Gay Guy Has Stroke, Goes Straight
Warren Throckmorton mentioned this on his blog, and it is a rather curious case. Remember we recently talked about a case where someone's epileptic seizures caused them to believe they were the opposite gender. Of course that suggests that our sense of what sex we are is a physiological thing, there is a part of the brain that determines it, and since the modal structure of the brain is genetically determined, gender identity is, at least partly, genetic.
The anti-gay nuts love to say "there is no gay gene," as if to imply that gay people choose, when they hit puberty or before, to behave in a way that gets them beaten up, badmouthed, and discriminated against for life. It's a plausible hypothesis to a certain kind of mind, apparently.
But look at this case. A gay guy has a stroke, and all of a sudden he's straight. From the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences:
Well, first of all, the doctors reading this can confirm, but I think the word is "Infarct," not "Infract." Also, the "distant father" references in the text (there are a couple of them) are unnecessary references to a pop-psych theory that has no support or credibility. Well, whatever, we'll assume the authors are experts on strokes, not sexual orientation.
So the guy was gay all his life, he had a stroke at forty-five and recovered, he was all right; he had another stroke at fifty-three and pretty soon he "started complaining" that he was straight. Can you imagine? All his life he's lived one way, by his fifties he's pretty well comfortable with who he is, he walks the walk and talks the talk, his friends all know him as a gay man, and all of a sudden it doesn't make sense any more. Would that be weird, or what?
The article says:
Our gay readers will note the irony of brain damage causing heterosexuality.
This article only mentions that an "organic process within the left middle cerebral artery region is the cause of his altered sexual orientation." It seems to me it would be of theoretical interest to know exactly what regions were affected by the event. Is there a place in the brain that determines sexual orientation? We'd like to know about that.
The anti-gay nuts love to say "there is no gay gene," as if to imply that gay people choose, when they hit puberty or before, to behave in a way that gets them beaten up, badmouthed, and discriminated against for life. It's a plausible hypothesis to a certain kind of mind, apparently.
But look at this case. A gay guy has a stroke, and all of a sudden he's straight. From the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences:
The patient, a 57-year-old right-handed man, sustained his first cerebral vascular accident in the right middle cerebral artery region at the age of 45, which resulted in right-sided hemiparesis that resolved completely within 3 months. He continued to run his private business successfully while living with his mother.
The patient lost his father in early childhood. There was no evidence of an emotional or conduct disorder during school years, and the patient eventually obtained his university degree. He continued to manage his successful practice until he sustained the second cerebral vascular accident in the left middle cerebral artery region at age 53.
The patient became aware of his homosexual orientation in his early teens and had several gay partners. He suffered a major depressive episode at age 26 that resolved within a few months. He also had a diagnosis of excessive harmful use of alcohol, but there was no evidence of dependence.
The patient started complaining of his changed personality and heterosexual orientation 6 months after his second stroke. At the same time he complained of excessive mood swings and changed interests. He became preoccupied with photography and had a successful photographic exhibition a year after his second stroke. His sexual orientation remained heterosexual 4 years following the second stroke, and he preferred to describe himself as bisexual because of his previous homosexual orientation. Altered Sexual Orientation Following Dominant Hemisphere Infract
Well, first of all, the doctors reading this can confirm, but I think the word is "Infarct," not "Infract." Also, the "distant father" references in the text (there are a couple of them) are unnecessary references to a pop-psych theory that has no support or credibility. Well, whatever, we'll assume the authors are experts on strokes, not sexual orientation.
So the guy was gay all his life, he had a stroke at forty-five and recovered, he was all right; he had another stroke at fifty-three and pretty soon he "started complaining" that he was straight. Can you imagine? All his life he's lived one way, by his fifties he's pretty well comfortable with who he is, he walks the walk and talks the talk, his friends all know him as a gay man, and all of a sudden it doesn't make sense any more. Would that be weird, or what?
The article says:
It is unlikely that his psychological reaction to his first and/or second stroke could explain his altered sexual orientation, and his sexuality was accepted by his social network and family members.
Our gay readers will note the irony of brain damage causing heterosexuality.
This article only mentions that an "organic process within the left middle cerebral artery region is the cause of his altered sexual orientation." It seems to me it would be of theoretical interest to know exactly what regions were affected by the event. Is there a place in the brain that determines sexual orientation? We'd like to know about that.
21 Comments:
“Our gay readers will note the irony of brain damage causing heterosexuality.”
Great line Jim! I love it! How long do you think it will take before PFOX uses this case as more “proof” that homosexuals can change their orientation?
