January 01, 2007

• I think this is the page you should have linked to. /walks off muttering about copyright thieves.
• Double-edged sword, innit?
• We're poor little lambs who have lost our way Baa, baa, baa We're little black sheep who have gone astray Baa, baa, baa Gentleman songsters off on a spree Doomed from here to eternity Lord have mercy on such as we Baa, baa, baa
• Skrik- you are correct- I actually meant to link to that page- got caught up with posting the other links and forgot about fixing that one. That said- is this actually copyright theft?
• Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes This brings a new dimension to the term woolly woofter. I think Navratilova is right to complain - granted the research may be objectively justifiable, but I'd be quite scared about what gets done with the results. I'd be less worried about Iran (mentioned in the article) than more wealthy economies that contain a large group of people who condemn homosexuality as somehow "unnatural".
• No, this is not copyright theft, but framing other sites in advertising is theft -- they're stealing content to make money.
• I'm slightly confused by the way the experiments seem to be on mature gay sheep, while the hypothetical treatment for humans is applied to fetuses. Let's not jump to conclusions, anyhow. The natural expectation is that this research aims to, er, eliminate the fruits of Mom's labor: but I suppose some moms-to-be might in fact choose to have their straight fetuses realigned. If the treatment is applied to adults, and is temporary, there seem to be some curious possibilities. Everyone could spend a year being gay (or not being gay). Bigots could be given a queer year as an educational measure. The whole thing could furnish some interesting novel plots, anyway.
• As far as basic biology is concerned, the point of sex is reproduction. However, since there are plenty of people on the planet, there is no need to encourage more heterosexuality in humans. Homosexuality is an abomination (unto Mother Nature) only in that it doesn't produce viable offspring, neglecting, of course, the ancillary benefits of having homosexuals in the group, such as their use in assisting in the protection and rearing of young. There is a huge undertow of religious intention that propells these studies. Attempting to change a person's sexual preference would be done only for moral or religious reasons, not biological ones. There have been and will always be some animals that are attracted to the same sex (and to other species). Of course, this number is generally low, as those animals that engage in homosexual (or extra-species) sex tend to not reproduce. However, I think some of the major reasons for homosexual sex among animals is overlooked: namely, it's a means of asserting dominance, or engendering affection within the group. It is not, as many would assert, a conscious act of defiance to a divine power. As has been demonstrated over and over, Mother Nature doesn't give two craps about such nonsense as "morality" or "religion."
• ...making her very unlike any other mother I've ever known...
• Homosexuality is an abomination (unto Mother Nature) only in that it doesn't produce viable offspring, neglecting, of course, the ancillary benefits of having homosexuals in the group, such as their use in assisting in the protection and rearing of young. Even with reproduction in mind, "abomination" is a strong word. Ma Nature enjoys animals that eat their mates and young, as well. I don't think she's such a prude about a little sword fighting. Non-procreative sex may be a non-advantageous trait according to natural selection, however. But even there you're including DINKs and cat farmers.
• every sperm is saaaaaaaa-cred....
• DINK = Dual Income, No Kids For those of you, like me, who didn't know.
• I never heard the term cat farmer before either. It's both sad and funny.
• Even with reproduction in mind, "abomination" is a strong word. It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but I knew someone would be offended. Alas.
• Like roryk (and, by the way, don't we all like roryk?), I was tempted to quote: Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer... ...but not reducing its value to the flock. Humans are the only species (that I am aware of) who have members who shun homosexual activity and/or homosexuals. So, no surprise that we don't like the Ram-loving rams. but their wool is always so tidy...
• I prefer the term "car rancher." *coughs up hairball*
• I still think it's a little narrow to assume that any advance in our understanding of sexuality can only be used for repressive purposes. When effective contraception first came out, I think some of you, on the present showing, might have been saying "This will be used to weed out inferior specimens and poor people: it must be banned". I should like to have the ethical points clarified a little, myself. If we're talking about something applied to fetuses, what are the bad ethical consequences arising from changing their orientation one way or another? You're not going to tell me it's bad cuz it's tampering with nature, are you? If we're talking about a change applied to adults, why shouldn't people have that choice? Why do you take it for granted that it's somehow going to be imposed on deviants? Sex change therapy is voluntary and presumably the consensus here favors its availability. Why wouldn't orientation change therapy be the same? Huh?
• Speaking as someone who is concerned that overpopulation is the world's biggest problem (running out of resources, global warming, running out of places to live, etc), I think it might be brilliant if we could make ensure that a significant number of fetuses would become homosexual people. It would beat the hell out of any other population control measure that I have ever thought of.
