really objected on the point about bisexuals and transexuals. The roots of discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and transexuals are so similar on so many levels that it makes total sense for the three groups to campaign together.
I agree with much of the unorthodoxy outlined here. But on the abortion issue, the question ought not be framed as whether one supports “assisted suicide, S/M, drug use, ex-gay therapy, prostitution, promiscuity, etc.” but rather, whether or not one is prepared to have all of the above made explicitly illegal.
The ‘abortion-law’ cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Griswold V. Connecticut were all important precedents in the legal reasoning behind Lawrence v. Texas. The implied ‘right to privacy’ comes from the same court and the same precedential framework. That reasoning is integral to what advances in gay civil rights that we have made thus far.
Exactly, Kyle.
North Dallas Thirty,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your improved tone and I am well-aware that this is an extremely emotional issue for many people. I am beyond feeling emotional about this. To me, this issue is about science and about nothing but science. If you want to have a productive conversation with me, then you will have to be prepared to discuss science. And “scientific consensus” is NOT science.
This discussion is potentially a very long discussion and will depend on your understanding of many concepts before you can understand my point of view. It is easy to understand, “AIDS is caused by a virus, HIV, which is sexually-transmitted.” It is not so easy to understand, “Antibodies are promiscuous because antigens are polyclonal.” I can’t explain my point of view to you or anyone without first discussing many other things, and I don’t honestly expect you to have the patience for it considering that you already think I’m trying to kill people. I depend on you to tell me when your patience runs out because I don’t want to waste any time typing lots of words, and there’s no way to talk about this without typing lots of words.
A good place for us to start could be the “HIV test”. As you probably know, there is no such thing test that can detect “HIV”. Instead, the tests (ELISA, Western Blot, and PCR (which isn’t supposed to be used as a test for “HIV”, but it is anyway)) look for surrogates which are alleged to imply the existence of “HIV”. If the “HIV test” is fatally flawed, then your statement: “AIDS is caused by an infection produced by the HIV virus, which spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids, and seems to spread especially well through sexual contact” is false. If you are patient enough with me, then you will eventually be convinced that the “HIV test” is worthless and that “HIV status” is meaningless. If the evidence leads you there, then are you willing to accept those things or does it violate dogma that, to you, is involable?
So my question to you is this: Would you like to discuss the “HIV test”?
P.S. I have my own theories about what may cause “AIDS”, but until you realize what is wrong with the “HIV=AIDS” theory you’re highly unlikely to give them any thought. Being convinced to a radically different way of thinking is a bottom-up process. Theories come from evidence, not the other way around.
Addendum:
I loathe, detest, and despise all conspiracy theories. Gays who think that “AIDS” was engineered by the government to kill off gay and black people are crazy and I want nothing to do with them.
Thanks for your time, Jimmy.
As I understand it, the gist of your argument is this:
1) There are numerous immune-system triggers (antigens) that could cause the release of the antibodies that we have previously linked to being exclusively triggered by HIV.
2) That affects the accuracy and validity of the tests involved.
On the ELISA test, your hypothesis is plausible; ELISA looks for and uses antibody binding to proteins as a means of detecting the presence or absence of the triggering antigen. If, as you hypothesize, these antibodies can be produced by something else, then the ELISA test is only indicative of a trigger antigen that produces this sort of antibody being present, not that a specific trigger antigen is present.
In short, if pneumonia and AIDS both were characterized by the same type of antibody, an ELISA test would only be able to tell you that the antibody was present, but not whether you had pneumonia or AIDS.
The Western blot and PCR (polymerase chain reductase) tests, however, are a bit more specific; they analyze and provide a breakdown of the DNA and RNA present in a sample. Western blot simply separates out the genome; PCR uses a technique in which fragments of DNA or RNA in a sample are replicated and amplified, thus making it easier to determine what genetic material is present and in what proportion.
