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:
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?
Height can be affected by a number of gene clusters, up to 700 in fact. Polygenic clusters that are negatively impacted by hereditary or birthing defects can also affect height, along with nutrition, sleep, and region (i.e., altitude, weather, etc.)
You can actually read up on some of the clusters and strands that can impact height here: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/height/
Anything else?
Heritability is based on observational studies.
Rlevant part from your article is "which genes these variants are in and what they do to affect height are only partially understood".
Point being that there are a lot of things we don't know about genes. We don't know in exactly what way height or intelligence is genetic, we only know that they are based on observation and definition. And those are the most well studied, much more than homosexuality which no one wants to touch out of fear of woke backlash.
Essentially, you haven't proven that homosexuality isn't genetic. You've just stated that we don't know for sure yet to what degree it's genetic. If you frame it like that, no one will dissagree with you. Everything is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environment. That's not controversial.
You're arguing the exact same way a normie argues if you try to talk to them about the genetic and heritable component in IQ. They start going down a convoluted path to try to discredit you attacking everything from core assumptions to methodology to nitpicking on the smallest meaningless points. The best you can get out of this is a conclusion of "we don't know" but at a riddiculously high epistomological standard.
So it's pointless for you to make a negative argument. Can you put together a convincing positive argument? Something less retarded than "all gays were diddled and that's what turned them gay"? Something that doesn't have even bigger questionsmarks and holes around it than "probably homosexuality developed because group selection is real and there was an evolutionary advantage to having some % of non-reproducing caretakers".
Yes we do know in some exact ways intelligence and height are genetic. Follow the links in my previous comment about genetic inheritance affecting intellectual capacity. Those are irrefutable traits that can be observed in gene clusters during the natal period of development.
It's the same way that we know for a fact that the lack of proper nutrients from the FGF43 gene or the GH1 hormone gene affects growth. These are just a few of the strands part of more than 700 gene clusters that affect height. We know this and can observe this from the natal stage of development up until adulthood.
How tall someone becomes is based on their environmental conditioning, though, just like how intellect someone becomes is based on their environmental conditioning. Physiological capacity is not the same as behavioural growth.
But in regards to homosexuality... where are the genes that force you to become homosexual? What gene clusters are they located in? Where are these allele strands?
I keep asking this question, and no one in any community, not even the science community, opts to answer. There's just a lot of equivocation about gene percentages affecting homosexual behaviour, yet zero indication what these genes are and where they're located or what they do, especially during perinatal and neonatal development.
Except they have touched it, thousands and thousands and thousands of times with pointless and meandering bloviating and sophistry.
Nearly 40,00 articles about the subject matter, and all of it avoids the basic scientific question that should have been raised when the false postulations were put forth back in the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=homosexual
And of the multiple studies that were done, none of them could show any gene clusters associated with homosexuality during natal development: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
All of the science related to observing gene expression in homosexuals only showcases traits expressed in post-behavioural epigenetics, specifically gene expression related to addiction, heavy marijuana use, and depression.
Common sense tells us that it stands to reason that a myriad of environmental conditions play various roles in helping that behaviour develop, since no one is born with genes based solely on culturally developed traits.
Except this is completely wrong. I'm not the one who claimed, as a truism, that people are born gay. This was started as a hoax based on nothing, ZERO science. And yet it was taken at face value.
Now people are wrongly attacking anyone who criticizes that falsehood and upholding that falsehood under zero scrutiny.
You're right that there SHOULD be a hypothesis that asks “Can you be born gay and is homosexuality genetic?” at which point the question should be scrutinized until it is validated.
All of the genetic and neurological results today emphatically says NO you are not born gay because there is zero evidence to support that claim, in fact the evidence all points in the opposite direction.
This is the crux of the issue here, though, because everyone who believes what you believe are working backwards to find evidence to support a claim rooted in nothing.
It's the equivalent of everyone who believes that the Russians hacked the 2016 elections because Hillary Clinton said so, therefore they're now trying to find evidence to support the claim. As opposed to finding evidence that the Russians hacked the 2016 elections and then Hillary made a claim based on the evidence.
Do you not see how asinine that is? That an unverified and unvalidated claim is taken as a truism and anyone who questions it or attempts to scrutinize its validity is condemned or castigated, as opposed to the claim itself being scrutinized?
