The APA's Non-Discrimination Policy

[devadv]

Apr 5, 2009 20:21:35 GMT -5 braaaaains said:

I say, and you appear to agree, that "pedophilic acts" (as you call them), or sex with children constitutes rape in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

That sounds right to me.

Are you claiming that homosexual sex also constitutes rape in every single case?

No, I'm not saying that. I think that's pretty obviously false.

Universities, societies, individuals, employers, churches can (and should, if you ask me) discriminate against rapists, and refuse to hire them.

I agree.

So if by "unrepentant pedophile" you mean "unrepentant raper of children" then I don't think it even matters whether or not pedophilia is, as you claim, a "sexual orientation."

I think it does matter, since I think that pedophilia counts as a sexual orientation, and it could be OK to discriminate against the unrepentant pedophile job applicant on the basis of his unrepentant pedophilia (i.e. his sexual orientation). But if so, then my argument looks like it goes through.

It would also be OK to discriminate against an unrepentant pedophile on the basis of his actions (i.e. the rapes he has performed). We agree on that. I only claim that it could ALSO be OK to discriminate against him on the basis of his perverted/corrupt/bad sexual orientation. But if so, then it looks like the APA's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not well-grounded.

Being a "rapist" might be a sexual orientation by some definition of "sexual orientation," but I doubt that it is the definition of sexual orientation that is being used in the APA non-discrimination policy.

I don't know if being a rapist counts as a sexual orientation. I only said that pedophilia counts as a sexual orientation. Someone in the recent Philosophy Smoker comment thread objected to this, and I'll respond to it in a future post.

If a rapist gets sexual gratification only from rape, then I suppose that might constitute a sexual orientation.

I think I'm inclined to agree with you. That was always my understanding of "sexual orientation." I thought the phrase was just an updated form of "sexual preference," meant to strongly imply that things like homosexuality and heterosexuality are innate dispositions rather than voluntary preferences.

Nonetheless, rape is physically and psychologically harmful to the victim of rape. And it is a morally serious offense, and it is illegal. So is the rape of children. Nothing in the APA policy prohibits employment discrimination against rapists, whatever their sexual orientation. It certainly allows for job discrimination against hetero rapists and homosexual rapists alike.

I am with you on all of this. This doesn't seem strictly relevant to my argument. My argument claims that it could ALSO be OK to discriminate against Smith on the basis of his sexual orientation. Do you think that's false? If so, why?

The APA nondiscrimination policy WOULD protect the pedophile who is not sexually active, IF pedophilia is a "sexual orientation." (And again I say, that is seriously arguable.)

I agree. If pedophilia is a sexual orientation (as I think it is), the APA's current non-discrimination policy would protect Smith from discrimination on the basis of his orientation. I think that's a bad policy, so I suggest we change it. I think it could be OK to discriminate against Smith on the basis of his pedophilic orientation. That's what premise 1 in my argument claims.

Do you think that's false? If so, why?

[devadv]

Over at the Philosophy Smoker, Popkin said this:

One obviously false premise of the argument is "3) If Smith’s pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, then homosexuality isn’t a sexual orientation."

The term "sexual orientation" doesn't cover any and all sexual predilections. If I have a thing for red-heads, or if I'm attracted only to senior citizens, these are not sexual orientations. As everyone knows, the term only covers the gender(s) one is sexually interested in (if you don't believe me, look in a dictionary).

I think that’s an interesting point. Is it really analytically false that pedophilia is a sexual orientation? I had taken “sexual orientation” to mean something like “one’s natural preference in sexual partners,” where “natural” is meant to imply that this is due to innate physiological forces rather than external sociological forces.

So I would have said that a thing for redheads doesn’t count as a sexual orientation since it is not a natural preference in this sense of “natural.” People aren’t born with a thing for redheads. They typically acquire that preference after first being primed by Molly Ringwold during their youth, and then watching Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element during their adolescence.

By contrast, presumably people are born with their sexual preferences for members of the same, opposite, or both sexes. So those count as natural preferences in sexual partners, and so those count as sexual orientations, as I understand the term.

Similarly, I think, at least some pedophiles are born with that sexual preference. For at least some pedophiles, that sexual preference is the result of physiological forces (some faulty wiring in the brain, or whatever) rather than purely external sociological forces. So, as I understand the term, at least some cases of pedophilia are natural sexual preferences, and so at least sometimes pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I think that’s a reasonable understanding of the term.

