Have you included sexual selection in your hypothesis? Evolution took a big turn when the prefrontal cortex highly evolved. Natural selection went more and more out the window.
Thatās actually quite an interesting point - Iām going to major in microbiology (Iām starting college after this summer, Iāve earned a full-ride scholarship at the University of Alabama) but Iāve never thought particularly deeply over the philosophical implications of viral life.
The only counter that really comes to mind is humansā self-awareness makes us fundamentally different, in that weāre able to buck off the ālimitsā imposed by whatever plan biology has layed out for us, although maybe to think that is just hubris. It certainly reads that way.
As an aside - are you religious? I mean, the username/profile picture/ābe fruitful and multiplyā mindset seem to suggest so, but figured Iād ask anyways.
I guess Iāll work through this one point at a time
āPsychological and biological effectsā
Both groups face a greater prevalence of mental illness, although the juryās still out on whether that comes from increased stress that the lifestyle brings or the trait itself.
Frankly, Iām not sure what a biological effect would entail. I mean, I guess thereās no gay equivalent to a transgender person transitioning, so thatās obviously a difference.
āNatureās influence on the matter and societyās capabilities to affect itā
If this thread has shown one thing so far, itās that none of us have a complete, decisive answer on the nature/nurture question, which makes comparing the relative importance of the two between gay and trans people very difficult. Especially because even less research has been conducted upon trans people, since the phenomenon is so new (or, at least, general tolerance/understanding for it is)
āIts status in the US constitution and the rights they should haveā
I do not envy the people who are inevitably going to have to make the decision on trans people when a case ends up going through the SCOTUS, haha. In terms of what rights I think they should have, I tend to be pretty libertarian towards the whole situation. Once someone is of the age where they can make educated, rational decisions (side note - Iāve been saying āminorsā out of convenience, but 18 is just a convention,) let them. I feel that goes for same-sex relationships or transitioning, in equal measures.
āTheir societal placeā
Iād argue that both groups are somewhat marginalized, but things have definitely improved more for gay people than trans people. Hate crimes, general harassment, potential familial disownment, and even potentially being fired from oneās job are facts of life for these people. My state, one of the most liberal in the country, only just blocked people from using the ātrans panicā defense in court.
āTheir normalizationā
I think this gets back to the point which started the whole conversation - appearances in popular culture and whatnot. One thing that Iāve noticed is that you describe gay/trans characters as āadvertisingā their identity. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? In my mind, including these characters isnāt necessarily promoting their identity. Media exists as a representation of the world, (often exaggerated or put in a more exciting lens,) and these people exist in the real world. Would you think that featuring a black character entails a racial statement? Is a female character necessarily championing feminism? I donāt think any of these are necessarily true.
I think the fact that this much attention is being put upon characters in a mediocre childrenās movie is sort of demonstrating the point in and of itself: itās notable because people are still āother-ingā gay and trans people. Ideally, Iād like to see a world where gay and trans characters just blend in unremarkably with their contemporaries, but thatās obviously pretty far off.
To be completely honest with you, I find these people annoying to no end. The amount of teenage girls I know who add she/they pronouns to their Instagram bio, call themselves bi, and then proceed to take exactly zero action on either of these things is staggering. Theyāre doing a disservice to anyone who actually feels marginalized as a result of being in one of these groups.
I think part of the issue with your claim is that without an established society, there is no one to actually decide what constitutes āmasculineā and āfeminine.ā Iām not just saying that as a smart-ass response, plenty of different cultures have arrived at different conclusions on this. Some have even developed social structures which include 3+ recognized genders.
Itās impossible to deny that sex hormones influence behavior to an extent that - in general - men will tend to demonstrate traits like aggression to a greater extent, etc. Exceptions obviously exist.
I think I did a pretty bad job of representing my opinion on the initial post, apologies for that.
I agree with you that actually taking action, pursuing and accomplishing goals, is the more important part of the equation here. Frankly, I thought that was obvious enough that it didnāt need to be explicitly stated. A better-phrased version of what I said originally might look like
āThe meaning of life is determining which actions/goals bring you closer to a state where you feel as if you have found a meaning, and relentlessly pursuing them.ā
I actually feel kind of bad now for having made you write out the whole Maslow section of your post, because I think weāre in agreement in the first place.
What I was trying to initially get at is that these actions/goals in question vary quite a bit person-to-person. A life that would leave one guy feeling fulfilled and accomplished would leave someone else stifled and unsatisfied. I think that some people - for whatever reason - simply donāt find parenthood to be a path towards self-actualization. And itās not only a gay/trans thing, as plenty of straight people (even married couples) simply donāt have children. My two uncles/aunts have been married for a combined ~50 years, and have zero children to show for it. But theyāve made major strides in things that theyāve prioritized: business, hobbies/passions, etc. I donāt think it would be a stretch to say that theyāre relatively self-actualitized people.
