Hobbes' Choice wrote:These questions were not addressed by the program though. It was centred on the growth in childhood gender reassignment surgery and the wisdom of adolescence blockers. I did have a feeling of disquiet that what for many kids is a period of experiment that often results in keeping with your birth gender (60%), whether there might be to much fashion and peer pressure to have the surgery that might be later regretted. In Frisco its so easy to have the surgery where the plastic surgeons are waiting eagerly to receive the large cheques for the work.
Then again, the earlier a teen goes for it, the better the chance of the transition being successful. I am no longer surprised by how variant human beings can be and would not want to venture opinions on others' private business.
In a country where changing your breast size is as common as changing socks, one would want to examine the scruples of the surgeons that are making money on this. Children are vulnerable people and when it comes to surgery that is not initiated to save life it is a matter of public interest.
A while ago I watched trust Me, I'm a Doctor and it was remarkable how differently people's bodies processed foods in the tests. One woman found that she metabolised chocolate in such a way that it would not make her gain weight, but fattened up with bread. Another woman was exactly the opposite. If they were speaking on a dieting forum before doing the tests, imagine the advice they would give and how committed they would be to the truth of their view.
So it is their truth. Not anyone else's, although people often make the mistake of believing that what's good for one is good for the many. I think this is at play with transgenderism. From what I can gather, any of those tendencies and orientations are impossible to change.
Gender reassignment surgeons are geared to offer their trade as a solution to gender dysphoria. Just like the woman that is convinced that she is able to eat chocolate without getting fat, those surgeons think they have to answer to a socio-mental problem of children that even before they are fully male or female think that their gender is wrong, and are told that being a tuff girl or a weak boy is no way to live.
Before the days of surgery people learned to live with what nature had given them. And just because you can, does not mean you should.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Greta wrote:
No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.
You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. .
Being gay is genetic. Like most traits, the genes are carried by people who are phenotypically otherwise, and in combination with other factors such as recombination due to mating with others with the genotype, as well as congenital epigenetic factors the traits survive, and emerge despite their apparent survival negative consequences.
You have to use your imagination on this one. For most of human history homosexuality has been illegal and punishable as a crime. Despite that we have always had a proportion of homosexuality. What teenagers would choose to be gay and face the insults, abuse an oppression?
Now let me ask you. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Or did you wake up one morning at age 11 with a hard-on thinking about tits, even though last month you hated girls, all of a sudden they were the best thing since Coca-Cola?
attofishpi wrote:maybe in the multi-dimensional control that God has Jesus truly is portrayed to the believer in the form most identifiable in likeness to their region.
Well, that's one option. It does rather raise the question of whether there was an historical Jesus and what he actually looked like.
As far as im aware even atheist theological scholars have little doubt that Jesus existed. He would look like a jew wouldn't he?
Except that modern Jews don't really look much like Jews these days; they are too white for a start.
Greta wrote:
No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.
You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.
Of course they can pass on their genes. Being 'gay' doesn't mean you can't have children, or don't want them.
My Dad has blue eyes, mine are brown. Recessive traits, useless to procreation can be carried without expressing themselves. I could have a blue eyed child.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
There is a major flaw here. Those who most want to procreate are often those who perhaps shouldn't, plus, gays often have a strong desire to have children--no different from anyone else.
Do you have any real data to back this up, or is it just more flatulence on your part.
No need to be rude, what she says is true. Gay adoption, once socially taboo, is the biggest growth area in adoption stats. In any event a gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a woman, and a gay woman capable of getting pregnant. Lesbians are still women.
Everything (Everything) is a combination of genetics and enviroment.
I won't stop anyone if I don't know them, like I don't stop people who smoke, people who put plastic in their tits, people who buy lottery, people who go to war, and all the big etc. There are more important things to worry about.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Being gay is genetic. Like most traits...
You 've discovered "the gay gene"? Call a press conference! Alert the AMA! Prepare the Nobel Prize!
But your study, dear sir...what is the name of your study? You must provide us with access to the scientific data showing how you uncovered the {Un}holy Grail of LGBT advocacy! The waiting world will want to know....
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
There is a major flaw here. Those who most want to procreate are often those who perhaps shouldn't, plus, gays often have a strong desire to have children--no different from anyone else.
Do you have any real data to back this up, or is it just more flatulence on your part.
No need to be rude, what she says is true. Gay adoption, once socially taboo, is the biggest growth area in adoption stats. In any event a gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a woman, and a gay woman capable of getting pregnant. Lesbians are still women.
Adoption doesn't pass on any genes, in fact if the parents don't have any other children, it might prevent the passing of genes. And I never said that what she posted was not true, I was just asking if she had any data ot support it, and as far as being rude, I was just "replying in kind" to her posts, all of them.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
In any event a gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a woman, and a gay woman capable of getting pregnant. Lesbians are still women.
Capability isn't always the same as desire, and if the Gay man doesn't want to impregnate a woman how is he to pass on his genes, likewise for the lesbian. If the genes are not passed on, they are lost to the gene pool.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
In any event a gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a woman, and a gay woman capable of getting pregnant. Lesbians are still women.
Capability isn't always the same as desire, and if the Gay man doesn't want to impregnate a woman how is he to pass on his genes, likewise for the lesbian. If the genes are not passed on, they are lost to the gene pool.
Open your eyes. Where do you live? In cave? Gays have kids. Get over it.
thedoc wrote:... If the genes are not passed on, they are lost to the gene pool.
Unlikely as we share a vast percentage of them, this is why Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' idea took off.
A human being does share parts of the human genome with every other human being, but I was referring to the individual genes possessed by the gay individual who does not procreate. There may be similar genes in other human beings but not the set identical to the set that is lost, and sets of genes are not identical from one individual to the next, that is why we are all different.
