28 September 2012

LGBT Confirmation Bias

Of late I’ve had to do a lot of soul-searching in relation to my views about LGBT rights. The first reason for this is due to LGBT ‘gender theory’. This is the little sister of feminist theory, and suffers with the same animosity towards normative behaviour - heterosexuality and sex related traits in particular. The other reason is the sheer level of selective reasoning required to defend gender and feminist theory alongside historical evidence. This leads to confirmation bias, and boy do gender and feminist theorists suffer from this in droves.

One of the things that really, really grinds on me is the fact that those who identify as LGBT are a tiny proportion of the population, and yet in today’s climate there are few demographics that command so much political limelight.
Most estimates put gay, lesbian, and bisexual numbers at less than 2%. A 2010 UK national survey puts this at 1.5%. The angle that gender theory advocates like to use when the figure comes in so low is that lack of social tolerance means less people come forward as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

It’s important to note that 3% of those asked in the survey stated that they “did not know their sexual orientation”. In a culture that parrots how gender is a ‘social construct’, such an erroneous cultural meme must be factored into the equation. How many have been influenced by pseudoscientific gender theory into believing that they have no sexual orientation, or that such a question is irrelevant, is anyone’s guess. I bet the place to start collecting evidence is feminist and LGBT academic circles.

When it comes to research defending LGBT social change by far the biggest problem is poor sampling. This is typically suspicious behaviour that points towards confirmation bias. Even the Wikipedia page for LGBT parenting can’t bypass the fact that research into this area suffers from a lack of random sampling. A common problem is sampling drawn primarily from well-educated white women. Researchers even go as far as using samples entirely from lesbian bookstores. Ironically it’s the fact that so few people are actually LGBT in the first place that makes it so hard to create solid research that relies on random sampling.

Sincerely I don’t care if people identify as LGBT. If two people of the same sex want to live together or have sex then they can go for broke as far as I’m concerned. But that’s not an unconditional position. I have a big issue with the fact that flawed LGBT research is being used to push a subjective definition of parenting into the forefront of society. Take France, where an attempt to abolish the words mother and father from all official documents is being taken seriously, replacing them with ‘parent’. All this so that less than 2% of the population, that can’t conceive as a couple, can feel accommodated.

Does anyone really believe equality is the reason people would go out of their way to abolish the biological distinctions of mother and father? Gender theorists have been advocating this for decades, and they show no signs of ending in the present hysteria. Alas, in the world of the androgynous radical there is no distinction between a man and a woman.

I especially have an issue with the fact that all this is being done on the back of such a small LGBT demographic alongside population. LGBTs have a tiny social impact when ideology is not harnessed to incite agitation. A parent is not a label that can be passed around like candy, and I am not in support of people shunning their responsibilities as parents by donating gametes or acting as surrogates. This culturally weakens the biological importance of parental bonding, making people believe that the role can be redefined on demand.

Furthermore it’s foolish to ignore the powerful bond between biological parent and child. Failure to bond is repeatedly the main breakdown when it comes to adoption. It’s also foolish to ignore the fact that homes where both biological parents are present are overwhelmingly more stable. Conversely gay people are not as fussed on marriage and civil unions as many would have us believe. The desire among gay people to get married is low. This pattern is consistent in places like the Netherlands and the US, and even in Scandinavian countries, where gay marriage has been around for a long time.

Research shows that even divorce is significantly higher among gay and lesbian couples, especially among the latter. As if that’s not enough research conducted at UK gay pride events in 2003, based on 1911 women and 1391 men, shows that domestic violence in LGBT circles can be as high as 22% for women and 29% for men. Yet left-wing publications like the Huffington Post continue to spread misinformation regarding the positives of gay parenting, when in truth the research to support this is inadequate. Combine this with the evidence to show that gay relationships are not as stable when we examine more accurate and informative data, and you have a false impression that can only truly be described as propaganda.

It always intrigues me how many of those waking up to the pedalling of lies in feminist circles are not so critical of LGBT advocacy. The truth is that LGBT advocates and feminists are cut from the same cloth in many ways, and are just as guilty of confirmation bias as one another. But feminism has been around a lot longer, so the equality angle has had more time to fade due to decades of cultural injustice directed at men. Meanwhile LGBT advocates are currently riding a wave of tolerance and suppression of critical analysis via those believing they are only trying to spread ‘equality’. Now where have I heard that one before?

6 comments:

  1. This really should be obvious but exercising a particular sexual proclivity isn't something that's going to conducive to child rearing, doesn't really matter what it is, chocolate on your biscuit or chasing office girls. So it a reasonable step in logic to state that if you define yourself through that proclivity, you're view of the world is going to be -- uh, distorted. Wjether imbuing a child with a view of reality distorted through such a perspective is good or bad thing is a value judgement I don't to make at this moment, I'll let you decide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Take France, where an attempt to abolish the words mother and father from all official documents is being taken seriously, replacing them with ‘parent’. All this so that less than 2% of the population, that can’t conceive as a couple, can feel accommodated."

