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.
83 Comments for “Seven Dissents from Gay Orthodoxy”
posted by Craig2 on
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
posted by Lori Heine on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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!
posted by kittynboi on
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.
posted by Lori Heine on
“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.
posted by kittynboi on
Whats actually valid is something that can be defended with a coherent, rational argument.
I see way too many appeals to emotion around here.
posted by cheneygun on
I agree entirely with this article!
posted by SEGrether on
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.
posted by Lori Heine on
“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.
posted by Southern Decency on
“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?
posted by thom on
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.
posted by George on
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.
posted by F3COJ on
Dale Carpenter’sadvise 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.
posted by U6XF5 on
Correction: *”(“you can’t ask to be in the military if you criticize government military actions”)*
posted by Mike on
“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 😉
posted by taodon on
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?
posted by Amicus on
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?
posted by Amicus on
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?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Lori Heine on
“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.”
posted by thom on
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
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.”
posted by kittynboi on
“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?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by thom on
Exactly, NDT.
posted by Richard Lorenc on
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!
posted by Brian Miller on
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.
posted by Jorge on
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.
posted by George on
“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.
posted by Kyle on
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.
posted by thom on
Exactly, Kyle.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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?
posted by thom on
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.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That may be, thom; however, shouldn’t we let Jimmy speak first?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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?
posted by Mark on
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.
posted by Matthew on
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.
posted by Zendo Deb on
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.
posted by James on
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.
posted by SonoGalt on
>>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.
posted by sonogalt on
This is a great article and I commend Paul for having the courage to ask such questions publicly.
posted by Sonogalt on
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.
posted by sonogalt on
Regarding dissent…
This is a great article and I commend Paul for having the courage to ask such questions publicly.
posted by Brendan on
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.
posted by Jorge on
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.
posted by dalea on
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.
posted by The Real James on
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?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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”.
posted by ETJB on
Exclude bisexual and transgender people?
Why? Sounds like some one is engaging in a bit of bi and trans-phobia.
What “gay left orthodoxy?” Their is no authoritarian ‘gay leadership’ that violates LGBT political or religious rights if they dissident. Stop acting like this is a case for Amnesty International.
For that matter why are gay Republicans (who often whine about being excluded) so eager to exclude other people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Are you with me so far?
Yes; I do have no small familiarity with immunoassay techniques. And you are right; cross-assaying does have numerous problems associated with it.
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.
Hence my statement about the pump handle.
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.
This is akin to the debate over chemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer, as in a) whether or not the cure is actually worse than the disease itself and b) whether or not there’s another direction in which we need to be looking.
I would agree with the last; the preponderance of evidence out there that HIV does in fact cause AIDS is good, but at the same time, it should be considered that there are alternative factors involved. The necessity for this in my mind is because the bulk of HIV/AIDS research right now is concentrated on developing a vaccine, rather than thoroughly understanding the etiology of the disease process; while I understand why people are doing this, I also would caution that a vaccine that does not cover all the bases, as it were, will make the problem worse. If there are factors involved other than HIV in the linkage between AIDS and unprotected sex, all that a vaccine will do is encourage the latter and magnify the presence of the former. We may well end up with a worse epidemic than when we started.
Meanwhile, though, we do know that protease inhibitors and other such things do inhibit the onset of AIDS — albeit with painful symptoms and potential damage — just as chemotherapy does with cancer. And, just as we have with chemotherapy, over time, we will develop better, more-targeted ways of dealing with HIV infection and AIDS — which would, again, benefit from a reduction in emphasis on the vaccine and more put towards understanding the entire disease process.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Their is no authoritarian ‘gay leadership’ that violates LGBT political or religious rights if they dissident.
Mhm, right.
And do I really need to post the “Commit suicide” love notes that I’ve gotten here before?
Of course, you can argue that being insulted, namecalled, and harassed technically doesn’t violate your rights; just keep in mind, though, whether or not you’d buy that argument if it were a gay person of approved doctrine having that done to them.
For that matter why are gay Republicans (who often whine about being excluded) so eager to exclude other people.
There is a very fine line between mutual and connected grievances — and coattailing.
To Paul’s statement above:
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.
Basic rule: if gays are allowed to have different opinions on these, but still be gay, it’s not related to sexual orientation.
But of course, if being gay requires you to subscribe to a specific doctrine on these, as NGLTF, HRC, and the innumerable other “real” national gay organizations require, then they are relevant.
Which is it?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
North Dallas Thirty:
“Yes; I do have no small familiarity with immunoassay techniques. And you are right; cross-assaying does have numerous problems associated with it.”