I agree with this in theory, but not the way youāre applying it here. I donāt think that including trans characters in media constitutes āconfusing children about their gender.ā Itās simply showing them that they exist - and hopefully, that they should be treated with respect.
In my mind, and actual effort to try and confuse a child about their gender would look more like the parents who cross-dress their 7-year-old sons and genuinely try to convince them that theyāre not cis. I would agree that this is abusive.
And similarly, equalizing all life paths is terrible parenting, but I donāt think that being gay is a worse life path, or even one that a conscious decision can be made over. I feel that all that is accomplished by demonizing these traits is setting the stage for trauma in the event that the child ultimately turns out gay/trans. If blasting a kid with anti-gay messaging was all it took to have a straight kid, the āissueā wouldāve been solved a long time ago.
I agree with your last point about the influence of deviation being motivated by instilling generally good values in a child. And Iām regards to what you said about me specifically - thanks!
EDIT: one more point I forgot to address is this:
This answer is going to sound massively reductionist, but I really think that ābecause they want toā is enough of an answer. I mean, weāre on T-Nation. People here should be very familiar with the concept of altering their bodies through a variety of mediums for personal satisfaction.
EDIT: Wow, that turned out incredibly long. I think weāre reaching the limit here of what can feasibly be written on a phone
1 Like
Haha I thought exactly this after your whole first paragraph!
I also think the misunderstandings or letās say miswordings on our part pile up when writing these long ass texts. Since I actually also made you write 20 sentences for nothing as I did mean the question differently.
Iāll try to answer very concise, but I also think weāve reached a point where we can take what we got, think about it and life out lives more informed. So letās try and see if further discussion is warranted.
You should! It gets quite weird really fast. Actually a profound topic I think,
The username is facetious, but I am religious. My family is not, Iām the first since 3 generations that really is religious. I think the church is generally right and generally good and important. The Bible holds all teachings humanity needs to function and contains evolved wisdom of thousands of years. (Please letās not start a new discussion here! :D)
My question was rather directed at trans vs gay and how you see their differences on different levels, not on gay+trans vs society. I think the two positions of gay and trans activists are incompatible on a logical level as one is based on biological sex while the other denies biological sex (please nobody @ me with the gender vs sex debate, everyone knows that trans activists mix the two and separate the two whenever they please). Iām sorry for being unclear in that.
Agreed. Itās a new form of conforming to the new order. Putting your pronouns in as a straight and ācisā (aka a normal (in the truest sense of the word)) person is signaling that you are part of the woke or part of the mob. Itās like a ādonāt eat me signalā of cells.
You state that you agree with me but then you write these two sentences in the same paragraph, which completely contradict what Iām saying. My point was that you should not see your life as a path towards self actualization as it is not a state but a process. Thereās no way to achieve self actualization if you are actually self actualizing. I know it sounds like semantics but it really is not. A person searching for their meaning or aiming for their meaning will not find meaning. You find meaning by following your brain into the space between not understandable and fully understandable. This is called moving forward in life. I can partly agree on that you should find the way youāre on meaningful.
My practical point in this is that you have to lay out the ānormalā way how people find meaning in childrenās life and then send them on that way so they can then partly follow it and partly stray from it. But ultimately most (the large large majority of) people will find meaning in the same few things in life. The ones who donāt are still better off if they have a way to follow from which they can stray than to have them build a road themselves. After all, if you are standing in a desert with every direction looking equal, where should you start?
This starting point or normal way I would call the conservative-advocated life style (I donāt like calling it that because it does not come from there, but everyone then knows whatās meant).
You can treat people with dignity without equalizing and showing their lifestyle. āThat they existā is not the only thing thatās being done if you evaluate this again. It is actually showing that it exists and is a viable alternative way as the characters are obviously not portrayed in a bad light but likely very likeable characters.
The problem again is not showing one gay person in 30 characters but that the implications of all gay and trans and other life styles (like polyamory now and others, like not getting children or staying a bachelor up til 70 or living āfat and healthyā) being normalized is the equalization of all possible ways. Itās social constructionism to the core. It blurrs all lines and children and the youth especially wonāt know which way makes the large large majority of the population lead a fulfilled and productive life.
Yeah it doesnāt not even answer the question haha. The question is: If the premise is that gender has nothing to do with sex, why SHOULD the standard of care be to change your sex? Itās not the question of why should they be allowed to do it, the question is how can in rationally be explained. And if not, why then start doing this to prepubertal children? (I know youāre against it, but that premise Iāve not seen refuted or agreed on by you)
Edit: okay, itās really getting out of hand. Iād like to maybe get one more response, if you are willing to and then Iāll give you one last if you want to and thatās it? Thank you for the discussion in advance.
1 Like
Yeah, agreed. Iām pretty much ready to call it a day here.
I just went through the paragraph you wrote following this, and think I have a better idea of what youāre saying now. The process/state distinction helped quite a bit.
