Yes Folks, I saw it. And Challenge Accepted. I'm sorry it took me a couple days to get it all together – I could have briefly responded to it all but I saw the opportunity to preview the Athena piece. I respond to each argument in long form to fully illustrate what's wrong.
This is a general refutation. Then I have written responses to each of Mr. Bailey's arguments. I will use screencaps because I don't want to disturb him. https://x.com/Faustina_former/...
Ah yes, the old stand-by. Sexual orientation is innate – that's true. It's a good argument. A good argument against inborn paraphilia because sexual orientation is part of an observable physiological typing and no paraphilia has such a typing. You can tell when someone is gay
Remember in my Testimony article where I said I was shocked that sexologists treated their interviewees so honest – this is exactly what I'm talking about. This story is wild – he says here that a little boy starting at 2 and continuing on at the age of 3 was cross-dressing in
So the argument here seems to just be that “heritability is more likely than conditioning” as a general rule. Well – it isn't more likely in the case of complex behaviors for all the reason I illustrated earlier – any heritable aspect would likely only be for vulnerability to
I suppose this one is the best argument in the stack. It's an article he co-wrote against a conditioning model – the article (like all of sexology) assumes at the outset conditioning couldn't play more than a very small role in sexual behavior – but we know that faith by now.
And this one has an article form too - hopefully I didn't mess anything up too much in all the conversions. https://x.com/Faustina_former/...