Okay, we’re off to a good start.
Now, the problem with “HIV tests” is that they assume that antibodies reacting with proteins prove “HIV infection” since they also assume that the antibodies in question are specific to “HIV”. The only way to prove this is to have a gold standard, that is, “HIV” itself, to test against.
Take for example a pregnancy test. The over-the-counter pregnancy test doesn’t actually test for pregnancy. It tests for a surrogate found in the woman’s urine. It’s assumed that the presence of the surrogate implies the existence of a pregnancy. How do we know how accurate the test is? We compare it with a gold standard, which is, in this case, the baby itself. A baby is fairly easy to detect within a mother’s uterus through ultrasound, and thus the sensitivity (how often a pregnancy registers “positive”) and specificity (how often a “positive” result is NOT a false positive) of the pregnancy test can be measured.
But you can’t ultrasound a virus, so how can the gold standard (“HIV”) be established? For retroviruses, this is done through retroviral isolation through a sucrose gradient. No one has ever done this. And thus, there is no gold standard for “HIV”. The medical literature and the “HIV tests” themselves admit that there is no gold standard for “HIV”.
In other words, if you test “positive” on an “HIV test”, then it could be true that your antibodies are cross-reacting with other antigens that share the same antigenic determinants. In fact, since there is no gold standard for “HIV”, then there is no way of knowing if the alleged “HIV antibodies” even react with “HIV” in the first place.
The nail in the coffin is that “HIV” researchers have explained the problems of false positives in “HIV tests” with “cross-reacting antibodies”. In other words, “HIV” researchers themselves admit that some “positive” results in “HIV tests” come about due to cross-reacting antibodies. How do we know that this case does NOT apply to ANY “positive” result on an “HIV test”?
Are you still with me? Because it gets even worse than this.
posted by MMMM on
Yes, Paul, I understand, but only so far. I differ with you when I consider that one issue that cuts across LGBT peoples and transvestites is gender variance. Some gay and bisexual men and women “pass” gender norms quite easily, though not their same-sex attraction and sexuality, but the majority have gender markings (voice, movement, and others) that make us targets of violence, threats, intimidation, or just plain old marginalization.
posted by The Gay Species on
Odd: “Tolerate diversity.” Is that prescriptive, normative, or by biological fact of Darwin. But Darwinian “thinking” would not have used the word “orthodoxy,” as that is essentialist-thinking, and Darwin denies essentialism. Categorically. In fact, citing seven dissents from “orthodoxy” keeps you and everyone else in the same essentialist-thought world, along with Religionists, Marxists, Freudians, Postmodernists, Conservatives, Progressives, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all the other “essentialisms” Darwin denies.
Of Darwin’s Five Theories of Evolution that comprise the Law of Evolution, one of the requisite theories is multiplication of species (the origin of diversity) and the indispensable pre-requisite of VARIATION to evolution — the UNIQUENESS OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL. But if every individual is unique, and if Darwin is true (and after 150 years, millions of tests, and not once falsified), then “orthodoxy” is essentialist anti-life ideology unsupported by biological facts of nature. Since Humans are integral to Nature, the essentialist-mindset is “escapist” from confronting that Nature.
So, in effect, your dissents are still within the essentialist language game, and essentialism defeats diversity, indeed repudiates and denies it, because the “many” is pluralistic, heterodox, diverse, variable, which is all anathema to the essentialist conceptual scheme. And as long as essentialism is the paradigm, GLBT will always lose their quest for freedom, equality, assimilation, respect, dignity, because “diversity” is disallowed — it’s heretical, bourgeoisie, psychotic, abnormal, from the “orthodox” mindset, whoever and whatever “-ism” proclaims it.
Using the “old language game” and playing by “essentialism’s rules” are a guarantee for defeat, because the ONE gets to DEFINE what is and is not ORTHODOX. So, appeals to toleration of diversity under the “dissents to orthodoxy” is riddled with contradictions, no less for Queer Theorists as for Conservatives and Progressives, for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for all who accept the essentialist ideology, rather than biological facts of Darwin.