Again, I can see your point; invariably patients with AIDS do tend to have multiple foreign organisms and whatnot living in their bodies that show up in testing. Furthermore, since HIV is a retrovirus of rather unique style and composition, it would be plausible to make the argument that HIV isn’t “different”; we’re just not seeing the whole picture, and looking at genetic fragments without realizing an entire complex mosaic.
In my opinion, the whole debate over whether or not HIV “causes” AIDS is complicated by the nature of HIV’s action itself. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that HIV is not what kills you in AIDS; you die of whatever infection has gotten into you and gone out of control because HIV has significantly lowered your immune response. Furthermore, what we don’t know is why HIV, which has several analogous and harmless siblings, goes happy crazy in one person and leaves ulking in the other; clearly, there are a lot of genetic differences in how you respond to it, and that does make somewhat reasonable the charge that it’s not really HIV, but a combination of other factors.
However, what we know is this; to use an allusion from epidemiological history, if we remove the pump handle, the cholera stops.
Unprotected sex is our pump handle for AIDS.
That doesn’t mean that all pump handles cause AIDS, or that there aren’t other ways to avoid AIDS that don’t require removing the pump handle. But, in the vast majority of cases, that’s what works.
Hence the thing. I am open to the idea that there is more to AIDS than simple HIV infection. I can, on a scientific and hypothetical basis, consider that the “HIV causes AIDS” theory is far too simplistic and ignores innumerable other causative methods. I can understand the flaws in the tests that we have and that, while a test may be accurate, that it may not be valid — that is, it doesn’t measure what we need it to measure.
But all I ask for now is that we leave the handle off the pump — and, for now, make it clear that that’s the best way we’ve found so far to stop the epidemic.
OK?
Well put, NDT. You make a sensible appeal, which is rational and should appeal to reason. However, I suspect that it will not appeal to Jimmy, because he may want and need to argue that other things — such as drug use, poppers, lots of sex, anal sex (which in turn “causes” IBS which in turn causes the use of rectal steroids) — cause AIDS by weakening the immune system. And therefore, his alternative cause creates a physical basis to justify his “moral” calculations about “appropriate behavior.”
That may be, thom; however, shouldn’t we let Jimmy speak first?
North Dallas Thirty,
Thank you for your time. Clearly you’ve done some reading about “HIV” and AIDS and that makes this discussion much easier. (A side question: do you work in the AIDS industry?)
First, I have not yet made my argument about the “HIV test”! You have to remember that I already know the position and arguments put forth by the AIDS industry and you do not have to educate me about your position.
Second, you state that my argument is this: “There are numerous immune-system triggers (antigens) that could cause the release of the antibodies that we have previously linked to being exclusively triggered by HIV.” That is not my argument, so you have beaten up a strawman. Calling an antigen an “immune system trigger” is too simplistic. Antigen stands for ANTIbody GENerating and specifically deals with antibodies which are but part of the immune system.
Third, it is refreshing to see you admit that there is actually a debate as to whether “HIV” is the cause of AIDS. This change has come about because of the internet.
Foruth, WB is only “more specific” than ELISA because it lays the different proteins out individually so you can see exactly which proteins reacted with the alleged “HIV antibodies”. WB is quite different than PCR, and you are correct to note that it is a multiplicative (i.e., generative) act. I.e., it creates, not magnifies.
Fifth, making arguments about “pump handles” and other such allegories will be summarily ignored by me. Stick to the science and avoid the rhetoric.
All of that out of the way, I can now make my argument.
Antigens are usually protiens, which is to say that they are large molecules. Almost anything can be an antigen, and they can enter your body in numerous ways. Inhalation and ingestion are the two most common ways. Since antigens are proteins they are “bumpy” due to the arrangement of the atoms in their structure. These “bumps” are what antibodies bind to — these “bumps” are called the “antigenic determinant” for that very reason. If you get infected by a virus, then the protein sheath around it has antigenic determinants around it which your body’s antibodies can bind to. One antigen, one specific antibody. Cool huh?
