Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 All right. Well, uh, we've got a few people in the room, everyone that's here. I see Roger. I see David Kelly, Dale, Nina, Scott, um, folks, please share the room. Uh, you can do that, that little share button down below. You can ping people, you know, you can share it on clubhouse, share it on your social media, uh, but we're going to get started. So Jason, tell us about this topic.
Speaker 1 00:00:28 All right. So in part one, I sort of talked about the Enrons in an overall general sense about her theory of sexuality, which I thought she didn't have a theory. She had a sort of depiction of sex that sort of, um, uh, that sort of contrasted with her theoretical account of it in Atlas shrug. What I wanted to do in part two was talking about specifically iron rad and homosexuality because, um, her, her views on, or her views on individualism in general and her philosophy in general, really helped to sort of emancipate my soul from the, from the draws and shame of growing up gay in Jamaica. And, um, I wanted to talk a little bit about that and then to sort of talk about how the absence of what I take to be an, a, an objectivist view of homosexuality, um, is, is a good thing in a sense that when we look at Rand statements about homosexuality disregarding her personal view, that is disgusting.
Speaker 1 00:01:40 But look at the philosophical statement she made about homosexuality and looking at the larger context of her view about sex, that we can derive an implicit view of what an objective is in the spirit of open objectivism. What an implicit view of an objectivist view on homosexuality would be, which I think would be a very emancipatory review. So, uh, I'll just, I'll just sort of summarize the article that I wrote years ago called iron Ren gay and, um, Jamaica and gay and Iran made it. Okay. My amazing Atlas shrugged, last story, and then go on to a general discussion of Iran's theory of sex, um, which shouldn't take me more than 15 minutes and then we can open it up for discussion. So, um, I knew I was gay when I was about, uh, in my mid mid teens, although I let a heterosexual life until I was in my late twenties, early thirties, but I'm rod makes it very clear in her philosophical system, that philosophic system, that the attributes of an individual, um, quite individual, his values that he has achieved and integrated in his character and give him his moral identity along with his commitment to the absolutism of reason or what he ought to value in his life.
Speaker 1 00:03:07 Not the coveted glory that are wrought from achievements, gained by individuals from his groups who have created something substantial on their own. So when one finds oneself riding on the social prestige of other's achievements, then one is a sort of moral parasite. So individual achievement does not translate to group achievement or group group pride, the individual, the achievements of individuals like their vices have nothing to do with you. If you think that you're, if you think that then your biological collective is a mucho parasite, as opposed to a moral, ambitiousness a crucial tenant of marriage, of Iran's philosophy, you become a walking practitioner of moral laziness and decrepitude. So, uh, you equate the beneficiary of being some phenomenon with, um, with, be the benefactor because you share some tribal ancestral affiliation with original creator. So that's an argument against collectivism. Now, when I read Atlas shrugged and I read Rand's philosophy in Jamaica, right before I left for America, I thought, you know, being gay was nothing to be proud of.
Speaker 1 00:04:13 Um, so being a collectivist, you know, riding on the prestige of one's ancestors within to be proud of, but it was nothing to be ashamed of either. So the identity had to be a more neutral one, one that was sort of ensconced in the larger domain of how one lived one's life as a human being. So from Rand's philosophy, I thought, regardless of her personal opinion of homosexuality, which I'll talk about, I conjecture that if I were to tell her that I was gay, regardless of her own private, subjective musings, the only rational answer that she could give regarding gay sex or any sex was that Jason, it had better be good because she thought that sex was not primarily for procreative reasons. It was for pleasure. So it had better be good. So long as that was not violating another person's right through consensual sex with him, then the sex, the initial of gay sex had to be morally irrelevant. If not, it would be parasitic on religious moral titers. So her philosophy of consistently applied would have to see sexual orientation is more than a neutral one, could not judge the morality of a gay person just on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. One would have to sort of, I think, look at the context of that person's life.
Speaker 0 00:05:39 Jason, you may be cutting out.
Speaker 1 00:05:41 Oh, but I would call the paradigmatic configurations of sexual. I am. Okay. I'm gonna move. I'm gonna move closer to my, um,
Speaker 1 00:05:53 How's this is this better. Okay. I'm to my modem. That's the problem. Um, okay. All right. So, um, how he or she, um, I lost my train of thought because I don't have this written down. Um, um, oh, he or she behaved sexually, it was one promiscuous. Um, you know, did one remain faithful to the values of monogamy and honesty if such were the terms of one social contract or did one behave like a farm animal animal, um, or did want choose sexual partners who represented one's highest moral values? So the truth of the matter folks is I think that, uh, homosexuality is simplicity. Like heterosexuality are more than neutral attributes of an individual, right? So from a non mystical sort of non-religious perspective, why would head of sexuality let's take heterosexuality? Why would heterosexuality be more in a neutral and morally neutral attribute of an individual simply because it lies outside the realm of choice, just as hair color, eye, color, or skin pigmentation.