Which explains why so many Americans are in “denial” over the most-verified fact of nature after gravity; they’ll have to abandon their superstitions, orthodoxies, certitudes, and metaphysics to live in the world as it is, not as ideologies try to remake it. No. Illusions remain the future, and your “dissents” merely perpetuate the illusions that an “orthodoxy” actually has validity. The LEFT and RIGHT speak the same lingo, play by the same rules, and alas it devolves to the Will to Power, not the Will to Be, and in that game, nearly everyone ELSE loses, save the plutocrat, the authortarian, the ONE. The ONE and the MANY are opposed, and the ONE rules. You are perpetuating that rule. So are Queer Theorists.
posted by The Real James on
The price of dissent is loneliness. While it is fun to criticize the gay community, it is very hard to meet other gay men without it. They hold all the cards. It seems unfair that I have to go from one closet to another–I have to hide my true values and feelings about the gay community in my new closet just so I can meet people. No matter how justified my dissent, I have to wave a Rainbow flag at some point if I want to find a partner. The radical GLBT community is always going to win because, ultimately, a partner is worth a few “We’re here we’re queers.” I may completely dissent with the whole of my being, but they win because they’re the only game in town.
posted by Lori Heine on
It’s a sign of just how balkanized our society has become that we can’t speak of taking on each issue separately and distinctly — or thinking of it clearly — without being sure that by so doing, we’ve got to be cheating somebody.
The only thing that motivates people to recognize the humanity in others is focusing on the fact that we all share this humanity. This alone will not divide us.
I don’t have to be “against” bisexuals or transgenders, or “insensitive” to them, to desire a more basic approach. Ironically, it is this one broad brush that eliminates the need for all the others.
posted by MMMM on
Reply to: The Gay Species
1 – I’m not sure that Darwin’s biology can be so easily transposed onto ideology, social psychology, and the social contract. So far as I know, the efforts to do so are theoretical.
2 – I don’t agree that, even if so, a Darwinian social psychology would necessarily be so dark and fatalist about the endeavor to be equal in the eyes of the law and to inherit equally the franchise and its freedoms. In fact, it is already false to claim that we do not and that ?diversity is disallowed.? Also, why should anyone believe you that we “will always lose?” In fact, we’ve already had many wins. Our democratic system, when it works, does evolve. Outworn orthodoxies do die. The social contract does expand to fulfill promises stated in law.
3 – Your lists of terms are not equivalent. Assimilation, for instance, is an entirely different animal than freedom. As I mentioned in response to Paul’s earlier post, “Enfranchised and UNassimilated is a core American value.” However much some Americans want to suppress and deny that, it is still true and still becoming more so.
4 – Having said all that, you do well to identify for Paul and the rest of us that too often language games play into the existing power structure. I agree that Paul’s games have done that for him. You do well in your observation that plutocracy is the rule of the day. Our Democratic and Republican leaders are all beholden to large multi-national corporations, mostly oil. The problem is so grave as to make Paul?s rant sound rather mignon, a home-spun combination of preciosity, grandiosity, and small-mindedness. Paul wake up!
posted by taodon on
In speaking of dissent, I can recall numerous times where my pro-life beliefs have caused all in the room to gasp, shudder, and raising of the hand. It is as if a discussion can not even take place, that some all-powerful gay ruling council has decided that I am somehow less of a gay if I believe differently. The irony is, of course, that a people who are so insistent on being “individual” spend so much time parsing how each “individual” should believe.
My belief on abortion is that it is anti-homosexual in every context. Should a gene ever be discovered, what is to stop someone from aborting a gay child? In addition, due to the impossibility of gay reproduction, do we not need someone to have children for us? Abortion slows the birth rate, thus, in our current political climate, guaranteeing that these children will go to heterosexuals first. Finally and quite simply, life should always be nourished and protected, and not decided upon by the whim of an individual. Those are the basics of my beliefs on abortion
Too often, the gay mob deems any pro-life stance as stemming from religion. And that is the real abortion issue for many gays – it has nothing to do with rights or children, but has everything to do with a backlash against the religious institution that has belittled and oppressed us for so long.
The irony that religion is a choice and homosexuality is not, despite the contrary being constantly pushed, has always amused me.
posted by ETJB on
I said: Their is no authoritarian ‘gay leadership’ that violates LGBT political or religious rights if they dissident.
Your reply: One case of a public figure being “outed”. It was not part of some vast, ‘gay leadership’, and how were his human rights violated? A public figure (gay or straight) has to face a major loss in privacy.
The fact that some people are suggesting that you commit suicide, is indeed horrible, mean-spirited and possible even illegal.
However, these are individuals. Gay liberals and conservatives are as capable of being mean as straight liberals and conservatives.
I had many conservatives and libertarians call me all sorts of mean names. I had some liberals and socialists do the same thing as well.
Yet, Unlike Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, they can not force you to commit suicide.
You said: There is a very fine line between mutual and connected grievances — and coattailing.
