This one has always really fascinated me. I happen to have friends who are part of the Deaf culture, yet I'm not deaf. On the other hand, while my orientation is gay, I don't really interact with anyone who is part of the gay culture.
This parallel is often seen as offensive to both groups. The similarities are quite remarkable, though. Many straight-oriented people view a gay orientation as a kind of reproductive disability, but the gay community rejects that view strongly. Similarly, many hearing people view deafness as a disability, but the Deaf culture strongly rejects that view. Many people believe their orientation is something they are born with while others feel it is realized later in life. Many deaf people were born deaf, while others lost their hearing later in life. In both cases, the culture mainly caters to the former.
A major debate in the Deaf culture deals with cochlear implants. If a deaf person is treated so that they can hear, is that the overcoming of a disability or is it the loss of part of their core identity? Is the act of getting a cochlear implant a betrayal of the Deaf culture and heritage? This sounds like debates surrounding re-orientation therapies that have plagued the homosexual community for years. It also could be connected to mixed-orientation marriages where a gay person can have their own children with a straight spouse. Is that a betrayal of their gay community?
Despite all these similarities, there are some clear differences. First, the Deaf culture uses ASL primarily to communicate. They have their own language. The gay community, on the other hand, uses English, and their language does not identify them. It would be difficult for a deaf person to hide their deafness from hearing people around them, while it is common for people to hide gay orientations from the straight people around them. These different situations produce very different types of challenges and concerns among the members of each community. A closeted gay man, for instance, might feel psychological trauma for hiding their feelings from their family and friends, but a deaf man can't hide their deafness, and doesn't experience the same problems. Rather the deaf man might feel more isolated among the hearing because of the communication barrier, which the gay man doesn't experience.
Differences like these make it dangerous to draw too many conclusions from a comparison between the two groups. This can be said of any parallels drawn between the gay community and another group of people, yet both sides of the "gay-debate" constantly extrapolate too much from such metaphors. These comparisons are fine to communicate ideas, but they have no power to prove debated points. Any relying on these similarities as evidence of some kind is a logical fallacy.
Showing posts with label Compare-Contrast. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Compare-Contrast. Show all posts
Friday, March 14, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Compare and Contrast - Gay vs. Alcoholism
In my last post, I looked at the common comparison drawn between orientation and race. This time I'd like to examine another comparison.
"Being gay is like having alcoholism."
First, let's examine the similarities. Alcoholism is, in some measure, an attraction to drinking. The thing that people emphasize is that there is a distinct difference between the attraction to drinking and the drinking itself. In the same way, a homosexual orientation is an attraction, but that can be seen as separate from forming sexual relations with another person of the same gender. I think this is the main point of the simile for most of the people who use it.
But there are many significant differences. First, alcoholism is precipitated by drinking alcohol. On the other hand, at least for most people, orientation is established long before any sexual activity. That was certainly true in my case. But many extrapolate using this analogy, and figure that homosexuality is caused by homosexual relationships, which is taking the analogy way too far.
People who abuse alcohol really do have a problem that needs to be addressed. Similarly, there are certainly those of gay orientation that are addicted to sex. They also have a problem. But their orientation is actually not the problem. Sex addiction is a problem regardless of whether the orientation is straight or gay. So unlike alcoholism, where the attraction to alcohol fuels the addiction, it's not the orientation that fuels an addiction to sex.
An interesting similarity is the idea that "once and alcoholic, always an alcoholic." Basically, there are those who believe that alcoholism is something that doesn't go away, you just have to learn to deal with it. Despite this belief, there are many people who claim to actually be cured of alcoholism, that they no longer have the temptation to over-drink. Similarly, many people claim (and I'm among them) that a gay orientation is something that can't be "cured." If your orientation is gay, you have to learn to deal with it. Yet there are some people who claim that their orientation has changed.
Of course, the big issue that offends some people is that alcoholism, the attraction to drinking, is a disease. But a gay orientation is not. Extending this analogy to imply that a gay orientation is a kind of mental disorder is probably the worst use of this analogy. Please don't fall into this trap. It's such a common mistake, that this analogy should probably not be used at all, or perhaps only if great care is made to prevent its use in that way.
"Being gay is like having alcoholism."
First, let's examine the similarities. Alcoholism is, in some measure, an attraction to drinking. The thing that people emphasize is that there is a distinct difference between the attraction to drinking and the drinking itself. In the same way, a homosexual orientation is an attraction, but that can be seen as separate from forming sexual relations with another person of the same gender. I think this is the main point of the simile for most of the people who use it.
But there are many significant differences. First, alcoholism is precipitated by drinking alcohol. On the other hand, at least for most people, orientation is established long before any sexual activity. That was certainly true in my case. But many extrapolate using this analogy, and figure that homosexuality is caused by homosexual relationships, which is taking the analogy way too far.
