4 ms·

Being LGBTQ is not a disability or handicap; it’s simply different, like being red-haired or left-handed.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
What makes you think that deafness is not the same as being left-handed? I mean objectively, not based on the current cultural norms which will be very different 50 years from now.
- Veraticus 2y ago
  “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, whereas being deaf does. Cultural norms is an interesting comparison. Despite there being no actual difference in capacity, cultural views forced many left-handed people to be right-handed, making those people miserable in the process for no good reason.
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Being deaf is surely different from not being deaf but you can't objectively say it's a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage in a world built for not deaf people, like being left-handed is a disadvantage in a world built for right-handed people.
    - Veraticus 2y ago
      I can and did say that. The world is easier for non-deaf people. I can’t imagine even many deaf people would argue against that statement. The correct way to argue against this isn’t to say that “objectively” the world is the same for deaf and non-deaf people; it’s that there’s a culture and language bound up in deafness that don’t deserve to die thanks to medical advances. That is true, and makes treatments like these and what they mean to the deaf community much more complicated and difficult.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        If dolphins could communicate with us they would surely tell how much easier it is when you have ultrasonic hearing. All humans are therefore disabled and in need of fixing. Or maybe not, if dolphins turn to be wiser than an average human.
        sweezyjeezy 2y ago
        If all humans could echo-locate except a subset who couldn't, I would say that group is at a small disadvantage, yes, because the set of things the main group can do is 'objectively' greater. I don't know how relevant it would be for us especially in the daytime, but hey.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        I agree. However, whether all kids should receive gene therapy to develop the echo-location once the science allows for that is a more nuanced question.
        geraldwhen 2y ago
        If most buildings lacked light because the vast majority just echolocated, then the those unable would be disabled. It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability. That's what most people normally do, yes. Then many people out there define an "ability to enjoy hetero sex" as a "normal human experience" and therefore see gayness as a disability that needs a cure. I'm not arguing about the conclusion here, but about the method and the basis for deriving this conclusion. The initial comment in this thread declared deafness to be an "actual defect" while gayness "is just people being inherently gay". Such division is completely arbitrary and doesn't follow from any law of nature. Only from current societal views which change a lot with time.
    - sweezyjeezy 2y ago
      This feels a bit tenuous. What world do you envisage where it's a completely level playing field? Do we ban talking, music, sound in movies etc etc??
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        I think building a completely level playing field is a dangerous utopia. Essentially it's the same idea as fixing people to make them equal, just addressed from the opposite end.
    - PierceJoy 2y ago
      It’s a disadvantage in the “built” world, but it’s also a disadvantage in the natural world. If you drop a deaf person in the middle of the forest with no one around, they will not be able hear rivers for water, they will not be able to hear animals approaching, etc. Being deaf is objectively a disadvantage because 4 senses is objectively worse than 5 senses.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Apparently 6 is not always better than 5 from the nature's point of view. Moles went further to loose sight as well.
        glenstein 2y ago
        I don't think that's quite right, evolution makes trade offs and allocates scarce resources, it's not necessarily because such things would not be beneficial.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        It's not clear what "beneficial" means if you consider it separately from the resources required to achieve it. E.g. it's beneficial to be stronger I guess, and gorillas are always strong whether they use their muscles or not. However for humans nature chose a different path where only the muscles you actively use are strong. This approach seem to work great so far, even though it results in many individual muscles of the body being weak. For each and every of these muscles you can argue that making it stronger would be "beneficial" but as a whole it doesn't seem to work out.
        PierceJoy 2y ago
        > Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Human ancestors are not human. Also, the ancestor you are referring to was a fish, and could only sense electric fields under water. Why would the ability to sense electric fields under water be an evolutionary advantage for humans who don't live in water? If it's not an evolutionary advantage, then there is no reason it would propagate. When I said 5 senses are better than 4, I was clearly referring to senses that are useful in our environment. Answer this question: is a deaf person, all else equal, more likely or less likely to survive and procreate relative to a hearing person? > Moles went further to loose sight as well. Moles have eyes and can see. Their vision is just not as detailed as humans. Highly detailed sight isn't an advantage for creatures that live in the dark. However, hearing is a huge advantage for people who live in an environment where sound waves exist. You're clearly wrong here. Stop reaching so hard and just move on.
    - RamblingCTO 2y ago
      How do you hear predators approaching? It's an objective disadvantage.
  - herbst 2y ago
    Interestingly enough it was still common to train left handed kids in right handed writing up until maybe 40 years ago as it was seen as some kind of defect obviously.
  - rjh29 2y ago
    You can't procreate, that sounds like a pretty big difference in capacity?
    - Drakim 2y ago
      Gay people can obviously procreate, nothing about your body stops functioning when you are gay. What you mean is that they don't have sexual attraction towards people of an opposite gender, where if they had a relationship with them, that relationship would encourage procreation. To me that just doesn't seem like a "difference in capacity". I personally don't want children, and will probably seek out a partner who likewise does not want children. If I encounter somebody who wants lots of children, I will see that we have different life goals, and I probably won't be very keen on being in a relationship with them. Do you consider me "damaged" or of "diminished capacity" because of it?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, As a leftie, this is only true in the current world — I live in a culture with a left-to-right writing system, and yet technology means I don't ever need to use a fountain or quill pen. I did have one teacher who insisted on "no biro" when I was a kid, but they were also my first introduction to "not everyone is actually nice".
- stahtops 2y ago
  Let me help explain, some left handed people can hear and are not deaf. Objectively that is how deafness is not the same as being left-handed.
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Well thank you, but the question is why one needs "fixing" and the other doesn't. Parent comment made an argument that being gay is like being left-handed so it doesn't need "fixing". That's fine with me, but I don't see how the same logic doesn't apply to deafness. Many deaf people enjoy their life as it is and don't welcome your attempts to "fix" them.
    - stahtops 2y ago
      I didn’t attempt to “fix” anyone. Everyone has to do that themselves. What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear?
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear? I would be happy if they had such an opportunity. The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?
        glenstein 2y ago
        I think you changed the question and escalated the severity of the proposal so it became easier to knock down as a straw man. Originally this was about the desirability and capability of enabling deaf people to hear writ large. But now you are framing it as full scale eradication carried out in a way that bypasses consent.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
geraldwhen 2y ago
If you feel compelled to remove parts of your body and take opposite sex hormones for life, that’s clearly a disability. If genes could fix your brain to not feel compelled to swap sexes, that would be a huge win in the quality of life for most individuals. You can pretend that pretty much anything “isn’t a disability, it’s just different.” But that isn’t true.
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  You're focusing pretty hard on a single letter of that acronym that makes up a small percentage of the overall community.