Speaker 1 00:07:02 I know one, and I mean, no one decides consciously to assign a sex heterosexual identity to him or herself, right. I've never found anyone. And I don't think science has ever discovered anyone who chooses on any particular day or over a series of days or years to assign a heterosexual identity to oneself. One finds oneself attracted to the opposite sex in a pretty natural and organic manner. One chooses a mate, one chooses to behave in a particular manner as a sexual being with his or her partner that is open tomorrow appraisal against the backdrop of knowledge relevant about the contract contracted agreement, um, growing in their relationship and about the promises that we make to our mate. But we don't really choose our sexual orientation. Nobody sits down and says, oh, today I'm going to be, I'm going to weigh the pros and cons of being bisexual, gay heterosexual. And today I choose to be heterosexual. We simply find ourselves inhabiting a sexual orientation.
Speaker 1 00:08:14 I mean, as Iran said, morality ends where choice ceases to exist or be possible. So since I'm yet to discover any individual who gave him or herself, his sexual orientation, um, again, that is sitting down and weighing the pros and cons of being straight or gay and deciding to, to live a straight, I don't mean living a straight life, but assigning oneself and authentic, straight and trenched in eradicable sexual orientation. It is, seems ludicrous to me to consider homosexual orientation as anything other than neutral. I mean, ran herself stated that sex was not primarily for procreation, but for pleasure. So the only proper advice one could give to anyone participating actively from an objective objective perspective is make sure that it's not, not altruistic, right? That it brings you pleasure. And I mean, an immense amount of pleasure that it cannot violate the right, the body integrity of another person.
Speaker 1 00:09:14 So it cannot in any sense be, uh, initiated by force, um, and that it contributes to your own happiness. It cannot be altruistic. You cannot have sex for the sake of someone else. It has to be, uh, beneficial to you. It has to bring your personal happiness, but without falling into our being parasitic on religious edicts, or pat is rant never gave a full or rational explanation for how and why. Even, even having multiple partners could be wrong or immoral, he stated it. Uh, but her, her reasons are why we're just assertions with no really argumentation or substantive claims to back them up. So if one held reason as an absolute and a guide to the choice of one's actions, if one held productive work as ones noblesse activity, and if one held happiness as one's highest moral purpose, the three central tenants of objectivism, I think all of those are compatible with homosexuality.
Speaker 1 00:10:17 And I don't think that one's orientation says, um, anything about the values, one holds and the ability to choose a partner who shares those values. In other words, homosexuality could only be wrong if it could be demonstrably shown that being homosexual was detrimental to one's wellbeing and that it deeply compromise one's ability to achieve rational, happiness as one's highest moral purpose, and to, uh, to be able to pursue productive work as one's noblest activity. But let's, let's, let's Jennifer and everybody else let's see the adversary. The argument. What if homosexuality were chosen? Let's just say it was a choice that I could choose to be a homosexual. What difference would it make according to a rational objectivist? Because if sex, according to Rand exists, primarily for pleasure, not procreation, then gays would be the highest iteration, the highest metaphysical expresses of that principle because their sexual activity can not ever result in procreation.
Speaker 1 00:11:34 They then would embody and manifest in Rand's view the highest purpose and the meaning and value sex should hold for any rational human being that is sex devoid of any procreated possibility and in Rand's formulation existing solely for the pleasure of two people or more. And I would say that most people who engage in heterosexuals, who engage in insects for the most part, assuming they have sex more than three, four times a week or twice a week, most heterosexuals who have sex and engage in it for the sake of pleasure, not for the most part. Most heterosexuals do not engage in sex to have children assuming that you have two children or three children and you continue to have sex. It is for the purpose of, of, of pleasure. Um, all right. A few more things I want to say here. Um, I'm a bit hesitant, um, Jennifer, to bring in Rand's personal opinion on homosexuality.
Speaker 1 00:12:31 So objectively in her talk at the Fort hall forum, she states emphatically that the state has no right to create laws that is sodomy laws to criminalize sex between consenting adults, that it was a gross violation of individual rights. And the reason being that the single most inviolable property that you possessed that is the property of your own body could not be violated. That is your sovereignty and your autonomy, or in viable. And they ought to be in violent, but ran could not have ran, could not help adding that, uh, caught. I think it's disgusting now at the time of its, uh, occurrence, I believe it caused a great deal of pain, too many objective his case in an era where homosexuality was still being heavily contested. Um, in fact, it had just been, I think, uh, it had just been a few years, maybe four years, uh, since it was removed from the American psychological associations, diagnostic and statistical manual as a pathology perversion and a medical illness.
