Was Ayn Rand Wrong About Homosexuality? | Dr. Harry Binswanger & James Valliant

[@davee91889]

I'm homosexual and I love Ayn Rand's individualism and her philosophy of Objectivism. I try to live by it, by reason and my values every day, hence I reject the concept of "LGBT community" and "gender identity" stuff.

[@tipsydog3]

Same and agree wholeheartedly.

[@davee91889]

@@tipsydog3 Nice to hear that, glad you've not been a victim of the intellectual drought the left has caused with its lgbtxdwtf recent movement

[@carlosayala8171]

Oh me too big time

[@marlenevelasquez5680]

Why do u reject the concept of gender identity?

[@TakluCal]

Do you also agree with her opinion of homosexuality being a psychological problem?

[@yasserostyn8296]

I can only say from introspection. I never made a choice to be gay or straight. Since morality only covers areas you can make decisions about, sexuality is amoral, it is out of the realm of morality.

[@minecrafter129]

Determinism is evil

[@yasserostyn8296]

@julian segamarchi Skin colour...

[@yasserostyn8296]

@julian segamarchi Yes that is what they are saying. And the burden of proof is on the people that say that sexuality can be changed before you can be morally judged for it. I have not seen any evidence for this. From introspection, I don't see how any person makes a choice in this. E.g. I do see how people make a choice in supporting certain immoral political ideologies, ignoring the evidence and logic, but with your sexuality? I don't believe it.

[@yasserostyn8296]

The scientific consensus is that sexuality is not a choice. An you are mixing, actions, decisions and values in your argument. It's more a soup of words than anything else.

[@kdemetter]

@julian segamarchi (youtube deleted my previous comment, so I'll try again) Even if I granted that homosexuality is purely a choice ( which I don't, there is no evidence to suggest this, and some evidence to suggest it's determined in utero) , how could you come to the conclusion that it's immoral ? What is immoral about 2 gay men having consensual sex with each other ? No one is being harmed, so how could it be immoral ?

[@notanotherguitarchannel]

Objectivists are criticised for agreeing with Ayn Rand about everything, and then the same critics bring up her controversial opinions as if to trap Objectivists into apologizing for an opinion that they don't share. Objectivists should think for themselves and not feel bound to opinions that Ayn Rand had. That said, it's interesting to get an insight into why she said some of the things she said.

[@charmedTheFightConti]

She was just expressing the views of science of her time. If rand knew all the scientific information that we have today on the issue I'm 100% sure she would have a different opinion.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@charmedTheFightConti Rand used philosophy, not science, to recognize that male and female were a part of human life. And science has not proven that homosexuality is healthy. Its proven only the possibility of political activism.

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

And yet all of them were quick to say that they agree with Ayn Rand

[@italoR]

You summed it up well: Objectivists should think for themselves and not feel trapped by Ayn Rand's views. That said, it's interesting to understand why she said some of the things she did.

[@RogerFusselman]

Interesting to get Dr. Binswanger's take on this, particularly the history on the utterance and his remembrances of Miss Rand on these issues. The others do well on this, but this could have benefitted from an Objectivist intellectual who happens to be gay. An actual gay person on the panel could have informed this discussion better than admitted non-experts working diligently on their own without such help. Also, Gena Gorlin has a take on that quote.

[@mwickens]

Thanks very much for this. Harry’s info about Ayn Rand’s private statements, and all the participants’ insights were very valuable.

[@AynRandCentreUK]

Thank you, Mark!

[@frederickmfarias3109]

What about the Ancient Greek artist who loves the beauty of the form of the/a man’s body, and experiences aesthetic pleasure from that?

[@toolboxnj]

Objectivists believe evolutionary psychology is "determinism", that any questioning of the blank slate is "determinism". It's completely irrational, goes against science. The blank slate (in O'ism) is that you treat individuals with respect until they wrong you. You don't make prejudicial judgments. However, the complete denial of nature, the denial we are predisposed to certain behaviors is something I completely disagree with most leaders of O'ism.

[@kieranramtohal9645]

The absurdity of the comment about it being non-natural and selected against at a species level is evident when you acknowledge that homosexuality exists in many species, not just humans.

[@geekonomist]

The purpose of sex in dogs IS NOT reproduction. Peikoff tells of the example of asking a copulating dog why he is fornicating, and inevitably, the dog will not answer that this is for reproductive benefits...

[@sybo59]

Great stuff, guys. Keep it up!

