So bump.

Incidentally, is there any consensus on what’s meant by “trans man” or “trans woman”? It has always seemed to me that the term gets used interchangeably, at least in common parlance, for whether the “man” or “woman” refers to the prior or current sex/gender. Makes it confusing sometimes. In person, it’s generally a bit easier to know (although I’ve once or twice gotten bit by mistaking a transvestite for a transexual, although fortunately no one took offense in those cases).

@cervantes – I do understand the historical perspective, and that mind sets change slowly, which is why we have to slowly prod people to shed some archaic beliefs. To say ‘oh well, it’s always been this way’ is a cop out and seems contrary to what this site is about. (I’m not trying to accuse you of this attitude)

Indeed. It was clear he has an agenda and needs to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice in order to maintain his worldview and faith. Because after all, the simple argument that homosexuality is inborn demolishes the notion that god must hate the act since god created homosexuals that way in the first place.

The best part though? I click on your probe ministry link (just ‘cuz) and quickly skimmed and came across this:

It is true that many animals engage in homosexual behavior. It is also true that a very small percentage of human beings do as well. As Petter Bockman said, ‘Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species and the phenomenon has been well-described for 500 of them.’ In addition, the article states that a quarter of all swan families are parented by homosexual couples.

Bam. End. Of. Story.

Unless god created all these animals homosexual for some reason we are done, aren’t we?

Of course not. Let the rationalizations begin.

However, for most scientists, homosexual behavior has been viewed as biologically deviant, since at the heart of evolution is sexual reproduction.

And so on. I won’t bother rehashing it, but you get the gist. It essentially involves around this incredulity that evolution would predict homosexual behavior. That’s the funniest part – they argue against the validity of inborn homosexuality by using a caricature of evolutionary theory; a theory they themselves thoroughly denounce.

It still sometimes impresses me the mental gymnastics these folks will go through.

Your choice of the word “prove” portends mala fides, and your apparent inability to type “homosexuality” and “animals” into Google suggests you are at work. Nevertheless, here are some links to get you started:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5708830/?site_locale=en_GB
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

And, as if to provide “balance”, here are some links to, well, the religious… erm… rebuttal:

http://creation.com/homosexual-animals
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223027/k.4C29/Is_Animal_Homosexuality_Proof_that_Its_Normal.htm

“Probe Ministry” – faboulous!
.

Could you provide some references to prove sex abnormalities and homosexual behavior in animals?

“I would call it “indifference to our taxonomies”

so would I.

The invocation of paraphilias in the area of gender and sex definition does come off a bit odd to me. Outside of homosexuality, and possibly pedophilia (last I heard, there are studies showing that pre-pubescent children of either age generally register as female to viewers when isolated parts of their body other than genitals are shown, which implies that male homosexual pedophilia would be a rare thing, contrary to the stereotype of homosexuals going after very young boys), how many of them are relevant to the topic of gender or sex? Or is it more of a general sexuality thing that gets intertwined with it?

There is obviously considerable variation in exactly what those social gender roles have been, and there are a few societies (before our very complex and fast changing modern era) that have had accepted gender roles in addition to the standard 2 (e.g., Native American “Twin Spirits,”) or have allowed for sexual relationships between men and boys (Sparta) or other variants. But it’s a recent phenomenon, in keeping with our post-Enlightenment scientific and liberal worldview, to at first discover or acknowledge (the existence of homosexuality has obviously always been known, but avoided), and then begin to normatively accept, the less common variations Dr. Hall discusses.

It is not surprising that it takes language, etiquette, habits and practices a while to catch up with previously unrecognized realities, and changing mores. I hope that people will be tolerant and sympathetic to the struggles lots of folks will have during this process. It takes some getting used to, especially for people raised with fairly rigid morality, which is strongly tied to gender role norms, but really for everyone who hasn’t much contemplated it all before. I had a professor in college who changed gender, and it did kind of freak people out at first, but ultimately it was okay. This was in the ’70s. Could not have happened much before that, I think.

In fact, it is often commented to me that my “Gaydar” is broken because I often don’t notice that people are gay (or even when men are hitting on me). I’ve even twice been to gay bars – with groups of people for a fun night out – and not realized I was in a gay bar till the next day when someone laughed at how oblivious I was. I don’t don’t think my gaydar is “broken” but I just care that little about whether you are gay or straight or whatever you may be. It simply has zero bearing on how I interact with a person (except in the two cases you mention and perhaps some other specialized circumstances that may come up, but the latter of the two is a moot point entirely since I am currently engaged to be married).

Nature’s inventiveness outsmarts us at every step.

I would call it “indifference to our taxonomies”

I do find it a bit disappointing that there need to be legal definitions, and particularly as relates to marriage exceptional people do show that any such definitions have problems.

I’ll grant that specific knowledge is important when doctoring, but I think I’d want non-medical examples to show it’s important in other situations. I see some convenience for many of us when shopping for clothes, but it’s not that important: We dichotomize them, but they live on a continuum. I’m not scared of the buttons being on the other side of the shirt, or if those sandals are marketed mainly to women, maybe that’s part of why I’m wanting my culture to be less 0/1.

I do admit to being curious about other people’s genes and genitals and desires, but I try to fight it, telling myself that it is usually not my place to pry. But that leaves me almost no mechanism to indicate to the other person that I’m open-minded, since I never mention it.