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:
Sure it is. Genetics requires being passed on to continue existing. If nobody ever had a child with blonde women, then blonde hair would be bred out of the species within about a hundred years.
Unless you're about to suggest to me that recessive traits that are functionally never passed on by the person who has them... will show up consistently for centuries? Because as far as I'm aware there is no such thing.
number of siblings and order of birth appears to be a factor.
We may be looking at something caused by hormone levels in the womb, which is not genetic.
However, we may also be seeing a genetic trait that increases the rate of fertility/breeding behavior at a cost of increased anomalies among the children.
If a gene that makes your mom more likely to have 5 kids instead of 2 results in 2 gay kids and 3 straight kids, that's still more straight kids born. That's still a superior breeding performance, even subtracting the homosexuals.
Is your father's name Gene? If not, then you've failed to account for a basic component of the equation.
There's no point discussing this with a toddler such as you.