No one in this thread who supports the “born gay” hoax has even bothered to ask the same simple questions I'm asking, not even you. In fact, you're actually defending the opposite position, that homosexuality could be genetic even though you have no evidence to support that claim.
Your position should be, "Maybe people could be born gay but there is no science that supports that position based on the publicly available literature". That would be the reasonable stance to take for anyone who hasn't actually studied physiology or genetics.
The problem is that there never has been evidence to support that claim because because everyone has gone about addressing the issue backwards.
That's why in my above comment I said anyone supporting that homosexuality is rooted in some form of genetics is committing the fallacy of begging the question. Why? Because...
WHERE. IS. THE. EVIDENCE?
It's like claiming the sun is purple and stating it must be true, and anyone who doesn't believe it is homophobic. And so for 40 years scientists desperately attempt to find evidence to prove that the sun is purple, as opposed to asking “Is the sun purple?” and examining spectral analysis and realizing the sun, in fact, is not purple.
That's where we are with the “born gay” hoax. Everyone brainwashed to believe a lie and hold onto that lie because they've been inculcated to believe said lie with zero evidence, and anyone who questions said lie, is labeled as the one who is in the wrong.
It's ludicrous that we're even at this point where the scientific method has been so thoroughly and utterly destroyed to support propagandists' narratives.
Except we do know? Again, I already linked to studies showing the heritability of certain traits associated with intelligence. Here is another: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14594743/
Perceptual awareness and cognitive analysis are essential in intellectual growth. You can genetically inherit honed or reduced motor skill functions and cognitive processing, due to a mixture of various other traits as well, including speech discernment, eyesight, and motor-skill coordination. All of those traits affect your intellectual capacity, but HOW you behave and what behaviour you adapt will determine how your intelligence is exhibited.
You've also done exactly what the other poster did in the previous comment, make the false equivalence between physiological traits and observed behaviour.
Physiological capacity =/= behavioural propensity.
Intellectual capacity is determined by genetic inheritance. Exhibitory behaviour is based on individual choices.
Again, link to me the study showing any sort of gene cluster or allele strand in the natal stage of development that forces you to engage in homosexual behaviour?
Can you? No? Then you need to go back to the beginning and question the original claim, not the people scrutinizing the claim because it lacks evidence.
We know for a fact that intelligence is associated with inherited genetic traits; traits that can be observed in gene clusters during natal development. This is a capacitative observation, not a behavioural observation. Ergo, you can measure what certain traits a child may excel at based on certain genetic structures developed during natal growth.
There are ZERO gene clusters, strands, or anything within the human genome observed during natal development that even relates remotely to homosexual behaviour, a large part of this is due to the fact that the organ responsible for sexual attraction, the hypothalamus, is not even properly developed during that stage of birth.
It has less than 20% of its cell structure during that stage, and is only developed enough to help the gonads form (i.e., ovaries in females, testes in males), but not enough to allow the pituitary gland to secret neurotransmitters known as gonadotropin, which then affects sexual cognizance: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Endocrine_-_Hypothalamus_Development
Those neurotransmitters don't become active until post-natal development.
I never said that. You did. I've argued against the anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-fact stance that gays are “born that way” when you and the rest of the people falling into the propaganda trap by the establishment have yet to provide any evidence showing any proof to satisfy that argument.
I just keep repeating the same thing, asking for evidence for your claims but none of you who support those arguments have been able to do so, not on the grounds of genetics, no on the grounds of biochemistry, and certainly not on the grounds of neurophysiology.
I would ask you to provide an argument that actually provides the substantial evidence that backs up the extraordinary claims that have been falsely circulating since the 1980s, but the best you'll be able to do is prevaricate and deflect.
This is an argument I've never made, and again, there is zero evidence showing immutable genetic traits dictating that kind of behaviour.
Otherwise, if people keep claiming it's genetic, it's about as inane as claiming that being a gaming addict is genetic, or being emo is genetic, even though those are all behavioural choices influenced by the environment, since there are no video game genes and there is no emo gene (although some genes can be influenced to enable addictive behaviour, any exhibited behaviour is still choice-driven by the individual).