Only it doesn’t actually work out that nicely. Antibodies are promiscuous, which means that a particluar antibody against, say, the influenza virus, might also bind to a completely different antigen. This is because the antibody isn’t actually binding to the antigen, it’s binding to the antigenic determinant. And any number of antigens can share any number of antigenic determinants. A prime example of this promiscuous behavior is that the antibody which binds to Epstein-Barr virus also binds to the red blood cells of horses. Thus, one of the ways to test for infection by Epstein-Barr virus is to mix the patient’s blood with horse blood and check for an antibody reaction. If there is a reaction, does that mean that the patient is infected with horse blood? Of course not. This is called “cross reactivity”.
So given that antibodies cross react with other things than what they’re “supposed to” react with (for example, the alleged proteins in the DNA of “HIV”), how do we know that the antibodies which react are actually reacting with what they’re supposed to be reacting with? The way that you do that is that you prove that the antibodies are specific to a particular antigen. That means that an antibody in question will only react to a particular antigen and nothing else.
Are you with me so far?
Ugh, threadjackers go away.
This article would have been much better had it analyzed why these issues are being lumped together and then perhaps offered an alternative way to reach the goal intended by the lumping.
Instead you’ve written a sophomoric account of how all these issues are not one in the same and gays can and do have differing opinions. My response: duh.
After reviewing a few of this site’s blogs, I find your tagline “forging a gay mainstream” very misleading.
This sounds more gay right-wing, gay arrogant and yes, unique gay voices… But this is far from mainstream. I think most non-hetero folk would find the ideas on this page repulsive. Whether your ideas are right or not, portraying yourselves as so ‘mainstream’ I feel, is a very arrogant way of marginalizing the majority of our own community.
The Trans and gay issues are very different but they’re both sex and gender issues and we both have to figure out what we are and then “come out
as that identity. So why not? Their evolution together seems more historical in it’s origins than anything else, and suddenly dumping Trans issues just isnt going to happen. If you dont like these groups for supporting transgender rights, start your own organization… It would be silly for any org to claim to represent our whole community. We can’t agree on anything, and since we come from every racial, religious, cultural and economic background imaginable, why should we assume we can speak for the same voice? So if that org doesn’t, why demand they should think like you? Start your own. Get constructive. We have enough complainers in our community.
It isn’t just the Gay Left, it is the Left generally that can’t stick to one topic.
The NEA and the Ohio Education Association lost a court case this week because they were using their funds to support the Pro-abortion political forces.
How is abortion something that relates to educating children? They were sued because a Catholic teacher objected to funding pro-abortion organizations.
I am pro-life. As a gay man, I fear the discovering the “gay gene” or whatever biological mechanism there is which triggers homosexuality. With that, parents might choose to abort a child they believe will be born gay. I don’t think women have the right to abort gay children because of their homophobia. It will be interesting to see how the gay movement deals with this issue. The Christian Right is already preparing the loopholes in their theology so they can have this kind of abortion.
>>You do not seriously dismiss peer reviewed journals as a required standard of scientific knowledge, do you?< <
Actually, yes I do. And you probably should to. Consider only one of the recent scandals at leading "peer-reviewed" journals, wherein Nature was discovered to have published at least one major article that they had not, in fact, peer reviewed. ( See: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/search?q=peer+review and http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176672506.shtml ) Scandals aside, all that peer review should do is to catch glaring errors, instead it has turned into a tool for enforcing scientific paradigms and politically-correct government-funded research dogma. Peer review was a good idea, as a stop-gap measure against errors in the marginally funded academic and not-for-profit environments where science got its start, and where funding for professional editors and fact checkers was not available. However times have changed; today science has been professionalized, and politicized, through corporate and government funding. It has substantial funding that could and does pay for professional editing and fact-checking. Peer-review, without a remaining legitimate purpose, as subsequently been co-opted and become just as tainted by money and special interests as anything else touched by corporations and government.