[@marcallen4532]

LMAO! Charles Ives said Chopin was music for old ladies too!!! He also said "One just naturally thinks of Chopin in a dress, albeit one of his own invention."

[@MichaelHabner]

She wasn't necessarily right on everything.

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

Correct. I follow her because I believe she was right in the fundamentals. What is essential to her philosophy? That's what I agree with, not necessarily all of her opinions

[@TheMightyWalk]

you arent really arguing any point .

[@MonotoniTV]

Let's settle this. Love is selfish. So it's no one's concern who you love expect your own. So just don't give a fuck

[@TeaParty1776]

Politically, yes. And theres no reason to go out of ones way to insult someone w/a lifestyle one regards as self-destructive. A friend told me he was homosexual. He did not advocate for it or attempt to make it personal. He remained a friend because he had the same values to which I had previously responded w/friendship. We discussed culture and music and I respected his ideas.

[@TheMightyWalk]

literally the worse take. with this logic you can love a dog in a sexual relationship and still be correct

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

1:05:00 what James is saying explains homosexuality perfectly. Some women are born with more testosterone. Some men have more estrogen. These chemical mediators necessarily affect the behavior. So a man that has more estrogen naturally will embody more feminine characteristics and a woman that has more testosterone will embody more masculine characteristics. This is natural. It is wrong to say that a woman with masculine characteristics has a psychological flaw. She does not. It is merely in her nature to be more masculine because of her genetics and her hormonal expression. This is true of family man as well. They're not betraying their nature, they are acting out their nature. They are living their nature.

[@TheMightyWalk]

thats not the issue . its nurture not nature

[@johngleue]

Masculine women and feminine men can still be straight, though. I don't necessarily think our sexual proclivities are conditioned only by nature and nurture but I'm really not confident on this particular subject at all. Personally, I was drawn to girls from a very young age and had never thought twice about why or when I first realized it.

[@yasserostyn8296]

Great discussion btw.

[@frederickmfarias3109]

Adrian did the costumes for “The Wizard of Oz”.

[@TheMightyWalk]

she was right. its a problem. it should have never been normalized

[@donhoe6370]

To say it's not a normal life style is a no brainer..

[@dwright2012]

Well it certainly took no brains for you to make that comment.

[@jayconne2303]

Not as an advocate of this position … The argument can be made … Morality is about actions consistent with reality and value. Therefore, acknowledging the difference in the sexes is of value. Appreciating that and curiosity about the other sex is a sensible foundation for what’s right and wrong. I find Harry’s observation about a more negative response to homosexuality in the observers sex than in the opposite sex.

[@JoeZoch]

Useless discussion. She said what she said. Private conversation have no context, and are meaningless.

[@kitchencarvings4621]

"It's not an inborn trait because it's a complex value judgement". Thank you so much Dr. Binswanger. I have struggled with this issue a lot and that statements really helps.

[@wittietube]

Though it doesn't change the point of this discussion, Dr. Binswanger is somewhat underinformed about costume designer Adrian as you can see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_(costume_designer).

[@luketerry2006]

It would have been helpful to have also discussed the transgender movement. I can't help but think there's some level of deliberate destruction of the conceptualization of man and woman that's created much of the philosophical energy in pushing this political movement.

[@charlottecushman1721]

You are right. Read Ron Pisaturo's book, Masculine Power Feminine Beauty.

[@lefantomer]

@@charlottecushman1721 I second that recommendation! However, in all the talk about "masculinity and femininity" and "heroes and hero-worshippers" so far I have found no frank discussions of what "gay" men think of women. (I suspect that what lesbians think of men might be easier to discern.) And what makes a man want to either be used sexually as a woman, or use another man as a woman? There appears to be a lot of tiptoeing around this issue, which is the one I find most disturbing on a personal level, especially with the current leftist propagandizing of "sexual fluidity" and hostility towards "cis-gendered" men as well as women.

[@TeaParty1776]

Gender has been invalidly reconceptualized from biology to feelings and imagination.

[@LethalBubbles]

I like her philosophy (not endorsing it per se here) but the things she says about social issues are little bonkers sometimes. I think she was just kinda thrown into these debates though, so its understandable that she would not give it much thought and go with the flow. I don't just mean "ok she doesn't believe in altruism and thus not in welfare". That position is 100% understandable. It's the ignoring history that takes it into absurdity. Like gays, women, non-whites, etc, do have a hard time due to the actions of previous generations, and depending on how you take that into account, you have difference answers on what it takes for equality to happen.