So, then excluding gay Republicans and Libertarians (who try and ‘cottailing’) is bad, but not when it involves transgender people, bisexual people or people who are LGBT that do not belong to the upper-middle class?
Heck, just about all the Transgender and Bisexual people I know have been either Republicans or Libertarians, so perhaps you are shooting yourselves in the political foot?
To Paul’s statement above:
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.
Basic rule: if gays are allowed to have different opinions on these, but still be gay, it’s not related to sexual orientation.
But of course, if being gay requires you to subscribe to a specific doctrine on these, as NGLTF, HRC, and the innumerable other “real” national gay organizations require, then they are relevant.
Which is it?
posted by Brendan on
“one issue that cuts across LGBT peoples and transvestites is gender variance. Some gay and bisexual men and women “pass” gender norms quite easily, though not their same-sex attraction and sexuality, but the majority have gender markings (voice, movement, and others) that make us targets of violence, threats, intimidation, or just plain old marginalization.”
I agree with this generally, in that the common issue is what is considered “gender appropriate behavior” — that’s the link between the Gs, Ls, Bs and Ts. You can be as straight acting a G, L or B as you want, but the moment you walk up to a bunch of straight people holding your same-sex partner’s hand and getting an innocuous smooch on the cheek, you’ve crossed into “gender inappropriate behavior”, which, in my view, is the main reason why we still struggle for acceptance with many straight people (including non-religious ones). It’s all about gender, and what the straight world thinks appropriate gender behavior is (and that generally doesn’t include having a partner of the same sex, even if both parties are “straight acting”). Transgendered people are not accepted for a closely related reason: it isn’t considered appropriate to try to change one’s gender presentation and/or anatomy from that which one has inherited biologically — that is considered in appropriate behavior for someone who belongs, biologically, to either gender.
Gender is the key to all of this, and lies at the root of why Gs, Ls, Bs and Ts all still struggle to find broad acceptance in the straight world. That’s the basis for the commonality, and it makes plenty of sense, therefore, for the issues to be dealt with at the same time — because they have the same basis.
posted by The Real James on
“Gender variance” has nothing to do with being gay. Gay is men loving men. I am not interested in gender variant issues. I support everyone’s pursuit of happiness, but there are only so many issues I can take on. People with gender variant issues are misguided to piggyback their issues onto gay issues–my concern is men who identify as men, and their problems with the legal issues of marriage.
posted by Brian Miller on
“Gender variance” has nothing to do with being gay. Gay is men loving men.
Not spending much time on the fact that gay can also be women loving women, I’d like to further point out that heterosexuals would definitely define “men loving men” as gender-variance. Men are, after all, “supposed” to love women, not other men.
my concern is men who identify as men
Many straight folk would argue that gay men cannot identify as “real men” because they’re “sissies” by definition.
Not an argument that I agree with, but it underscores the seriousness of pretending that gender expectations don’t also impact gay men.
posted by kittynboi on
How can you all be discussing this when the live action Transformers movie just came out?!?!?!?!?!
posted by Lori Heine on
The Real James sounds like the sort of guy who — after completely stiff-arming women out of the “gay” equation — will then turn around and chide lesbians for insisting on being recognized with a separate term.
I’ve never been one to feel that a separate term was necessary. But I find it rather amusing that the Real Jameses of this world will speak as if gay women don’t exist — and then turn around, in a high, righteous dudgeon, and tut-tut-tut lesbians who insist upon being called lesbians.
Just sayin’.
posted by Lori Heine on
Of course it occurs to me that maybe he’s like Queen Victoria and doesn’t believe we really exist. (-;
posted by The Real James on
I support everyone’s pursuit of happiness, but there are only so many causes I can get behind.
I see that it’s important for you to define yourself as “gender variant.” If that helps you, good, but that’s a choice. That choice unifies you with other groups you see as gender variant. Being gay is not a choice; defining yourself is a choice. It’s important to be an adult and be responsible for your choices. If you choose to identify as gender variant, don’t complain about being a victim. Instead, make a different choice.
I choose not to define myself as gender variant. I am a man first and foremost. My connection with the world of men is primary, and my sexual orientation is secondary. My concerns have to do with marriage, child custody, workplace fairness, etc. etc., which all men share.
I am not required by any law that I know of to work on behalf of lesbians, transgendered, or gender variant people, any more than you are required to work on behalf of undocumented workers or Sudanese refugees–certainly, all those groups have problems and I applaud the time you give to helping them. But one person can only take on so many causes.
My cause is the rights of men who want to build lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships with other men. I want to work on behalf of this group’s right to marry and adopt.