    I violently ejected my drink through my nostrils and onto the keyboard when reading this. Your flair for words illuminates their machinations in true and ridiculous light. I was until last month blissfully unaware of the matter that LBGT gender theorists were anything other than a fringe element or radicals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LGBT gender theorists are some of the most extreme of the PC mould. They are the full realisation of megalomanic androgynous fantasies.

      Delete
    2. After I posted a few comments to your YouTube video on gay marriage, you directed me to your blog post about LGBT Confirmation Bias and here I am. However, you then proceeded to block me and insult me, much to my surprise, so I visit this blog in an attempt to further explain myself. If you'd be so kind as to read this comment without deleting it right away I would be grateful; I have enjoyed some of your videos in the past and find it unfortunate that I am no longer able to provide my input.

      First of all, you misinterpreted my first comment. I never stated that love was the primary purpose of marriage or even that procreation was not the primary purpose of marriage at many points in history; I simply stated that procreation was not the ONLY purpose of marriage and can be considered entirely separate from marriage because the two do not necessarily have anything to do with one another. Tying marriage and procreation together as an absolute is fallacious because you are making assumptions about various aspects of the relationship in question (e.g. whether the couple will choose to adopt, etc.).

      Second of all, you claimed that my arguments for same-sex couples being able to raise children just as well as straight couples was backed by weak evidence but failed to provide any conclusive evidence of your own. This is the article you provided in your blog post:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204263/Growing-married-parents-important-good-education-escaping-poverty.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

      This dailymail.co.uk article states only that marriage is beneficial for escaping poverty, which makes sense, considering having two parents equals more income. However, the article assumes that single parents do not provide as much income as couples which is not always true. Even if it were always true, would you suggest, by that logic, that lower-income families or single males/females not be allowed to adopt? I sincerely doubt it, considering your claimed principles of libertarianism. Painting the issue in question in black and white never addresses it with the respect and careful consideration it deserves.

      You also claimed that "historically only heterosexual marriage has succeeded" without providing concrete evidence for your claim. Why is it that homosexual marriages are not successful in your eyes? What is your definition of success in regards to marriage? If your definition of success is the ability to raise healthy children, you'll be thrilled to find out that homosexual couples have been shown to raise children to be just as normal as heterosexual couples:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/16/us-gaymarriage-california-idUSTRE60E5HC20100116
      http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

      It is far more important that the adults raising the children in a family are physically, emotionally and mentally mature than that they are a straight couple biologically related to the children they raise. Adoptive families can potentially rescue children from abusive relationships with biological parents, and while this is the exception rather than the rule, it does occur.
      What I'm trying to say is that the most important aspect of parenthood is the ability to parent effectively, not relation to the child.

      "You don't need a union to show you love one another". Where in my comment did I ever claim that you did? I agree with you; love occurs whether or not a legal bond exists.

      I saw you comment that you would prefer government get out of marriage and adoption altogether and I completely, 100% agree with you. If a gay couple wants to get married in a church or other marriage institution but the church doesn't want to marry them they shouldn't be able to sue, as can unfortunately occur nowadays. Likewise, no one should be able (even now) to claim their rights are being infringed upon if a church or other marriage institution DOES agree to marry the gay couple.

      Delete
    3. All you've done here is go on another rant to support your ideological viewpoint, totally ignoring the numerous links and evidence provided to show that the evidence for homosexual parent couples being a stable basis for raising children is weak at best, and deceitful at worst. You even provided links to flawed studies that highlight the problems I address in the post above.

      This sort of behaviour is precisely why you have been blocked; you are glossing over anything that contradicts your point-of-view.

      As for your claims about single parenting, again you are spouting claims that are simply false. Financial reasons are not the only basis for good parenting. The biological parents actually BOND with their children through a chemical process. This includes a rise in oxytocin and prolactin for example. However, financially single parents do not provided a good basis for raising children EITHER. Besides, two parents working full-time is also not as productive for raising children, especially in the early years.

      I oppose any model that takes rights away from biological parenting because that's what has always worked, and I have seen first-hand the damage that social constructionism has done to the raising of children. Frankly I'm appalled by this incessant push by fools, at the expense of children. You will not get another chance to comment on any of my pages. You shown yourself to be too ideological and ignorant to reach, and will simply continue pushing your nihilistic attitude. I have no time or patience for this.

      Step out of your ideological bubble and step into reality. Parenting is a product of nature, not your utopian worldview.

      Delete
  3. Some in the spiritual arena of thought accept as true that they "must stop" the "gay agenda, whatever that might be. Of course, there are folks who are very obstinate in the GLBT community about certain issues such as gay marriage and they demand to be heard and are vocal on the following stage over this debate. When I read the gentleman's essay arguing that no one is born gay, I certainly understood where he was coming from, as he felt as if the ""gay agenda" had come too far, and so, he is just as adamant about pushing back now.

    ReplyDelete