[@kdemetter]

35:35 First, that's a statement that contradicts reality, because homosexuality exists in nature, in non-humans. So if natural selection doesn't select for it in some manner, it wouldn't exist. It exists, therefor there must be some sort of selection mechanism in favor of it. It may be a very complex mechanism and not purely genetic. Secondly, even if something isn't 'natural' , that doesn't make it wrong. Infact the opposite, there is a whole lot of good things we have because human beings created it using our minds. So even if homosexuality was purely the result of some cultural development ( no evidence for that) it still wouldn't be wrong. And even if it was a personal choice (which it obviously isn't) that still wouldn't make it wrong.

[@jayconne2303]

I disagree with Harry on non reproductive behavior as lacking value. There can be many other issues such as safety, intellectual visibility, etc.

[@johnnyrichards77]

Also, gay people are not blue. People can't clock us and punish us immediately. People will actually try to marry the opposite sex to escape persecution. When you don't allow gay people liberty to study, work and to have private homes, you create fear and a dishonest society.

[@kdemetter]

43:51 It doesn't have to be purely genetic or environmental. Modern genetics shows us that most are activated by environmental triggers ( see the new field of evolutionary development ). In essence there's an important interplay between genes and environment This is effectively what the twin studies show : while they show that it is not purely genetic, they do show that for when one identical twin is gay, it is more likely that the other is also gay, as compared to non-identical twins This also explains how this 'gay' gene propagates evolutionarily. Most of the 'carriers' of the gay gene are themselves not gay, so they can effectively spread the gene ( it probably has some - as yet unknown - other positive evolutionary benefit which causes it be selected for) It is merely when the right combination of gene and environment factors are at play that this produces a gay individual. That person may be an evolutionary dead and, but that doesn't matter, the gene is propagated through its non-gay relatives Note also that these environmental factors, are almost certainly in very early development, as in still in utero. For example the acidity of the amniotic fluid or the hormonal levels of the mother. So you could ask yourself what really is the difference from a philosophical perspective: effectively by the time the child is born, their sexual orientation is set. It's is effectively an innate characteristic. It's effectively their nature. Objectivism teaches us that evasion is wrong. So when you are gay, it would be wrong to deny that you are. I can understand that Ayn Rand and some other Objectivist find it to be icky. But that's an emotional reaction, not a reasoned one. And emotions are not tools of cognition.

[@toolboxnj]

Studies have shown men born later in birth order have higher probability of being gay, likely due to a buildup of a hormone in the mother after each pregnancy. So there are biological factors. Treat everyone with respect and dignity.

[@johngleue]

So there's a gay hormone?

[@toolboxnj]

@@johngleue en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20women,including%20mothers%20of%20heterosexual%20sons.

[@johngleue]

That's one of the sillier things I've read in a while. These boys could very well be straight, too. You should be careful with statistics that try and tell you that certain correlations equals causation. If they could somehow test high levels of this hormone with mother's who are having their first child who also have high levels of this hormone, then it would at least be more informational. But I think it has everything to do with having multiple boys growing up together. Or even just go by the odds that every time you have a straight kid your chances go up that the next one will be gay if one out of every 5 kids are gay or whatever the actual statistic is. The main takeaway i got from this is that the more young boys that are living in your household, the more likely one of them might grow up to have a sexual proclivity to liking boys. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it. I bet it's most common when the oldest boy is around 13-16 years old and going through puberty with a younger brother or two who are just about to hit that age of having sexual proclivities. Kids can have sensations they don't understand when they do things like rough house and wrestle. Those things can be confusing for a young kid. And you're going to get a lot of that with a bunch of brothers in your household. You're not predetermined at birth, though, to be straight or gay. You don't need some magic hormone that makes you gay to see this study isn't taking everything into consideration here. It's just worried about drawing a connection by any means necessary and getting future funding if you ask me.

[@toolboxnj]

@@johngleue dunno man, not a scientist but there is definitely a correlation (years of data) and a potential reasoning behind it (the hormone). It is not determinism either. It's not saying "your son will be gay" or that nurture doesn't matter. You're just arguing to argue.

[@johngleue]

@@toolboxnj definitely a correlation you can't deny that. But does it equate to causation. That's where we need to be careful and think as rationally as possible when interpreting data.

