{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03542857142857143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.9523809523809526, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Condition, Orientation, Role or False Consciousness? Models of Homosexuality and Transsexualism

Two aspects of theories of deviant behaviour are outlined and discussed. These are concerned with whether or not the deviant behaviour indicates some inherent quality of the actor and with the tenability of that behaviour from the theorist's point of view. Combining these aspects produces four models which are discussed here in relation to homosexuality and transsexualism. The ‘condition’ and ‘orientation’ models presume an intrinsic nature, whereas the ‘role’ and ‘false consciousness' models reject this conception. The ‘orientation’ and ‘role’ models regard the deviant phenomenon as acceptable, as a tenable variation, whereas the ‘condition’ and ‘false consciousness’ models regard it as unacceptable, as morally, biologically, politically or psychologically untenable.