Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 DADT Survey
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 09/15/2010 :  02:19:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


There are people, who if they came out to you, you'd say "what took you so long?"

I have met a great many homosexuals of both sexes and while you cannot tell the great majority of them, there are some who scream it from the rafters. The "flaming" or "screaming" ones come to mind. These are the ones that even gay people think are a little over the top. A real foppish, limp wristed characture of reality that some people use as an external persona.

For instance, George Takei. Saw that one coming a mile away. Took guts for him to come out considering the culture he was raised in.

Elton John. Yeah, no clues there, eh Capt Fantastic?

Jeff Gordon. OK, that one is just a joke to piss of Jeff Gordon fans. :)




And you don't think that for every one of those cherries you have picked there could not also be other cherries on the tree? I mean an example of just as flamboyant a person who was not a homosexual?
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/15/2010 :  08:32:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Actually, Big Papa has this one correct.

There are people, who if they came out to you, you'd say "what took you so long?"

I have met a great many homosexuals of both sexes and while you cannot tell the great majority of them, there are some who scream it from the rafters. The "flaming" or "screaming" ones come to mind. These are the ones that even gay people think are a little over the top. A real foppish, limp wristed characture of reality that some people use as an external persona.

For instance, George Takei. Saw that one coming a mile away. Took guts for him to come out considering the culture he was raised in.

Elton John. Yeah, no clues there, eh Capt Fantastic?

Jeff Gordon. OK, that one is just a joke to piss of Jeff Gordon fans. :)
Is this not a skeptic website anymore? How can you not see that you've done nothing except engage in confirmation bias? You're just counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Back in the day, many people thought Robert Plant was gay. What with his long hair, high-pitched girly voice, and limp-wristed antics. Must be flaming gay, right? Nope, not gay. Or I know, what about Eddie Izzard? He even wears makeup and women's clothing! Nope, not gay either.

It's like Podcat said, stereotypes exist because people remember the times they seem accurate any ignore the instances when they aren't. It's bad, sloppy thinking and I expect better from our membership here. Do you know why racial profiling doesn't work? I'll give you a hint: it's not because no one ever fits the profile.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/15/2010 08:33:23
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2010 :  10:58:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Based on the criticisms here, I think a chief assumption is being made about what the surveyors intend to get out of this survey. The best example is on the question of serving under a suspected homosexual commander, where it asks about their quality. I think it is plain to most that this is not a reliable way get information about how homosexual commanders preform. However, it is a great way to get information about how those in the armed forces regard someone who they suspect is homosexual.

With this in mind, I would hazard a guess that the point of this survey is not to get information on homosexuals themselves, but rather how others view homosexuals.

Originally posted by Boron10

I see your point; however, I have worked in both the civilian and military sectors and don't see much of a difference.


Sure, you don't see much of a difference. I hate to burst your bubble boron, but the military isn't only interested in what you think. How many others feel like you, and how many don't?

I guess one of my problems I have here is that a certain number would lie about it. As I said, one possibility is that the survey is an attempt to determine how to allocate assets to support the transition. I fear the other option.


This is true of all survey questions dealing with sensitive issues. And one hopes that those conducting the survey are aware of it. But it sounds like you are more worried about how the results will be interpreted rather than the wording and questions in the survey itself.

HH:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one can still be flamboyant and in the military (at least legally).

Are you saying that gay people can be identified by how "flamboyant" they are? Do you have any idea how offensive that is? I doubt any homosexuals currently serving in the military and wishing to stay there are very flamboyant. That's also why the question is offensive, because it assumes you can identify a gay person by their personality or behavior even when they keep their sexuality a secret. You can't, and the suggestion that you can is offensive.


I made a statement about being able to be flamboyant in the military, and you somehow took this as me stating that all gays are flamboyant. I'm rather confused as how you interpreted my statement this way, but hopefully now it is clear that I am not saying one can identity all or even a significant percentage of gays mere observation.

As for the debate about identifying homosexuals by observation alone, I would agree that our ability to do so is far less than we probably think. But I would also like to point out that while I've seen people acting in a homosexual way who turned out to be homosexual, I've never seen someone who I thought was gay and turned out to be straight.

I would also like to remind you that we are not talking about having a 10 minute chat with a solider, but serving in the same unit for weeks, to months, to years.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 09/18/2010 11:00:49
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2010 :  17:03:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by RickyI've never seen someone who I thought was gay and turned out to be straight.