>>…because he may want and need to argue that other things — such as drug use, poppers, lots of sex, anal sex (which in turn “causes” IBS which in turn causes the use of rectal steroids) — cause AIDS by weakening the immune system. And therefore, his alternative cause creates a physical basis to justify his “moral” calculations about “appropriate behavior.”< <
In the early 1900s, on the island of New Guinea, there was a discovered a population of people called the South Fore who were experiencing an ongoing epidemic of a deadly disease called Kuru. ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) ) No causal agent could be found, and the epidemic didn’t follow the standard patterns of epidemic infections. The South Fore however did have a rather unique lifestyle, they partook in ritual mortuary cannibalism (they ate their dead). Some might take moral issue with this, but from our modern liberal perspective, to condemn their social customs would be wrong. The issue of mortuary cannibalism’s morality or immorality was however irrelevant. Eventually cellular biology made sufficient advances to discovered that indeed the cannibalism was the cause, insomuch as it was the vector by which the causal agent was passed. Should the South Fore have said, “Don’t listen to those white guys, because they are just trying to impose onto us their moral views about eating the dead?” Well, they could have and did — but it wouldn’t have and didn’t stop the Kuru from passing generation to generation.
>>The whole reason we are concerned is because we want to prevent AIDS. … What concerns us is that your remarks may be interpreted by some as license to have unlimited unprotected sex, which seems to spread HIV particularly well.< <
It was almost a century before cellular biology caught up and confirmed what deductive reasoning had indicated originally, that the cannibalism was "causing" the Kuru. It was discovered that a previously unknown agent, called "prions" (not a bacteria not a virus), was the source of the deadly infection. Flash forward to now... HIV, as a causal agent, contradicts centuries of knowledge regarding how disease, infections, and epidemics function. It most likely is not the causal agent. However, there may be an as-yet-undiscovered agent (not bacteria, not virus, not even prion) that does, and until we find it, interrupting the vector is the wisest and safest approach. In the AIDS case, the vector appears to be blood transmission, whether that is via unsafe sex, sharing needles, etc. In this regard, discouraging unprotected sex is a very responsible thing to do. However, encouraging HIV-infected individuals to take deadly toxins dressed up as medicine because of an unsound theory that AIDS is caused by a possibly harmless HIV virus, and then discouraging further inquiry and investigation into the cause of AIDS is an incredibly irresponsibly thing to do. If the HIV hypothesis is wrong, then those actions will have clearly caused the deaths of millions; if it is right however, having allowed further scientific investigation will have caused the provable death of no one who didn't make their own choice about their own healthcare treatment. The only ones standing to lose from competitive investigation are those who might loss funding after their pet theories are disproved in a competitive environment.
For those who are not sufficiently educated in biology to understand what Nobel Laureates and world-reknowned virologists like Carey Mullis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis ) and Peter Druesberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg ) are telling you, please pick up a book or go online. It only takes a little time to educate yourself. Do not rely on self-serving, politically-motivated individuals and organizations to be forthcoming in telling you what to believe: at this point there is too much money involved — and, whether we like it or not, “gay” and “african” lives are cheap and expendable resources in the game of politics and research funding. You can still chose to take whatever medications your physician’s recommend, but with sufficient education, you may be also be comfortable in deciding not to take them. And making the right decision might very well save your life — and it is your life, and therefore your responsibility to decide.
This is a great article and I commend Paul for having the courage to ask such questions publicly.
Quote: “You do not seriously dismiss peer reviewed journals as a required standard of scientific knowledge, do you?”
Actually, yes I do. And you probably should to. Consider only one of the recent scandals at leading “peer-reviewed” journals, wherein Nature was discovered to have published at least one major article that they had not, in fact, peer reviewed. ( See: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/search?q=peer+review and http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1176672506.shtml ) Scandals aside, all that peer review should do is to catch glaring errors, instead it has turned into a tool for enforcing scientific paradigms and politically-correct government-funded research dogma. Peer review was a good idea, as a stop-gap measure against errors in the marginally funded academic and not-for-profit environments where science got its start, and where funding for professional editors and fact checkers was not available. However times have changed; today science has been professionalized, and politicized, through corporate and government funding. It has substantial funding that could and does pay for professional editing and fact-checking. Peer-review, without a remaining legitimate purpose, as subsequently been co-opted and become just as tainted by money and special interests as anything else touched by corporations and government.