I am not involved in the problems of gay men who want open relationships or multiple partners. I am not involved in the problems of lesbians, transgenders, or gender variant people. They all have lots of people working on their behalf, and I don’t have to be one of them.
Personally, I think the rights of undocumented workers have a lot in common with the rights of men who want to form lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships with other men–I think both groups suffer under unjust laws which need to be changed. If I have time after working on my primary set of issues, I would work on gaining amnesty for undocumented workers. After that, universal health care.
See? There’s only so much time and energy, and for me to be able to focus, I have to jettison the concerns of the LBT part of the rainbow. This is America. I can do that.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I see that it’s important for you to define yourself as ‘gender variant.'”
Pardon me, James, but to whom are you speaking? “Gender variant” is, to me, a somewhat exotic term. I have never used it; it is simply not a term with which I am familiar, or by which I would identify myself.
I am gay. A gay woman, yes, but gay.
I suppose it makes sense to you to see the struggle for gay rights as somehow applying to men only, but as 99.8% of the rest of society — both those for gay rights and those against them — do not see it that way, you are basically marching with a pretty tiny band.
There are, of course, gay women who think just as you do. They are lesbians — and they never want the “gay” label attached to them. If they could take a rocket to some planet where there were no men, they would do so.
I find that a strange attitude when women take it, and no less strange when men take it.
I suppose the question is, do we need to draw lines on where the gay movement begins and ends, and I would say that it ought to depend on the particular issue. There are issues, I suppose, that are matters of “gender variation” — and when this is the case, certainly there is something to be said for all “gender variant” people standing together.
However, most of the issues faced by gays (I use the term to mean
“homosexuals” == which is how most people use it, and therefore what I thought it meant) seem to be pretty unique to us.
The idea that male homosexuals and female homosexuals face somehow vastly different challenges seems to me a bit of a strange one.
posted by Brian Miller on
I see that it’s important for you to define yourself as “gender variant.”
Not for me — it’s simply important to me that people don’t ignore uncomfortable subjects out of wishful thinking that they’re full conforming with expected norms. Queer guys don’t conform to usual gender expectations, period. They have sex with men.
Now, those expectations are changing over time, and perhaps queer men will eventually be viewed as “gender-compliant,” but it’s not happening at the moment. Like it or not, if you’re a gay man in American society, you’re gender non-compliant — no ifs, ands or buts. There’s nothing good nor bad about that, but pretending it isn’t so is just silly.
As for self-definition, I prefer to define myself by what I am, rather than what I am not. I am Brian, a queer guy who does all sorts of cool things and has all sorts of cool friends. I am not Brian the gay guy who isn’t like all those other gay guys and isn’t this and isn’t that and isn’t a sissy and isn’t a flamer, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Brian wrote,
“As for self-definition, I prefer to define myself by what I am, rather than what I am not. I am Brian, a queer guy who does all sorts of cool things and has all sorts of cool friends. I am not Brian the gay guy who isn’t like all those other gay guys and isn’t this and isn’t that and isn’t a sissy and isn’t a flamer, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.”
I despise the term “queer”. I think “claiming” it as some type of “empowering” thing is retarded.
And I, too, like to define myself according to what I am. Unfortunately, because of the militant, orthodox, and borg-like nature of “gay culture”, people assume that I am part of “gay culture” just because I am gay. That’s why I have to point out that no, I don’t reflexively vote “progressive”, no, I don’t respect Harry Hay, no, I don’t appreciate the “gay ghetto”, no I don’t like drag queens. Otherwise, all those things would normally be automatically assumed, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. And those things are NOT me. In fact, I think they suck.
posted by Brian Miller on
I despise the term “queer”. I think “claiming” it as some type of “empowering” thing is retarded.
That’s your choice. It doesn’t change the fact you’re queer though. 😉
because of the militant, orthodox, and borg-like nature of “gay culture”, people assume that I am part of “gay culture” just because I am gay
Gosh, sounds like an updated version of the 1960s lament of “normal colored folk” who “despise being called African Americans” and lament that white folks would treat them a lot nicer if it wasn’t for all those uppity civil rights campaigners. I mean, racism is clearly *their* fault, not the fault of the racists — just like homophobia is all gays’ fault and not the result of idiotic notions clung to by homophobic bigots.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
That’s your choice. It doesn’t change the fact you’re queer though. 😉
According to you, I’m a queer.
According to me, you’re a faggot.
But why should we let other people define who we are?
Gosh, sounds like an updated version of the 1960s lament of “normal colored folk” who “despise being called African Americans”…
If only I had some white guilt for you to exploit. Nice try!