Youāve definitely given me quite a bit to think about here. Glad that we can both walk away from this feeling like something productive was accomplished.
(Unrelated, but Iāve been on-clock for my job for the entire duration of our conversation, lol. Itās an extremely slow day, so thereās nothing better to do than get payed to semi-argue on T-Nation, apparently.)
1 Like
If I take the time Iāve spend on this thread, I bet it would be two full days of work.
1 Like
I think the whole theory is based on sexual selection (the assumption that women prefer masculine men as sexual partners). My point is that if women prefer masculine men, men would become more masculine. The only way the sexy lesbiansā brothers theory works is if lesbians have brothers are sexy in ways that the brothers of straight women canāt match. I donāt have a good explanation as to why that would be (either through sexual or natural selection).
As a side note, I donāt think sexual selection is a force separate from natural selection. It is just a mechanism of natural selection. People are sexually attracted to those who they subconsciously perceive to have good genes for their children or qualities that would make them good parents. That is just a way for natural selection to accelerate. Sexual attraction to arbitrary characteristics that arenāt beneficial would be a net negative to the fitness of the individual with those preferences.
I understand, but being manly is no the only thing a human male needs to procreate. The most important thing for procreation are social skills. If you have these, you can make up for a whole lot of natural shortcomings. But I agree, attraction to mates is still a hindbrain activity in women (in men too, though sexual selection is performed by women). This is the reason why being muscular helps for example.
The difference I wanted to point out is that in large swaths of human evolution it was the strongest person who replicated since killing of the men and then taking their women was a normal part of tribal and also rather modern warfare. Functional societies put an end to this.
1 Like
Not all people. Look at all of the single mothers who chose to have sex with, and then get pregnant by, broke deadbeats. This is the result of seeing sex, as an act, as the most important part of (if not only part) or reason for sex.
In regards to your first point about social skills etc., I think we are trying to say the same thing in different ways. There are lots of factors that have to be balanced to successfully reproduce. Iām just struggling to see how having a lesbian sister helps.
In regards to the second paragraph, this is a fair point that actual physical dominance may have been the deciding factor in ages past. But that still doesnāt explain why lesbian sisters help.
Iām mostly referring to subconscious decisions rather than conscious decisions. For example, men are generally attracted to women with well shaped breasts. I donāt think that most men consciously process why they like breasts. We just like them. But it seems likely that breasts signal fertility and ability to care for infants.
Of course, the subconscious decisions that our reptile brains make are frequently bad decisions. That doesnāt mean that there isnāt at least a reason why we evolved to make decisions that way.
1 Like
Actually the reason for them having kids with these guys is because these guys display the attraction and survival traits. If he leaves afterwards itās still worth it evolutionarily.
Donāt forget that our cortical processing of this stuff and developing things such as marriage are deliberately designed to curb a sole selection based on attraction traits. A society where only a few men have all the women or children (we move in that direction) is an imploding society sind the vast majority of men will be disenfranchised. Men donāt like that.
I completely agree. I donāt see it either. I was just trying to provide input to your train of thought.
1 Like
I would argue itās a case of case of wanting sex and beggars canāt be choosers. These women have sex with the men who are available and willing to have sex with them. Keep in mind, most of these women were fatherless themselves so itās not like they know what a real man is like.
So hereās an example of why I care far more about programming content than executive meetings, regarding childrenās programming.
This is on Netflix now, in the childrenās section. Itās being featured in the āsuggested showsā. In the first episode, a main character says, quite bluntly, āIām transā.
Does this make anyone want to boycott Netflix?
Yes. Well āCutiesā and other things did it far before this. This just reinforces my decision especially with my children.
But in all reality I want to boycott all streaming garbage and the brain drain tube in general. People would be better served reading more and going outside.
1 Like
Yes.
1 Like
thanks for the responses.
I was wondering what the take would be, compared to Disney, since Disney is actually producing all of its own content. The show I linked to is not a Netflix-produced show, itās a studio called Blink Industries. So I was curious if this distinction would matter, and perhaps you guys would be avoiding productions from that particular studio, rather than Netflix entirely. And then thereās also the idea of ādonāt let your kids watch, but you still get to watch your own shit.ā
I wouldnāt blame you for going any of these directions.
1 Like
Whatās the point? I doubt every drag queen is a pedo just as I donāt believe every priest is a pedo. The majority of pedos are probably straight men but that doesnāt mean every straight man is a pedo.
These are mutually exclusive
Being a drag queen is now an opportunity to get to young children in a sexual way without alarm bells going off for very liberal parents. Drag is inherently sexual. Thatās the difference to a priest.
1 Like
I think thatās how it works for most pedos, like at Penn State.
To whom? They look like men with a ton of make up on in wigs. Itās kind of the definition of drag queen.
And whatās the difference to the victims?