Quote: “…because he may want and need to argue that other things — such as drug use, poppers, lots of sex, anal sex (which in turn “causes” IBS which in turn causes the use of rectal steroids) — cause AIDS by weakening the immune system. And therefore, his alternative cause creates a physical basis to justify his “moral” calculations about “appropriate behavior.”
In the early 1900s, on the island of New Guinea, there was a discovered a population of people called the South Fore who were experiencing an ongoing epidemic of a deadly disease called Kuru. ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) ) No causal agent could be found, and the epidemic didn’t follow the standard patterns of epidemic infections. The South Fore however did have a rather unique lifestyle, they partook in ritual mortuary cannibalism (they ate their dead). Some might take moral issue with this, but from our modern liberal perspective, to condemn their social customs would be wrong. The issue of mortuary cannibalism’s morality or immorality was however irrelevant. Eventually cellular biology made sufficient advances to discovered that indeed the cannibalism was the cause, insomuch as it was the vector by which the causal agent was passed. Should the South Fore have said, “Don’t listen to those white guys, because they are just trying to impose onto us their moral views about eating the dead?” Well, they could have and did — but it wouldn’t have and didn’t stop the Kuru from passing generation to generation.
Quote: “The whole reason we are concerned is because we want to prevent AIDS. … What concerns us is that your remarks may be interpreted by some as license to have unlimited unprotected sex, which seems to spread HIV particularly well.”
It was almost a century before cellular biology caught up and confirmed what deductive reasoning had indicated originally, that the cannibalism was “causing” the Kuru. It was discovered that a previously unknown agent, called “prions” (not a bacteria not a virus), was the source of the deadly infection. Flash forward to now… HIV, as a causal agent, contradicts centuries of knowledge regarding how disease, infections, and epidemics function. It most likely is not the causal agent. However, there may be an as-yet-undiscovered agent (not bacteria, not virus, not even prion) that does, and until we find it, interrupting the vector is the wisest and safest approach. In the AIDS case, the vector appears to be blood transmission, whether that is via unsafe sex, sharing needles, etc. In this regard, discouraging unprotected sex is a very responsible thing to do. However, encouraging HIV-infected individuals to take deadly toxins dressed up as medicine because of an unsound theory that AIDS is caused by a possibly harmless HIV virus, and then discouraging further inquiry and investigation into the cause of AIDS is an incredibly irresponsibly thing to do. If the HIV hypothesis is wrong, then those actions will have clearly caused the deaths of millions; if it is right however, having allowed further scientific investigation will have caused the provable death of no one who didn’t make their own choice about their own healthcare treatment. The only ones standing to lose from competitive investigation are those who might loss funding after their pet theories are disproved in a competitive environment.
For those who are not sufficiently educated in biology to understand what Nobel Laureates and world-reknowned virologists like Carey Mullis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis ) and Peter Druesberg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg ) are telling you, please pick up a book or go online. It only takes a little time to educate yourself. Do not rely on self-serving, politically-motivated individuals and organizations to be forthcoming in telling you what to believe: at this point there is too much money involved — and, whether we like it or not, “gay” and “african” lives are cheap and expendable resources in the game of politics and research funding. You can still chose to take whatever medications your physician’s recommend, but with sufficient education, you may be also be comfortable in deciding not to take them. And making the right decision might very well save your life — and it is your life, and therefore your responsibility to decide.
Regarding dissent…
This is a great article and I commend Paul for having the courage to ask such questions publicly.
Unfortunately yet more regrettable stereotypes about bisexual people.
It’s very regrettable that many gay people cling to their own cherished stereotypes about bisexual people, even as they strive to overcome the straight world’s stereotypes about gay people. That the irony is missed is truly pathetic.
Yes, most bisexual people have a “preference” or a “leaning”. That does not make them “not bisexual” – in fact, it’s more common for bisexual folks to have a leaning, with openness towards the non-leaning gender, than it is for them to have a true 50/50 orientation. Bisexual people have been explaining this to gay people for years, and now the backlash is coming from gay people eager to resurrect their previously held, incorrect, views and stereotypes.
