Read on Twitter
Good old Ann. Always reliably the wrong take 
I'm well aware that Ann's not a serious or credible advocate in any of this, and tends to just go in for the limp glib trolling you see before you.
However, because I'm nice, I'll pop back in a bit and explain under this tweet. https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1281662949707468800
I'm well aware that Ann's not a serious or credible advocate in any of this, and tends to just go in for the limp glib trolling you see before you.
However, because I'm nice, I'll pop back in a bit and explain under this tweet. https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1281662949707468800
Right then. Because Ann's not great at the ol' words and stuff, Ann's *totally unintentionally, of course* conflating the ability to prove scientifically a given sexual orientation in the abstract, and whether or not any individual can *know* their own sexuality absent testing.
The first is a pretty trivial exercise, as those among you who have in fact ever *had* sex will understand immediately.
In fact, the mechanisms by which we can prove that *became* part of the mechanism of brutal gay conversion therapy.
In fact, the mechanisms by which we can prove that *became* part of the mechanism of brutal gay conversion therapy.
(It's possibly a tad callous for Ann to touch on this subject in this specific way, on that basis, but reading a room is hard when you're, well, Ann)
The second is where things start getting a little philosophical. There are a few strands to it:
1) The mechanism by which we can identify sexual attraction scientifically - and hence identify orientation - is arousal. Arousal has a physiological signature in the human body, as it must: it's a physical sensation.
2) You, being unavoidably and entirely your own mind and body, necessarily have perfect introspective knowledge about when yo' sprung. You feel the sensations, and are aware of their source.
3) You also, being manifest in a very powerful pattern-matching brain, are both consciously and unconsciously able to discern the common features of your feelings of arousal and attraction and extract the generalised rules which underpin them.
Where the base general underlying rule is 'only if male' (not implying the absence of further criteria, obviously), and you are yourself male, you know that you are a gay man; where you are yourself female, you know that you are a straight woman. Und so weiter.
BUT WAIT, sez Ann. Firstly, unless you meet *everyone* in a situation conducive to attraction, you can't rule out being just a *leeeeetle* bit bi, eh? Eh? EH?
If you're a lesbian who's ever been in a dodgy pub, you might recognise this argument as Greasy Steve's Magic Penis.
If you're a lesbian who's ever been in a dodgy pub, you might recognise this argument as Greasy Steve's Magic Penis.
Secondly, continues Ann, what about when you *think* someone's male and think steamy thoughts but ACTUALLY it turns out they're FEMALE?!?!
Leaving aside the limited extent to which this actually happens, you can get an idea of how good an argument this is by trying it elsewhere.
Leaving aside the limited extent to which this actually happens, you can get an idea of how good an argument this is by trying it elsewhere.
HA! YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T LIKE VEGETABLES BUT I BLENDED LOADS OF THEM INTO THE SAUCE SO YOU COULDN'T TASTE THEM I HEAR YOU'RE A RABBIT NOW TED AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(I'm clearly *not* saying that Ann is a vegetable and you're a bad person for thinking it)
HA! YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T LIKE ALCOHOL BUT I SPIKED THE PUNCH AND YOU LIKED IT AND NOW YOU'RE SHITFACED AND NOW WE'RE IN ONE OF THOSE RETROSPECTIVELY-YIKES 80s MOVIES AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(I'm clearly *not* saying that Ann spikes people's drinks)
Varying degrees of morality in the above examples there, obviously
The general idea is a tediously predictable, sixth-former-with-an-arse-full-of-categorical-imperatives philosophical bait and switch.
We interact with the world *solely* through our limited - occasionally flawed - perceptions of it. Sometimes our perceptions can be tricked.
We interact with the world *solely* through our limited - occasionally flawed - perceptions of it. Sometimes our perceptions can be tricked.
And?
It's no gotcha. It's not some killer argument against the whole concept of evidence or knowledge. It's just human beings falling afoul of their own lack of omniscience.
Yaaaaaaaaaawn.
It's no gotcha. It's not some killer argument against the whole concept of evidence or knowledge. It's just human beings falling afoul of their own lack of omniscience.
Yaaaaaaaaaawn.
It's no more an argument against self-knowledge of sexual orientation than it is against self-knowledge of anything else at all - which is to say, either you're allowed no self-knowledge at all, or you can have it about *anything* which falls within the remit of self-knowledge.
...which is of course squarely where Ann intends to land, carrying a pink and blue flag with the word 'WOMAN' embroidered on it in 200pt Comic Sans.
I'm getting bored now. Come back to the rest later, although you can probably fill in the gaps for yourselves.
I'm getting bored now. Come back to the rest later, although you can probably fill in the gaps for yourselves.
