Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

deafness and homosexual identity

Johnny Canuck2 said:
You just have to get out Occam's Razor.

Early sexual experiences leading to adult behaviour, or, genetic link between homosexuality and deafness.....

Are you being deliberately thick or what?

Occam's Razor has bollock all to do with this unless you are working from the assumption that gayness is due to being molested at an early age and if that is the basis of your theory then how about providing some evidence for your assertion.

What proportion of gay men were molested in childhood?

What proportion of boys molested in childhood turn out gay and how does this compare to the proportion in the population as a whole?

ETA: Of course if you can't supply any figures for the number of deaf children that are molested and turn out gay then your whole theory falls flat on its arse.
 
longdog said:
Are you being deliberately thick or what?

Occam's Razor has bollock all to do with this unless you are working from the assumption that gayness is due to being molested at an early age and if that is the basis of your theory then how about providing some evidence for your assertion.

What proportion of gay men were molested in childhood?

What proportion of boys molested in childhood turn out gay and how does this compare to the proportion in the population as a whole?

I'm sure there are a spectrum of factors that result in someone being gay. I think most would accept that there can be both genetic and environmental factors involved.

Different factors will be at play in different combination with different people, but one can't dismiss out of hand the possibility that these deaf boys being exposed to early homosexual contact, is not an environmental factor that might play a role in their later sexual identity.
 
Oh no Johnny, I'm not letting you off the hook that easy.

You were the one invoking Occam's Razor. Now come out with some evidence to prove what you were saying. Occam's Razor means making the LEAST number of assumptions not coming out with some unsupported and unresearched bollocks and claiming it to be the truth.

Evidence or STFU
 
longdog said:
Oh no Johnny, I'm not letting you off the hook that easy.

You were the one invoking Occam's Razor. Now come out with some evidence to prove what you were saying. Occam's Razor means making the LEAST number of assumptions not coming out with some unsupported and unresearched bollocks and claiming it to be the truth.

Evidence or STFU

I applied occam's razor vis a vis the theory that there is some sort of genetic link between deafness and homosexuality. If you're supporting that over my theory, then same to you: evidence or stfu.

If you're not supporting that theory either, then direct your comments at both of us, not just me.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I applied occam's razor vis a vis the theory that there is some sort of genetic link between deafness and homosexuality. If you're supporting that over my theory, then same to you: evidence or stfu.

If you're not supporting that theory either, then direct your comments at both of us, not just me.

Now lets not start telling fibs Johnny.

Johnny Canuck2 said:
You just have to get out Occam's Razor.

Early sexual experiences leading to adult behaviour, or, genetic link between homosexuality and deafness.....

In any event, you are the one proposing the hypothesis that deaf children are more likely to be molested and as a result grow up gay. It's your theory and therefore the onus is on you to back it up with some facts.

So lets see some supporting evidence. I don't have to prove anything because..

i) I'm not proposing the theory

ii) You can't prove a negative.

Over to you.
 
longdog said:
Now lets not start telling fibs Johnny.



In any event, you are the one proposing the hypothesis that deaf children are more likely to be molested and as a result grow up gay. It's your theory and therefore the onus is on you to back it up with some facts.

.

If you looked at the link in my original post, it seems a given that schools for the deaf are locations for more sexual abuse than seems to be the case in regular schools for instance. So there is some evidence for the increased exposure to abuse.

The anecdotal evidence on this thread indicates a relatively high incidence of gay deaf men.

Is there a link? I don't know for sure, obviously, but there is at least enough evidence for social scientists to study the issue; although I doubt that will happen.

Btw, a theory is just that, a theory. If it was conclusively proven via evidence, it would stop being a theory, and would become a fact.
 
Just to make clear, this was your original post on this subject.

Johnny Canuck2 said:
There's also another possibility: that as 'disabled' people, deaf children are more likely to be targetted by sexual predators. They may be made even easier targets by their being placed in special institutional settings.

Thus, given their early contact with same-sex, they become more likely to internalize this as the sexual norm.
 
Yes, that's my post. Look closely at it.

Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck2
There's also another possibility: that as 'disabled' people, deaf children are more likely to be targetted by sexual predators. They may be made even easier targets by their being placed in special institutional settings.

Thus, given their early contact with same-sex, they become more likely to internalize this as the sexual norm.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
If you looked at the link in my original post, it seems a given that schools for the deaf are locations for more sexual abuse than seems to be the case in regular schools for instance. So there is some evidence for the increased exposure to abuse.

The anecdotal evidence on this thread indicates a relatively high incidence of gay deaf men.

Is there a link? I don't know for sure, obviously, but there is at least enough evidence for social scientists to study the issue; although I doubt that will happen.

Btw, a theory is just that, a theory. If it was conclusively proven via evidence, it would stop being a theory, and would become a fact.

No. A theory demands some supporting evidence or it's just nonsense.

I could just as well claim the moon is made of cheese and claim that as a theory. It's not, it's total cobblers.

Can you really not tell the difference?

Where in the article you linked to is there any analysis of the sexuality of the children in question?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Yes, that's my post. Look closely at it.

There's a possibility the children grew up with a phobia of tomato soup but there's no supporting evidence for that either :rolleyes:
 
I've also seen a study stating that across the male population, good looking men are more likely to have had homosexual experience than are their plainer brethren.