People who abuse alcohol really do have a problem that needs to be addressed. Similarly, there are certainly those of gay orientation that are addicted to sex. They also have a problem. But their orientation is actually not the problem. Sex addiction is a problem regardless of whether the orientation is straight or gay. So unlike alcoholism, where the attraction to alcohol fuels the addiction, it's not the orientation that fuels an addiction to sex.
An interesting similarity is the idea that "once and alcoholic, always an alcoholic." Basically, there are those who believe that alcoholism is something that doesn't go away, you just have to learn to deal with it. Despite this belief, there are many people who claim to actually be cured of alcoholism, that they no longer have the temptation to over-drink. Similarly, many people claim (and I'm among them) that a gay orientation is something that can't be "cured." If your orientation is gay, you have to learn to deal with it. Yet there are some people who claim that their orientation has changed.
Of course, the big issue that offends some people is that alcoholism, the attraction to drinking, is a disease. But a gay orientation is not. Extending this analogy to imply that a gay orientation is a kind of mental disorder is probably the worst use of this analogy. Please don't fall into this trap. It's such a common mistake, that this analogy should probably not be used at all, or perhaps only if great care is made to prevent its use in that way.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Compare and Contrast - Gay vs. Race
Last time, I talked about the extrapolation fallacy. When we draw a comparison, it's always tempting to take it a little further to gain more insight, but that can produce more confusion than insight. Let's take a look at a popular example.
"Being gay in our culture is like being black in the 50s."
This is a very important and widely used comparison. It's the basis of labeling people as bigots -- the racists of our day. There are many similarities. But there are also many differences, which often get ignored. Like any analogy, we can learn much from these differences.
The fact that gay individuals have been treated as second class citizens is the obvious similarity, but the scale of the class gap really is not similar at all. It doesn't take much research to see the decades of Jim Crow laws and such were far more severe and blatant than the discrimination based on orientation. So while the comparison is apt, we need to temper the reactions.
Another difference is the ability to hide. There was no don't-ask-don't-tell when it came to race. This changes the way orientation discrimination has progressed, both in good ways and bad ways. For instance, the good: I suspect most people are friends with someone who is gay, but they just don't know it. When the friend comes out to them, this provides opportunities to overcome stereotypes because they are already friends. On the other hand, the bad: keeping secrets can have emotional consequences like feelings of isolation, higher levels of depression, etc.
A very important similarity is the fact that orientation, at least for most of us, is not something we actively choose, just like race is not something that is chosen. But there's a remarkable difference. While race is mostly identified its physical characteristic, people were of the unfortunate belief that there were personality and behavioral differences. People mistakenly believed that those of African heritage were mentally inferior or some other such nonsense. On the other hand, orientation is primarily a trait that affects behavior -- sexual and relationship behavior in particular -- but many want to view it as some kind of purely physical attribute, like race.
These kinds of differences confuse the lines of communication, because people tend to forget about the differences and focus only on the similarities, and often take the analogy too far. This is getting too long, so I'll put other examples in future posts. This analogy is one used by the "pro-LGTBQ" side, so let's look at one used by the "anti-LGTBQ" side next, alcoholism.
"Being gay in our culture is like being black in the 50s."
This is a very important and widely used comparison. It's the basis of labeling people as bigots -- the racists of our day. There are many similarities. But there are also many differences, which often get ignored. Like any analogy, we can learn much from these differences.
The fact that gay individuals have been treated as second class citizens is the obvious similarity, but the scale of the class gap really is not similar at all. It doesn't take much research to see the decades of Jim Crow laws and such were far more severe and blatant than the discrimination based on orientation. So while the comparison is apt, we need to temper the reactions.
Another difference is the ability to hide. There was no don't-ask-don't-tell when it came to race. This changes the way orientation discrimination has progressed, both in good ways and bad ways. For instance, the good: I suspect most people are friends with someone who is gay, but they just don't know it. When the friend comes out to them, this provides opportunities to overcome stereotypes because they are already friends. On the other hand, the bad: keeping secrets can have emotional consequences like feelings of isolation, higher levels of depression, etc.
A very important similarity is the fact that orientation, at least for most of us, is not something we actively choose, just like race is not something that is chosen. But there's a remarkable difference. While race is mostly identified its physical characteristic, people were of the unfortunate belief that there were personality and behavioral differences. People mistakenly believed that those of African heritage were mentally inferior or some other such nonsense. On the other hand, orientation is primarily a trait that affects behavior -- sexual and relationship behavior in particular -- but many want to view it as some kind of purely physical attribute, like race.
These kinds of differences confuse the lines of communication, because people tend to forget about the differences and focus only on the similarities, and often take the analogy too far. This is getting too long, so I'll put other examples in future posts. This analogy is one used by the "pro-LGTBQ" side, so let's look at one used by the "anti-LGTBQ" side next, alcoholism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)