Then you probably ought to get out more, and try to rearrange that prejudice.
Edited by - chefcrsh on 09/18/2010 19:04:59
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 09/18/2010 :  19:12:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

...I've never seen someone who I thought was gay and turned out to be straight.
Have you ever known someone you thought was straight but who turned out to be gay?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2010 :  16:14:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Ricky

...I've never seen someone who I thought was gay and turned out to be straight.
Have you ever known someone you thought was straight but who turned out to be gay?


Yes, four current friend of mine and an old friend of mine (though I'm not certain if he was straight at the time).

Originally posted by chefcrsh
Then you probably ought to get out more, and try to rearrange that prejudice.


I didn't think mere observation could count as prejudice. Perhaps you could explain this more.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 09/19/2010 16:15:29
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2010 :  17:23:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Originally posted by chefcrsh
Then you probably ought to get out more, and try to rearrange that prejudice.


I didn't think mere observation could count as prejudice. Perhaps you could explain this more.


The observation alone does not. The reason you applied...that you can identify gays with some degree better than pure chance, based on the evidence that you have seen people acting "in a homosexual way" that turned out t be homosexual but you have not seen the contrary" is prejudice.

First of all when you say "In a homosexual way" I assume you are actually witnessing same sex sex acts, no? What else could reasonably defined as "in a homosexual way?" If not sex then you are prejudice and using circular reasoning.

But the fact that you have not seen the contrary is the prejudice I am talking about. The prejudice clearly implied becomes not just that you can identify homosexuals at a better than chance rate, but now is that because you personally have not identified anyone whom you thought was straight, who subsequently you learned was gay, that (gay people who appear straight) must not be an anomaly worth considering.

Get out more Ricky, meet enough people and that prejudice will be cleared away. You will meet people you assume are gay who are straight, and people you would never have suspected who turn out to be gay.

I doubt you can be helped with the bigotry of thinking you can see what you call homosexual action (that is not actual homo-sex). And for the record that claim is so offensive as to move you to a level of person not worth anyone's (homosexual or other) time to debate.

prejudice |#712;prej#601;d#601;s|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
Edited by - chefcrsh on 09/19/2010 17:29:59
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2010 :  17:34:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Yes, four current friend of mine and an old friend of mine (though I'm not certain if he was straight at the time).
So the gaydar's had at least five false negatives.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2010 :  17:57:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote

I would also like to remind you that we are not talking about having a 10 minute chat with a solider, but serving in the same unit for weeks, to months, to years.



How about the so often noted so as to become cliche, countless family members of homosexuals whom came out some time in mid adult age. Those family members who lived with and were often intimate with the homosexual who were completely blown away. Not just parents and siblings, but also many husbands, wives and children, who had no idea their father, mother, spouse, sibling, or child was gay?

The fact seems pretty clear that until very recently most gays were undetected by their closes of kin, let alone by their squad, coworker, church mates, or social circle. And yet since they were closeted gays, we can say ipso facto they were acting in a homosexual way.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/19/2010 :  22:13:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky
I made a statement about being able to be flamboyant in the military, and you somehow took this as me stating that all gays are flamboyant. I'm rather confused as how you interpreted my statement this way, but hopefully now it is clear that I am not saying one can identity all or even a significant percentage of gays mere observation.
It wasn't a question of whether you thought all homosexuals were flamboyant. It's offensive that you would immediately associate the trait of "flamboyancy" with homosexuals in the first place, especially in the context of military service in which homosexuals are forced to conceal their sexuality if they wish to stay employed. I hope that is now clear to you.

As for the debate about identifying homosexuals by observation alone, I would agree that our ability to do so is far less than we probably think.
Making the questionnaire's supposition that one can identify homosexuals by observation alone problematic to say the least.

But I would also like to point out that while I've seen people acting in a homosexual way who turned out to be homosexual, I've never seen someone who I thought was gay and turned out to be straight.
Let's not make this about you. Let's just all admit that such misjudgments do happen, and that stereotypes are wrong no matter which way they cut.

I would also like to remind you that we are not talking about having a 10 minute chat with a solider, but serving in the same unit for weeks, to months, to years.
I don't see why this is relevant. As chefcrsh has pointed out, people can conceal their sexuality indefinitely.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/19/2010 22:19:10
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2010 :  01:38:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have hesitated to participate in thid thread.... but I join in now and say that I fully agree with chef and HH.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2010 :  09:37:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

I have hesitated to participate in thid thread.... but I join in now and say that I fully agree with chef and HH.


Yup. And yes, I have known or seen pretty flamboyant people who were not gay. So what? I could list famous examples of that here, but it seems pointless.

I can't think of a situation where stereotyping has ever come to any good. You get out what you put in, and if you start with a false premiss, your conclusions are bound to be false as well.

