Originally posted by Robtard
@dmbAre you one those people who believe sexual attraction and more to the point you made homosexuality, is a choice?
I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.
It's not a choice though.
The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.
Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school).
Originally posted by Emperordmbvery good post mate. Hope for you yet!
**** no.I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.
It's not a choice though.
The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.
Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school).
Originally posted by Emperordmb
**** no.I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.
It's not a choice though.
The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.
Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school).
Well good. Agreed, I don't believe it's a choice either, as least I don't recall a moment in my life where I decided to be straight and to more specifically be attracted to bubblebutt blondes.
I think most of us have had that middle school mentality at some point. So not worries, glad you grew out of it.
Originally posted by cdtm
Like South Park said, "Not gay! "GAY!".Same way a woman can say "Don't be a pussy" to a guy, and not mean "girl". 😉
Not like the episode of South Park where they're like
Kyle
You can be gay and not be a f@g.
Stan
Yeah, a lot of f@gs aren't gay.
Judge 2
I happen to be gay, boys. Do you think I'm a f@g?
Stan
Do you ride a big loud Harley and go up and down the streets, ruining everyone's nice time?
Judge 2
No.
Stan
Then you're not a f@g.
Judge 1
So what if a guy is gay and rides a Harley?
Cartman
Then he's a gay f@g. I mean, is this really this hard?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The strawmen here are disturbing.
You've misrepresented me as well, but I take it as an opportunity to clarify my meaning, rather than go the route that ends with pages of snide quips. It won't get us anywhere broski. I'm going to kinda block response here, rather than point-by-point this, as we aren't actually disagreeing on most of this.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
But it doesn't matter, because they make clear that while the presence of social factors does play a role, innate factors are more significant(they observe this as the presence of the parent plays no role). But, even the study you cited never denies the role of biology in preferences, in fact, it subtly endorses it lol. Here is a study which finds differences at nine months: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm
Regardless we can cherry-pick studies all day and make zero progress. I was hoping to highlight that initially but I am typing on my phone at work so I failed to articulate myself properly. I think we can connect on this, as we aren't totally divergent in our view.
When we speak of gender as social construct, it doesn't mean ignoring the complex interplay of biology and external factors on our behavior. The construct is actually an aggregate of these things. In our world, we take gender as both a physical presentation and modes of behavior. "Boy" is one set of ideas, and "Girl" is its opposite.
The problem is these things aren't natural rules, and may even change within one individual. Even in both our studies, for example, not all biological boys prefer "boy" toys. Likewise, for girls. Even if we found a typical preference or behavioral pattern, it isn't actually a pre-requisite for maleness or femaleness. We, as a society create the idea that it is, however. This expectation is where the tricky stuff sneaks in.
The expected performance, taken as a whole, is the construct.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
1. The very fact that "or" is there means there are two different definitions which automatically invalidates that idea that there is one set definition.2. That isn't true sex purely refers to your organs there are traits which are biological.
I was including behavioral traits that may have a biological basis when I said "biological stuff." Not just organs.
The parent isn't the only socializing agent though. I disagree that biology is "more significant" though, and the APA would cosign on that. In an analysis of 46 meta-analyses, they found that men and women are mostly alike, even in traits like aggression once you control for context.
At one year old, the parent is the only significant socializing agent, and I doubt they allowed other considerable confounding variables to effect these studies. The APA meta-analysis doesn't demonstrate much. It shows that gender differences are relatively minimal. But, it does not prove that the differences that do exist are primarily social. Also, I think this study has less merit, as it accounts for fewer variables than children toy studies.
The problem is these things aren't natural rules, and may even change within one individual. Even in both our studies, for example, not all biological boys prefer "boy" toys. Likewise, for girls. Even if we found a typical preference or behavioral pattern, it isn't actually a pre-requisite for maleness or femaleness. We, as a society create the idea that it is, however. This expectation is where the tricky stuff sneaks in.