I know, I know… I can hear the arguments already:
Gay Person: “I can’t change my orientation – I’ve always been this way!”
PFOX Person: “Sure you can, we have medical proof. There was a guy that had bouts of alcohol abuse and then two strokes – after his second stroke he was straight!”
Gay Person: “Uh, yeah. But I don’t drink, and I’ve never had a stroke. I try to stay fit, eat healthy and exercise.”
PFOX Person: “You’re missing the point! You don’t have to be gay!”
Gay Person: “I don’t think I really want to risk all the brain damage a stroke might entail.”
PFOX Person: “It hasn’t been shown that a STROKE is actually NECESSARY to make you straight, and after you’re not gay anymore, things will be a lot better for you!”
Gay Person: “Well, I’m not going to start drinking to try and be straight. I know lots of people who drink and it doesn’t seem to affect their sexual orientation. I think his change had something to do with the stroke, and I REALLY don’t want one of those.”
PFOX Person: “As I said before, there’s no evidence that the stroke was absolutely necessary. A good bonk on the head oughta do it.”
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Strokes and other types of cerebral incidents have remarkable and surprising effects on functioning and personality, underscoring that the brain is a complex organ and our outward presentation to the world is much more organically based that pop-psychology would admit.
The large effects that psychotropic medications have on people is only one everyday example of this.
One characteristic that has been resistant to change under biological interventions (including medication and shock treatments) is sexual orientation. This is a surprising result, and we must keep in mind that it is only one case study.
"One characteristic that has been resistant to change under biological interventions (including medication and shock treatments) is sexual orientation."
Studies that say this have never been replicated and, yet, Robert has the audacity to say the following:
"This is a surprising result, and we must keep in mind that it is only one case study."
Truth is, no one knows for a fact that sexual deviancy is an incurable emotional problem and further study is warranted in ways to reverse it.
Weren't you guys recently saying the opposition is a bunch of conspiracy theorists?
What about Bill?:
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 27) - Bill Clinton says a vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on President Barack Obama.
The ex-president made the comment in a television interview when he was asked about one of the signature moments of the Monica Lewinsky affair over a decade ago. Back then, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton used the term "vast, right-wing conspiracy" to describe how her husband's political enemies were out to destroy his presidency."
Studies that say this have never been replicated
Is that a typo? If "studies" that "say this" exist, then it has been replicated.
Weren't you guys recently saying the opposition is a bunch of conspiracy theorists?
No, we said it was a bunch of right wing nuts (birthers, deathers, teabaggers, etc.) organized by Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, the GOP, and FOX News' talking heads.
As Clinton said "when David Gregory asked former President Clinton whether Obama was facing the "vast right wing conspiracy" that targeted him, Clinton said an emphatic yes.
"Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was," he replied."
Joan Walsh explains it well at Salon today:
"...That's an interesting answer. I understand Clinton's distinction between "strong" -- as in able to shift votes -- and "virulent" -- as in the ability to spread the way disease does. I think he's right. I wrote about Obama's sharp drop among white voters two weeks ago, and the fact is, he probably only lost the approval of white voters who hadn't voted for him -- his white approval rating has stayed roughly the same as his November share of the white vote, 43%. His standing with the folks who voted for him last year looks pretty solid.
But the "virulent" nature of the organized campaign against Obama is disturbing, and it's fostered by many of the same characters who targeted Clinton. Mostly they are disgraced GOP leaders and has-beens -- the abandoned former speaker and three-time-adulterer Newt Gingrich; the forced out of office and indicted Tom Delay; the congressional failure but corporate-cosseted Dick Armey. There are also new crazies like Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, plus formerly dignified conservatives like Chuck "Pull the plug on Grandma!" Grassley and Jon "I don't need no stinkin' maternity care" Kyl.
I think that Clinton's attempt to remind the media that Obama is facing a tried and true GOP character assassination -- since they didn't have programs to counter Clintons, or Obama's -- is very important..."
"But the "virulent" nature of the organized campaign against Obama is disturbing, and it's fostered by many of the same characters who targeted Clinton."
As opposed to the eager support Bush enjoyed from leftwingers?
Liberal hypocrisy.
"No, we said it was a bunch of right wing nuts (birthers, deathers, teabaggers, etc.)"
No, you also threw the term "conspiracists" into the mix.
Meanwhile, Obama was hanging out with with truthers, Communists and those who say the government started AIDS.
Liberal hypocrisy.
"Is that a typo? If "studies" that "say this" exist, then it has been replicated."
Actually, in a sense, it was. No study could be done on whether sexual preference can be changed. Only if it could be changed by a specific method.
