3 ms·

I feel obliged to point out that when people try and equate behavior that is completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) with what

I feel obliged to point out that when people try and equate behavior that is completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) with what can be a crippling and life affecting condition, it does nobody a service. Anymore than e.g. saying red hair used to be a sign of weakness, outdated views have no bearing on this discussion. Just because outdated views once existed and that normal behavior is now normal does not mean that we shouldn't label impairments as such in order to try and understand and help those affected by them. Edit: very interested in feedback on why this either rubbed some people the wrong way or was perceived as a negative contribution to the discussion

throwaway2245 6y ago
> completely within the bounds of what society considers normal (being gay) Feedback at your request - This rubbed me the wrong way because homosexuality was classed as a disorder in my lifetime. (And that has an impact on me, still today - and it is still used as justification for criminalisation in 72 countries). So, there is fair reason to equate them. If we were having this discussion in 1973, would you be saying "it does nobody a service to see homosexuality as normal"? Because a large proportion of psychiatrists and people were saying that. What makes those people (in the past) wrong to say that, while you (in the present) are right to say this?