As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
I think you're wrong about there not being a biological link. I have a more longwinded hypothesis that it's actually a genetic trigger in some individuals based on the sex distribution of the general population in their environment.
The aspect of grooming simply doesn't account for all, let alone the majority, of homosexuality. It wouldn't even make sense for gender dysphoria ... because it's a dysphoria. That's a mental illness. Depression and negative self-image are going to be a better driver. And if you're interesex, well, that's not from grooming.
Even when it comes to instances of sexual abuse among children. We know that only 30% of those children who are sexually abused become abusers themselves, regardless of sexual preference as adults. The remaining 60% do not, and their sexual preference does not necessarily match that of their attacker or abuse. In the most severe cases it may, but you absolutely can't claim that it's 1:1. There's no evidence for that.
We can also use historical examples like Athens, Thebes, and Sparta where Pederasty was fully institutionalized. Particularly in Sparta, which was so gay it genuinely had population problems, and Spartan wives had to be shaved, dressed as younger men, and placed in darkened rooms to consummate their marriage. Even with open, institutionalized, pederasty; heterosexuality among all 3 city-states was still the norm. Obviously heterosexuality is a biological imperative that exists regardless of 100% institutionalization and normalization of pederasty. Wherefore, if homosexuality were a pure social construct that had no biological roots, you would also have to consider that heterosexuality were just as socially constructed, and that it a purely homosexual environment, you could basically eliminate heterosexuality altogether through grooming. But we know that didn't happen, and can't. Instead, we find homosexuality to exist, but to generally rare, only becoming more common when the imbalance of sexes is high. One of the more interesting studies I've seen is that the likelihood of a male child growing up to be homosexual is very low until that child is the 3rd brother. I think there's a biological mechanism at play.
Anecdotally, the stories of many gay / straight-who-experimented seem to have a very common story: what I like to call "The Dick In Mouth Test". Basically, they all have the same story: the dude in question was good friends with another dude. For some reason the friend's dick comes out. Then, one of two things will happen:
The dude in question will have an urge to put his friend's dick in his mouth. He will then enjoy it: this dude is gay.
The dude in question will have no urge to put his friend's dick in his mouth. If, for some reason the friend's dick somehow gets into the dude's mouth, he will be very uncomfortable: this dude is straight.
Seriously, this story is bizarrely common.
I believe that "sudden urge to put a dick in your mouth" is clearly not a socially conditioned. It appears to be as much of a biological driver as a guy looking at tits. It simply can't be helped because it's not a conscious choice. On the flip side, being highly uncomfortable with a dick in your mouth seems completely reasonable for a heterosexual, in the same way why a lot of gay men are disgusted by vaginas, and have no interest in breasts.
Every time this comes up there is a simple question that disrupts this line of thinking and you -- like all others who I've asked previously -- will either have to ignore the question or deflect, because it's not rooted in the basic fundamentals of biogenetics nor neurology, and that question is: where is the neonatal allele strand that determines homosexuality?
You'll point to the studies that have examined the epigenetic effects of homosexuality that claim, post-observation, that they have found genetic markers in homosexual behaviour. As I pointed out in previous comments, all of those links are attached to behavioural traits that were expressed as a phenotype AFTER the subjects became engaged in homosexuality; namely markers associated with depression, emotional imbalances, and heavy substance abuse.
Unfortunately people have been far too brainwashed by all of the misinformation floating around out there by pseudo-scientists and propagandists to understand the differences between social conditioning and genetic influences.
EDIT:
As an addendum.... your deferring to homosexuality having a basis in genetics is begging the question.
This here is the perfect example of, as you mentioned, sociological institutionalization of homosexuality, having zero basis in genetics. Especially considering that if it were gene-based they wouldn't be able to dress the women like little boys to get the men to have sex with them. So they used behavioural conditioning for the men to engage in pederasty and then that same behavioural conditioning to get the men to have sex with the women. That's a mutable trait -- if there was a genetic component there then they wouldn't have been able to be groomed one way and then the other through sociological conditioning.
You're begging the question again while ignoring basic biological science.
Human males and females are sexually dimorphic, meaning only males can inseminate females for impregnation and only females can become impregnated by insemination. That in itself is biological essentialism.
When puberty comes into play the average man will want to inseminate a woman. When a woman is ovulating, the average woman will want to be inseminated by a man as a biological necessity of procreation.
There is no biological necessity inherent in homosexual behaviour since neither two men nor two women can procreate. So the act is purely out of an expression of lust, and/or a need/desire to engage in sexual release, as evident with homosexual behaviour observed in animals typically when there aren't enough males/females for mating pairs. They (re)act out of primal urges. That's not genetic, it's instinctual; part of a base set of primal hormonal responses, sort of like how perfectly straight men will sometimes engage in homosexual acts in prison due to a lack of female companionship.
And before the instincts tangent is brought into the equation, the arguments surrounding the normalization of various instinctual acts is also moot, because people have all sorts of urges, thoughts, or desires. But the thoughts based on said urges are formulated through environmental stimuli, and without that stimuli the urges have no way to materialize as thought patterns.
People keep pushing forward without looking at the damage being caused. We currently are egregiously shortsighted on the biological damage being caused by social media, plastics, hormones, antibiotics, birth control, etc. it’s terrifying how much information we have available that no one talks about and the government enables.