What makes you think that deafness is not the same as being left-handed? I mean objectively, not based on the current cultural norms which will be very different 50 years from now.

Veraticus 2y ago
“Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, whereas being deaf does. Cultural norms is an interesting comparison. Despite there being no actual difference in capacity, cultural views forced many left-handed people to be right-handed, making those people miserable in the process for no good reason.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Being deaf is surely different from not being deaf but you can't objectively say it's a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage in a world built for not deaf people, like being left-handed is a disadvantage in a world built for right-handed people.
  - Veraticus 2y ago
    I can and did say that. The world is easier for non-deaf people. I can’t imagine even many deaf people would argue against that statement. The correct way to argue against this isn’t to say that “objectively” the world is the same for deaf and non-deaf people; it’s that there’s a culture and language bound up in deafness that don’t deserve to die thanks to medical advances. That is true, and makes treatments like these and what they mean to the deaf community much more complicated and difficult.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      If dolphins could communicate with us they would surely tell how much easier it is when you have ultrasonic hearing. All humans are therefore disabled and in need of fixing. Or maybe not, if dolphins turn to be wiser than an average human.
      - sweezyjeezy 2y ago
        If all humans could echo-locate except a subset who couldn't, I would say that group is at a small disadvantage, yes, because the set of things the main group can do is 'objectively' greater. I don't know how relevant it would be for us especially in the daytime, but hey.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        I agree. However, whether all kids should receive gene therapy to develop the echo-location once the science allows for that is a more nuanced question.
        geraldwhen 2y ago
        If most buildings lacked light because the vast majority just echolocated, then the those unable would be disabled. It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        > It is okay for there to be a normal human experience, and define inability to participate as a disability. That's what most people normally do, yes. Then many people out there define an "ability to enjoy hetero sex" as a "normal human experience" and therefore see gayness as a disability that needs a cure. I'm not arguing about the conclusion here, but about the method and the basis for deriving this conclusion. The initial comment in this thread declared deafness to be an "actual defect" while gayness "is just people being inherently gay". Such division is completely arbitrary and doesn't follow from any law of nature. Only from current societal views which change a lot with time.
  - sweezyjeezy 2y ago
    This feels a bit tenuous. What world do you envisage where it's a completely level playing field? Do we ban talking, music, sound in movies etc etc??
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      I think building a completely level playing field is a dangerous utopia. Essentially it's the same idea as fixing people to make them equal, just addressed from the opposite end.
  - PierceJoy 2y ago
    It’s a disadvantage in the “built” world, but it’s also a disadvantage in the natural world. If you drop a deaf person in the middle of the forest with no one around, they will not be able hear rivers for water, they will not be able to hear animals approaching, etc. Being deaf is objectively a disadvantage because 4 senses is objectively worse than 5 senses.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Apparently 6 is not always better than 5 from the nature's point of view. Moles went further to loose sight as well.
      - glenstein 2y ago
        I don't think that's quite right, evolution makes trade offs and allocates scarce resources, it's not necessarily because such things would not be beneficial.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago
        It's not clear what "beneficial" means if you consider it separately from the resources required to achieve it. E.g. it's beneficial to be stronger I guess, and gorillas are always strong whether they use their muscles or not. However for humans nature chose a different path where only the muscles you actively use are strong. This approach seem to work great so far, even though it results in many individual muscles of the body being weak. For each and every of these muscles you can argue that making it stronger would be "beneficial" but as a whole it doesn't seem to work out.