• Umm, who is the "you" you are ranting at, and why?
• comment meant for darling, not bernockle
• I haven't seen anyone here saying tat this project should be banned out of hand. I think it's only reasonable for society to be a bit concerned about the dark places it might lead, though. On the one hand, it would be great to have scientific proof that homosexuality in humans isn't simply a "lifestyle choice," because then it would be harder to deny civil rights to homosexuals. On the other and, I've known plenty of otherwise rational-seeming folk who would leap at the hance to "cure" their gay neighbors.
• Umm, who is the "you" you are ranting at, and why? They know who they are, Ralph, and they have let me know privately that they are completely satisfied with the accuracy of my characterisation of their views. Alright, I'll get a grip on the rhetoric... bernockle, I believe gay people do reproduce these days.
• Thinking a little more about the premise for the research, I've decided it's odd. Sheep farmers generally keep 1 ram to 30+ ewes, and ratios of 1 to 100 can provide "satisfactory flock reproductive performance" (page 3 of this PDF). So where is the big loss if 1 in 10 rams prefers other rams? To consider darling's questions:

  If we're talking about something applied to fetuses, what are the bad ethical consequences arising from changing their orientation one way or another? You're not going to tell me it's bad cuz it's tampering with nature, are you?

  Here's where I'd see a problem: 1. Assume a "hormone patch" for pregnant mothers to block homosexuality becomes available. 2. Assume the major customers for these patches are those who consider homosexuality "unnatural" or "sinful". 3. There is a reduction of homosexuality among those groups with this view of homosexuality. No homophobic mom or pop has to face the reality of a gay son or daughter whom they love. 4. This reduces the groups' already low tolerance towards homosexuals in the wider population. So, rather than accepting that homosexuality is something that happens within groups, certain groups purge it from their midst. This changes its status from "natural" to "aberration".

  If we're talking about a change applied to adults, why shouldn't people have that choice? Why do you take it for granted that it's somehow going to be imposed on deviants? Sex change therapy is voluntary and presumably the consensus here favors its availability. Why wouldn't orientation change therapy be the same?

  I take it for granted that it's somehow going to be imposed because such things have happened in the past. I don't think sexual orientation needs to be "treated", but I realise some people cannot reconcile their sexual preferences with other aspects of their lives (e.g. religious belief). If such a person decides, as an adult, to take a treatment voluntarily, that's fine by me. If parents of teenagers make the decision for them, there's a serious problem.
• Bleat, bleat, bleat, sheeple.
• ...but I knew someone would be offended. Oh, nunia! I should have recognized the cloying aroma of biolargesse. For the record, I wasn't offended, but I felt I had to proxy a response - devoid of azimuth - for all of our peoples. ...scientific proof that homosexuality in humans isn't simply a "lifestyle choice,"... Like a pro-lifestyle choice or pro-choice lifestyle sort of dilemna? I'm more of a pro-active synergist, just so I don't find these terms so "tiresome."
• I should have recognized the cloying aroma of biolargesse. Is that supposed to be an insult? For the record, I wasn't offended, but I felt I had to proxy a response - devoid of azimuth - for all of our peoples. Thank you for clearing that up for everyone else. For the record, I am not one to effeminate my diction to appease those with delicate constitutions, especially concerning matters regarding the supposed "morality" of biology. But then, you tend to find my opinions rather cold and brusque anyway. It's good to know that I haven't lost my edge.
• I am not one to effeminate my diction How dare you try to genderize speech acts in this way. You must be a women-hater who sneaks up behind women when they aren't looking and bites them on the knee, the most intimate of the joints, poisoning them with your foul saliva of doom. When I think about all the women you've killed through your horrible crueliness - well, I just hope you are sandpapered to death by a DIY-loving cormorant.
• "So where is the big loss if 1 in 10 rams prefers other rams?" If a farmer has 100 ewes, buys one ram to service them all, and that ram doesn't like the ladies, then it'd be a problem. Quid, I think you're confusing nunia with the Mitten-Biter.
• So perhaps then, the cloying aroma is not from her biolargesse but from her saliva of doom? I would think it would take something stronger than an over-the-counter breath mint to put down the saliva of doom aroma, but then what do I know, I'm not a pharmacist but, oh how I wish I were...
• Quid, I think you're confusing nunia with the Mitten-Biter Or maybe you are just covering up for your women-hating friends, eh Lara? You womenophobes or antigynists or whatever are incorrigible.