You are nothing more than yet another gay agitating for a “separate but equal” lifestyle for gay people. Screw that!
posted by Brian Miller on
According to you, I’m a queer.
According to me, you’re a faggot.
But why should we let other people define who we are?
How postmodern of you!
You are nothing more than yet another gay agitating for a “separate but equal” lifestyle for gay people.
Au contraire. I simply reject your laughable contention that other gay people are responsible for the fact that straight people don’t like you.
If you’re as “pleasant” to them as you’ve been in this exchange, I’d suggest you look in the mirror for the cause of their animus.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
I simply reject your laughable contention that other gay people are responsible for the fact that straight people don’t like you.
There’s nothing laughable about it. When some gay people (let’s call them faggots, shall we?) insist that the gay identity is bowing at the altar of Harry Hay, revering drag queens, extolling a lifestyle of superficiality and hedonism and then claiming to speak for me in some kind of “gay community” then, yes, they are responsible for some straight people’s animus toward me because some straight people despise those things and then assume that it’s me when it isn’t because “that’s what gay people do”. Wasn’t it you who called me “queer” whether I liked it or not? Apparently you strongly desire to drag me into the faggy, the flippant, and the flamboyant and if it pisses some people off then it’s *their* problem. What if the problem is that it’s those three Fs that are pissing people off and not the fact that I have sex with men? I have many straight friends with whom that would resonate. They regard my sex life as my business, but they’re turned off by all the “gay culture”. I understand that because I agree with them totally: I loathe all that “gay culture” crap.
If you’re as “pleasant” to them as you’ve been in this exchange, I’d suggest you look in the mirror for the cause of their animus.
I’ve only returned that which you gave me. Any gay guy who insists that I’m “queer” looks like a grade-A faggot to me. You’re not part of my community. Far from it! You are my enemy and that’s exactly why I’ve been so unpleasant to you.
posted by Brian Miller on
When some gay people (let’s call them faggots, shall we?) insist that the gay identity is bowing at the altar of Harry Hay, revering drag queens, extolling a lifestyle of superficiality and hedonism and then claiming to speak for me in some kind of “gay community” then, yes, they are responsible for some straight people’s animus toward me
I don’t know what’s sadder — your victimhood mentality (i.e. “poor me, the straights don’t like me and it’s all the faggots’ fault”) or your willingness to accept abuse from the poorly educated and bigoted — and even excuse that abuse.
Any gay guy who insists that I’m “queer” looks like a grade-A faggot to me.
Well poopsie-woopsie, jutht sachet over there and take those hands off those hips, girlfriend! Ms. Thang ain’t bein’ a Mary Sunshine, that’s for sure. Be bright and sparkly, honey, and put some spring into those light loafers, girl!
(Oh dear, now I’ve made even more straight people hate you, sorry about that!)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But you can’t ultrasound a virus, so how can the gold standard (“HIV”) be established?
No, but you can electron-micrograph it.
What you are pointing out, Jimmy, are the problems inherent in general bacteriology and virology; that is, it’s very difficult to define that which lies outside the human senses. As any researcher will tell you, there’s no such thing as a “100% accuracy” test; we still get false positives in tests for such old warhorses as tuberculosis, chicken pox, and other such diseases.
Putting together diseases is a bit like putting together a puzzle; no one piece definitively solves the issue, but the combination of numerous pieces gives you a much better view into the problem. Just like you pointed out with the pregnancy test, one doesn’t redecorate the nursery on that basis; one checks with the doctor and uses other means and assays to verify it. You won’t know with absolute certainty until the baby pops out, but you can definitely get within a good range of likelihood.
Same with HIV relative to AIDS. While you are correct in saying that there is no definitive link between the two, there is a great deal of evidence that shows a specific series of things — antibodies, RNA fragments, culturability of the virus from extracts — that link HIV infection to a high likelihood of AIDS.
On several levels, I can see your point; right now, a lot of AIDS research does look a bit like Aristotlean theories about invisible humors causing problems. But, like a maze in which you don’t have a map, blundering down alleys and around wrong turns is the only way in which you’re ever going to find out the solution.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
North Dallas Thirty:
No, but you can electron-micrograph it.
The problem with this statement is this: how do you know that the object being electron-micrographed is anctually “HIV”? The only way to know for sure is to have a gold standard to test against (isolation) and then compare the morphology of the suspected electron micrograph against the gold standard. As is, exactly NONE of the alleged electron micrographs of “HIV” contain all of the aspects of the alleged morphology of “HIV”. In other words, scientists who are paid to “photograph HIV” will take a photograph of something and merely claim it is “HIV” without any way of proving such a claim to be true (becasue “HIV” has never been isolated).