But suppose someone just insists that “sexual orientation” can only apply to natural sexual preferences with respect to genders, and not ages. I’m not sure if the APA ever defined “sexual orientation,” so I’m not sure where the APA comes down on this issue. But it seems to me that this narrow construal of “sexual orientation” isn’t the meaning of “sexual orientation” in the APA’s anti-discrimination policy. I think we can see that by considering a hypothetical case.

Consider Andy the Asexual. Since birth, Andy has had no sexual attraction at all, and so no sexual attraction to a particular gender. So, on the narrow construal of “sexual orientation,” Andy has no sexual orientation. Suppose some philosophy hiring committee refuses to hire Andy on the basis of his asexuality. They say “Look, it’s just unnatural and repulsive that you have no sexual attraction whatsoever. We think that’s immoral. So we don’t want to hire you.”

Question: Couldn’t the APA legitimately object that this university was violating the APA’s anti-discrimination policy? This university is declining to hire Andy on the basis of his natural sexual preferences.

It sure seems to me like they’re discriminating against Andy on the basis of his sexual orientation, and that therefore this university runs afoul of the APA’s anti-discrimination policy.

If you don’t agree with me and you think that asexuality doesn’t count as a sexual orientation, then you have to admit that what the university did to Andy doesn’t conflict with the APA’s statement that universities cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. So that sort of behavior is permitted by the APA’s anti-discrimination policy, on this reading. I think that’s really implausible, and totally misses the spirit of the policy.

But if you’re inclined to agree with me that asexuality counts as a sexual orientation and is protected by the APA’s anti-discrimination policy, then it sure looks like pedophilia (at least sometimes) counts as a sexual orientation, and would therefore also be protected by the APA’s anti-discrimination policy.

I guess we’d have to settle this by finding out exactly what the APA meant by “sexual orientation.” Does anyone know where we could find the answer to that?



Finally, Popkin said:

The argument that the original poster gives in defence of this premise is also obviously terrible:

1) Being a pedophile is an innate character trait
2) Being homosexual is an innate character trait
3) So, if pedophilia doesn’t qualify as a sexual orientation, clearly homosexuality doesn’t either

In other words, if A has something important in common with B, and B falls into category X then A falls into category X as well.

I take it you’re referring to this part of my original post:

Pedophiles just find themselves with certain sexual proclivities. For at least some pedophiles, this attraction isn’t a lifestyle decision. No, for at least some people, pedophilia is an innate orientation, a deeply seated character trait. Smith is such a person. In these respects, pedophilia seems perfectly similar to homosexuality (and, I hasten to add, heterosexuality). So, if pedophilia doesn’t qualify as a sexual orientation, clearly homosexuality (or heterosexuality) doesn’t either.

I think that Popkin can be forgiven for his uncharitable interpretation, based on what I wrote. So let me thank Popkin for the opportunity to clarify. I certainly didn’t mean to reason in the terrible way that Popkin mentions. I meant to reason in this way:

“Pedophiles just find themselves with certain sexual proclivities. For at least some pedophiles, this attraction isn’t a lifestyle decision. No, for at least some people, pedophilia is an innate orientation, a deeply seated character trait. Smith is such a person. In these respects, which are the only respects relevant to whether something counts as a sexual orientation, pedophilia seems perfectly similar to homosexuality (and, I hasten to add, heterosexuality). So, if pedophilia doesn’t qualify as a sexual orientation, clearly homosexuality (or heterosexuality) doesn’t either.”

That is, I meant to be offering an argument that pedophilia counts as a sexual orientation. I think it's plausible that if something is an innate sexual proclivity, it is a sexual orientation. I thought that was why homosexuality deserved the name “sexual orientation.” So by pointing out that pedophilia shares those characteristics with homosexuality, I meant to persuade you that pedophilia counts as a sexual orientation if homosexuality does.

Of course, you (like Popkin) might think that “sexual orientation” really covers only a very few types of innate sexual orientations, viz. being attracted to males, females, or both. And maybe that’s what the APA meant when they drafted their policy. Since what the APA meant when they drafted their policy is an empirical, historical matter, and since I don’t have or know where to find the relevant evidence, I’ll leave it at that.

