Hacker News Reader

I find the wikipedia link about lesbian domestic violence so interesting, especially due to the all the well-sourced text it devotes to the fact that it's not actually possible to state anything with certainty about the prevalence of same-sex domestic violence! So - I wonder, what conclusion were you hoping a reader would draw from that source?

---

The link to the study from 1992 about "gay pedophilia rates" is super intriguing. I mean, consider the first line of the abstract: "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1" - or from a bit further in the abstract: "the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1".

I presume you have read the second-to-last line of the abstract: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

But what should we make of the final line of the abstract: "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

I mean, it seems like the study is actually stating that despite an over-prevalence of homosexuals in the pedophilic group, that they still don't make up the majority of pedophiles?

(I suppose we can ignore the fact that Freund himself advocated for homosexuality to be decriminalized)

(I suppose we'd also have to ignore the fact that Freund himself published studies claiming precisely the opposite of what you've claimed here, and even references those results in this paper).

---

The paper about childhood trauma is also so interesting. I assume you read this line from the abstract: "Epidemiological studies find a positive association between physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence in childhood and same-sex sexuality in adulthood"

What do you make of the remainder of that same line from the abstract: "but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of maltreatment and sexuality cannot disentangle the causal direction because the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain."

Or this really intriguing alternate explanation for the results, from the second line of the abstract: "Nascent same-sex orientation may increase risk of maltreatment"

I mean ... what should we think about the fact that the authors themselves are indicating up-front that their study may not, in fact, prove that childhood abuse makes people gay? Or their assertion that you simply cannot draw a causal relationship between these two things, only a correlative relationship?

Or the fact that the study finds the percentage difference amounts to approximately 2%, which just seems pretty small?

What, exactly, do you think this study is purporting to tell us?

---

My friend, your critical reading skills need a lot of work. You're simply listing articles that you think confirm your priors, without actually reading them at all.

You spent far longer refuting this misinformation than the guy who spread it. And therein lies the problem - it’s easy to shitpost, to drop a bomb and move on. I appreciate your effort.

You’re welcome, I’m glad it’s actually appreciated.

It’s also comforting for me to refute, because as a gay man the cumulative effects of such persistent negative stereotypes is substantial. Refuting the disinfo helps, somehow.

> I find the wikipedia link about lesbian domestic violence so interesting, especially due to the all the well-sourced text it devotes to the fact that it's not actually possible to state anything with certainty about the prevalence of same-sex domestic violence! So - I wonder, what conclusion were you hoping a reader would draw from that source?

I try to be even-handed, so yes, I included a liberal-leaning wiki entry which synthesized sources bolstering my claim and refutations of them, with an obvious editorial slant toward the latter. I apologize for that?

---

> I mean, consider the first line of the abstract: "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1"

Why leave off the second half of that sentence? "while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1."

That is a fine example of cherry-picking!

> But what should we make of the final line of the abstract: "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

Now take a look at the preceeding sentence: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

The final line is just boilerplate CYA we don't want to suggest anything bad about homosexuals language at odds with the rest of the paper. Standard deferential genuflection for any research that contradicts liberal priors.

> I mean, it seems like the study is actually stating that despite an over-prevalence of homosexuals in the pedophilic group, that they still don't make up the majority of pedophiles?

Who made that claim? I certainly didn't.

---

> What do you make of the remainder of that same line from the abstract: "but studies directly assessing the association between these diverse types of maltreatment and sexuality cannot disentangle the causal direction because the sequencing of maltreatment and emerging sexuality is difficult to ascertain."

I only claimed correlation, not necessarily causation. But, come on, leaving out the whole preceding section of the abstract is hilarious:

Our study used instrumental variable models based on family characteristics that predict maltreatment but are not plausibly influenced by sexual orientation (e.g., having a stepparent) as natural experiments to investigate whether maltreatment might increase the likelihood of same-sex sexuality in a nationally representative sample (n = 34,653). In instrumental variable models, history of sexual abuse predicted increased prevalence of same-sex attraction by 2.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5), any same-sex partners by 1.4 percentage points (95% CI = 1.0, 1.9), and same-sex identity by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI = 0.4, 0.9). Effects of sexual abuse on men’s sexual orientation were substantially larger than on women’s. Effects of non-sexual maltreatment were significant only for men and women’s sexual identity and women’s same-sex partners. While point estimates suggest much of the association between maltreatment and sexual orientation may be due to the effects of maltreatment on sexual orientation, confidence intervals were wide. Our results suggest that causal relationships driving the association between sexual orientation and childhood abuse may be bidirectional, may differ by type of abuse, and may differ by sex.

---

My friend, your refutation skills need a lot of work. You're listing random sentences that you think confirm your priors, without actually reading them at all. By the way, I can't help but notice your lack of response on the connection between queer theory and pederasty. I thought that video was both humorous and informative, and very easy to fact-check. How about you?

> I try to be even-handed, so yes, I included a liberal-leaning wiki entry which synthesized sources bolstering my claim and refutations of them, with an obvious editorial slant toward the latter. I apologize for that?

You need not apologize for it, but it certainly makes things rather confusing. A reasonable interpretation of a request for citations is “a request for citations [in support of the claim you make]”.

——

> Why leave off the second half of that sentence?

Mainly because I implicitly addressed it further down in the reply in the bit about “despite over-prevalence…”.

> Now take a look at the preceeding sentence: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."

What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make? Leaving aside all other doubts about the study, what practical point are you making? Yes; homosexuals are over-represented in this study, and that’s interesting. Yet the study clearly states that the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual.

> The final line is just boilerplate CYA we don't want to suggest anything bad about homosexuals language at odds with the rest of the paper. Standard deferential genuflection for any research that contradicts liberal priors.