      - PierceJoy 2y ago
        > Most of vertebrates (including human's ancestors) lost the 6th sense of electric fields in process of the evolution. Human ancestors are not human. Also, the ancestor you are referring to was a fish, and could only sense electric fields under water. Why would the ability to sense electric fields under water be an evolutionary advantage for humans who don't live in water? If it's not an evolutionary advantage, then there is no reason it would propagate. When I said 5 senses are better than 4, I was clearly referring to senses that are useful in our environment. Answer this question: is a deaf person, all else equal, more likely or less likely to survive and procreate relative to a hearing person? > Moles went further to loose sight as well. Moles have eyes and can see. Their vision is just not as detailed as humans. Highly detailed sight isn't an advantage for creatures that live in the dark. However, hearing is a huge advantage for people who live in an environment where sound waves exist. You're clearly wrong here. Stop reaching so hard and just move on.
  - RamblingCTO 2y ago
    How do you hear predators approaching? It's an objective disadvantage.
- herbst 2y ago
  Interestingly enough it was still common to train left handed kids in right handed writing up until maybe 40 years ago as it was seen as some kind of defect obviously.
- rjh29 2y ago
  You can't procreate, that sounds like a pretty big difference in capacity?
  - Drakim 2y ago
    Gay people can obviously procreate, nothing about your body stops functioning when you are gay. What you mean is that they don't have sexual attraction towards people of an opposite gender, where if they had a relationship with them, that relationship would encourage procreation. To me that just doesn't seem like a "difference in capacity". I personally don't want children, and will probably seek out a partner who likewise does not want children. If I encounter somebody who wants lots of children, I will see that we have different life goals, and I probably won't be very keen on being in a relationship with them. Do you consider me "damaged" or of "diminished capacity" because of it?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > “Objectively,” left-handed versus right-handed changes nothing about a person’s capabilities in the world, As a leftie, this is only true in the current world — I live in a culture with a left-to-right writing system, and yet technology means I don't ever need to use a fountain or quill pen. I did have one teacher who insisted on "no biro" when I was a kid, but they were also my first introduction to "not everyone is actually nice".
stahtops 2y ago
Let me help explain, some left handed people can hear and are not deaf. Objectively that is how deafness is not the same as being left-handed.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  Well thank you, but the question is why one needs "fixing" and the other doesn't. Parent comment made an argument that being gay is like being left-handed so it doesn't need "fixing". That's fine with me, but I don't see how the same logic doesn't apply to deafness. Many deaf people enjoy their life as it is and don't welcome your attempts to "fix" them.
  - stahtops 2y ago
    I didn’t attempt to “fix” anyone. Everyone has to do that themselves. What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear?
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      > What about the deaf people that don’t enjoy their life as it is and do welcome the opportunity to hear? I would be happy if they had such an opportunity. The question, once again, was different: should the hereditary deafness be eradicated in childhood by gene therapy once advances of medicine allow that?
      - glenstein 2y ago
        I think you changed the question and escalated the severity of the proposal so it became easier to knock down as a straw man. Originally this was about the desirability and capability of enabling deaf people to hear writ large. But now you are framing it as full scale eradication carried out in a way that bypasses consent.
        alexey-salmin 2y ago

geraldwhen 2y ago

If you feel compelled to remove parts of your body and take opposite sex hormones for life, that’s clearly a disability. If genes could fix your brain to not feel compelled to swap sexes, that would be a huge win in the quality of life for most individuals. You can pretend that pretty much anything “isn’t a disability, it’s just different.” But that isn’t true.

seattle_spring 2y ago
You're focusing pretty hard on a single letter of that acronym that makes up a small percentage of the overall community.