• I've always been vaguely disturbed by the (what I am told is standard) way my friend the sheep farmer gives the rams elaborate names like Orlando and Rodolfo, while the ewes are all numbered. (And although Rodolfo has never tried to moun Orlando, I'm told that he far prefers his company to that of #'s 1-30, and has to be encouraged to associate with the Nubered Ones.)
• Lara, how could you? You were always like a sister to me. What will I tell "mom"?
• Lara, how could you? Oh so you're turning on a poor defenceless woman now, Koko? This place is SO misogynist sometimes.
• Where's that Marxist fellow when we need him to clean this sexist mess up?
• *affixes FREE NUNIA bumper-sticker*
• Free? Usually she makes me pay...
• I don't know much about the science behind this, but I feel sceptical about whether this kind of behaviour in sheep is a true analogue of the complex phenomenon of human homosexuality, and consequently about whether this actually tells us anything about human beings.
• "...and consequently about whether this actually tells us anything about human beings." We have to start a stud farm to find out.
• For that remark, Ralphie, I'm gonna have to charge you more. And make you dress up like a woman, so I can hate you more. Because you look better as a woman than I do.
• /bites nunia's knee
• I think you're biting the one that's been numb since my head-on collision a year ago, Lara schweety. But go ahead and bite it. You look so cute with yer widdle chompers embedded in my hairy, scarred, hardly-washed knee.
• On the one hand, it would be great to have scientific proof that homosexuality in humans isn't simply a "lifestyle choice," because then it would be harder to deny civil rights to homosexuals. Only popping in cuz I knew someone would possess the special kind of stupid required to make this remark. And so I must point out that sex and skin color are also not lifestyle choices and yet have often -- you may be surprised to find out -- been used as grounds for denying civil rights. How could they do that? When I was in college, there was a winger meme circulating that if gays had no choice about being gay and if God gave humans free will, then gays clearly weren't human. You don't hear this idea so much nowadays, since people mostly believe being gay _is_ a choice. However, if we get to a point where that changes, the wingers would resort to that heinous talking point. Or something equally silly that we haven't thought of yet. The fundamental fact about the anti-gay crowd is their animus to homosexuality. All their reasoning is just window dressing to justify a conclusion they've already drawn. Showing that homosexuality is biological isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's just going to change they way they frame their condemnation.
• In TUM's defense, I have to say that she makes a good point. The basis of most people's argument against homosexuality is that those who describe themselves as such choose to do so, as though they are deliberately trying to insult society with their choices, whereas race and gender is something over which a person has no control. Having hard proof that sexual preference is a biological factor and not an environmental one would do a lot to bolster the cause for homosexuals, both policitally and socially. But there must be a line drawn in how society tampers with biological directives, and trying to "head the homo off at the pass" by inoculating fetuses against the possibility of homosexuality is itself immoral. Moreover, since most of those people who are against homosexuality are also not big fans of science anyway (the Earth is far more than 6k yrs, no matter what Ussher said), scientific proof that homosexuals are biologically wired for such preferences would hardly win the so-called "wingers" over. But then, I have the luxury of living in a state where tolerance is the norm, and not the exception, and the college I went to had a healthy homosexual population that enjoyed little to no badgering from idiot moralists.
• Just wondering...isn't "Head the homo off at the pass" simply an ad line for The Pass, a Club for Men?
• I didn't say "impossible;" I said "harder." Yes, there are plenty of people out there who don't believe that people of other races, genders, etc. deserve equal civil rights, never will do so regardless of any scientific evidence, and continue to do everything in their power to deny those rights. But there are also plenty of people on the fence. Of course we'll never have an ideal world where everyone is reasonable and treats everyone else with the resect they deserve. And, as I pointed out, such a change in our perception of how humanity works would have both benefits AND drawbacks.
• Out of curiosity, Mackerel, what did those people (the ones who claimed gays weren't human) think about the fact that one has no choice in gender, or race? Does that also make someone not human, since God gave humans free will? nunia! Another member of the numb-knee club! I have one knee I smushed in a car accident. But I was totally biting the other one...
• Winger meme. I was momentarily confuzzed.
• Is that supposed to be an insult? It's not an insult at all, nunia. It was meant to be a "thank you for ass-fucking me back into my place." Which in other words could be: "I should have recognized the sentimental stink that is inherent in personified nature." Next time I'll just say, "thank you for the broccoli whipping, mistress. My goat-bum is a hollow beet." I don't know which is most appropriate, either. ...but I knew someone would be offended. context Come on, nunia, lighten up. We all know that the internet isn't a great place for sarcasm detection, so I'll point out that only half of this comment above is sarcasm. I actually don't tend to find your opinions cold and brusque; rather, I found that here you imbued a hyperbole of sentiment on an emotionless thing: Mo Nature doesn't have abominations; it has dynamic, interacting widgets which either perpetuate or perish. Doesn't that make your original comment seem cozy and philanthropic? It appeared to me that you were pandering to the moralists. Such were the largesses. Anyway, what I said here, was that I had no real point writing the comment. So, you already won. Nyah. /metapointlessness Do you accept credit? Only popping in cuz I knew someone would possess the special kind of stupid required to make this remark. Likewise.