Speaker 1 00:13:43 So if we take disgusting, I mean, as an attic, it's an adjective disgusting as an adjective, meaning arousing revolves urine and strong indignation causing a strong feeling of dislike. And disinclination, if we take it as a noun, that is a feeling of revulsion aroused by something unpleasant or offensive, or if we take it as a verb that which causes someone to feel revulsion or deep disapproval, um, or if we just take discussed, which has seemed to be a core emotion that causes us to want to expel something that's toxic to us, it seems problematic because that, which makes that, which is toxic to us is very often constructed by a social narrative that comes to form the basis of people's fears and prejudices. I mean, Jews were thought to be discussed into Jews as they were thought to be vermin and to be eradicable erratic to be eradicated, um, miscegenation that is marriage or sex between blacks and whites were thought to be absolutely disgusting and toxic by racist whites in the south and outside of the south.
Speaker 1 00:15:01 Um, so very often that which is considered toxic or disgusting is, um, quite often, um, a social construct that has to be properly challenged. No, I do want to say that Rand was very, very wise and judicious, and it speaks to her integrity as a philosopher that she did not, um, in any way. Um, what do I want to say? Um, I'm wrapping up here. So I want to choose my words clearly. Uh, Ron was right in saying that emotions are not tools of ignition, right? So the fact that she found something disgusting was not a proper method of appraising the moral status of homosexuality. So, um, emotions cannot appraise moral issues nor can they adjudicate among truth claims. It is up to every self-respecting gay person possess the self self-esteem to hold Rand's emotional response to homosexuality as he would her emotional response to a particular flavor of ice cream as a matter of taste.
Speaker 1 00:16:18 And, uh, I've written extensively on this that matters of taste cannot be elevated nor translated into statements of morality. I've have, uh, in my third book published about 12 years ago, I have a whole 50 page chapter written on why statements of tastes are matters of taste cannot be translated into matters of morality. So she was cautious and wise not to advise that her emotions in this issue become entrenched into our legal practices. And here we see that rant is very, very different than Lord Delvin's, uh, famous proposal that the discuss of an average member of society or sufficient reason for making a practice illegal, uh, even if it causes no harm to others, which, uh, was much criticized when it first appeared in 1959 in response, the Wilson done commission's proposal to decriminalize consensual, homosexual relations and support for Delvin Stein of thought, um, you know, has, was very much in the rise in 1997, for example, in the anatomy of discuss the legal theorist, William Miller argued that a society is hatred of vice and impropriety necessarily involves, discussed, and cannot be sustained without this and Leon Kass.
Speaker 1 00:17:43 The chair of then president George pushes commission on stem cell research argued in his, the wisdom of repugnance that quote, uh, responses of disgust and body of wisdom that can stair us reliable in certain times of social change and such views are built into many of our legal practices. Um, and, uh, Ron was very, very, very wise in resisting that, uh, that line of argumentation really, really speaks to someone who realized that she had an emotional response, but that emotional response was actually not part of objectivism and should not, uh, in any way. Um, I mean, you can look in bins Wangers, um, objectivism through a, through Z, and I don't think there's a section on homosexuality there. Um, and I'll just, so I'll just, I'll just end there that, uh, rant was in the philosophic sense, a great emancipator of, uh, gay rights because a, of her theory of pleasure and B, because she was a stalwart defender of the view that the state had. Absolutely no business speaking specifically about homosexuality creating laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, and that's, as far as any philosopher can actually go in terms of protecting the individual rights of people, we do not necessarily need the philosophers personal opinion or what I would call it a matter of taste about the issue to secure the principle that defends and upholds the gay person's right to exist as a gay person without legal repercussions. And I'll end right there, Jennifer.
Speaker 0 00:19:39 All right. Thanks, Jason. If you would make me a moderator, because I want to pin a link to your salon article and also start calling some people up on stage.
Speaker 1 00:19:52 Oh, great. I'm sorry. I didn't know my apologies.
Speaker 0 00:19:57 Not at all. It's just, uh, you know, I consider myself a very prompt person, but Jason, uh, clearly got my dad's memo that, uh, to be on time, you gotta be early and he wasn't early, but he was earlier than I. So here we are. Um, so I would love to, to get, uh, Damian's has a question. Anybody else, please raise your hand comment. I mean, there's so much going on right now, um, with issues like, uh, the, the controversy over, uh, to fantasies, um, legislation in Florida regarding what, uh, what should or should not be taught to children. Um, the whole question of transgender. So please raise your hand and we will get you up on stage
Speaker 3 00:20:53 Scott.
Speaker 4 00:20:55 Hi there. Great interview earlier, uh, with Isaac, um, Jason, great topic. Thank you for doing this. Um, I just wanted to, uh, briefly say that, you know, I think that the fact that it had just been, you know, homosexuality had just been changed from not being a psychological condition, not trying to, you know, defend, ran, but that was, you know, it was just, she grew up her whole life learning that it was wrong. And so, but I, I think, uh, you know, it's, it's all about, uh, you know, us moving in the right direction, but I think what, one thing that you said that I thought about was that a lot of people ended up taking Rams personal tastes as their own. Like, you know, I can't tell you how many of her fans are, you know, like Rachmaninoff fans, which is okay, you know, he, um, he's great, but it's just, they wanted to like the things that she liked. So that was my comment.