This paper was published in 1992. Back then, societal attitudes towards homosexuality were far worse. Given that, I don’t buy the argument that this was any kind of standard deferential nonsense towards liberalism. Even many liberals didn’t like queers back then; you didn’t need to walk on eggshells.

That said, my point about the author’s entire career still stands - which further casts doubt on the “deference” claim. Not everything is inauthentic lip-service; sometimes it’s a genuinely held belief.

> Who made that claim? I certainly didn't.

Sure, Jan. An especially irritating feature of this website is commenter’s tendency to pretend that “context” doesn’t exist. You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos. Retreating to verbatim textual analysis of your literal words doesn’t negate contextual understanding.

——

> I only claimed correlation, not necessarily causation. But, come on, leaving out the whole preceding section of the abstract is hilarious

In the preceding section you say that posting a link doesnt make a claim; and now you say it does make a claim. Fun!

But, I did in fact reference that part of the abstract in my response; I just didn’t feel the need to word-vomit it all back to you. Even when you do, though, it still denotes a pretty small effect size … which is the comment I made about it earlier.

Did you have any comment about that?

——

I didn’t comment on your video because I didn’t watch it. I’d be happy to read a textual version of that information and respond to it. In any case, I don’t think it’s incredibly valuable to engage in that line of argument: you also didn’t provide citations for every single claim you originally made. That’s fine, honestly.

——

Here’s an interesting idea: why don’t you list out what you think those sources are saying, and what claims you think they make?

Or, if you’d like, maybe consider this discussion of recent results which seem to be fairly contradictory to your pedophilia paper, https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fetishes-i-dont-ge...

> You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos.

My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at higher rates. You're the one intentionally dodging context. Of course given their much smaller number they can easily be much more predisposed to such acts and still make up a minority of those who actually commit them. Why do you keep trying to muddy the waters like this? It's a pure strawman, a hallmark of bad-faith argumentation.

---

> This paper was published in 1992. Back then, societal attitudes towards homosexuality were far worse. Given that, I don’t buy the argument that this was any kind of standard deferential nonsense towards liberalism. Even many liberals didn’t like queers back then; you didn’t need to walk on eggshells.

Academia is very different from real life, especially the fluffier "sciences".

---

> In the preceding section you say that posting a link doesnt make a claim; and now you say it does make a claim.

More rhetorical nonsense. I've never said either. I have personally made claims, and posted a few links related to said claims.

> Did you have any comment about that?

Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism.

---

> I’d be happy to read a textual version of that information and respond to it.

I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process.

Foucault, who provided the philosophical foundation for Queer Theory, wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants. (Not mentioned: his alleged rape of Tunisian boys).

Gayle Rubin, author of the founding text of Queer Theory, Thinking Sex, dedicated half of said document to defending pederasty and compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy foods.

And Queer Theorists ever since (he specifically provides examples for Pat Califia and Judith Butler) have consistently reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia.

Aside from Queer Theory, which the video focuses on, on the more conventional gay rights side of things, you have celebrated poet Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay (mentor of Will Roscoe, inventor of "two spirit"), David Thorstad, &c. all involved with NAMBLA. That's quite a resumé. But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community. How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition, how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor, how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others.

After writing this up, I did stumble across a transcript of the video here: https://borazansesli.com/2020/12/16/queer-theory-pedophilia-...

> My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at higher rates.

...yeah, I got that. I'm honestly not sure what you're on about now. I think the kindest read of the situation is that you got lost when I asserted that your paper doesn't back up your claim (and perhaps undermines your claim), or something. Other reads of this type of rhetorical circle are less kind.

In any case, you're right: you've been very clear that you think queers are predisposed to be pedos. Your paper studies a small sample of known pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an unrepresentative sample could ever support such a broad, sweeping claim.

And, as the link to Psychology Today discusses, modern research doesn't even support the limited claims this paper made about over-representation of homos in the small sample size.

I'm not dodging context. In fact, I'm adding context and directly engaging with the quality of your source (which is inapplicable, outdated, and seems to actually undermine your argument). You're arguing in rhetorical circles rather than engaging with what I've pointed out about your source and it's implications for your claims.

Not sure that really makes me the one arguing in bad faith, or muddying the waters.

---

> Did you have any comment about that? > Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism.

Too substantial to refute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But I'm okay with that. I always found the "gays are the product of abusive, broken homes" to be a really silly argument for people to make, anyways. After all, it tends to make people feel pity for queers, and that doesn't really accomplish your goal. ;)

---

> I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process.

Hoo boy. Presuming the transcript is accurate, can't say that really codes as "humor" to me. "Vitriolic" might be a more accurate label.

> Foucalt [...] wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants > Gayle Rubin [...] defending pederasty > Queer Theorists ever since [...] reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia > Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay, David Thorstad [...] all involved with NAMBLA.

What you're doing here (with the video's transcript and your own info) is tying different individuals together from queer history and then using that to imply that queer people are inherently bad. Why must we all be presumed guilty and inherently broken? I mean, straight people signed that stupid french petition about age of consent laws too, you know.

(I do not deny that people have done some shitty things and held some shitty beliefs. But I also do not accept being painted as a pedophile because Foucalt was a pedophile. That is an impossible logical leap that should be laughed out of the room).

> But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community.

That is not my experience with the queer community. How is it that you know, from whom?

> How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition

[citation needed]

> how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor

We go through a lot of trauma, that trauma doesn't make us queer. Who's telling you this nonsense?

> how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others.

Ah, there we go - the accusations of ill intent. We're scheming. I think this is where you traditionally are supposed to insert the "recruitment" bits, right?

---

I'm really happy you're taking the mask off, now. You are incredibly, deeply invested in hating queer people, and it's disgusting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com