What you are pointing out, Jimmy, are the problems inherent in general bacteriology and virology; that is, it’s very difficult to define that which lies outside the human senses.
While that may be true, what I am actually pointing out is that the notion of “HIV status” is meaningless since no one has any way of knowing if antibodies are cross-reacting or not. It would be different if “HIV researchers” themselves hadn’t already admitted that some “HIV positive” results come about due to cross-reactivity of antibodies.
Just like you pointed out with the pregnancy test, one doesn’t redecorate the nursery on that basis; one checks with the doctor and uses other means and assays to verify it. You won’t know with absolute certainty until the baby pops out, but you can definitely get within a good range of likelihood.
Exactly — this is what the “sensitivity” and “specificity” of any test refers to. What is the sensitivity and specificity of any of the “HIV tests”? HIV apologists like to claim that it’s “99% reliable” when everyone who’s actually read about the tests knows that the tests are only validated against themselves, and this is precisely due to the fact that there is no gold standard for “HIV” against which to validate the test.
Let me make it more clear. In this “validation” of the “HIV test”, the test is run once and it comes up “positive”. Then the exact same test is run four more times. If it comes up “positive” each of the other times, then this is seen by “HIV researchers” as a validation of the “HIV test”. The problem is obvious: what if the antibodies were cross-reacting in all five of the tests? Such a test does not validate whether or not the FIRST test was correct — it may very well show that the test is reliably meaningless.
But, like a maze in which you don’t have a map, blundering down alleys and around wrong turns is the only way in which you’re ever going to find out the solution.
It’s a shame you have to rely on clumsy analogies for what should be a strictly scientific issue. As is, what you say is dead wrong. One does not solve a scientific problem through non-science, and that is exactly what “HIV research” is: non-science. “HIV research” is the assumption that the theory is correct and then looking for evidence to prop it up. The scientific method requires people to first find the evidence, and then formulate a theory around it. As is, there is no evidence for the existence of “HIV”. Instead, all you have is the “HIV test” and the correlation with “AIDS”, and then scientific consensus. As is, NONE of that is science. Instead, it’s politics and money (mostly money).
Do you work in the AIDS industry?
And now, remember when I mentioned that the “HIV test” got even worse?
You and I know by now that if certain proteins react against antibodies in the victim’s blood, then the person is assumed to be “HIV positive”. But which proteins have to react? As is, there is no agreement as to which proteins constitute “HIV infection”. There are at least twelve different sets of proteins used and they differ from test set to test set, from country to country. A test that comes up “HIV positive” in the USA might very well be judged “HIV negative” in Australia. How are you going to convince me that “HIV positive” has any meaning when no one knows what proteins are needed to be “HIV positive”?
For that matter, how does any testing agent know what constitutes an “HIV positive” result? From here, it gets even worse.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Brian Miller wrote:
I don’t know what’s sadder — your victimhood mentality (i.e. “poor me, the straights don’t like me and it’s all the faggots’ fault”)
Not quite. Straights dislike what they see in “gay culture” and I agree with them. Then the representatives of “gay culture” try to claim me in their “community”. I never asked to be part of your “community”, and having seen it, I think it blows donkey.
or your willingness to accept abuse from the poorly educated and bigoted — and even excuse that abuse.
I neither accept nor excuse that abuse. Instead, I join the chorus in lambasting “gay culture” for what it is. You fail to understand that it is your *culture* that disgusts me. This is because, to you, “gay culture” and “men who have sex with men” are inseparable. Correct?
And then there are straights who really can’t get over the sex part. I neither accept nor excuse that abuse, either. In fact, I fight it tooth and nail. But that doesn’t mean I’m part of your crappy “community”, either. I’m quite well-integrated in my community of straights (and gays!) and I’d rather eat dirt then enjoin you in your “separate but equal” lifestyle. And I’m glad you pity me, as it means I’m doing the right thing. I don’t want *you* to approve of me, so, by all means, please keep feeling deep and unnerving pity for my despicable lifestyle!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s a shame you have to rely on clumsy analogies for what should be a strictly scientific issue.
But Jimmy, that is exactly what science is. Edison had literally thousands of failed experiments before he came up with the incandescent light, but I don’t find people saying he wasn’t scientific.
It would be different if “HIV researchers” themselves hadn’t already admitted that some “HIV positive” results come about due to cross-reactivity of antibodies.