Speaker 1 00:21:57 Yeah. I want to say something, Scott, I don't really buy into the idea that Rand was taught this idea because Rams are very unconventional thinking. Ran was also taught that altruism was cool and, and culture, and she rejected it Ram was also thought that around was thought everything, everything that ran went against, she was taught it's opposite, right? So ran with a very, very original and unconventional thinker. Um, in her novels Shameen, her, her, her characters are having premarital sex. Um, um, and she flagrantly has sex scenes that are really going against the time, but this is just being picky. Random was taught a lot of things that she actively consciously went against. So, I mean, in one sense, it's understandable that she is a human being who inherited a lot of the Victorian pieties of her age, that she just wouldn't have questioned, but this is a woman who subjected almost everything that she was taught, every knowledge that was disseminated to her to scrutiny. And to question so it's, I hear what you're saying, but I'm also a little bit reluctant to, to accept that she was just a passive recipient of, you know, norms about homosexuality, that she wouldn't have questioned because there were people in her time, um, who grew up in the same era who rejected the idea that homosexuality was an aberration also,
Speaker 3 00:23:37 David,
Speaker 5 00:23:40 Um, thanks, Jason. This is really, really interesting. And, uh, I appreciate that you are, um, your take on, on nine rent herself and that the way in which your underlying philosophical principles, uh, made it possible for, um, people to deal with homosexuality, it embrace it as, you know, normal, proper, you know, potentially, um, a valuable form of, of, uh, interpersonal relationship. One. I just want to make two points. Um, one is that I'm going to go back as an objective as I go back to the sixties and my recollection, correct me if I'm wrong is that there was an argument at the time to the effect that, uh, homosexuality is a concrete reason because it identifies, for example, in case of a male, um, the male is not recognizing his own sexual identity insofar as he attracted to other men. And I think I haven't checked this, I should say, don't take this on my word, but, um, I believe that was part of, um, uh, um, uh, disannuled Brandon is early psychological courses for the endocrine Institute.
Speaker 5 00:25:10 Um, anyway, I, I remember having lots of discussions about this with time and finally decided this is circular argument because to say it's innovation, what exactly are you avoiding? The assumption is that men can only be attracted to women. Well, that's the issue. So you can't read that into the argument. So anyway, um, and I think we've come a long way since then. Uh, the other point though I want to make is, uh, the first point is that you, I think at back in the, the origin days of objectivism, there was more than rants preference. Um, she might've been above the fray in this, but my memory is that Nathaniel Branden wasn't, although he later changed his mind, uh, completely. But the second point is this you've contrasted, um, uh, pleasure with Brooklyn creation as reasons for sex on the pleasure side. You know, I, I understand what I think I understand what you're saying, but Rand's view about, um, pleasure sexual pleasure was that it was integrated with, um, not just physical attraction and physical excitement, but it with the values of your partner and that it so sexual that the best form of sexual experiences in the form of a romantic relationship, that might've been what you meant.
Speaker 5 00:26:49 Um, I just wanted to pose it as a question to Jack. Thanks.
Speaker 1 00:26:58 Right? So I, when I said that one could not demonstrate the only way that one could prove that homosexuality was wrong was if it, one could show that it was inimical to rational happiness. So the orientation itself, and then the concomitant expression of that orientation was not inimical to the rational pursuit of happiness. That is one could still be gay and still find someone who express let's say one is a good objectivist. And one could still find someone who express one's highest values. That is reason productive work, um, rationality, um, benevolence and all the, all the, the, the, the shared values that w that are to be grown that in reason, and still find that sexual expression, uh, in pleasure would not contradict any of the tenants of objectivism. So, uh, I would, I would still be hard pressed to find how just sexual orientation and its expression in a same sex relationship would go against reason.
Speaker 1 00:28:11 Um, uh, right. I don't think rant ever gave a full fledged thought out. She had some sort of quirky idea that it consisted of mixed premises, which I I've never read. I know she said something about mixed premises, but I don't know that it was, it ever evolved beyond a statement of mixed premises and what would be involved in mixed premises. I don't think it was ever developed into a theory, a theoretical account, but I agree with you that there is nothing I've never seen a full fledged account that would constitute a proof that being gay and finding a partner of the same sex who shares one's highest values. Um, let's say in my case, a love of the intellect, a love of books, a love of literature, a love of music, traveling a life devoted to reason, um, a life devoted to, um, what meal would call the higher pleasures could not be found in someone, but the same of the same sex and that that could be expressed sexually also through achieving pleasure.
Speaker 1 00:29:18 Um, there's nothing that in being gay that could disqualify Indian gay simpliciter, that could disqualify one from achieving those values in another person at the same sex that's. So that's, that's actually what I meant by saying for it to be wrong. One would have to demonstrably show that be gay in and of itself disqualifies one from achieving the state of eudaimonia or wellbeing at all. Then if one could do that, if one could show that being gay and being a practicing gay person, a definitive that disqualifies you from achieving your rational, happiness, uh, uh, uh, uh, engaging in productive work as your highest cause your most noblest activity and engaging in reason itself as a choice to your values, then I would see the arguments. Okay. Uh, I've lost the argument, but I've just never seen that.