Exactly this!
There are a myriad of factors that do negatively impact biological growth, and everything from disruptive propaganda, to GMOs, to whatever they're putting in the water, to everything else in between.
One big factor in all of that, though, is the largest search engines and media (and even the education system) hiding a lot of information that would otherwise help people become more informed.
But an informed populace is a dangerous populace, and so that's why there is such effort from the Powers That Be to keep the populace disinformed at every turn.
I'm not a geneticist so I can't give you such information. However, I don't think you are even correct. Typically that's not how anything in genetics works. It sounds like you are looking for one specific "gene". There is no gay gene. There is also no IQ gene, and we know that IQ is heavily influenced by genetics.
Not only that, but you're not addressing my argument. You're coming at it from your perspective not mine. I'm not asserting that I have genetic evidence. I'm saying I have historical and anecdotal evidence that it very likely isn't purely environmental, which is the implied argument from someone arguing pure genetic determinism. I'm tackling the problem from the alternative hypothesis. Let us assume all homosexual conduct is socially conditioned through grooming and there is NEVER a biological driver (which would be absurd on it's face). Could that hypothesis pass given what we already know elsewhere: No.
To be honest, full genetic determinism is a pretty silly argument to make, because that's pretty much not how humans operate generally. The idea that environment has no effect is mostly nonsense. It's an issue of degrees.
Of course, as you said, we already have the science saying there is no gay gene, but if you're going to say there is a genetic basis then the burden is on you to provide that there is a genetic component involved during the neo-natal, peri-natal, or pre-natal development process.
So far, there is zero neurophysiological evidence that even comes close to certifying this point of contention. In fact, the more we learn about neurological functioning during fetal development the more it completely nullifies any arguments about any potential genetic factor being involved.
Even if you want to split hairs that there is no single allele strand then where are the strands (plural)? Where are the genes that aren't affected by epigenetics?
That's why I said you're begging the question, because you've arrived at a conclusion based on zero evidence.
This is a false equivalence.
We know that various physiological capabilities/disabilities can be acquired through hereditary traits. For instance, memory retention, coordination, spatial articulation, and capacitive congruence, as well as sensory capabilities such as quality of eyesight, auricular attentiveness, or a heightened (or diminished) olfactory. This can affect a child's ability to retain, learn, focus, or develop intellectual capacities and capabilities.
For example, someone who is an excelled musician will develop epigenetic traits for hand-eye coordination, muscle memory, and sensory growth related to tone, pitch, and intonation. Developing traits that influence your biological chemistry can also affect an offspring, same as detrimental vices such as drugs or alcohol. In any case, this is why kids born to parents who have addictions come out with various disabilities or even neurological impairments, and it's typically why kids born to parents who have developed or excelled in an area of expertise, such as certain math, sciences, or arts, are more likely to develop in that area as well via cultivation. If you look at most accomplished music composers they were born into a home where one or both parents were also accomplished musicians.
The same thing applies to a lot of athletes as well, with certain athletes more likely inheriting certain traits that allowed them to excel with specific physical proficiency if their parent also had developed that trait.
However, your comparison falls flat between I.Q., and homosexuality because the expression of intellect is behavioural, not genetic, just like the expression of homosexuality is behavioural, not genetic. However, the capacity for intellect can be genetic, just like the capacity for a higher or lower sex drive can be genetic, but not the expression of said behaviour (there have been plenty of rapists who were impotent: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1795615/).
Furthermore, even then, there are a lot of factors that contribute to the expression of intellect, from sleep, to nutrition, to subculture, to education:
In short, this is why there is no single I.Q., allele strand because "intelligence" cannot be quantified as a singular paradigm, and much like homosexuality, we usually measure the epigenetic components of I.Q., after gene expression has occurred (usually after a child has developed and has been influenced in some capacity by their environment). It's a construction of behavioural expressions based on various genetic and learned factors.
Now homosexuality is based on behavioural acts, typically estimated as being based on sexual attraction. So what is sexual attraction? Sexual attraction is based on stimuli that excites the gonads. Well, how does that happen? Stimulated senses. Well, we now have a problem because as mentioned above, during the neo-natal process human sensory organs aren't fully developed due to the fact that the limbic system that allows us to perceive sensory stimuli isn't fully developed.
So this leads us back to the conundrum about genetic traits versus behaviour, because if there is no allele strand(s) attached to homosexuality, and the required behaviour traits of homosexuality requires sensory input, then it means it's developed post-natal. Because how can you have innate attraction before your senses are developed?
A good way of testing that concept is this: try to explain something you find attractive that doesn't require your five senses?
If you can't, then how can you have an innate attraction to something when the organs necessary for that attraction aren't developed at birth? And we already know that attraction of anything or towards anything is based on risk/reward, punishment/incentive factors related to stimuli, and we can only assess those traits through environmental influence, hence learned behaviour.
Except those examples are flawed for a number of reasons (I added that in the edited addendum of my first comment).
Could that hypothesis pass based on what exactly? Limited information based on anecdotes and historically insufficient data points? That's not a very convincing argument against that proposed assumption, even if it may be true.
This I can agree on.
Where is the neonatal allele strand that determines height?