I agree with Boron. The questions on the survey seem to be a way to slow down the inevitable process of getting rid of DADT, even if congress reverses itself on that cruel dictate. The military is not really known for being progressive in any way. They drag their feet on any change. The bias in the wording of the survey is most likely an example of more foot dragging.




Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2010 :  12:55:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

How about the so often noted so as to become cliche, countless family members of homosexuals whom came out some time in mid adult age. Those family members who lived with and were often intimate with the homosexual who were completely blown away. Not just parents and siblings, but also many husbands, wives and children, who had no idea their father, mother, spouse, sibling, or child was gay?


Certainly, but this does not contradict my statement (innuendo is more accurate) that the more you know someone, the more likely you will know their true sexual preference. Do you disagree with this?

HH:

It wasn't a question of whether you thought all homosexuals were flamboyant. It's offensive that you would immediately associate the trait of "flamboyancy" with homosexuals in the first place, especially in the context of military service in which homosexuals are forced to conceal their sexuality if they wish to stay employed. I hope that is now clear to you.


Are you contending that homosexuality and flamboyancy aren't associated, or shouldn't be associated? Either way, you seem to be distracted by colorful, and maybe tasteless, language. My point in the original post was that don't ask don't tell isn't meant to eliminate all gays, only those who pursue a gay lifestyle (i.e. sleeping with others of the same sex), whether in private or public. boron partially collaborated this, but I'm still not sure if it is true or not.

I'd much rather argue over this (my original contention to your post) than whether or not the homosexuality-flamboyancy association is offensive.

Making the questionnaire's supposition that one can identify homosexuals by observation alone problematic to say the least.


You assume the questionnaire is making that supposition. I have posted a contrary possibility, the that questionnaire is meant to gauge reactions to homosexuals rather than homosexuals themselves. I'm curious to hear what you think about this possibility.

The military is not really known for being progressive in any way. They drag their feet on any change. The bias in the wording of the survey would be an example of more foot dragging.


I have no doubt that there are those in the military who are going to be dragging their feet, if they aren't already. However, this is one issue where there are high commanders pushing for the progressive change.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2010 :  17:01:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Certainly, but this does not contradict my statement (innuendo is more accurate) that the more you know someone, the more likely you will know their true sexual preference. Do you disagree with this?
Yes I disagree. First I doubt anyones sexual preference is fixed and permanent, or as simple as "I like gender X". Next, the best way to know someones sexual preferences is to have sex with that person regularly. Even then (from my experience as an attentive lover) it is at best half guess work.
ETA:
Given what we know about our species and near relatives, along with the many cultutral examples throughout history, it seems that human sexuality is a spectrum from asexuality on both ends closely followed by either heater or homo sexuality with bisexuality in the middle.

It also seems to me (from what I have studied of it) that the dispersion is largely bell shaped with asexuality a rare extreme pure homo or hetero a less but still somewhat extreme and with some degree of same sex attraction being most common.

For the purpose of this argument it is ones place upon that spectrum which is hard to nail down and also likely shifts to some degree over time.
Originally posted by RickyI'd much rather argue over this (my original contention to your post) than whether or not the homosexuality-flamboyancy association is offensive.
It is and your lack of chagrin, retraction or apology continues to offend, so no need to argue.

Edited by - chefcrsh on 09/20/2010 23:57:22
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2010 :  09:17:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We aren't the only ones who noticed and are unhappy with the wording of this survey. Servicemembers United, an organization of gay and lesbian troops, zeroed in on the same biased language Boron spotted. They wrote:
“While it remains safe for gay and lesbian troops to participate in this survey, it is simply impossible to imagine a survey with such derogatory and insulting wording, assumptions, and insinuations going out about any other minority group in the military,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “Unfortunately, this expensive survey stokes the fires of homophobia by its very design and will only make the Pentagon’s responsibility to subdue homophobia as part of this inevitable policy change even harder. The Defense Department just shot itself in the foot by releasing such a flawed survey to 400,000 servicemembers, and it did so at an outrageous cost to taxpayers ($4.4 million).”

Nicholson added, “Flawed aspects of the survey include the unnecessary use of terms that are known to be inflamatory and bias-inducing in social science research, such as the clinical term ‘homosexual;’ an overwhelming focus on the potential negative aspects of repeal and little or no inclusion of the potential positive aspects of repeal or the negative aspects of the current policy; the repeated and unusual suggestion that a co-worker or leader might need to ‘discuss’ appropriate behavior and conduct with gay and lesbian troops; and more.”

"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/21/2010 09:17:51
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000