Those were the unreplicated "studies" of different methods.
Now, it looks like preference can change.
Maybe some type of stroke could be controlled and targeted to free victims of deviant sexual desire.
It's worth looking into.
Do you know anyone who changed his sexual orientation through biological treatments? I've known several people who tried and failed.
I wonder if there are any replicated studies of interventions to change anonymous trollishness.
Was that impolite of me to say? Alas.
I know people who tried to quit smoking and couldn't.
Does that prove they can't?
"No, we said it was a bunch of right wing nuts (birthers, deathers, teabaggers, etc.)"
No, you also threw the term "conspiracists" into the mix.
Duh, Anon. Birthers and deathers ARE conspiracists.
you were the one denying you called opponents of Obama conspiracists, a-hole
arguments aren't supposed to go in circles like a carousel
Anon, I'm sure it is hard to lose every argument, aqnd I understand your needing to call names, but really you introduced the word "conspiracists" into this discussion.
didn't lose any argument
anon-b admitted above that she called the opposition conspiracists and yet the Clintons, royalty to the liberal fringe, have been calling their opponents conspiracists for years
Do you know anyone who tried to quit smoking through biological treatments? Of course you do.
Do you know any actual ex-gay people, or is this just anti-lgbt theory for you?
"Is that a typo? If "studies" that "say this" exist, then it has been replicated."
Actually, in a sense, it was. No study could be done...
Uh, sure. As long as you know what "studies" you're talking about.
<eye roll>
you were the one denying you called opponents of Obama conspiracists, a-hole
arguments aren't supposed to go in circles like a carousel
Excuse me, my name is Aunt Bea. I realize in addition to being homo- and transphobic, you apparently are namephobic too, but that's no excuse for calling me that. You owe me an apology.
You criticized my argument right after you made the first comment above, completely altering your prior argument? And you think you're convincing anyone here that you know what you're talking about or your arguments are valid?
<eye roll>
You could have just said "That was a different Anon," as usual.
anon-b admitted above that she called the opposition conspiracists
Everybody can read what I said without your spin. I did say birthers and deathers are conspiracists. I did not say *teabaggers* or *all* right wing nuts are conspiracists. Some of them are just misinformed by GOP/FOX News spin.
bottom line:
the former President and current Secratary of State have characterized their political opponents as conspiracists
there are no replicated studies involving sexual preference that support the gay agenda
Please, Anonymous, elucidate for us the so-called "Gay Agenda" which you seem to be so enamored of and frightened by. Is it anything like the "right-wing conspiracy" which you exemplify so perfectly?
You seem to spend an inordinate amount of your life/time focusing on people that you hate and want to deny the equal rights afforded to EVERY citizen of this country.
Surely your religion teaches you to "do unto others as you would have them do to you". But then, maybe you are one of those "cafeteria Christians" who seem to be so prevalent these days.
'Tis such a pity.
Diogenes
definition of agenda:
"an underlying often ideological plan or program"
definition of conspiracy:
"a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement"
"Please, Anonymous, elucidate for us the so-called "Gay Agenda" which you seem to be so enamored of and frightened by."
It is the plan to normalize homosexuality. If you want the details, go to a convention of any gay advocacy group and hear their plan to accomplish this.
I'm neither enamored or frightened of it.
"Is it anything like the "right-wing conspiracy" which you exemplify so perfectly?"
There's no such thing. Clinton is lying.
I know, hard to believe with his reputation for integrity.
Just ask that woman, Ms Lewinsky...
"You seem to spend an inordinate amount of your life/time focusing on people that you hate and want to deny the equal rights afforded to EVERY citizen of this country."
Don't hate anyone or want to deny equal rights to anyone. gays already have all the same rights everyone else has.
gays already have all the same rights everyone else has
No they don't. Gays and lesbians are denied their unalienable right to pursue happiness by laws that deny them the legal right to marry the person they love. Further, the children of same-sex couples are denied the right to have a legal step-parent.
you don't need to be able to marry anything you see to have the right to pursue happiness
gays have already decided to flout sexual norms so why do they need to marry?
if they think marriage is so important, they can get a gal to marry
they are perfectly within their rights to try and find an agreeable partner of the same gender
you don't need to be able to marry anything you see to have the right to pursue happiness
Thanks for demonstrating yet again your love of denigrating some of your fellow human beings.
The only one talking about marrying "anything you see" is you. I'm talking about "marrying the person they love."
you don't have to have sex with everything you love in order to pursue happiness
Post a Comment
<< Home