It’s ironic that so many gay people are intent on destroying the GLBT coalition. To be honest, bisexual people benefit the least from it, because we can all blend into the straight world very easily if we wish. The participation of bisexual people in the coalition is actually something that helps gay and lesbian people by bringing incremental numbers and talent to the movement. But to be honest, the more tha bisexual people hear these kinds of ill-informed stereotypes being repeated, the less inclined we become at assisting those who would join the straight world in perpetuating these incorrect views about us.
It’s ironic that so many gay people are intent on destroying the GLBT coalition. To be honest, bisexual people benefit the least from it, because we can all blend into the straight world very easily if we wish.
That’s probably the reason.
It’s really not much different from any other overbroad coalition. If it’s a gay movement plus bisexuals, then it’s as you just described, bisexuals bringing extra numbers to a gay movement. But when the movement gives bisexuals a voice, let alone equal status in a GLBT coalition, it’s inevitably taking away some of gays’ power to decide what gay issues are… a strange thing in what is purportedly a gay movement.
And on the issues I care about the most, the rigid GLBT coalition does more harm than good. In my state the only thing holding up an anti-school bullying law is the failure to agree on a provision explicitly protecting transsexuals… which may be good for transsexuals but is bad for everyone else, gays in particular.
I don’t feel that the gay organizations have ‘mission drift’ so much as I see them really listening to their constituants. Every item on the list is important to some members of the gl community. If you have ever known a couple where one was an immigrant, it becomes clear that some gay people do have a great stake in this issue.
On National Health Insurance, this position comes out of a quarter century of the AIDS epidemic. During the first 20 years, gay men saw a consistant pattern of failure on the part of private health insurance when it came to their needs. Over and over again, gay people had bad experiences with private health insurance plans. During this period gay people could compare results and treatments both in the US and in other first world countries with national health systems. And over and over again, the ‘socialist’ systems produced better results in almost everything that could be measured. So, the position on health insurance arose from the actual experiences of gay people. It is not something added on for variaty. Or to please other groups. This comes directly from gay people working on issues within our community.
Gee Paul, I can remember being at gay meeting over 30 years ago in Chicago where the issue of including bisexuals was hotly argued. This is 20 years before the 1995 meeting. And is an issue that has been around longer than that.
Looking at the laundry lists, what I see is national groups that lead coalitions not top-down unitary organizations. Coalitions are always sort of fuzzy and look to be christmas-treeing. But that is a reality.
I just realized there’s someone else posting as James, so I wanted to clarify–I’m the one that everyone except Northdallasthirty disagrees with.
I dissent, oboy, do I dissent from gay orthodoxy. Seven? I can list Seventy Times Seven. But here’s my problem–once you start dissenting, where do you go to meet other gays? The one thing the gay community has which no one else does is this: all the gay men! So, if I don’t like what the gay community is doing, and I’m sick of the whole agenda, where do I go to meet guys? Should I put on a rainbow shirt and pretend to agree just so I can have someone to go on cruises with? Or does dissent lead to exclusion and the consequent Saturday nights alone with my Dreamgirls DVD?
The Real James asks:
“I dissent, oboy, do I dissent from gay orthodoxy. Seven? I can list Seventy Times Seven. But here’s my problem–once you start dissenting, where do you go to meet other gays?”
It’s not so important to me that I meet other gays. It’s more important to me that I meet other people who share my values and share my interests. Their sexual orientation isn’t all that important to me as I’ve accepted that I’m always going to be a minority and it’s important to my personal development that I learn to adjust to that reality.
Then again, that’s somewhat of a callous attitude to take because I’ve found my partner for life and I’m not looking for another. What about someone who, unlike me, is single and looking for a partner? That does pose a problem as the best chance at finding a partner means getting around as many gay people as possible, and that, unfortunately, means getting closer to the nasty “gay culture”.
Comments on this entry are closed.