[Yo Mama]

Devadv, since you seemed earlier to be such an avid fan of English, I assumed that you knew the meaning of 'sexual orientation' in English...if not look it up here <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+orientation">sexual orientation</a>

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear what is harmful about consenting homosexual activity among adults...

[devadv]

Apr 6, 2009 12:13:34 GMT -5 @Yo Mama said:

Devadv, since you seemed earlier to be such an avid fan of English, I assumed that you knew the meaning of 'sexual orientation' in English...if not look it up here.

Thanks, but I just addressed that point in the post immediately prior to yours.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear what is harmful about consenting homosexual activity among adults...

The argument I presented on the first page doesn't depend on the claim that homosexuality is harmful. The argument does depend on the claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, so I'd like to sort that out first. I think pedophilia satisfies a plausible interpretation of "sexual orientation," namely that interpretation on which a sexual orientation is one's natural preference in sexual partners. That seems like a pretty natural interpretation to me. And I think that reading the APA's policy with the narrow interpretation would miss the spirit of the policy, since it would permit discrimination on the basis of e.g. asexuality.

[devadv]

Yo Mama,

You said this on the Philosophy Smoker comment thread:

premise (6) which states If it’s morally permissible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then the APA’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unwarranted. is also quite obviously false since even IF we grant that pedophilia is a sexual orintation it is one which causes (necessarily) harm to innocents, whereas homosexuality isn't.

Here was the reasoning I supplied in favor of that premise:

Presumably the APA has accepted this policy on what they perceive to be solid moral grounds: the APA collectively believes that it’s morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But if it’s actually morally permissible to discriminate on that basis, then the APA’s policy is crucially based on a false belief. Let’s say it is therefore “unwarranted,” and should be revised.

As I explicitly said, by "unwarranted" I meant "crucially based on a false belief." The APA adopted its anti-discrimination policy presumably on the basis of the belief that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But if it actually is morally permissible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then that belief on the basis of which the APA adopted its anti-discrimination policy is false. Since by "unwarranted" I mean "crucially based on a false belief," the APA's anti-discrimination policy would be unwarranted.

But that's all that premise (6) asserts. So I still don't see why you think it's false.

You say that pedophilia necessarily causes harm to innocents, and that homosexuality doesn't. I actually think you're wrong on both counts, but -- more importantly -- how is this even relevant to the truth of (6)? (6) doesn't entail or presuppose the falsity of what you claim, so how is your claim relevant?

Notice also that the perpetrator of this absurd argument asserts over and over that homosexual acts do cause harm but doesn't ever even so much as gesture to what kind of harms she has in mind.

Maybe in a few days I'll respond to this question. Until then, I'd like to actually stick to my original argument. If you have any more objections to the argument as I presented it, I'd be grateful to hear them.

[Yo Mama]

"Thanks, but I just addressed that point in the post immediately prior to yours."

Uh, no you didn't. You argued that we ought to change the standard meaning of 'sexual orientation' in order to include asexuals and pedophiles. My point was that whatever the merits of that argument are that is not what the dictonary meaning of the phrase is currently. Since that is not what the dictionary meaning of the phrase is now it is reasonable to assume that the apa had the standard meaning in mind when they included the phrase 'sexual orientation' in their list of prohibited discriminatory practices. Given this your premise (3) equivocates between the standard meaning of 'sexual orientation' and your newly defined meaning for it and more to the point; it is false when the phrase 'sexual orientation' has its normal English meaning.

"The argument I presented on the first page doesn't depend on the claim that homosexuality is harmful."

But I claim that it does.

You wonder how this affects premise (6) of your argument. Here's how. The premise is a conditional, so to show that it is false we need to show that the antecedant is true and the consequent is false. That's what I showed. The premise, to remind you, said:

If it’s morally permissible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then the APA’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unwarranted.

Let's grant the truth of the antecedant and say that it is morally permissible to driscriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, how is it then false that the APA's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unwarranted? This is because they take themselves to be disallowing the discrimination of sexual orientations that do not cause harm. The claim that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (in your sense) doesn't imply that every sexual orientation is on a par, which you seem to assume. So they can be warrented in prohibiting discrimination towards non-harmful sexual orientations (in your redefined sense) while allowing discrimination towards harmful ones. Now, granted the APA didn't explicity include this language but that is because they were emplying the standard English meaning of the term when they wrote the anti discrimination clause; and what's more there is obviously a consensus in the philosophical community that the apa represents that there is nothing harmful about consenting adults engaging is homosexual behavior...

