Death And Denial

The massacre in Orlando was horrific. “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The words are those of John Donne. The thought reminds us that we are all united – or should be – in our humanity, and all equally vulnerable to its loss. There is no protection against inhumanity if we choose to view it as inevitable feature of our condition. And if we choose to hide from it, the bell will toll for us all.

But there are steps we can take to limit its effects if we do not bury our heads in the sand; we can minimize the risk if we recognize it and correctly identify it. If, however, we use such calamities as tools to promote political ideas, rather than as teaching tools that can help us avoid recurrences, we ensure their repetition. If we find that struthious behavior is useful for shielding ourselves against truths we don't want to accept, we're likely to seek false solutions to problems that we don't want to consider. And Orlando is an example of this reality.

Although it is unclear to me why the murders of attendees at a gay club by another frequenter of that club should be mourned as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, that is the narrative that is being promoted by too many of our leading figures and by too many of the organs of the media. According to an editorial in today's New York Times (June 15, 2016) , “the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear [and the perpetrator] was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians.”

The shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and had already evaluated other possible sites, but these facts are omitted in the editorial. They would detract from the message of political correctness that the paper promotes. And they would remind us of our county's enemy which they fear to identify.

There is no denying the fact that a gay bar was chosen for the action, but the idea that notwithstanding the perpetrator's own sexual status, and his other actions and claims of allegiance, the shootings took pace there as a “hate crime” against gays can only be viewed as a distraction from the truth. Our President refuses to suggest that there is a stream of Islam that poses a threat to the present time and modernization, and to the existence of non-Muslim societies. He and his followers, including those in the press nationally and internationally, eschew such language as “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “jihad,” claiming that acknowledgment of such ideas will only strengthen the movement, since it will suggest that we are prejudiced against Islam, and that we take seriously the menace its violent stream poses. As we should.

For too long our government has tried to downplay any threats by those who oppose us, even to the point of seeking our downfall, while we court them and attempt to force our friends to defer to their demands. We are careful not to “[do] the terrorists' work for them” by confronting their hostility. We are less careful in our accusations against those who oppose gun control and those who promote homophobia. We have no concern that we are strengthening them by our naming and vociferously berating them.

Perhaps the reasons for our actions have little to do with the ostensible problems – at least as they are understood on the surface. Perhaps our greater fear is of terror, and refusal to name it is a denial of its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away. And reminding the voting public that the threat exists is counterproductive to the President and those with a similar political agenda – especially during campaign season.

Favoring and publicizing issues that will appeal to a large and sympathetic bloc, however, is a much more desirable goal at this time, and, for those seeking a “heritage” and friends, a far more profitable approach. “Preaching to the choir” is always a winning tactic.

At least it's a winning political tactic. It's certainly less likely to benefit our nation as a whole. Dividing our nation as the President, and both candidates for his job, have done, will ultimately result in our diminution. We have already lost prestige around the world and contributed to a willingness of other nations to ignore our needs and to follow the course of acceptance of evil. It's easier than opposing it – unless there are negative political consequences. And it's easier to accept the political aid of a “squeaky wheel” with increasing support by “fair-minded” advocates who feel virtuous by doing so. There's no need for them to worry about other problems that way.

Harsh and unfiltered words by one political candidate won't solve the problem, but neither will its conscious avoidance by the other. The longer we deny the threat, the more likely we are to face it. And then the bell will toll for us all.

Ending LGBTQ? Bending Gender

According to (Dr. Ann) Moir and (David) Jessel, (“Brain Sex”), there are different phases in the formation of sex and gender identification. DNA controls underlying gonadal anatomy but (primarily male initially) hormone flows govern “brain sex” (the unchanging male or female “wiring” of the brain), attitudes, puberty, and gender identification, though these flows occur at different times and the hormones come from different sources (fetal gonads, adrenals, mother, exogenous).

Some of the mechanisms are known and are controllable or reversible. Some – especially exogenous hormones during pregnancy – have already been identified and addressed. It's also clear that the involved factors and changes begin at conception but many take place later, through pregnancy, childhood, and into the adult years. Some occur before pregnancy is even confirmed. Under ideal circumstances (at least “ideal” according to the view of most people) the various mechanisms and stages would be identified when they are occurring, offering the possibility of correction, but that's not always the case yet.

Exogenous hormones can be used to affect attitudes and gender identification, and can be used to lessen the frequency of homosexuality, trans-sexualism, and similar conditions. One thing seems clear: that nurture – whether societal values, parental pressures, the acts and temptations of others – play little if any part in the process apart from legitimizing it.  (Consequently behavioral modification is unlikely to be successful.)  Members of the LGBTQ community don't get there because they have been forced to by others, but because factors in their development made them what they are.

From the medical standpoint we can sometimes regulate what will happen. But ability is not license. Ability raises a different question: should such regulation be undertaken or does it suggest a sexist view that deviation from “normal” identification (and practice) is abnormal? And that question raises many others. For example, what are “disease” and “deviation?” And where does “normal” end and “abnormal” begin? When does a desire to prevent the “abnormal” imply a devaluing of those who are already (and unchangeably) “abnormal?” Does such a policy – to correct Nature's “errors” – further stigmatize those who may already feel marginalized?