• 
• I hope I'm not the only one here who has no idea what the fuck insolent's comment means.
• I was waiting for some verbholist comment like that out of you, you knockwurstian tildewrangler! And no, no idea.
• Fucking quid and his endless search for meaning. It's quite noble and admirable, really.
• No, you're thinking of the quitenoble kid. Haven't seen him in a long time.
• Jesus Christ. For the record, InsolentChimp, I'm not trying to win anything. I just don't like someone coming behind me and redefining my words for me, as though I didn't really mean what I said, or that what I said was pandering or misleading or whathefuckerver. Further, I can thank you for not trying to interpret my intentions or reading something into what I've said. I didn't nominate you as my translator. Of course I know that there is no "Mother Nature." And yes, I am quite familiar with natural selection, on a genetic level, even. And no, I am not all sentimental about nature. Yes, I am frequently sarcastic and caustic, and no, I don't need to explain myself to those who don't get the joke. Furthermore, I do not want to buy the world a Coke.
• Damn. That's why I didn't get my usual free drink from KFC (Kilburn Fried Chicken).
• I want to buy the Western Hemisphere a Diet Dr. Pepper, but then there's that pesky electric bill.
• I once bought upstate New York a Mountain Dew, but got complaints that they could not sleep the next night. I was not pleased.
• I'd like to sell homebrew to everyone in my town.
• Never mind, nunia. None of this is important, anyway.
• No, InsolentChimp, I will not have your baby. Quit begging. It's unbecoming.
• roryk, is there some reason that wasn't accompanied by an ASCII jug with three x's on it?
• Yep. I'm trying to sell this stuff.
• the x's had little boneheads over them.
• Inclined to agree these experiments do carry a strong whiff of eugenics. Fact: Our society - whatever it is and may consist of - wouldn't be fully human without the contributions of gay folk. Think it's far better to have the full range of human potential, as it's existed from time out of mind, than eliminate this or that genetic/moralistic/ melanistic/obese-or-whatever trait(s) because of some fleeting notion that will doubtless be outdated in the next ten or twenty years. Worse, we've seen this kind of proposal before, relative to lobotomies, and to racial purity, for instance. This is simply not a kind of decision anyone should be able to make for/on behalf of other people. Given the current state of human ignorance, it really seems best it be left up to the individual to determine what gender/sexuality/genitalia etc he/she wishes to have/be. Freedom is most basically about choice. Individual choice as opposed to a parent's choice or a government's choice or some well-meaning sociologist's or physician's or religious functionary's or government official's idea. For the sad fact is, we don't much grasp our own nature as sexual beings and are certainly in very poor case to make decisions that in the long run could prove deleterious to the survival of our offspring/humanity.
• Who's in control? Or should be in control? Parents stunt girl's growth in order to continue caring for her at home. Plus get doctors to remove uterus and appendix (though no report, seemingly, of appendicitis) and so on. I can remember when the underlying principle of Western medicine was: First, do no harm. This, to my way of thinking, directly contravenes that.
• Dunno, bees. Some difficult ethical questions there. Seems to me the parents really do have her comfort in mind. This person, however, is an idiot: Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said is was "unnecessary medical treatment to deal with what is essentially a social problem", referring to "the poverty and lack of support" faced by families with disabled children. Well, in the absence of imminent social change, what exactly is this woman suggesting this family do, right now?
• Fact: Damage has been done to this unfortunate child. Which is not the act of an ethical physician. No matter how many university panels say it is in the child's best interests it is not apparent that the child has or will actually benefit from such treatment. Quite possible the parents believe they are thinking of the child's best interests only. But unfortunately, it's also possible to perceive the parents also entertain some considerations of their own best interests - the parents will have less child to wash, less weight to lift and carry as she and they grow older etc. This latter aspect of the situation calls into question their objectivity and their goals. Possible to regard the child's maltreatment as being done for sake of the parents or caretakers' convenience. In light of which, opposing this becomes much easier.
• Thing is, humans will always, always want to know as much and do as much as they can. So it's as much in human nature to figure out how we're built and tinker with it as anything else. In my opinion.
