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:
No it's not. Traits are passed from the set the parents can provide and the traits most likely to survive to be passed on are the ones that fit best for reproduction of the species. And this isn't always bigger and stronger traits. For example Peacocks select for longer tails and bright colors. This is actually a disadvantage to the males when fleeing predators. That isn't random. The same occurs with deer being selected by females for large sets of horns. Again another disadvantage as smaller horns require less energy and have less weight but still provide protection. Human females select for larger penises. Sorry it's true. They also select for taller men. Which is why our species is getting taller year over year. Again not random.
And again the theory of evolution makes no assertion to it being random. So if you want to make the claim that evolution is random then first prove that it is random and then prove the math formula you keep alluding too but never actually produced.
Neither the theory of evolution nor I make this claim. So I don't get why you brought this up other than to make a strawman argument.
Again you seem to be arguing against the theory of evolution without actually knowing what it is, even though I gave a synopsis of it. You're again being disengenuius and ignoring facts.
At this point, I can only assume you're intentionally conflating new traits that have never appeared in the species before with the inheritance of traits already present within the species.
The theory of evolution is predicated on the former, and the frequency of those occurences is the root of the dispute. The latter is not being questioned by anyone.
I do not believe someone sufficiently literate to write a response could be sufficiently illiterate as to miss the entire argument, so I am assuming bad faith on your part.