We might also wonder about whether “perversion” – which now results in an individual being placed on a public list and being labeled for life as a sexual offender – is part of the spectrum. If it is, should we try to deal with it. Castration is practiced in some countries. It is a kind of hormonal therapy, though it is rightly viewed by many as too extreme. Exogenous hormones, which are sometimes used on these individuals, are a reversible alternative.

But the implications are never-ending, both in terms of philosophy and practice. We live in a world where determination of fetal sex is possible and abortion legal. In some countries, especially China, the practice of abortion so as to have a child of the desired sex is common. Is this moral? Is it sexism? If someday, by manipulating fetal genes, we become able to change race and the parents seek to have it done, would it be racism to do so? Is society's emphasis on youth a manifestation of sexism? And by treating and rehabilitating the disabled (or differently abled as is the current politically correct jargon) are we expressing a disdain for those who are afflicted?

Perhaps we should first consider the health professions in general. Are we permitted to treat the sick. By doing so we are not only opposing the “natural” – the actions Nature has taken – but also labeling members of our population as “deviants” from health. We are separating them from the rest of us.

And the issue is even more troublesome. Every procedure has risks. What chances are we willing to take? That is especially relevant when we consider fetal procedures. To what degree may we put our children at risk? (Actually the legalization of abortion has answered this question.)

The original issue can be viewed as a model to consider when confronting all of these questions. At least I view it as such. From my perspective our obligation is to future generations, not to our own. If there are some who feel threatened by therapies that suggest that they are other than we would wish them to be, so be it. They certainly recognize the prejudice that exists in society and, presumably, wouldn't want to impose it on others if it is preventible. Criteria will have to be found, however, to identify what represents “disease” justifying therapy. I recognize two.

The first criterion – and it is the one that has governed medicine for millennia – is “sickness,” which I understand to be any condition that shortens life or makes it difficult, for the individual suffering from it, to enjoy life. To a great degree it is internal. While there may be determinable criteria that can be recognized by others, that is not always he case. Pain and psychological suffering are only obvious to the victim.

The second criterion is external. For better or worse we all have opinions about right and wrong, about normal and abnormal, about desirable and undesirable. And we have to live with others whose opinions differ from our own. We live in a prejudiced world and that is not likely to change soon. We have to accept it. And for that reason I think that therapy to minimize the number of people who differ sexually from the average is warranted. The time will come when it is possible to identify and treat those otherwise destined to be members of the LGBTQ group, and I suspect they'll be more comfortable in “normative” roles than they would be otherwise. That view is not meant as a denigration of anyone who differs from the societal model, but as a recognition of reality.

Of course such therapy (and that to deal with other “isms”) should only be available as an option. Different societies have different “normative” patterns. That is certainly true of race. Even if someday it is possible to alter race genetically, such “normative” patterns in Norway, Nepal, and Nigeria will be different. And variety will remain an important feature. Many of those who differ from the majority will wish to remain as they are. Many will desire to retain their identities and their heritages, even recognizing the biases they'll face.

But that should be a choice, not a sentence. At least in terms of differing from the “norm” or suffering from a disease, that should be an available option. For them or for those bearing them. And we should give the matter thought now. Science has gotten ahead of philosophy and law and presented us with faits accomplis. It would be better to decide what we're willing to accept before we have no choice.

Happy Valentine's Day.

The New Paradigm

I mentioned, last week, that I didn't care for people. Nothing new. I've said it before. There are just too many of them. At the moment there are about 7.175 billion. That's too many.ⁱ

The Chinese noticed that also. They decided to limit births – to make it a crime to have more than one child. While the penalty is primarily a fine, the Chinese people have accepted the philosophy, with relatively few opting to have additional children even though the rules have been relaxed and a second child is permitted to many of them.

It's a good start – the limitation, that isⁱⁱ – but I suspect that that method probably wouldn't work here. Our culture and political parties would make its implementation impossible. But we recognize the problem. So we toyed with the idea of zero population growth (ZPG) for a while and, to a degree, still favor methods that would limit births.ⁱⁱⁱ We are the world's third most populous society^iv and have a responsibility to lead the way.^v

One of our responses to the problem has been to encourage the increased production of food. “The Green Revolution,” which earned Norman Borlaug a Nobel Peace Prize, has been supported in large part by American expertise and technology. By the use of hybrid^vi grains and modern techniques and equipment, a marked increase in farm production was achieved and it is estimated that over a billion lives were saved.

The problem with which Borlaug was dealing was clear: too many people and not enough food. From his perspective the solution was self-evident – increase the food supply. And it worked. But it can only succeed for so long. Sooner or later we won't be able to keep up. Sooner or later we'll run out of space and other resources for all the world's people. So we have to think about the other side of the equation – those people. Forget the food. How can we stop population growth? Better still, how can we reduce the world's population?