Why? Because they're good looking. They're more likely to be hit upon by those interested in good looking men; ie women, and gay men. More opportunity means greater chance of occurrence.

The op brings up the observation, admittedly anecdotal, that there seems to be a high incidence of homosexuality amongst deaf men. If that's true, there's probably a reason. One reason could be some sort of genetic linkage.

But I then recalled a local case wherein the school for the deaf, was investigated, then closed, due to the high incidence of sexual abuse occurring there. A little research showed that this is unfortunately not an isolated incident.

There could be a connection. Children learn from childhood experience. Is it a proven fact? Not by any means, but that doesn't mean the the idea should be dismissed outright because it disturbs some political sensitivities.
 
longdog - there's no point in debating with this blithering idiot. I remember the first long debate-type thread I ever got sucked into here, to do with what "causes" gayness - JC2 steamed in saying he thought it had something to do with mothers having an allergic reaction to something while the doomed-to-be-gay child was still in the womb. A few years later, and apparently we now think gayness is caused by child abuse.

He knows fuck all about deaf schools in Britain that he hasn't pulled off some sensationalist gutter press website that subscribes to the model of deaf people being pathetic, vulnerable people in care, and fuck all about homosexuality anywhere.

There is no point in engaging with trolls.

Sometimes I really question what the point of internet discussion is. Apparently it's supposed to widen all our perspectives, help us learn new things. I seriously doubt it. I think it's just a way for people deliberately piss each other off and/or entrench their own bigotry, a tool for instant gratification in the search for back-up for your own misconceived prejudices.

Thread over.
 
fudgefactorfive said:
- JC2 steamed in saying he thought it had something to do with mothers having an allergic reaction to something while the doomed-to-be-gay child was still in the womb. .

You have me mixed up with someone else.:)
 
fudgefactorfive said:
He knows fuck all about deaf schools in Britain that he hasn't pulled off some sensationalist gutter press website that subscribes to the model of deaf people being pathetic, vulnerable people in care, and fuck all about homosexuality anywhere.

There is no point in engaging with trolls..

My comments have apparently touched a nerve.
 
fudgefactorfive said:
Sometimes I really question what the point of internet discussion is. Apparently it's supposed to widen all our perspectives, help us learn new things. I seriously doubt it. I think it's just a way for people deliberately piss each other off and/or entrench their own bigotry, a tool for instant gratification in the search for back-up for your own misconceived prejudices.

.

The problem with starting discussions that anyone in the whole world might join in on, is that you'll be exposed to ideas that you aren't comfortable with.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Is the Guardian now part of the gutter press?
They were the easiest prey for a paedophile. For the first time, they tell of their harrowing life at a special school - a living hell that many may still be suffering today

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1441790,00.html
Lets get this straight. Your theory is that child abuse leads to being gay. Yet your own quote shows abused children had a harrowing experience. It therefore clearly makes sense to relive that harrowing experience by going out to get bummed further.

That quote would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be true in that abused children grow up to be homophobic due to the harrowing experience at school.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You've made it clear that you don't like the idea, but that doesn't prevent it from being a possibility.

My theory about tomato soup phobia is a possibility, doesn't stop it being utter bollocks though does it?
 
WouldBe said:
Lets get this straight. Your theory is that child abuse leads to being gay. Yet your own quote shows abused children had a harrowing experience. It therefore clearly makes sense to relive that harrowing experience by going out to get bummed further.

That quote would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be true in that abused children grow up to be homophobic due to the harrowing experience at school.

:D
 
WouldBe said:
Lets get this straight. Your theory is that child abuse leads to being gay. Yet your own quote shows abused children had a harrowing experience. It therefore clearly makes sense to relive that harrowing experience by going out to get bummed further.

That quote would suggest that the opposite is more likely to be true in that abused children grow up to be homophobic due to the harrowing experience at school.


Ask some of the counsellors etc on this board; one of the consequences for those who have been sexually abused at a young age, can be hypersexuality when they get older.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Ask some of the counsellors etc on this board; one of the consequences for those who have been sexually abused at a young age, can be hypersexuality when they get older.
Hypersexuality and homosexuality aren't the same thing.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
We won't know for sure until it's proven or disproven.


I can see you're trying frantically to back pedal but that's still a nonsensical post.

Applying that logic to my tomato soup theory we still have the problem that the hypothesis has no basis at all. Your argument is built on sand unless you can back up your assertion with some credible evidence, any evidence will do, which supports your theory, otherwise it's no better than saying the moon is made of cheese.

Man has landed on the moon and found it was made of rock but who's to say it's not turned to cheese since? We won't know for sure until it's proved or disproved. Get your Saturn V ready.
 
Dude, it's my birthday today. I made a promise to myself not to get into any arguments on any contentious threads today.

I'll come back and throw spitballs at you tomorrow, 'kay?:)
 
Had never heard of a supposed link between deafness and homosexuality before. Children are deaf for lots of different reasons: genetic, complications during birth, infections, accidents, maternal Rubella syndrome etc. It would be useful to know which of these causes is most closely associated with an individual being gay, or whether there is no particular association at all.

fudgefactorfive said:
Thread over.

Guess the 'Look at me, aren't I clever' game plan didn't work out this time.
 
Back
Top Bottom