How do you define a 'real' woman?
XX chromosomes. It is the only objective biological standard-- other definitions are bullshit.
I could define myself as Napoleon Bonaparte, but it doesn't mean I am. However, to take the metaphor further, that I define myself as something I'm objectively not is not necessarily an ethical or practical basis for discrimination against me.
I beg to differ. I'm of the understanding that it's considered a disorder of sorts. As such while it is something you are born with it. It isn't something that should be considered "Natural" . I've got to find where I found this information. I'll return when I do find it.
1. Homosexuality was essentially removed as a mental disorder in 1980 from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (standard for psychologists/psychiatrists in the US), except as it may cause stress to the individual as a result of a conflict with their own self-image. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 Chapter V (published by WHO in 1992 and standard for most of the international psychiatric and psychological community) does not currently list homosexuality as a disorder.
2. The "natural" argument is crap. Under the very broadest definition of "nature" anything that happens in the universe is "natural" and under the most restrictive definition one could say getting cancer is not "natural". It makes way more sense to discuss behavioral and biological issues in terms of norms and statistical deviations from the norm rather than "natural" or "unnatural", and while homosexuality in humans is a statistical deviation from the contemporary global norm, that makes it neither "unnatural" nor morally wrong nor undesirable. Top athletes and scientists are also deviations from the norm, but no one thinks that's a bad thing.
Besides, even determining what the norm is for sexuality amongst humans in a scientific manner is very difficult considering that religious and social mores having nothing to do with biology will shape what the norm is. For example, even if one disagrees with his methodology (which I do), if one were to take the basic conclusion of pioneering human sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey as a presupposition (which I also do)-- that sexual orientation occurs on a spectrum, and that total homosexuality and total heterosexuality are at the extremes of those spectrum, then it seems highly likely that there are many, many people not currently engaging in homosexual activity that primarily self-identify as "straight" (and indeed are mostly attracted to those of the opposite sex) who might occasionally engage in homosexual activity if all social and political and religious and economic barriers to doing so were removed. Or, to take an even simpler example, it is impossible to accurately determine how many closeted homosexuals or bisexuals exist, precisely because they are in the closet, and if all of them came out tomorrow, that could effect the global norm dramatically.
Topic: "Homosexuality is Not Natural"