[devadv]

You argued that we ought to change the standard meaning of 'sexual orientation' in order to include asexuals and pedophiles.

Yeah, there’s a dilemma for the APA. Either the APA accepts the narrow definition of “sexual orientation” and their policy permits discrimination against asexuals on the basis of their innate sexual preferences, or the APA accepts the broader definition of “sexual orientation” and their policy prohibits discrimination against pedophiles on the basis of their innate sexual preferences.

Either way, the policy is morally objectionable. But either the APA accepts the narrow definition of “sexual orientation” or the APA accepts the broader definition. Either way the policy is morally objectionable. Therefore the policy is morally objectionable.

My point was that whatever the merits of that argument are that is not what the dictonary meaning of the phrase is currently. Since that is not what the dictionary meaning of the phrase is now it is reasonable to assume that the apa had the standard meaning in mind when they included the phrase 'sexual orientation' in their list of prohibited discriminatory practices.

I’m not so sure that this is what the APA had in mind. But if they did, then the current policy permits discrimination against asexuals on the basis of their innate sexual preferences, and is therefore morally objectionable. Therefore the current policy should be abandoned.

Given this your premise (3) equivocates between the standard meaning of 'sexual orientation' and your newly defined meaning for it and more to the point; it is false when the phrase 'sexual orientation' has its normal English meaning.

No, you’re meant to read “sexual orientation” consistently throughout my argument. I intended the broader definition throughout. You may object to this broader definition, in which case my argument does fail, but then the APA’s policy is morally objectionable for other reasons (as I just explained).


I said this:

The argument I presented on the first page doesn't depend on the claim that homosexuality is harmful.

You replied:

But I claim that it does.

You wonder how this affects premise (6) of your argument. Here's how. The premise is a conditional, so to show that it is false we need to show that the antecedant is true and the consequent is false. That's what I showed. The premise, to remind you, said:

If it’s morally permissible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then the APA’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unwarranted.

Let's grant the truth of the antecedant and say that it is morally permissible to driscriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, how is it then false that the APA's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unwarranted? This is because they take themselves to be disallowing the discrimination of sexual orientations that do not cause harm.

Yeah, right there is when I get off the boat. The APA’s policy doesn’t say “We prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientations that do not cause harm.” Nope, the policy just says that the APA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, period. And if it’s actually morally permissible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (as we’re supposing, since we’ve granted the antecedent of (6)), then the APA’s policy is crucially based on a false belief, namely that it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The policy is therefore unwarranted, as I use the term.

So (6) still looks to be true.


You seem to recognize the problem I just pointed out when you say:

Now, granted the APA didn't explicity include this language but that is because they were emplying the standard English meaning of the term when they wrote the anti discrimination clause

So what you point out, again, is that if the APA intended this narrow sense of “sexual orientation,” then my argument fails, since the policy doesn’t prohibit discriminating against pedophiles on the basis of their innate sexual preferences (and (3) is false). And what I’ll repeat is that, if so, then the APA’s policy is still morally objectionable, since it permits discrimination against asexuals on the basis of their innate sexual preferences.

[Yo Mama]

"Yeah, there’s a dilemma for the APA. Either the APA accepts the narrow definition of “sexual orientation” and their policy permits discrimination against asexuals on the basis of their innate sexual preferences,"

No, you are still missing the point. The phrase 'sexual orientation' doesn't have anything to do with innate sexual preferences. It has to do only with which gender one is attracted to. Now perhaps 'neither' needs to be added to the standard choices of 'male', 'female', and 'both' but doing so still doesn't give us any reason to include pedophiles. Kids are not a gender. You really should look this stuff up...it is a very established part of the meaning of 'sexual orientation' that it is gender choice that is at issue. So even on the 'narrow' definition we don't have to endorse discrimination against asexuals.


"or the APA accepts the broader definition of “sexual orientation” and their policy prohibits discrimination against pedophiles on the basis of their innate sexual preferences."