Speaker 5 00:30:26 Okay. Thanks, Jason. I I've heard such arguments at the time in the sixties and seventies. Um, I finally decided they made no sense they were circular or invalid. Um, and, and visually I just, you know, not an issue, not a philosophical issue. So I, you know, I agree with you, but I think there was an effort on the part at one point to make an argument who was invalid, it was a circular or empty at best and doubt that Kevin's we're past that.
Speaker 0 00:31:09 Thanks, David, Damien Damian, do you want to unmute yourself and chime in, or ask a question to professor hill?
Speaker 6 00:31:21 Sorry, I couldn't, um, lost the mute button for a second. Um, yeah, for this particular topic, I, I actually don't have much to ask about. I mean, I don't understand necessarily, I feel like it's a preference and, you know, whatever preference, natural preference or whatever. I just, I don't understand how, like people have objections to people's preferences. I don't, I don't even understand those types of conversations. That's just, I guess, a fluff or to mine, but I guess, um, really, I wanted to ask a question because I, I, I missed part one and I listened back to the replay and I kind of found one, a part of that kind of fascinating. It's just that, you know, it was a lot of references to, you know, desire and knowing someone's values. And so for me, the first thing I thought about when I heard that, is that for me, it's, I don't believe that it's about knowing anybody's values to me.
Speaker 6 00:32:19 It's about believing to me, that's where the desire comes from. It's your belief about with the inflammation that you know about this particular person or that you see, you have created a belief in your own brown on your, in your own mind, you're kind of like relying on your subconscious, all the programming or the file, mental filing that you've done in your own brain. And that just comes up unconsciously in the moment. And so therefore these desires aren't driven by knowing or knowledge they're driven by belief. And so I don't necessarily have a real question, but that was the thing that, that for me, just jumped out that I kind of just wanted to do out there. And I guess an example of that to me is also like, I know a lot of people are into art and Augusta and the objective is community. Like when you see a piece of art and you have an emotional response, you don't have to have any knowledge of what that artist was thinking about when they did that. It's just something that resonates with you that you have an emotional response to. So I guess that's just what I wanted to do up and see, like, what was w professor hill thought about that piece?
Speaker 1 00:33:27 Well, I, I couldn't agree with you more, and this is one of the, the quarrels and minor quarrels that I had with Rand. When I talked about her depictions of sex versus her theoretical account of it. Um, that, um, when I ran says only the man who instills the purity of a love devoid of sexual desire is capable of the depravity of a desire, devoid of love. And I thought I said that, no, we desire before we love that is we come to offer an emotion of love, or we come to have a desire before we even know anything about the person. I mean, heterosexual or gay, you walked on the street and you see someone and you feel an attraction. You feel that desire, you feel lost, you feel I'm attracted to that person, whatever actual physical attributes they may have and whatever physical attributes are most in the hierarchy of your physical attributes, whether it's the person's mouth, their eyes, their breasts, their other attributes that they have, that you find intimidating you you're attracted to that person.
Speaker 1 00:34:31 And, uh, whether you pursue the, the attraction, you get to know them, but the idea that somehow, um, you know, that desire, devoid, that love desire that we, that somehow she, I spoke about, it's where she conflates desire and love and attraction and treats them as if they're all coterminous is a fault. I do think yes, that wouldn't be, see a person that there's a host of subconscious, um, beliefs and ideas and projections that come to, can you hear me? Cause there was a call that was coming in and I just declined that there are a host of phenomena that come together that we project onto that person. And, and there's a great deal of work in psychology that deal with, you know, that explain what factors play into, into sexual that go back to our childhood. And, uh, and, and, and, and the love that we receive from our parents or the first, or sometimes in some I've read psychological accounts of, um, the sort of things that we associate with security are the things that were associated with taboo.
Speaker 1 00:35:55 Um, in many respects, um, there was a, uh, a study done on interracial attraction and, and, and the things that we taboo wise are the things that are taboo in our backgrounds or the extremes in others that we lack in ourselves we're attracted to, you know, um, um, so there, uh, there are many, many phenomena that are play in terms of what we find desirable in other people that have very little to do with conscious values. No, I agree with rant, whole hearted, that when you make the desire, does it, the, the decision to spend a life or to build a life with someone that of course values do play a central role. And you go from the, the role of belief into the role of judgments, and they're all affects that is I'm attracted to someone and I may want to sleep with them, but I sit down in the conversation with them and I sudden discover that they're a Neo Nazi or that they are some kind of superstitious wacko and their desire dissipates.