• Possible to regard the child's maltreatment as being done for sake of the parents or caretakers' convenience. Convenience? Caring for a mentaly disabled child with the body of a fully grown adult is not merely inconvenient, it's brutal and exhausting. What happens if Ashley gets too big for them to carry? The primary factor in the child's quality of life (such as it is) is the ability of her parents to take care of her. Unless the treatment actually causes long-term pain, I can totally understand this decision.
• I have to say I agree. They don't seem out to just make things easier on themselves. If they were, why not just institutionalize her and make it completely convenient for them? As to "first do no harm", I really don't see what harm they're doing. I'm assuming the surgeries were followed with pain medications.
• THere are some aspects of it that strike me as going a bit far, such as the amputation of the breast buds. Do they have some reson to believe that her breasts would be larger than average? I've never heard of an average-breasted woman complaining of discomfort from just lying around with breasts on, and anyone who's sick enough to molest a woman in her state isn't going to be deterred by a flat chest. Why not wait until late puberty and see how it turns out then? And wouldn't a tubal ligation and Depo shots have taken care of the sterilization and menses without major abdominal surgery (I've had a hysterectomy myself, and it sucked eggs)? Of course I can't possibly put myself in their shoes - who could, without living through it? And is it just me, or is "pillow angel" the creepiest nickname ever?
• I think if you laid on your stomach for say, 10 hours straight, any breasts at all would begin to be uncomfortable.
• From the bit of information I found on Google, excision of the hreast buds is intended to avoid breast cancer later in life. Maybe the removal on this child makes sense in a "let's avoid risks way out there in the future." sort of way. On the other hand, if her breasts don't emerge, and they keep her at her current stature, and if she never menstruates, they'll have their "pillow angel" till she dies. That may be a good thing. They certainly must have enough to do in taking care of her every physical need to want to avoid dealing with developments that she'll never use. It strikes me that she really is property, so far as we can tell. That doesn't make me comfortable in a way, but it may just be reality.
• is "pillow angel" the creepiest nickname ever? Yes.
• I've been arguing too long about this one over on mefi, but suffice it to say: yes, their family is prone to large breasts and they would be uncomfortable (and also make her heavier), and that if you read her parents' blog, you will find out the reasoning behind every procedure. The procedures, which have already passed hospital ethics and were actually begun three years ago, will make the child more comfortable, since she will be far less likely to get bed sores, or pneumonia. She will not have menstruel cramps or discomfort from periods (I had a back ache today). She will be small enough for her parents to lift her and carry her around, which is something she enjoys (as much as she can express it). In short, she will be healthier and more comfortable. Knowing this is possible, is it ethical not to do it, because of some idea that she should have an adult body which she can never understand and will only cause her pain and discomfort?
• Also, the whole "pillow angel" quote is being misconstrued. Everyone seems to think that means they picture her as a doll to play with - I did when I first heard it. But if you read their blog, you realise that she is their "pillow angel" because they have come to accept that she is unable to move, and to love her and appreciate her anyways. She will never be their "run outside and play angel", as much as they might wish that for her.
• Bees, on the one hand, I certainly can comprehend your ethical objections to the proceedures carried out on this girl from a certain philosophical stance. OTOH, if non-painful and fairly non-invasive proceedures such as done could be carried out on all severely retarded persons, perhaps it would make the lives of everyone easier. I can certainly understand the parents wanting to spare their daughter everything unnecessary. Can you imagine the upset and incomprehension of the adult handicapped who finds themself relegated to an institution after their parents are no longer able to care for them? *damn this fence hurts my butt! Yes, TUM, "pillow angel" completely creeps me out Then again, parents of mentally disabled children who say things like, "This is our little gift from God." and "This child is our priceless treasure." also creep me out. I'm afraid I'm not a nice person. A MDC is a tragedy not a gift. While I want to shy away from genetic engineering, I really really really think preventing the conception of a MDC is the best situation for all concerned. And women who knowingly and deliberately bring this hell upon their babies thru drinking or drugs better stay away from me. Procreation should not be a right, it should be earned. Why can't we treasure our children? I know, I'm going to hell. MonkeyFilter: ratios of 1 to 100 can provide "satisfactory flock reproductive performance" MonkeyFilter: You look so cute with yer widdle chompers embedded in my hairy, scarred, hardly-washed knee. MonkeyFilter: It is not, as many would assert, a conscious act of defiance to a divine power. Yep, I am so going to hell if only for that last tag I have no objection to people acting as homosexuals. My objection is people acting like sheep.
• mmmwwwaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaa-aa
• *reboots roryk*