And if they do accept that there is a perfectly good reason to discriminate against pedophiles and not homosexuals based on the fact that one is a kind of rape that necessarily causes harm and the other is not.


"Either way, the policy is morally objectionable."

Nope. Either way the policy is completely moral, as I've just made clear...


"I’m not so sure that this is what the APA had in mind."

Really?!?!? You're not sure if they had the standard English meaning of the phrase in mind? Hmmm....


"But if they did, then the current policy permits discrimination against asexuals on the basis of their innate sexual preferences, and is therefore morally objectionable."

No, as I've already explained. "sexual orientation" as standardly used means 'gender one is attracted to;' It does not mean 'things that I innately want to have sex with'. So the ban on discrimination for sexual orientation really means 'one cannot discriminate on the basis of which gender one is attracted to' and asexuals will thereby be protected (this is obviously overlooked in the standard meaning of the phrase due to the fact that only around 1% of the population are asexuals (and that this was just recently discovered as a category), whereas for homosexual men it is something like 7-13% depending on the study on looks at and (less for women))


"You may object to this broader definition, in which case my argument does fail, but then the APA’s policy is morally objectionable for other reasons (as I just explained)."

No, the argument just fails.


"Yeah, right there is when I get off the boat. The APA’s policy doesn’t say “We prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientations that do not cause harm.” Nope, the policy just says that the APA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, period."

Yeah, and that is because, as I have already pointed out, they are not assuming your definition of the phrase (why should they? That is not how the phrase is used by anyone except you). But if they were forced to use your perverted alternate English then it would become clear that what is at issue here is that pedophiles cause harm where as homoscxuals do not (in virtue of their 'sexual orientation' (in your sense)). So (6) is still false. It is perfectly consistent to maintain that some forms of "sexual orientation" (in your sense) are harmful and need to be discriminated against, while others are not and should not be discriminated against.

So either your argument fails because (3) is false (pedophila doesn't count as a sexual orientation but homosexuality and asexuality do) or it fails because (6) is false (we can discriminate against "sexual orientations" (in your sense) that cause harm while protecting those that don't.).

[Orientation Guest]

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

Standard implicature for "sexual orientation" is "the gender to which one's sexual preferences are largely directed" and not merely "the object (type) to which one's sexual preferences are directed".

This is why the following responses to the question "What is your sexual orientation?" seems prima facie awkward:
Q: What is your sexual orientation?
A1: Shoes
A2: Velvet
A3: Being Slapped
A4: Role Playing
A5: Pre-pubescent children
A6: Mail Carriers

The above merely express the objects of one's sexual preferences be they particular sorts of objects or particular sorts of acts. One's sexual "orientation", in ordinary usage, merely refers to the orientation of one's sexual preferences/desires with respect to gender, nothing more, nothing less. This why it makes sense for one to respond to the question with the following:
A7: "I have no sexual orientation as I sexually desire/am sexually attracted to carpet samples and carpet samples only."

Of course, pedophilia may manifest itself as a largely heterosexual or homosexual pedophilia, but I would also imagine that certain kinds of pedophilia may best be classified as not being goverened by a sexual orientation at all (hetero, homo, or bi) such that, the gender of the child is never itself a feature over which the sexual attraction/desire operates...merely its being a child is both necessary and sufficient (this is especially the case in very young children where any salient properties of gender (sexual or otherwise) appear largely absent.

So, any argument resting on pedophilia being an orientation alongside hetero or homosexuality clearly relies on prevaricating with respect to "orientation". As such, these arguments are bogus.

The fact that someone needs to explain this speak volumes about both the level of philosophical acumen in play here and the sad, sad bigotry such bad philosophy supports. So, for those of you at the back of the class, I'll sum it up:
You are an idiot if you think "Shiny, Red Stiletto Pumps" or "stuffed animals" or "toddlers" is a proper response to the question "What is your sexual orientation?"

Now kindly step away and let us dirty homos take turns pissing on your family values.

[braaaaains]

Anyone who uses "prevaricating" and "bogus" in the same paragraph is OK in my book. My hat's off to you.

Can we be done with this now?

[devadvv]

Apr 6, 2009 23:00:59 GMT -5 braaaaains said:

Can we be done with this now?

I'd like to reply someday soon, but I've gotten very behind on grading. So my reply will have to wait...