Therefore, by that logic, any test that ever gives a false positive is utterly and completely unreliable.
Since virtually NO medical test in existence for pathogens has a zero false-positive rate, using that argument, that logic requires us to state that the entire medical community is lying when it says that certain pathogens cause certain diseases.
Do you work in the AIDS industry?
And that really is the gist of the problem here.
You have convinced yourself that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, and you are now casting about for proof to back up your conclusions. The fact that I disagree with you means, not that I have done and understand the science, but that I am corrupt and being bribed to cover up the “real truth”.
Any more discussion, then, is a waste of effort on my part.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Die, italics.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
North Dallas Thirty,
I am disappointed by your response. You are choosing to make this personal when it should not be (and I will address what you will likely see as an obvious contradiction in a few moments), and you make several statements which are completely wrong.
But Jimmy, that is exactly what science is.
Absolutely false. Science is formulating a hypothesis based on observation and then testing that hypothesis for the purpose of better understanding of reality. Here, the hypothesis is that “AIDS” is caused by a unique and exogenous retrovirus “HIV” (did you know that many retroviruses are endogenous?). This hypothesis was NOT based on observable data and is, in its present form, NOT testable and thus NOT falsifyable. Hence, it is NOT science.
Therefore, by that logic, any test that ever gives a false positive is utterly and completely unreliable.
That is also false. Tests such as those (such as the pregnancy test) are measured in their terms of specificity, which measures the rate of false positives. A pregnancy test does NOT have a 100% specificity. Meaning, it sometimes gives false positives. But it is still useful because such false positives are rare. The reason that we know this is because we have the gold standard (the baby) to test against and thus know exactly what the specificity of the test is.
On the other hand, it is impossible to know the specificity (or even the sensitivity) of the “HIV test” because there is no gold standard for “HIV”. The “HIV test” manufacturers admit this. The “HIV” researchers admit this. These facts are NOT in question. The fact that antibodies cross-react is NOT in question. The fact that “HIV” researchers admit that cross-reacting antibodies yield “false positives” and have no way of excluding *ANY* “positive” result from this possibility is NOT in question. Hence, the “HIV test” is meaningless and worthless. You are unable to dispute these facts and neither are the top-tier “HIV” researchers.
You have convinced yourself that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS
No, the evidence causes me to dissent from the *theory* (orthodoxy, actually) that “AIDS” is caused by a unique, exogenous retrovirus called “HIV”. You believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary, which is called “faith”.
The fact that I disagree with you means, not that I have done and understand the science, but that I am corrupt and being bribed to cover up the “real truth”.
I did not ask if you worked in the AIDS industry (and I thank you for declining to dispute that it is an industry) for the purpose of dismissing you as corrupt. I only asked out of curiosity because you seemed well-versed in “HIV science”, well beyond a run of the mill “HIV” evangelist. I just wanted to know you better so that I could know how much background information I could safely exclude in order for you to understand the points I was trying to make. Most people believe “HIV=AIDS” but know absolutely nothing about what the differences among ELISA, WB, and PCR. If you work in the AIDS industry, then you would know what those things are, and I could save myself the trouble of explaining them to you.
That said, if you do work in the AIDS industry, then for you to accept my point of view means eliminating your paycheck, and I understand how that would cause you to be resistant to what I’m saying. I would have nothing to lose from accepting your point of view whereas the reverse would NOT be true. Hence, I’m at an unfair advantage. You would be fighting not just to be right, but also for the continuance of your lifestyle.
Any more discussion, then, is a waste of effort on my part.
Indeed. What do you have to gain? I didn’t expect you to hang around because you do not have science or facts on your side.
I am fighting for science, for reality, and for the lives of gay man, many of whom I think died of AZT poisoning but doctors said they died of “AIDS”. Did you know that the side effects of AZT (a deadly, toxic drug that *will* kill you dead, dead, dead if you keep taking it) match the symptoms of “AIDS”?
Since North Dallas Thirty is bugging out, I will shamelessly exhort everyone here: Do not, under any circumstances, have an “HIV test”, EVER, for the rest of your life!
posted by Mark on
Excellent, excellent piece. I’m a homosexual who cannot for the life of me relate to the “lifestyle” as I see it portrayed in “The Advocate” or “Out” or any other mainstream gay publication, not to mention bar rags. I also find it rather unsettling that a “community” that “prides” itself on “acceptence” is so rigid. John Waters said it best, there are more rules in the gay community than in the straight one, and some of us, who are sick of being chosen last anyway, are taking our ball and going home!