Working within the limits of American society,^vii the answer seems obvious. Besides the emphasis on sex, a main preoccupation of our society is the LGBTQ movement. More and more members of these groups are appearing out of the woodwork and coming out of the closet, and they're becoming mainstream features of our lives and our culture. Unfortunately we're expending all our efforts in a fight over whether they should exist. Rather than encouraging their participation in American life, we're stifling their development – an act which is not only harmful to them, but to us. They can help us if we let them. Homosexuality should be encouraged.^viii It should become the norm.

How is this possible? Instead of forcing them to stay hidden and to wed members of the opposite sex, we'd be better off with more homosexual unions.^ix The more sterile family units the better, and two homosexuals, whatever the label of their bond, are certain to contribute to that goal. An even surer guarantee of childlessness would be surgery^x that eliminates the possibility of begetting, or bearing a new life. No room for slip-ups, even if one of the participants^xi strays.^xii

That's not to say that they can't rear children. I'm not sure it's such a good idea, but I leave that judgment to the psychologists. There are plenty of children available for adoption (preferably American children – we should solve our own problems before everyone else's) resulting from rapes^xiii and other unplanned (by the mother) events.

We can't ignore the rest of the world entirely, however. Many countries have begun recognizing homosexuality and according increased honor, rights and privileges to its adherents. What the world needs is more homosexuality^xiv in order to lower birth rates in those countries.

As for those lands that continue, in their ignorance, to forbid such practices, we should encourage war and honor killings. And because education appears to be associated with a decreased birth rate, learning programs should be beamed to the recalcitrant nations by both the internet and radio. While it is likely that this will lead to the killings of some of the women who seek education, that will, itself, contribute to the cause. They will be martyrs.

But, as I mentioned earlier, although it is our obligation to lead, we have to start at home. We must keep up with the times and promote forward-thinking programs and movements.^xv Most of our citizens have already accepted the idea that, contrary both to Creationism and Darwinism,^xvi homosexuality is the wave of the future.^xvii It's chic, and we're all sophisticated and sensitive. But more important, the LGBTQ movement is our greatest hope for a nation with a smaller, and more caring society; a country of brotherly – and sisterly – love. But no incest. At least, no heterosexual incest.

Next episode: “I Was Wrong” – Who woulda believed it?

I        Those who see additional children as workers on the farm or elsewhere, and those who desire children to help make up for lives lost during the Holocaust, are doing our species a disservice.

ii       The more recent changes which allow additional children are a mistake.

iii     Our culture also glorifies sex in our movies, television shows, games, and stories. Everything we do – as opposed to what we say – promotes procreation, while we ring our hands over the problems it has caused. But we are “concerned” society, not necessarily a logical or consistent one.

iv       India and China are way ahead of us, but they're not as advanced as we are, and we can only lead them to wisdom. We can't force them to see the light.

v       To reducing the population, not to being the most populous. So here's one approach. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” and one of the gurus of ZPG, said “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children.” That was his view of women. I don't know what he said about men.

vi       That sounds suspiciously like genetic engineering which we all know is “wrong.” Whether it works or not, and whether it's dangerous or not, it's immoral and not worth the risks.

vii      Eating children, Jonathan Swift notwithstanding, is unlikely to be accepted as a solution.

viii     We should consider providing free or reduced-price weddings and receptions in these cases.

ix       I prefer something other than “marriage” even though that's the term being bandied around right now. That word has centuries of use with the connotation of the union of members of opposite sexes. A new designation would seem to be preferable to muddying the meaning of the old – perhaps a univalent bond.

x        Christine Jorgensen and Lorena Bobbitt were pioneers in this field.

xi      I hesitate to say “partners.” A few days ago I heard, on the radio, that the “partner” of a murder victim had testified against the individual accused of the killing. The victim was a policeman and I was uncertain whether the witness shared a patrol car or a bed with him. Or maybe they played bridge together. It's another example of the danger to the language of adapting old terms to new situations.

xii      Consideration should be given to tax exemptions for childlessness, rather than for children. Expenses for child-rearing should never be deductible. Indeed, the government should assess a tax on college education so as to make it more expensive to have children. (Sex education should be given at a much earlier age.)

xiii     Interestingly, there are more than twice as many rapes of men as of women according to the Justice Department. According to the Daily Mail, a British publication, “More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 [male] inmates were assaulted while serving time, according to the [American] Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison [a little more than 90% of whom are women].” Presumably the numbers are much closer since many (most?) rapes are not reported. The figures, however, suggest that we should consider an increase in incarceration to inure inmates to homosexuality and, perhaps, cure some of them of their heterosexual tendencies.

xiv      And bestiality as well. Satyrs, mermaids, and centaurs don't reproduce all that well. The status of sirens and harpies is a matter of opinion.

xv        We should provide birth-control clinics at home and around the world. And we should emphasize the value of hysterectomy and vasectomy which we might promote as procedures which would allow sex at all times without concern about pregnancy which will require abortion or child support. Good for the participant and good for society.

xvi      Whatever the origin of our species, we're increasing like rabbits. “Survival of the fittest” is a poor paradigm for a slimmed-down and efficient future. Childless unions should be the goal.

xvii     Actually it's the wave of the present – a fact easily discernible by watching TV or going to the movies or a play. If you're not queer, you're strange, and divorced from the new American ethos.