[@PiedFifer]

10:00 So? Ayn Rand dealt with irrationalism her entire life. Is anyone surprised that she didn’t instantly object?

[@eduardorpg64]

20:45 If homosexuality isn't genetic, how do you explain that homosexual behavior is seen among so many animals? If gayness is something for humans only, why does it occur on animals too? I think this person doesn't know a thing about homosexuality, and is just giving speculation.

[@johngleue]

Because we as humans are not born with value judgments. We are born void of any innate ideas. There's no magical hormone that's going to make an individual gay.

[@johngleue]

We're talking about humans. With animals everything is genetic because they can't think conceptually. They live by their instincts.

[@PiedFifer]

1:40. Rand’s comment were shorter and more perfunctory. But, I’m guessing even this early, that hedonism will not get a single mention in the next two hours. I would expect it if James at least. James, is homosexuality objective?

[@wwOptimization]

47:38 - "Psychology is outside the realm of moral evaluation." - I disagree. Man is a being of self-made soul.

[@johngleue]

They're saying that they're not versed in how certain chemicals or hormones affect the human mind and behavior. Psychologists diagnose disorders of the brain. Is a schizophrenic with a chemical imbalance a being of self-made soul when his mind drives him to say and do things that are destructive to himself and others? His mind is compromised and is up to a psychologist or psychiatrist to prescribe him the appropriate medication.

[@Drumsgoon]

Is Nikos shouting extra hard here, or is this normal?

[@davee91889]

Man, it's his voice

[@PiedFifer]

Normal

[@jayconne2303]

Alan Blumenthal when I knew him put forward the hypothesis that homosexuality allows one to avoid the competition for acceptance in the attraction of a member of the other sex by popular standards. HB effectively said the same about Brandon. This leaves open the questions of what’s wrong with conventional standards. And separately, in an explicitly homosexual community there can be fierce competition for attracting what’s popularly attractive.

[@dwright2012]

This is just one more bizarre, bullshit speculation off the top of somebody’s head. I can’t believe how irresponsible people’s musings about the possible causes of homosexuality are.

[@JAHtony1111]

So u guys don't know if she was pro or con then.

[@yasserostyn8296]

I found this a bit confusing. The sense of life comparison made me understand better. But since you can change your sense of life, can you then change your sexuality? I would say, no. So that would lead me to believe sexuality is determined by genetics or nurture by parents. But what I got from this was, sexuality is determined by early life choices, e.g. the way you react to your parents rasing you.

[@sybo59]

Note that there are examples of people who were sincere homosexuals and later became straight, and vice versa. So I think it’s beyond doubt that someone’s sexuality can change - but you seem to be asking whether one can change it volitionally. That’s less clear, but I think it’s like your taste in art - you can’t simply change what you’re attracted to at once by sheer force of will. I think the major point here is that, while orientation might not be genetic, and determined more by life experiences or choices, none of those experiences or choices were ever clearly labeled THIS WILL MAKE YOU GAY. Rather, as was discussed, it’s much more reasonable to think sexual orientation is a product of many, many things, none of which by themselves might have a strong correlation or obvious connection with homosexuality. In other words, while the huge series of things that contributed to someone being gay might each have been volitional, being gay was never a direct choice. And I’m sure changing one’s orientation after adolescence would be similarly murky and convoluted. I think missing this distinction is a major cause of confusion in the public discourse.

[@charmedTheFightConti]

@@sybo59 sexual orientation is not a voluntary choice and it's the whole product of genetics epigenetics and environment. There's a small percentage of human population that just can't feel attraction to the opposite sex. Kinsey had made a scale over this. Read kinsey reports and you'll understand...

[@TeaParty1776]

@@charmedTheFightConti A friend brought his beautiful and sexually perceptive and confident wife to a party. She saw three homosexual men and ,to amuse herself, did a very sexy dance a few inches from them. They fled the room. They felt something intense. And I dont think it was revulsion.

[@earlgrayman982]

But you can change your taste in art through experience and knowledge. When your a child, scribbling looks amazing to you (or maybe its the repetition of motor function you enjoy, who knows), then when you're an adult you need a thesis to explain why a Jackson Pollock is a genius art or like most of the masses you think its trash.@@sybo59

[@charlottecushman1721]

For anyone that wants to know the process by which people make their sexual choices, read Ron Pisaturo's theory in his book.

[@kimmyj1512]

There's no morality without God. Just preferences.

