[kelseyfrog]

Emperical measurement framing is a cognitive cul-de-sac. Drawing a parallel, there's no emperical way to determine someone's sexuality. Fifty years ago this argument was used to justify therapeutically changing people's sexuality. "If you're a man you're biologically attracted to women. It's biologically impossible to be homosexual." Today we have the same logic applied to people's gender. It's as invalid today as it was back then.

[jononomo]

Of course there is an empirical way to determine someone’s sexuality. You can show someone different varieties of pornography and see which varieties make them sexually aroused. You can see sexual arousal happening in the brain with an MRI. You can also just simply observe someone’s sexual behavior.

[kelseyfrog]

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Even if it were true, like all diagnostics, it would have a sensitivity and specificity, which of course brings us back full circle to the problem the author cannot escape.

[jononomo]

You don't think it is possible to determine whether homosexual people actually exist???

When you said, "that simply isn't true," what exactly were you referring to?

Homosexuality is the condition of having a sexual preference for people of the same sex. We can easily observe that such people exist. Whether it is a disorder or not is a separate question.

When a man says, "I prefer to have sex with other men," we can easily check whether or not this is true. (Or do you think all gay men are just faking it?)

When a man says, "I am really a woman," he cannot point to anything empirical to back up his claim. To the extent that we can check this claim, we can easily determine that it is false.

Of course, a man can correctly say, "I wish I was a woman," "I think I would be happier if I had been born a woman," or "I really like dressing up like a woman," and all these claims can be true.

But when a man says, "I actually am a woman," we know this is false because we know what a woman is, and we know what a man is, and we know that they are distinct.

[kelseyfrog]

Sexuality cannot be directly measured; its consequences can however be observed. Gender, operating the same way cannot be directly measured, its consequences however can be observed.

Your argument suffers from assuming essentialism - the error of reifying your personal ontology. That's a misalignment between you on one side and facts, nature, science, and reality on the other.

But back to the sensitivity and specificity for the test you're describing, what are they?

[jononomo]

You’re just wrong and determined, apparently. I just don’t know what to say to someone who doesn’t think it is possible to empirically verify that some people have a homosexual orientation.

[kelseyfrog]

An HN commenter like yourself who thinks this is simply mistaken by definition, just as a man who thinks he is a dog or a cat is mistaken by definition. This is not to say we should not have compassion for people who believe they are right about this and try to help them.

I'm sorry that you are simply unable to change your mind. I hope you get the care you need.

[scoutt]

> When a man says, "I am really a woman,"

They feel they are a woman.

You seem to be feeling something when discussing this topic. Please provide empirical evidence of whatever you are feeling right now.