Speaker 1 00:37:06 And I feel extra sense of revulsion, and I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore. And, and that's different, but the initial desire, uh, itself, I agree with you, Damien, is, is not based on values. I think the desire to make a life with someone or to build a relationship with someone, but attraction desire. Um, I think we desire before we love. And, um, and, and that's, that seems natural. That seems normal. And if we look at, and I'll just end here, if you look at Dominic Franken's response to how it Rourke, when she comes upon him, it just coincidentally happens that she was right. But when she comes upon him in the quarry, she feels a desire. And she says to herself afterwards, I've been raped by a red headed hoodlum, having known nothing about him. It's a strong, visceral, physical loss, full desire.
Speaker 1 00:38:09 She doesn't know anything that is Howard Roark, that he's a genius architect who has been forced to work in a quandary. You're right. It's just, it's based on a visceral sexual attraction that she succumbs to. And the idea, unless we're going to lapse into some kind of mysticism and some kind of murky epistemological idea that you can just know by looking at his face and his rugged features, which I'm not dying at all. I don't think in a rational person would buy it. She doesn't know. There's no way that she can know by his upright posture. Lots of knots is that upright postures and grimace faces and, and stern features all the features that you see in hard work. You can transpose them to a Nazi. You can transpose them to a psychopath. You could transpose them to any other person. Um, it's not till Dominic really gets to know him that she can ratify and justify what, what surely happens. Retrospectively.
Speaker 0 00:39:10 Thank you. And, um, yeah. Great, great insights, Damien Brian,
Speaker 7 00:39:17 Hey, there, uh, appreciate the room. I have two questions. One I think is going to be relatively easy and the other one may not be as easy. Um, the first one I'm assuming the characterizations, uh, you've given so far apply to bisexuals as well. And then the second question would be, um, how would, what would the explanation be, or the, maybe the defense of one way or the other children being kind of, hyper-sexualized at such a young age and transitioned, um, at such a young age by their parents, and even brought up in an androgynous manner to kind of, uh, delay some of those desires or feelings or developments and given hormone blockers and, you know, just the whole complicated issue that's come up recently. I don't suspect it was such a big issue, you know, back in the seventies and, and all that. But so just those two questions, uh, applies to bisexuals. And then the, the problem with children being transitioned at such a young age,
Speaker 1 00:40:39 Right. Well, what I feel this issue of bisexuality is also an orientation. That is, that is there are, and I for, for period was bisexual in the sense that I did live a bisexual life. And, and it felt, it felt natural. Although retrospectively I realized that it, it was authentic in one sense that I was, I did have sexual relations with women. It did feel natural, but, um, it didn't speak to an authentic, my authentic self, but I do think that there are authentic bisexual people by, by natural inclination orientation that is they're equally attracted to both sexes. And that's something that is overlooked in our society that tends to just put it aside sexual identity. And, uh, and I would say if one is naturally bisexual, then one should live a naturally bisexual life. That is if one meets someone of the opposite sex, and one is attracted to that person, then you to pursue that relationship.
Speaker 1 00:41:46 And if one meets someone of the same sex, that one is attracted to one should pursue that relationship so long as there is no, you know, this section. And so long as one is opposite honest, I don't believe in people lying and deceiving other peoples, even in a heterosexual relationship. Uh, if you're wanting to see other people, you should be upfront with your partner. So I think strictly speaking, there is something called a bisexual sexual orientation where people are equally attracted to both sexes. Um, and that seems to be not chosen. That is, there are just genuinely those people who have that orientation and it doesn't seem to be chosen. They didn't decide to be attracted to both sexes. And I think that's, that's inescapable if that's who they are, that's who they are. Um, sexuality, I think, exists on a continuum actually, um, from one to 10, with some people having a strong inclination towards heterosexuality or homosexuality and under certain conditions, I think, um, a certain orientation can be, be drawn out more than others.
Speaker 1 00:42:58 Now, the second question I, I think is is, is the heart it's not so hard. I mean, I think what is happening is, is children are being used as pawns in a politicized, um, uh, end game to, to win a political battle that his children are being oversexualized before their sexual orientation, uh, is fully developed. I think upon a certain period, I didn't know that I was truly gay until I was around 17. I suspect that I was around 12, but I wasn't really sure because I was attracted to girls also and experimenting sexually with girls, but to know fully your sexual identity and your sexual orientation, there's a way in which the stage of puberty really has to come to a sense of completion. Some people, some children just know before others, but this idea of sabotaging and manipulating children's sexual orientation or their sexual identity before they're themselves have come to in an autonomous sovereign way.
Speaker 1 00:44:11 A conclusion is actually I think, quite evil. I think it's, it's violating the sovereignty and valid nerve enemy. And, um, it's treating children as if they're autonomous sovereign adults when they're not their children. And the best way is to just organically to allow the child to develop naturally, um, and to see where his orientation or her orientation, um, develops. But this idea of puberty blockers, because a child at nine years old has determined, or to have a coming out party for the child at eight years old because the child declares at eight years old, that he's Kate is Lou the cross. The child is a prepubescent child. I don't know any psychologists who would reasonably say that an eight years old, a child can definitively know his sexual orientation. Um, there are lots of children who experiment pre-pubescent play and then go on to lead very heterosexual lives and look back at their experimental hives, preteen, preteen experimental lives, you know, with a kind of humor.
