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:
Well I am gay and I wasn't groomed. If it's genetic it shows in a wonky way tough, cause I have a twin brother and he isn't gay.
My older brother is gay tough. So it's probably somewhat genetic? There has to be something there, since to my knowledge he wasn't groomed either.
Out of curiosity, is your twin fraternal or identical twin? Feel free not to answer that though
There's room for it to be biological but not strictly genetic, differing developmental hormone exposure causing permanent changes in structure that then affect behaviour etc.
There's also room for it to be largely environmental without it strictly needing to be "groomed", just a confluence of otherwise innocuous stimuli that lead to developing differently.
There's also a hell of a lot of room for it to be a bit of both, especially when there's lots of known subtle interplay between social environment and internal hormone levels.
Fraternal twins, mirror subtype (sorry it doesn't really translate well into English). Basically we are from 2 different fertilized eggs, but look very much alike (as in mirrored, similar birthmarks in opposite places in the body, that kind of thing).
I get it's still a subject of study, but if you are asking me for my opinion, I would say there very likely is a genetic component.
As for a developmental or environmental component? Hard so say, we obviously had extremely similar childhoods, and have very similar opinions regarding almost all subjects, but one is gay and the other isn't. Take that as you will.
Do you know which one of you was heavier at birth? There's a good chance that if you were the smaller one that you were exposed to lower levels of Natal Testosterone which is believed by many to be a possible cause of Homosexuality. This is also believed to be a component of why men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.
I was heavier, about 3 kilos, he was 2 kilos (yes, we were really big)