[@ProudAjax]

Your so called morality is actually just God's preferences

[@kimmyj1512]

@@ProudAjax God's commandments is more accurate.

[@PiedFifer]

8:00 not, “is homosexuality objective?”

[@eduardorpg64]

Something that I wonder: if being gay is a psychological flaw, since, by nature we are all supposed to be heterosexual, is not wanting to have any children also a psychological flaw? I'm not super interested in having children. But it's normal that any human being, and any animal really, to want to have children. It's in our genes. If we have children, our genes will survive. It's due to evolutionary reasons that we want to have children: so that our species survives. So, not wanting to have children goes against our nature. So, is not wanting to have children a psychological flaw? And if so, should we need "therapy" to make people want to have children?

[@charlottecushman1721]

I wish they had also asked Ron Pisaturo to talk. He wrote Masculine Power Feminine Beauty and has done a ton of research on this topic.

[@Mr.Witness]

Is he a favored objectivist or is that why?

[@mwickens]

Pisaturo is a crank.

[@charlottecushman1721]

@@mwickens Mature people just state why they disagree rather than name call.

[@marcallen4532]

Nikos is arguing against straw men all over the place.

[@edwardtjbrown1979]

As an outsider; Ayn Rand was an atheist, so her view that homosexuality was immoral seemed hypocritical. She did oppose anti-gay criminal laws, but also attacked womem's lib for supporting the rights of lesbians. She didnt take a libertarian/individual rights view on LGBTQ rights, even through the issue was being debated during her life time.

[@TeaParty1776]

The rights or improper political privileges of lesbians?

[@edwardtjbrown1979]

@@TeaParty1776 rights

[@TeaParty1776]

@@edwardtjbrown1979 My memory is that Rand attacked political privileges for lesbians. Do you have evidence that she attacked rights? Rand was an _ideological_, not pragmatic, advocate of rights.

[@edwardtjbrown1979]

@@TeaParty1776 read the few times she made mention of lesbians.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@edwardtjbrown1979 Claims w/o evidence are meaningless, arbitrary, not true or false

[@micchaelsanders6286]

15:00 Interesting theory, but I suspect it's just genetic, like being born left handed.

[@51Linz]

Gay Objectivist here. None of you has a clue what he's talking about. And there's so much dishonesty here.

[@lefantomer]

Lindsay -- as long as we are discussing honesty and dishonesty here, to the point, what do you think of women?

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

All right. Well then why don't you tell us what reality is? If they are also wrong and you know the truth then tell us

[@Virtueman1]

Please elaborate

[@TheMightyWalk]

being gay doesnt make you a expert. if anything its just a bias for a lack of perspective

[@timunderwood4314]

Tim Underwood It's too bad that same sex lifestyles couldn't replace the more common sexual union. There is no possibility of this happening but, if it could, it would go a long way to reducing the birth rate. Currently the best way to reduce the birth rate is by women entering the workforce. Ayn Rand set herself up as the answer person. No matter how much we enjoyed her efforts, it is unreasonable to not expect as many misses as there were hits. After all these decades, she is still interesting to study.

[@TeaParty1776]

> reducing the birth rate Is man evil?

[@timunderwood4314]

@@TeaParty1776 Animals aren't considered evil only people are. Most likely, when stupidity reaches a certain level, it is considered to be evil. Humans have this ability to develop an agreed upon ethics whereas animals lack the necessary language arts. You probably have your own explanation.

[@danx1216]

No miss by her. You have not established in any reasoned way that she missed?! LOL And there is plenty of room on the planet for more humans. We were doing the best we ever had in terms of poverty etc. (see Pinker) time to challenge the ideological cultists

[@annastasiakohen]

She was horrendously wrong concerning her thoughts on the LGBT community. Chalk it up to being misinformed or uneducated on the matter, if you’d like, but to view a group of people as being morally inferior on the basis of sexuality is never okay. Even back then. Also, just because she was “friendly” towards a gay neighbor doesn’t really mean anything. Greg Abbott is friendly to most trans activists that he encounters, yet he doesn’t bat an eye twice about legislating their very existence away. Lastly, identifying as LGBT doesn’t mean you have a behavioral/psychological condition, and referring to LGBT identifying people as “homosexuals” is rude af. I’ve literally never met a LGBT-oriented person that’s openly identity as a “homosexual.”

[@TeikonGom]

How did you end up here?

[@chrisloucka2536]

its a choice for it to be recreational. hedonistic and what does that get you. playing with poop. eyw