Speaker 1 00:45:27 And I've seen this over and over again, even I'm 56. I remember speaking to people in my generation, people I went to school with who experimented with each other when they were like nine or 10 or 11, and would never consider themselves gay now would actually not be repulsed, but, but find no sort of attraction to a man or a happily married to women have lots of children. Um, but it's natural for children to go through this. These kinds of experimentation as their sexual orientation is being, you know, is being formed. And as they're coming into finding what their sexual orientation is. Um, so that's a, that's a very easy one. I think this is just children, parents preempting, and oversexualizing their children for very nefarious reasons.
Speaker 7 00:46:18 Should it be banned? Do you think the practice of administering, um, you know, those hormone blockers, uh, I, I, I see that as kind of the threshold, if you will, because or surgery, you know, something that's kind of non-reversible as the threshold.
Speaker 1 00:46:35 Well, I think it's, I think it's a form of child abuse in the sense that you are in erotically altering something that a child may later come to. Um, uh, anything that is, is any, any interference of a child's development that is on a developmental stage before completion that is, we know that children's brains are still developing until they're 20 years old. Right. Um, I think it's until you're 25 years old at neuro neuroscientists say that, you know, the brain is still basically fully formed, which is why I have great empathy. I just came from teaching before entering clubhouse, teaching my students who are 18 to 21. I have a soft spot for my students as annoying as they are. And as woke as they are, I remind myself, their brains are still forming. Jason, the brains are still forming. They're still malleable, they're children, they're still children.
Speaker 1 00:47:35 And that in a way, uh, anything that sabotage is or disrupts the development, the natural developmental stage of a child's sexual physiological development is criminal. And yes, I, that I think should be banned because it's violating the child's natural development in a way that could inevitably, uh, stymie his full or her full development as a human being. And that, that seems to me, a violation of individual rights that is a child has a right to develop his or her capabilities to their fullest and onto that until they reach a stage where the capabilities are at least fully developed.
Speaker 8 00:48:25 Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:48:27 All right. Thank you. Um, and we have 10 more minutes and we have four people I want to get to. Um, I know they have really great questions, so, uh, we're going to do kind of a quick round Robin Allen, if you could summarize your question for professor hill briefly.
Speaker 9 00:48:44 Um, yeah. Thanks. And thanks for saying what you just said about, um, 18 and 19 year olds still being kids. Um, cause I, I agree with that. Um, it, it seems to me that, um, her position on, um, sexual orientation was based on whether or not, um, the person, whether it was, I think the term you used was natural versus a choice. Um, it is that, uh, first of all, is that, would you say that's correct. And second of all, it seems to me that there's been some debate within the gay community itself, whether or not it is something that you're born with, or if it's something that is chosen, which I have, I am of the opinion, it can be both, but I'm wondering what I'm wondering, what the prevailing belief in society was at the time she made her statement and whether what she stated was, was, um, consistent what, with what the rest of society was saying, or if she was going against whatever the particular narrative was at the time.
Speaker 0 00:50:10 Thank you. Thanks.
Speaker 1 00:50:13 Well, I think what she was saying was consistent with what was the prevailing, the prevailing, you know, view. I mean, it had just been a couple of years since the EPA had removed from the DMS, homosexuality as a pathology perversion and a sort of mental illness. Um, but I think even if we grant that homosexuality has a biological component and an environmental component, that it is still not the way we think of choice, that is something that we deliberate upon, that we have competing alternatives, speaking Arabic in an Aristotelian way, the way Aristotle thinks about choice, that leads to action. That is we have competing alternatives that we weigh the pros and cons that we are consciously aware of. So one would have to be conscious that we have the environmental factors that are converging upon the formation of one's sexual orientation and be aware of the inimical impact, how they're inimical to wellbeing or how they contribute to wellbeing.
Speaker 1 00:51:26 And then to reject them. I just don't see how gay people in this world are consciously aware of the environmental impacts that weigh on their sexual orientation. So, um, even if, and I, and I will grant you that I think there is a strong, um, strong environmental component that converges with a biological component. Um, I think it's, it's, it's, it's way outside the sphere of one's ability to consciously choose orientation. That is one chooses one's partners, but the way we, but it's way outside the ambit of choice talk, that is the way we talk intelligently about choice. Doesn't seem to be the way that gay is talk about choosing sexual orientation. So when we talk about choosing a mate or choosing a career or choosing, um, to go to a particular destination, uh, just the intelligent way that we talk about making choices, where there's the liberation, for example, there's an awareness of alternatives. There's aware of an awareness of consequences and we make rational choices. I don't see that playing a role in the, um, the domain in which choice is made in terms of sexual orientation among gays.