The fact is though, that are set behaviors which are attributed to the female and male sex alike. The brains have some distinct characteristics which differentiate the genders. There are 100 MAJOR differences between female and male brains.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders
Originally posted by cdtm
Like South Park said, "Not gay! "GAY!".Same way a woman can say "Don't be a pussy" to a guy, and not mean "girl". 😉
Originally posted by Emperordmb
That is what I'd say for a lot of people who say shit like that... but nah in middle school it was like specifically referring to homosexuality. Like yeah it was used for shit that wouldn't be at all related to two dudes ****ing, but the idea of a dude wanting to **** another dude was also pretty heavily ridiculed.Not like the episode of South Park where they're like
Kyle
You can be gay and not be a f@g.
Stan
Yeah, a lot of f@gs aren't gay.
Judge 2
I happen to be gay, boys. Do you think I'm a f@g?
Stan
Do you ride a big loud Harley and go up and down the streets, ruining everyone's nice time?
Judge 2
No.
Stan
Then you're not a f@g.
Judge 1
So what if a guy is gay and rides a Harley?
Cartman
Then he's a gay f@g. I mean, is this really this hard?
I started refraining from that language once I realized we are inseparable from our social context though. There are plenty of other words I can use to express the same feeling, and I don't have to make some gay guy feel like shit to do it.
Then again, I'm not big on using cuck either...lol
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
At one year old, the parent is the only significant socializing agent, and I doubt they allowed other considerable confounding variables to effect these studies. The APA meta-analysis doesn't demonstrate much. It shows that gender differences are relatively minimal. But, it does not prove that the differences that do exist are primarily social. Also, I think this study has less merit, as it accounts for fewer variables than children toy studies.The fact is though, that are set behaviors which are attributed to the female and male sex alike. The brains have some distinct characteristics which differentiate the genders. There are 100 MAJOR differences between female and male brains.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders
Again, not quite. A set behaviour would mean without exception, which hasn't ever been shown true anywhere. The one consistency in all these studies is that men and women behave like individuals. 100 "major" brain differences hasn't actually accounted for much behavioural difference, as the APA showed. No one claimed male/female brains were 100% identical on average. However, that is at the group level. A random man and a random woman won't necessarily fit that mold.
Honestly, I have yet to hear much utility for gender theories.
If it's to make people accept "the other", wouldn't it be far more efficient to "train" the "other" to follow the mainstream?
Problem solved, right?
Of course, no one wants to be manipulated in that way. So why do we assume the majority can be "trained" to behave differently, for the benefit of a vocal minority?
Why is that even right?
Sure, you don't want bullying, or ostracizing, fighting that is a noble cause.
Trying to change an entire group on a fundamental level, isn't.
Originally posted by cdtm
This is true.But does that prove against social norms?
If, say, 1-4% of European men are passive, while the rest are aggressive, and this holds true across multiple societies in the present, and in the past, can we not say aggression is inheriently normal for European men?
The 1-4% figure was made up for this hypothetical example though. Without something specific to the issue, it's hard to comment on this.
Originally posted by cdtm
Honestly, I have yet to hear much utility for gender theories.If it's to make people accept "the other", wouldn't it be far more efficient to "train" the "other" to follow the mainstream?
Problem solved, right?
Of course, no one wants to be manipulated in that way. So why do we assume the majority can be "trained" to behave differently, for the benefit of a vocal minority?
Why is that even right?
Sure, you don't want bullying, or ostracizing, fighting that is a noble cause.
Trying to change an entire group on a fundamental level, isn't.
You're essentially saying "it's easier to let bigots remain bigots, so force the marginalized group to change instead." You aren't trying to "change a group on a fundamental level" by telling them to quit ostracizing a marginalized group. You are, however, changing a group on a fundamental level by telling gender queer people to change who they are despite imposing on no one. Additionally, if discrimination is fundamental to your identity, then you should change.
Cisgendered folks don't have to become trans to acknowledge their existence. I don't see how we're being forced to "change on a fundamental level" here. We still get to go about our day exactly as before, but now we're calling Michael, Michelle. It's like...the most minor, boring thing in the universe.
I literally yawned and dozed off just thinking about it.