Speaker 0 00:52:51 Thank you. Uh, Jason, Daniel, thanks for your patience. We've got Daniel then I want to go to Willow and Vanessa,
Speaker 10 00:52:59 Thank you. I'm enjoying the conversation. Um, wonder, uh, Jason means you, uh, what do you think about, uh, Nathaniel's, uh, Brandon, uh, Brandon, uh, account of his relationship with, with Aaron? Uh, that was like a, <inaudible> Not necessarily Bewley philosophical, uh, theme, but nevertheless, when I was learning about the end rant, uh, the kind of, uh, Nataniel, uh, really like gave me a perspective that I went home, that I am not able to be stayed to, to, to have an account. When I think about, uh, about her.
Speaker 1 00:53:51 Well, I, I read judgment day. I read Barbara Brandon's account. Um, I mean, I I've never met either of them. And I think, you know, having read both their biographies, I, I enjoyed a lot, first of all, I've enjoyed a lot of Nathaniel Brandon's books and, um, uh, I see no reason to adopt a doctrinaire, you know, um, the cough and that school of thought that he's a demonic evil person. I do think that he was a young man who, um, was under the influence of iron ran spell that she wanted the affair, he wanted the affair. And, um, that there's a great deal of credibility to what he has to say about, about her character, about certainly he was a great spokesman in the NBI Institute in disseminating our philosophy. And I tend not to get caught up in this cultish, this whole nonsensical cult surrounding iron Rand.
Speaker 1 00:54:50 I have, I don't think any rational self-respecting person, um, should have anything to do with any kind of cult. You can have a cult of individuals as Andrew and said, so I take what Ren and Adaniel says, um, just try to pick up the objective pieces as they correspond with how rant herself represented herself. And, um, and, and try not to have any kind of personal opinion about the Daniel brand. And because I don't know him personally, but just see how his representation of rant aligns itself with objectivism itself, as she represented it and decide that that's, that's, that's how I judge him, but I have no personal opinion of his character or, uh, praise of his character or anything like that. I just, I just think in some sense he was a wonderful spokesperson for objectivism and especially in his essays, in the objectivist newsletter and the objectivist magazines.
Speaker 10 00:55:46 Yes, yes. Quickly. So from your point of view,
Speaker 0 00:55:49 No, sorry. No, we've got to get to the other questions, but, um, but we will be back next week and, um, it might be interesting to get the other scholars take on that as well. Willow.
Speaker 11 00:56:02 Um, I'm actually, like, my question is kind of slipped away from the moment. Um, <inaudible>
Speaker 0 00:56:10 All right. Well, and Hey, welcome to clubhouse. I'm so glad to have you with us. Thank you, Vanessa.
Speaker 12 00:56:20 Okay. So I just wanted to ask, um, this thing of parents, I'm assuming there's T it's sexual orientation, does it, I mean, could it have to do with the parent's own sexual insecurity days? Uh, I've seen cases where, um, parents believe their kids are around other boys or a gay, just because they choose to wear pink and pink is just a color and it's something, you know, society has chosen to make, um, you know, a girl's color, but it says that, uh, so it's ridiculous. And I wonder, um, maybe it's just because of parents, you know, on sexual insecurities.
Speaker 1 00:57:00 I don't know. I think it goes deeper than that. I think I'm, I think I'm more heavily influenced by dare I say, Freud's, um, there's a biological component and then there's a way in which, um, a child there there's, I do believe that there's a part of homosexuality that results in a kind of sexual arrested development in a sense that the child's relationship, the boys' relationship, at least with his mother, um, it gets, gets the mother co-ops the boy as her surrogate husband, and sort of communicates to him that if he loves any other woman, besides her, the love is going to be compromised. I, I I'm, I'm, I'm thinking seriously. I rethink seriously about that notion of the dynamics, the family dynamics and the absent father, and, uh, the absence, the absence of a strong father figure to reinforce a sense of masculinity. I don't think it would be anything as trivial as, um, uh, parents, um, like the way you've described it.
Speaker 1 00:58:02 I think it would be something much stronger than like a domineering mother and an absent father. And there, I think an environmental factor could play a role in having an influence on a child's sexuality that the poor child has nothing and no control over because it starts from the child is probably in the wound that, or, or outside of the, the, the birth of the child, where the mother affects the child and, and, and use the child has a surrogate husband, um, to fulfill her needs against, uh, an unsatisfying husband. But this is all conjectural for, I could never prove this scientifically. And, but I do think it's worth thinking about in terms of an environmental phenomenon that could have a deep impact on the formation of a child's sexuality. That's worth thinking about
Speaker 0 00:58:52 A lot worth thinking about here. So, um, thank you very much, professor hill. We are at time. So, um, I want to thank all of you for coming and joining this discussion and, uh, also special, thanks to all of you who raised your hand and asked a question, shared your views. We are going to be back next week. Uh, we've got a couple of exciting clubhouses with Rob <inaudible> on the fifth, um, talking about iron Rand and the aesthetics of music. And, uh, I met another clubhouse that is sure to be, uh, very interesting, um, with professor, uh, Richard salt, uh, professor Stephen Hicks, he's going to be ask me anything. Um, so I hope Daniel, you'll bring your question back then. So thanks everyone.
